Labour's candidate for Uxbridge election

He still lost - unsurprising.

As I said upthread, Danny Beales is one of my local councillors, sadly we will be getting him back. One of our local papers, which is a hard hitting and investigative lefty organ, printed the attached letter which I enjoyed. The Camden New Journal partly covers Keir Starmer's constituency and, I suspect, is avidly read by local politicians

There are multiple sites reporting the data - its hardly secret, its open source data captured by hundreds of devices across this and other countries.

Try Breezometer or IQair as just a couple of sites which capture and visualise this data. However there are many out there if you prefer to find your own. The met office also reports on this.

Some of the data in that report is 10 years or more old, from when NO2 was the primary pollutant of concern and we were all being badgered to buy diesels as being cleaner, less polluting and more fuel efficient. The same cars which less than ten years later are now the spawn of evil. The area which has always been the focus of main concern is Heathrow - even that comes out green on most days.

Its worth noting that the same organisation who published this report are taking the Mayor to court to challenge the timeline, the method of roll out and implementation, partly on the grounds that the impact isn't justified.

If you have the money and inclination to change your car every three years or so then you will be fine. Lucky old you.
If you are lower income and drive older cars you face the double whammy that 10+ year old cars in your budget are likely to be diesels with precious few petrol models available and hiked in price.

It’s all so incredibly badly presented, it’s deeply confusing.

This is the most up to date info I can find abt Hillingdon. Note that NONE of the
sites coloured green get anywhere near the WHO max of 10ug… they merely meet other much more lax standards…

Im sure there are fields where AQ is ok, and it is def the case that it’s getting better. But to say it meets WHO limits is sadly just wrong. (NB WHO did make them WAY stricter a few years back - and when I did monitoring a few years back even the middle of Hampstead Heath was massively over that limit!)

They regularly record as "good" against WHO standards.

Outer London is a different world from inner London. Lower population density, much shittier transport options and completely different air quality levels. There is farmland in this constituency, as there is in most of the outer London boroughs.

That constituency used to be one of my regular canvassing areas because it was always deemed "winnable".

Much as middle class lefties are longing to present it as "thick voters who don't know what is good for them" and "thick voters who are duped by lies" that is not what was happening on the doorstep - the policy will cause real hardship in the very demographic Labour need to win back and there is sod all transitional support (even if you can get a replacement vehicle with current wait lists). Add on the voters who don't even register because they don't trust either party enough to care and it was always going to be a knife edge locally. I thought it would just tip into Labour but wasn't surprised when it didn't.

I think you are very optimistic about Staremer. He has never shown the slightest grasp of the issue - and to think he could even begin to outsmart people like Kemi Badenoch, and others, who actually know their stuff, is rather fanatastical.

Where did you get the idea that London air is ok against WHO standards?? Those standards are incredibly ambitious and pretty much nowhere in London even approached them.

the ULEZ lies were terrible… it was a dirty election…

Uxbridge was about ULEZ not identity or anything else (Johnson certainly isn't loved - he is a joke in the constituency). ULEZ is a huge issue in the constituency and in many other outer London boroughs where its causing real hardship to low and lower middle earners on top of the current cost of living crisis. It should have swung to Labour but ULEZ meant it was balanced.

The TFL figures for affected owners are inaccurate but even if you take their optimistic numbers of 10% the people affected are those who can least afford it - not the new EV owners living around the University area.

Khan was asked for more transitional help/a delay (or at least to ask for those) and his response was to double down and tell people they were baby killers. The reality is that in most of the outer London boroughs the air quality is good on most days against the WHO standards.

Khan could have made a point of this and lobbied government for more transitional support for those affected, provided some from taxes the outer London boroughs pay and pushed the blame back onto government. Instead we get fatuous advertising campaigns, train line renaming and random virtue signalling.

I'm not surprised Starmer is pissed off with him.

Yes, I'm no John Curtice it seems, lol.

So catching up on the Uxbridge election then.

It's not quite the spanking you were so sure about! Ulez and identity madness. There's growing conservative animosity to the reaminer corporate class. This far outweighs any Boris effect.

