Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called for Rishi Sunak to ditch “high-cost green policies” in the wake of the surprise Conservative win at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.
While the Tories suffered substantial defeats in the ‘safe’ seats of Selby and Ainsty and Somerton and Frome, their win in Boris Johnson’s former constituency was credited to a campaign centred on opposing Sadiq Khan’s expansion of London’s Ultra-low Emissions Zone (Ulez). Under the policy around 10% of London’s drivers will be charged £12.50 per day in a bid to lower air pollution.
Sir Jacob, the former Business Secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
You should learn from where the Government has done surprisingly well against the form book, and learn there that high-cost green policies are not popular.
I think the Government should take away the power for these Ulezes which is provided for by legislation… You should go with the grain of what voters are doing anyway. Voters are year in, year out buying cleaner cars with cleaner engines. The development of engines in recent decades have been phenomenal.
Sir John Redwood, Margaret Thatcher’s one-time policy chief, added: “Will Mayor Khan cancel Ulez now voters have told him how unpopular it is? After winning Uxbridge by speaking out against Ulez, will the Government now act to stop so many attacks on motorists?”
Lord Frost, Boris Johnson’s Brexit negotiator, wrote on Twitter: “The lesson is surely that green policies are very unpopular when there’s a direct cost to people – as indeed all the polling says. This time that hit Labour. But soon it could be us unless we rethink heat pumps and the 2030 electric car deadline.”
Even Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer admitted there was “no denying that Ulez was the reason we didn’t win in Uxbridge”, and said both he and Mr Khan “need to reflect on that”. This followed Deputy Leader Angela Rayner saying Labour has not listened to voters as she acknowledged Londoners cannot afford Ulez. She called for a rethink on the green scheme, which she argued was “at the cost of working families who have basically had enough”.
Nonetheless, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has insisted he is “determined” to press ahead with the punitive tax on many of London’s poorer motorists.
Janet Daley in the Telegraph is on the money, as usual.
Everybody got something last night. Keir Starmer will no doubt claim that the Labour win in Selby, overturning a huge Tory majority, means that they are on an invincible march to victory. The Lib Dems will make their usual claims to inevitable national triumph on the basis of a by-election result.
But the Tories – whose success in Uxbridge was the most minimal squeak – have produced what is probably a more politically interesting result. In what was a marginal seat and so should have been the most readily lost, they actually won. And the reason for this is what should be an invaluable lesson for all three parties.
It was Sadiq Khan’s extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) to outer London that won it for the Tories. This diabolical scheme to penalise drivers of older cars and van-owning tradesmen in the outer suburbs has aroused a level of rage which must now be a lesson to all serious contenders in the general election. The ramifications go far beyond this single, apparently anomalous, success for the Conservatives.
Could there be a more explicit illustration of the limits to the electorate’s tolerance of supposed green measures, Janet asks. People “are not prepared to sacrifice their entire way of life”. Indeed.
Of course, Ulez is ostensibly not about Net Zero at all but about air quality. But everyone knows when they’re being lied to and that it’s really about the war on the motorist. Besides, as we never tire of pointing out, London’s air quality has never been better.
Stop Press: Rishi Sunak has been advised to scrap the ban on the sale of new petrol- and diesel-driven cars from 2030 in response to the by-election result in Uxbridge. Meanwhile, Ross Clark says in the Telegraph the Ulez revolt could doom Labour at the next General Election.
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.
As Jesus said, ‘if they hated me, they will hate you.’
The church always, as demonstrated throughout history, grows under pressure.
Heaven or Hell is a choice.
Judgment coming.
I’m Christened C of E , not really religious but I’m subconsciously leaning back into the ways we knew & wishing they still existed,
We went to a C of E church a couple of weeks ago.
All the congregation were very friendly. Outside the church the vicar said:
“Did any one see the Olympics Opening Ceremony? It was a shame about the rain. The French certainly know how to do things with flair.”
The just about sums up the 21st Century Church of England.
And still silence from Satan’s acolyte Justin Welby. God will not be mocked.
The Christians perceiving this Olympic ceremony as an attack does not show any deep understanding on their part. While it’s perfectly possible to find people who hate Christianity, this ceremony isn’t an example of it.
There were tables of the pagans in ancient Greece and Rome. The Apostle Paul makes reference to them several times. He merely tells his converts that if they drink the cup of Christ they cannot at the same time drink the cup of ‘devils’. That is, of Dionysus and Bacchus.
The central figure in this French ceremony was wearing an aureole (a halo). This is standard depiction in Greek art to illustrate a holy person, a saint or a god. After all, the Olympic games were originated by the Greeks.
Was this or was this not a depiction of The Last Supper painted by Leonardo da Vinci? And… the organisers themselves said it was. Answers on a postcard please..
But it isn’t about whether it was an attack or not. It was perceived as such, and this article is about the reaction to offended Christians. If the Political Class and the Justice System acted with such zeal in all cases then there would be no need for this article.
That was the original response to the criticism. I don’t buy it.
Why should Muslims have the monopoly on being offended if anyone even remotely criticizes their religion, and react in a most aggressive, even violent way many times? Why should they get a free pass when it comes to ‘hate speech’ against anyone who follows a different religion or none at all? Maybe, just maybe, Christians are perfectly entitled to speak up and oppose this constant persecution ( the kind that results in death in many countries they’re a minority ) they experience and the double standards we’re all witnessing in ( once Christian ) Western society, where it is perfectly apparent that Islam ( its followers, ‘those who must not be offended’, often given preferential treatment and special consideration ) is eclipsing Christianity.
