As ULEZ areas expand, more and more people will pay the cost. With the geographic scope of the Ultra Low Emission Zone scheme set to grow at the end of August, business owners in places like Essex are worried about the economic impact.
In a bid to limit pollution, non-conforming cars are subject to a £12.50 daily charge to enter ULEZ zones. Residents and business owners are sharply divided on the costs and benefits of the policy championed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
The BBC has the story.
The current zone runs inside the north and south circular but on 29 August London Mayor Sadiq Khan is set to expand its borders out to the M25.
It means vehicles which do not meet the standard – usually petrol cars and vans registered before 2006 – will have to pay the charge if they drive anywhere within the zone. …
Michael Pegler, of Pegler Removals of Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, said: “The impact of us of ULEZ is going to be pretty large. Retention of staff is a massive problem.
“We have staff [that live in the zone] who cannot afford to upgrade their vehicles. There’s a good chance of us losing three or four staff who have been with us for years.”
He said if the scheme was phased in over two years “it wouldn’t be a problem”. …
Jon Fuller, of south east Essex Friends of the Earth and lives in Southend, said ULEZ was vital in the fight for cleaner air.
“There is a major health crisis and we have to tackle it. Tackling climate change and toxic air are not going to be easy, but we have to do this for the young,” he said.
“We have to do it because people are dying. We have to get on with it and we also have to do it outside London in areas like Southend, Chelmsford, Colchester and Harlow.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
” a concept that completely misunderstands the purpose of having exams”
Lol – highly “intelligent” and “educated” people who fail to understand the very thing they are there to do. As a civilisation, we do seem to be well and truly banjaxed.
Thanks to the author and to DS for this first-hand insight.
Not everyone can be a brain surgeon!
Merit is what drives intellectual progress, and on rare occasions, savantisum (Einstein and the like) but hard work and endeavour powers progress not a free ride!
Thanks for the response. You may be right that Rojstaczer’s explanation does not apply to Britain, even if it does apply to the US. Incidentally, I don’t think the observation that “student evaluations generally take place way before students actually get their grades” is as fatal for the explanation as you suggest. Students sit preliminary exams and get predicted grades, which correlate strongly with their final marks. Hence many already know they stand a good chance of getting a first when they submit their evaluations.
I don’t think it’s quality of research that determines a university’s position on a league table. It’s getting papers published in prestigious journals that counts. This should be an indication of the quality of the research, but in reality publication often depends on the conclusions that a paper reaches. An obvious example is climate science where a paper can be a load of tosh but if it supports the alarmist agenda it will get published but if it’s “sceptical” it’s likely to be rejected even if it’s a brilliant piece of research. I’m sure the same applies in most of the social sciences i.e. if a paper supports the woke agenda and makes frequent use of phrases such as “systemic racism”, “post colonialism”, “toxic masculinity” etc. it’ll be published but gender critical papers or those that don’t agree with critical race theory, for example, will be rejected.
As someone who was a TA in grad school many years ago in the USA, I can tell you without a doubt that at least on my side of the pond, student-based evaluations of teacher are a BIG contributor to the problem of grade inflation. Maybe not the only factor, but a significant one nonetheless. It turns it into a popularity contest, basically.
To reverse grade inflation, it’s not gonna be easy, but three things must be done:
1) Abolish the evaluations, yesterday.
2) Put a mandatory “sinking lid” on the percentage of students of each course who can be given “A” grades, gradually reducing it each year or semester until only the top 10-20% can get “A” grades.
3) Bring back “weed out” courses, to restore at least some semblance of rigor.
Problem solved. But that would make too much sense, of course.
I used to teach on what was supposed be a “weed out” course as you call it. We were proud of our standards and the achievements of our students who passed.
Unfortunately when the “bums on seats” approach to funding the education of said students (who became known as “learners”) came into being the standards plummeted as the all-shall-have-prizes philosophy took over. We had no say in what was happening as re-evaluation of students (being allowed to resit assessments until they passed) took place external to our department and we were initially astonished by the appearance certain students/learners in a more advanced course after the summer break. We learned that our standards were not respected.
I resigned…
Step 1: we don’t have enough of group X in higher education
Step 2: But not enough of X pass the entrance exam.
Step 3: it couldn’t possibly be because they don’t have the aptitude
Step 4: the entrance exam is measuring the wrong thing, let’s abolish it
Step 5: Not only X but almost everybody who we admitted aren’t doing well
Step 6: Make the course easy enough for everybody to do ok
It would be better to have a quota for X rather than relax standards across the board, as the latter approach would reduce the quality of the entire student body.
Be careful what you wish for. Quotas cause their own set of problems as well.
And I wortked so hard in the 70’s to get a STEM first – where do I claim my reparations?