Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Sadiq Khan claims anti-ULEZ protests infiltrated by Nazis, says opponents have joined hands with far-right groups

The London Mayor said the once ‘decent Tories’ are now in bed with ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘anti-vaxxers’, and ‘Covid deniers’, while also calling some of them Nazis

Sadiq Khan has claimed that Nazis have infiltrated protests against London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion schemes, adding that ‘decent members’ of the Tory Party have been swayed by far-right and conspiracy groups, including ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘Covid deniers’.

Khan had already sparked controversy earlier this month when he said during a public Question Time that some people with ‘legitimate objections’ to the ULEZ expansion have been “joining hands” with those from people from ‘far-right groups”.

It seems that the London Mayor has doubled down on his earlier statements, according to The Telegraph. Speaking to the newspaper, which was accused of using divisive rhetoric against cyclists, he claimed that protestors came to Ealing Town Hall a few weeks ago with Swastikas, also adding that Nazi sympathisers had latched on to the protests from “decent Tories” who opposed expanding ULEZ to all 32 London boroughs.

He said that many people opposed ULEZ for good reasons, and he was keen to talk about these problems and would try to address the concerns in the coming weeks.

However, he added: “You need to understand that their opposition has been latched on to by anti-vaxxers, by Covid deniers, conspiracy theorists and Nazis.”

According to the Labour mayor’s plans, the ULEZ – inside which motorists will be charged £12.50 a day for driving non-compliant, high-polluting cars – will be extended to outer London from 29 August, a decision described by Khan as “not easy but necessary to reduce the capital's toxic air pollution”.

As part of the expansion, a £110m scrappage scheme will also be introduced, which aims to provide low-income Londoners with grants of up to £2,000 to replace their high-polluting vehicles.

> Boris Johnson blasts “unnecessary” ULEZ expansion as “mad lefty tax” designed to “rake in money from hard-pressed motorists”

At the People's Question Time event on March 2, Mr Khan had said: “Let’s call a spade a spade; some of those on the outside are part of the far-Right, some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers, and some are Tories.”

Mr Khan's comments sparked anger in the crowd, with members of the public shouting back to the Mayor: “We are not the far-right - normal people are not the far-right.” Conservative Assembly Member Peter Fortune, also at the event, criticised Mr Khan's comments, saying: “You heard it didn’t you? If you disagree with the Mayor, he’s going to paint you as far-right.”

After yesterday's comments, a number of critics lashed out against him. Together Declaration, a group known to push back against cycling and walking schemes like LTNs and 15-minute cities, wrote on Twitter: "'Nazis'" now is it? Shameful & embarrassing from @SadiqKhan. Desperate & despicable slurs can’t mask the truth: Most Londoners don’t want ULEZ extension Perhaps as well as scrapping his unfair tax it’s time @MayorofLondon resigned as well."

Lately, Khan has faced increasing pressure from local authorities to reconsider the expansion. Eleven of the 19 outer London councils have expressed their apprehension towards the scheme – over issues such as the seven-month timescale of implementation (which they believe does not give residents enough time to switch vehicles), the scrappage policy, and poor public transport links – while some councils have even considered legal action.

In January, the Conservative-controlled ‘rebel’ councils of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, and Hillingdon released a joint statement on the expansion, saying they would “do everything in our power to stop it from going ahead”.

> “More needs to be done”: Sadiq Khan to “raise awareness” among London cyclists for improving safety of floating bus stops

A London Assembly member accused Khan of treating the city’s residents “with complete and utter contempt” over his attempt to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

Last month, Boris Johnson also accused Sadiq Khan of threatening to impose “a mad lefty tax” on “hard-pressed motorists”, in the latest high-profile attempt to derail the London mayor’s plans.

Amidst the resistance, the Mayor has been arguing that the opposition to the scheme is simply a political strategy by Tory councils who he says are “in the pocket of vested interests”.

While the extremely vocal opposition to the scheme has become a TalkTV staple, the extent to which it represents the average Londoner has been questioned by some on social media.

Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan has defended the ULEZ scheme and labelled it ‘necessary’ to tackle the city’s increasing pollution and congestion.

Responding to a local’s complaints about ULEZ expansion, a spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “With around 4000 Londoners a year dying prematurely from toxic air, it is imperative that the Mayor’s decision to expand the ULEZ should be implemented without delay.

“Research by Imperial College London shows that Bromley has the highest number of premature deaths linked to air pollution of all London boroughs – with an estimated 204 lives lost every year.”

The spokesperson also noted that around 85 percent of vehicles in outer London are already compliant with ULEZ regulations.