Raymond Ibrahim discusses the Islam/Left alliance here;
”While elements of fear are surely there, the main reason the group that is unsatisfactorily called “the Left” would never risk mocking, but rather does everything to flatter and enable Islam, is far more sinister. To the Left, Islam is the perfect ally against its true and most hated enemy: Christianity.
Let us count the ways in which this is true:
First, of all world religions, only Islam is openly hostile to Christianity, with key scriptures condemning and calling for the abject subjugation of all Christians.
Koran 5:73 declares, “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity. Koran 5:72 says, “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary.” Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”
The significance of these verses can only be understood when one understands the significance of the word translated here as “infidel,” kafir. The kafir — the disbeliever — is the mortal enemy of Allah and his prophet; Muslims are obligated to war on, kill, and subjugate him, whenever possible (Koran 9: 5; 9:29).
Of course, while the Left counts on Islam’s hostility for Christianity, it also covers for it, hence why the Left is the chief fount from whence flow all apologetics for Islam. Put differently, the Left knows Islam hates Christianity and, wherever possible — such as throughout the Muslim world — persecutes Christians; but it also knows that the general public must be shielded from this fact so that Islam can exercise its hostility unhampered.
Second, Islamic hostility for Christianity regularly manifests itself in the sort of mockery and desecration of Christian symbols — churches, crucifixes, statues, and icons — that the Left delights in. Wherever Muslims make for large populations in the West — in France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, etc. — not a day goes by without a church being torched, a cross being broken, or a statue (usually of St. Mary) being beheaded.”
https://stream.org/the-olympic-trans-ceremony-exposes-more-than-hate-for-christianity/
You ask why is it only Muslims that can be offended? I suppose we can all be offended in this day and age where offence taking has become an industry within itself. But the reason authorities feel free to impose their will on religions that are not Islam is because these other religions don’t create an almighty stink or commit acts of violence. —-So what we see here in Paris and everywhere else is actually cowardice. There is nothing to fear from Christians so they can be dealt with easily and swiftly.
Excellent post Mogs.
Meanwhile in Yeovil, the police were given emergency “stop & search” powers last night including imposing a “dispersal zone” allowing them to move on a small group of peaceful protesters gathering in town, including in a churchyard. Police took drone pictures of this protest group. We drove through Yeovil yesterday afternoon and heavy police presence was evident. Several vans and officers in riot gear were on the edge of town and arrests were made.
Lisa Simpson for Somerset police said “we will ensure any lawful and peaceful protest is facilitated. What we won’t tolerate is criminal disorder.” But with a dispersal zone in place, the police would have had the powers to move anyone on. Double standards methinks?
The peasants down in the West Country have always been revolting.
Did Lisa Simpson have a rather jaundiced appearance and spikey hair?
Double standards?
Would that be Two Tier?
I guess there will be no Olympics female boxing for a generation.
Slightly off topic but still the Olympics and related to the general mind set that ‘crafted’ the opening ceremony.
French Left-wing leaders have hailed Imane Khelif, the gold medal-winning boxer at the centre of a gender identity row, saying they were enjoying drinking “fascist tears” over her controversial Olympic triumph.
After her victory, prominent members of the French Left were quick to praise her for overcoming “fascist criticism”.
Sandrine Rousseau, a Green MP, said: “We tell you, the tears of fascists make you stronger. Well done, Imane Khelif.”
Aurélie Trouvé, an MP in the hard-Left La France Insoumise, said: “Bravo to Imane Khelif, who faced so many filthy attacks with great courage. The best response is this gold medal. Strength to her. What a champion.”
Ersilia Soudais, another La France Insoumise MP, said: “Keep crying, fascists. I drink your tears.”
Ségolène Royal, the former wife of Francois Hollande, the former French president, said: “When a man dominates competitions, we say he is an exceptional athlete. His hormones are not put under scrutiny.”
Elon Musk, JK Rowling and Donald Trump are among those who have criticised Khelif’s participation, implying that she is a man and arguing that she posed a threat to competitors…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/10/french-left-celebrates-gender-row-boxer-victory/
The reason that edgy libtards plan events like that opening ceremony is that, two weeks later, it’s still being written about and discussed. Ignore it, ignore it, ignore it.
What this account fails to report is the vileness of the conditions the protestors were held in and how long the detention lasted. This is the same intimidatory approach which was used against lawyer Virginie double-name-I-ve-forgotten a couple of years ago. A dozen heavily armed gendarmes raided her home, terrifying her young children, and she too was kept in vile conditions until release 24 hours or so later (the legal limit).
We need everywhere to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This would mandate detaining people in conditions resembling those of a five-star hotel. Which is what the Saudis did some years ago when investigating members of royalty for corruption.
Of T, but a friend was at a history course run by U3A and was told that the terms BC and AD were no longer be used – the more complex BCE and CE taking its place. Another attempt to erase Christ from history.
How very wokey wokey.
Historian Professor Maurice Casey in his book “Jesus Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths” mercilessly strips bare the uninformed and sometimes self-deluded commentators arguments claiming Christ is a myth.
Casy confirms with rigorous analysis the historical evidence establishing that Jesus Christ was a real person and historical figure.
So I will continue to use BC and AD and not allow others to deny the fact that the western calendar historically is based upon the existence of one of the most famous figures in the history of the world.
There are other calendars based on counting year zero based on other events.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or inappropriate about using BC and AD. It just so happens that particular calendar is the one in most use.
Denying history is pretty damn stupid it seems to me.