IcakethereforeIam · Yesterday 16:49
Are they cloning them?

Beales is on the.....? I want to say.....right? [2 pictures shown in 16:49 yesterday]

Exactly what I thought.

Trans Widows Voices call it the Spousal Exit Clause and explain it at https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/gra-reform-guidance.

Will he tell us all again about the 0.1% of women who have penises? Or perhaps he’ll treat us again to the “things that shouldn’t be said” gem.
Starmer is a grade an ocean-going world class bell end. On this and every other issue.

He didn’t do much to get rid of Johnson. It was partygate that did that. He’s lucky I’ll give him that.

I don’t get the love for the Labour tactic of refusing to state their position that some seem to like though.

Can you expand your theory on Starmer?

It looked to me as though Jess had her wake up moment during the leadership election. It was around then that someone patiently explained to her what the spousal veto actually meant. She withdrew shortly afterwards.
I think she realised she couldn’t stand until she’d done some re-evaluation and hard thinking.

As for Starmer, he’s made his party electable again and he got rid of Johnson.
He knows about the gender id trap the Conservatives have set. I’m sure he knows exactly how he’ll deal with it if they’re stupid enough to spring it during the election.

Sorry, crossposted.

No way is this guy not getting in. Uxbridge ready to spank the memory of Boris, and this govt of 13 lost years.

I'm as GC as the next MNer, but I can see zero chance of trans/women's issues having any bearing on this outcome.

He seems a lovely boy, but naive as Hell if he thinks shenanigans like the Pride crossing are palatable to the majority.

Alas, the Tories are due a good kicking, and so is the memory of Boris. This is the guy to provide that opportunity.

@JanesLittleGirl that's what I said isn't it? Only an interim GRC until the marriage is ended.

There is a little more to 'spousal veto' than that. If the spouse doesn't agree with the continuation of the marriage, only an interim GRC will be issued until the marriage has been annulled. This is to ensure that the names on the annulment documents match those on the marriage certificate. Otherwise, Jane Doe would end up having her marriage to Mary Newname annulled rather than her marriage to Martin Oldname annulled.

@FlirtsWithRhinos Ah - thank you for that. So it kind of is a spousal veto. But also what I thought. Good to understand.

It's not quite that...

The GRC can't be granted unless the spouse agrees. If the spouse won't agree and the transitioning party wants the GRC more than the marriage, an interim GRC is granted, which (becomes? opens a fast track for?) a full GRC once the marriage is over.

So if the marriage cannot be ended eg for religious reasons, technically the spouse could veto a GRC indefinitely.

That said, in the UK it is possible for one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage, albeit not as simply/quickly/cheaply as if both agree, so the only way the transitioning spouse is really prevented by the veto is because they chose not to take the routes open to them to end the marriage and gain a GRC. They want to have their cake and eat it.

In other words, while yes, the law allows the transitioned against spouse to veto the GRC it does not force the transitioning spouse to stay in the marriage. That's on them.

Underneath all of this is of course yet another of those inconsistencies underpinning trans ideology : attempting to change someone's gender identity or sexuality against their will is abhorrent unless it's rewriting the sexual identity and sexual history of a spouse or partner in support of a trans person's identity, in which case it's abhorrent not to.

The only people who consider the spousal veto unreasonable are those who consider a trans person's wants, needs and feelings automatically have more legitimacy than those of the people the trans person's needs affect.

Thanks for the explanation. Well then "spousal veto" is a loaded, no - innaccurate, term. I think the best response is an immediate "there is no spousal veto".

Yeah that’s because the campaigning around it is disingenuous. The spousal veto just says that when someone gets a GRC their spouse has the choice of whether to continue in the marriage or not. The ‘veto’ is over the marriage continuing, not the GRC. But TRAs make it sound like the spouse has a veto over whether someone gets a GRC. It’s annoying.

I'm sorry. I genuinely don't know the background on this "spousal veto" and what it is. I don't believe there's law that says a spouse can stop someone seeking a GRC; and I consider doing so being acceptable grounds for divorce the right thing. What is being contested here?