They continued: “The Mayor is also calling on the Government to provide additional scrappage funding to London and the surrounding areas.

"The Government has provided millions of pounds for scrappage schemes in other parts of the country, but not given a single penny to London.”

Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.

Add new comment

63 comments

Avatar
NotNigel | 11 months ago
1 like

Is it a target or is it a no sign..? There's only one way to find out...

Avatar
chrisonabike | 11 months ago
4 likes

Ah - a Friday, and a Khan article... Where will the chat go?

Avatar
brooksby replied to chrisonabike | 11 months ago
3 likes

Khaaaaannnnnnn!

Avatar
mattw | 11 months ago
1 like

I think this rhetoric by Khan risks him losing the moral high ground on this one.

IMO the argument has been won, and there's no need for it. He'd be better off pointing out the Conservative Government origin of the policy.

Avatar
jaymack | 11 months ago
14 likes

Some people just don't see that caring about tomorrow is their problem. As the saying goes, if not us then who? If not now then when?

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... | 11 months ago
13 likes

As a statement of fact, there is a very far-right* element attaching itself to the anti-ULEZs and anti-LTNs protests.

Now, if I was a reasonable person and I was getting into bed with the very far right* I'd need some objective facts why my protest is right and seperate to the very far right* that I'm joining. My fact checking would be scrupulous. Because getting into bed with the very far-right* is is not a place a reasonable person wants to be.

As a rule, the Anti brigade are not in any way shape or form doing any sort of fact-checking. It's balls to wall lies and misinformation, misinformation that is very easily corrected by anyone with an interest in facts. That's not to say the "for" brigade have done a good enough job on proving the benefits because they haven't, but it's a false equivalence to say this is comparable to the lies and misinformation of the antis.

In conclusion, it does suggest that a significant proportion of the anti's are reasonably comfortable with the company they are keeping. And that's as good a reason as any to keep them out of your neighbourhood.

*everyone is getting very emotional about attaching the n word, but if you have seen some of the protesters, it's difficult not to.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 11 months ago
5 likes

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to eburtthebike | 11 months ago
5 likes
eburtthebike wrote:

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

It would appear to follow a similar populist playbook.

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 11 months ago
8 likes
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:
eburtthebike wrote:

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

It would appear to follow a similar populist playbook.

Rejection of facts and evidence in favour of an emotional narrative.
Prioritisation of selfish wants over the good of society.
Callous disregard for those poorer or more vulnerable than themselves.
Yeah, I'd say there's more than a passing resemblance. 🙄

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Eton Rifle | 11 months ago
1 like
Eton Rifle wrote:

Rejection of facts and evidence in favour of an emotional narrative. Prioritisation of selfish wants over the good of society. Callous disregard for those poorer or more vulnerable than themselves. Yeah, I'd say there's more than a passing resemblance. 🙄

Criticising another side is easy.  Making many kinds of change happen is hard.

I'd (slightly sadly) suggest that if you can't provide an emotional narrative your facts and evidence won't get you very far.  People do most of their deciding before you get to the rational argument.  Unless it really is an issue they have no opinion on - which I suspect is rarely the case when trying to get people to change their existing patterns.

Similarly unless your proposed change has got some pretty good selfish benefits to offer it's not going to get much support.  Of course benefits can include "feeling good about yourself" but there's a lot of competition to offer that...

Unfortunately we all disregard those poorer and more vulnerable than ourselves on a daily basis.  To change that it definitely helps to show that it's not in your interest to do so.  Pollution is a difficult case because most individual's contributions are tiny and it will often "blow away" or be diluted.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to chrisonabike | 11 months ago
5 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

I'd (slightly sadly) suggest that if you can't provide an emotional narrative your facts and evidence won't get you very far. 

This was the failure the remain campaign made, they never made the emotional case for staying in the EU they only made the factual financial case. Which the opposition disputed and called project fear and promised alternative facts of saving £350m a week which could (but not necesarily) be ploughed into the NHS

despite

  • never having actually paid £350m a week to the EU because of the rebate
  • receiving half of the remainder back in grants spent within the UK
  • Loss of tax revenue caused by economic harm of brexit.
Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to wycombewheeler | 11 months ago
5 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

This was the failure the remain campaign made, they never made the emotional case for staying in the EU they only made the factual financial case. Which the opposition disputed and called project fear and promised alternative facts of saving £350m a week which could (but not necesarily) be ploughed into the NHS

despite

  • never having actually paid £350m a week to the EU because of the rebate
  • receiving half of the remainder back in grants spent within the UK
  • Loss of tax revenue caused by economic harm of brexit.

