4 ms·

Left/right politics, high/low income and high/low status don't map neatly onto London's demography, and haven't since Tony Blair, New Labour and "champagne soci

Left/right politics, high/low income and high/low status don't map neatly onto London's demography, and haven't since Tony Blair, New Labour and "champagne socialism". Outer and anti-ULEZ right-wing areas - Bexley, Romford, Welling, Uxbridge - might be more affluent than deprived inner-city parts, but they're a lot less affluent (as well as far less educated) than the professional-class areas of the inner city, which these days seems to span all the way from Muswell Hill down to Tooting. Tory/rightwing votes used to be a thing for rich people who wanted to keep their winnings for themselves, pay less tax and/or encourage the less successful to work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The modern tory party seems to be mostly for losers, racists and grumpy pensioners who want to blame all their problems on immigrants, LGBTQ+ and "the woke".

vidarh 2y ago
I agree to an extent, but the affluent pockets of inner London have relatively few people, and often are immediately adjacent to areas that are still comparatively poor. Even e.g Kensington has seriously deprived areas. You're right it's not a straight match, but overall the narrative of the comment above about ULEZ benefiting the wealthy first and foremost didn't fit even before the expansion.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  It most benefits poor (and likely minority ethnic) people living in inner London, and the built-up bits of outer London that look like inner - Hounslow, Croydon, Enfield etc. And the biggest disbenefit is to people who identify as poor or hard-up but are in reality somewhere near or a bit above average (mostly down to whether or not they own their home outright) - and are much more likely to be white. So it's pretty obvious how this lines up with UKIP/Reform, the whole "deserving vs undeserving" poor narrative, and why the people smashing up the cameras look a lot like football hooligans.
  - jstanley 2y ago
    For those who don't find it obvious, can you clarify what you're trying to say here?
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    (for @jstanley - I'm stating why opposition to ULEZ mostly lines up with conservative and right-wing political positions - from their point of view, the "wrong people" benefit. I don't agree with them but that's how they see it.)

vidarh 2y ago

I agree to an extent, but the affluent pockets of inner London have relatively few people, and often are immediately adjacent to areas that are still comparatively poor. Even e.g Kensington has seriously deprived areas. You're right it's not a straight match, but overall the narrative of the comment above about ULEZ benefiting the wealthy first and foremost didn't fit even before the expansion.

Earw0rm 2y ago
It most benefits poor (and likely minority ethnic) people living in inner London, and the built-up bits of outer London that look like inner - Hounslow, Croydon, Enfield etc. And the biggest disbenefit is to people who identify as poor or hard-up but are in reality somewhere near or a bit above average (mostly down to whether or not they own their home outright) - and are much more likely to be white. So it's pretty obvious how this lines up with UKIP/Reform, the whole "deserving vs undeserving" poor narrative, and why the people smashing up the cameras look a lot like football hooligans.
- jstanley 2y ago
  For those who don't find it obvious, can you clarify what you're trying to say here?
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  (for @jstanley - I'm stating why opposition to ULEZ mostly lines up with conservative and right-wing political positions - from their point of view, the "wrong people" benefit. I don't agree with them but that's how they see it.)