I'd consider that the biggest issue was not believing that so many people would vote for Brexit. The voter turnout was reduced amongst younger people who would stand to lose the most by the result - if they'd bothered to turn up, then the result would have been different.

Avatar
the little onion replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 11 months ago
10 likes

It is an established fact that SOME of the anti-ULEZ crowd are nutters, cranks, conspiracy theorists, and that some of them are genuinely members of what a reasonable person would describe as neo-nazi organisations (Patriotic Alternative and the like). 

I genuinely don't see why the mainstream anti-ULEZ crowd are getting up arms about Khan stating facts, rather than reflecting on how to distinguish themselves from the unpleasant elements who are clearly present. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to the little onion | 11 months ago
9 likes
the little onion wrote:

It is an established fact that SOME of the anti-ULEZ crowd are nutters, cranks, conspiracy theorists, and that some of them are genuinely members of what a reasonable person would describe as neo-nazi organisations (Patriotic Alternative and the like). 

I genuinely don't see why the mainstream anti-ULEZ crowd are getting up arms about Khan stating facts, rather than reflecting on how to distinguish themselves from the unpleasant elements who are clearly present. 

If you find yourself in a group that tolerates neo-nazis, then you're in a neo-nazi rally.

It's the intolerance of tolerance paradox whereby a tolerant society has to be intolerant of those that seek to destroy it.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to hawkinspeter | 11 months ago
6 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:
the little onion wrote:

It is an established fact that SOME of the anti-ULEZ crowd are nutters, cranks, conspiracy theorists, and that some of them are genuinely members of what a reasonable person would describe as neo-nazi organisations (Patriotic Alternative and the like). 

I genuinely don't see why the mainstream anti-ULEZ crowd are getting up arms about Khan stating facts, rather than reflecting on how to distinguish themselves from the unpleasant elements who are clearly present. 

If you find yourself in a group that tolerates neo-nazis, then you're in a neo-nazi rally.

It's the intolerance of tolerance paradox whereby a tolerant society has to be intolerant of those that seek to destroy it.

That was much more pithy than my lengthy gubbins. Cheers

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 11 months ago
0 likes

The difficulty with that approach is that it quickly becomes used to shut down dissent.

If a policy is being widely criticised, find one critic who is some sort of -ist and bingo all those who are protesting can be dismissed.

It's exactly what Khan is doing with ULEZ protests.

You can't hold everybody who is opposed to ULEZ expansion responsible for what some idiots post online and you absolutely can't dismiss the protests on that basis either.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 11 months ago
5 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

The difficulty with that approach is that it quickly becomes used to shut down dissent. If a policy is being widely criticised, find one critic who is some sort of -ist and bingo all those who are protesting can be dismissed. It's exactly what Khan is doing with ULEZ protests. You can't hold everybody who is opposed to ULEZ expansion responsible for what some idiots post online and you absolutely can't dismiss the protests on that basis either.

I can see your point - you can get trouble makers getting involved in protests just as a method of disrupting the protests. However, if you find yourself in a group with many racists and are not interested in facts, then you're on the wrong side.

I'm not convinced that you're correct about Khan falsely trying to discredit the ULEZ protests - there does seem to be a lot of far-right involvement with the ULEZ protests. There's also the inherent selfishness of people wanting to continue to pollute because it's convenient for them and you can see that the protest is going to attract people who don't care about communities and the welfare of our environment.

If you care about the protest that you're in, you'll call out and expell any racists that are joining in, unless of course you kinda share their views.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 11 months ago
0 likes

I haven't looked at any online activity related to ULEZ but don't doubt there will be racists using it as an opportunity to attack Khan.

The 'in person' protests do seem to be almost entirely about ULEZ, a few anti LTN/15 min ers but no obvious racists or far righters in the pictures and videos I've seen.

The odd thing is that I broadly support the idea of a ULEZ but Khan has gone about it in the worst way possible, it's a major policy and should have been in his manifesto for mayor which I don't believe it was (caveat: I haven't read the manifesto myself so am relying on others for this information).

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 11 months ago
7 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

I haven't looked at any online activity related to ULEZ but don't doubt there will be racists using it as an opportunity to attack Khan. The 'in person' protests do seem to be almost entirely about ULEZ, a few anti LTN/15 min ers but no obvious racists or far righters in the pictures and videos I've seen. The odd thing is that I broadly support the idea of a ULEZ but Khan has gone about it in the worst way possible, it's a major policy and should have been in his manifesto for mayor which I don't believe it was (caveat: I haven't read the manifesto myself so am relying on others for this information).

From: https://sadiq.london/sadiqs-manifesto-for-london/

Quote:

Fourth, I promise even more world- leading action on tackling air pollution. The central London ULEZ I introduced in 2019 in the face of Tory opposition has seen toxic emissions slashed by over 40%. But I want more Londoners to benefit from cleaner air, so I’ll expand the ULEZ in October 2021.

My London scrappage schemes are proving extremely popular in providing financial support to low-income Londoners and small- business owners. Our £52.5m scheme has helped take almost 9,000 polluting vehicles off the road. I will explore the option of an extension to emergency service workers, as well as calling on the government to commit resources.

However, my ambition doesn’t end there — I’ll work with local authorities, Business Improvement Districts and communities that wish to go further and introduce zero-emission zones. Beyond the expansion of ULEZ, I’ll monitor all existing road-charging schemes to ensure they continue to bring the maximum benefits of improved air quality and reduced congestion, and I’ll identify where further action is needed to eradicate hotspots for air pollution.

Given impacts on air quality, climate change and noise nuisance, I’ll continue to oppose the Tory Government’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow as well as any expansion of flights at City Airport. I’ll work with the city’s airports, so that everything possible is being done to reduce exposure to toxic air, particularly to those who work at airports. I’ll also fight for updated legislation that introduces a national target of WHO-recommended standard for PM2.5 by 2030, and also gives London additional powers to clean up London’s air pollution beyond transport.

Now, I don't have a strong opinion about Khan, but I'm a fan of not continuing to poison our environment, so also a fan of ULEZs, even if they are proposed by a non-green party.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 11 months ago
2 likes

This is exactly why you shouldn't trust what people tell you!

If what he's doing now was in his manifesto then it seems perfectly legitimate from a democratic point of view.

Avatar
brooksby replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 11 months ago
8 likes
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

*everyone is getting very emotional about attaching the n word, but if you have seen some of the protesters, it's difficult not to.

"Nigel"?

Avatar
Zjtm231 | 11 months ago
3 likes

I would really like to feel that Khan really does want to increase cycling in the captial. However it's rather easy to see though his ULEZ expansion for what it is - income raising. 

Sad thing is that it gives easy fodder for the anti-LTN mob because of his poorly run consultation.  However Khan hasn't been a great Mayor and it's easy to see though his politics of division unfortunately...

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to Zjtm231 | 11 months ago
3 likes

Yup. It is just playing into the hands of the Tories, particularly on the border. I genuinely think come the next election we will be stuck with our Tory MP in Dartford and part of the reason will be ULEZ. Check his Facebook page and it is just ULEZ, ULEZ, ULEZ, In a somewhat successful attempt to rally people against both Khan and Labour.

It's just empty words when there is mention of;

"many people opposed ULEZ for good reasons, and he was keen to talk about these problems and would try to address the concerns in the coming weeks."

The impact of ULEZ is both overplayed by MPs like ours, but also ignored by Khan when it comes to genuine concerns of small business operating on the border of boroughs like Bexley while we are in a cost of living crisis. 

Avatar
HarrogateSpa replied to Adam Sutton | 11 months ago
12 likes

Meaningful change is hard. I'm pleased Khan is not backing down.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to HarrogateSpa | 11 months ago
2 likes

LOL! It isn't meaningful at all. It is just revenue generation that disregards genuiine concerns and issues at the borders and outer boroughs.

Avatar
Zjtm231 replied to HarrogateSpa | 11 months ago
0 likes

I agree but I belive Khan is fighting the wrong fight - this I believe will do very little for active travel...

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to Zjtm231 | 11 months ago
10 likes
Zjtm231 wrote:

I would really like to feel that Khan really does want to increase cycling in the captial. However it's rather easy to see though his ULEZ expansion for what it is - income raising.

You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 11 months ago
11 likes
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Zjtm231 wrote:

I would really like to feel that Khan really does want to increase cycling in the captial. However it's rather easy to see though his ULEZ expansion for what it is - income raising.

You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?

sacred cow car

Avatar
Zjtm231 replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 11 months ago
0 likes

You can enourage other transport without taxing...Khan has done nothing for LTNs and virtually nothing on proper separate cycling infrastrucure. For eample the closure of Bank Junction was done entirely by City of London nothing to do with Khan.  He is transparent.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Zjtm231 | 11 months ago
3 likes
Zjtm231 wrote:

For eample the closure of Bank Junction was done entirely by City of London nothing to do wiht Kahn. 

That will be because the City of London Corporation is the highways authority for Bank junction and the GLA has no authority over what goes on within the Corporation's boundaries (despite which UTAG and GLA Conservatives still say it's the Mayor's fault).

 

Pages

Latest Comments