Ulez has improved London’s air quality across the board. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA
Levels of deadly pollutants have dropped, with significant improvements in capital’s most deprived areas
People in London have been breathing significantly cleaner air since the expansion of the ultra low emission zone (Ulez), a study has found.
Levels of deadly pollutants that are linked to a wide range of health problems – from cancer to impaired lung development, heart attacks to premature births – have dropped, with some of the biggest improvements coming in the capital’s most deprived areas.
Sadiq Khan had faced severe opposition to the 2023 expansion of Ulez to outer London boroughs. But on Friday as the report was published, the mayor of London said the scheme had driven down pollution, taken old polluting cars off the roads and brought cleaner air to millions more people.
He said: “When I was first elected, evidence showed it would take 193 years to bring London’s air pollution within legal limits if the current efforts continued. However, due to our transformative policies we are now close to achieving it this year.”
A screenshot of a Conservative advert on Meta during the 2024 general election campaign. Credit: Conservatives / Meta
The party has pumped out hundreds of adverts falsely stating that Labour would introduce a “national ULEZ”, and pay per mile charges.
The Conservative Party has reached millions of people with digital adverts that falsely claim Labour would impose new taxes on drivers.
In recent days the Tories have launched hundreds of new online adverts falsely claiming that Labour would introduce a nationwide ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) that would charge people for using highly-polluting vehicles.
Labour’s London Mayor Sadiq Khan introduced and recently extended the capital’s ULEZ, which only applies to around 10 percent of vehicles, but the party has no plans to roll out the scheme to the rest of the country.
New analysis by advertising experts ACT Climate Labs, shared with DeSmog, finds the Tories have spent tens of thousands of pounds since the start of the general election campaign on digital adverts, which have appeared on the likes of Google, Facebook and Instagram, attacking climate and anti-pollution policies.
“Unfortunately, the Conservative leadership has increasingly used environmental and climate policies as collateral damage lately, in an attempt to secure more support for the party,” Sean Buchan, intelligence lead at ACT Climate Labs, told DeSmog.
“Clearly, it is not working – in fact, poll after poll shows us that Conservative voters, along with the vast majority of Brits, want climate action.
“However, the ripple effects of these adverts may last well beyond 4 July. The climate movement needs to ensure the public is seeing pro-climate messaging that truly speaks to them, through creative and local campaigns, and where possible with multi-channel advertising of its own.”
One Tory advert on Meta (Facebook and Instagram) read: “This is not a test. Keir Starmer will force pay per mile driving, costing you £THOUSANDS [sic] a year.”
This false claim – Labour doesn’t intend to introduce pay per mile charges – was seen between 150,000 and 175,000 times, costing between £1,000 and £1,500.
During the London mayoral election in May, the Conservatives claimed that Labour would introduce pay per mile road charges in the city, despite Khan having publicly ruled out the policy. A Tory leaflet featuring the claim was reported by Labour to the Crown Prosecution Service, with the party saying it may have broken election law.
While serving as chancellor, now Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reportedly said he was “very interested” in introducing a national pay per mile scheme.
“Voters are badly served by any party which repeatedly spreads misinformation or disinformation online,” said former Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, director of the campaign group Unlock Democracy. “If parties cannot commit to accurate advertising on a voluntary basis, bringing political ads under advertising rules may provide the only solution.”
ULEZ Blitz
Another Meta advert from the Conservatives, costing between £400 and £499 and gaining upwards of 50,000 impressions, claimed “Keir Starmer will force a local ULEZ near you”.
The party is now pumping out hundreds of similar adverts spreading this claim, each tailored to a local constituency, estimated to be costing up to £65,000. “With his supermajority, Keir Starmer could steamroll through plans to introduce a ULEZ near you,” the adverts state.
The Tory campaign has been warning voters against handing Labour a large majority, despite the size of a government’s majority making little difference to its ability to pass legislation.
“The Tory strategy of the last few weeks has been to focus on their core supporters, as well as those who might vote Reform, so these ads are another thing designed for them,” Sam Jeffers, executive director of the advertising monitoring platform Who Targets Me, told DeSmog.
The Tories have also paid for a Google advert attacking Labour’s decarbonisation plans, which has been viewed more than five million time, costing between £25,000 and £30,000. The advert features an “explainer” video on how much a Labour government would allegedly cost households, with decarbonising the electricity grid the first cost named.
Labour plans to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030, while the Conservatives have pledged that 95 percent of the UK’s electricity will be generated by low-carbon sources by 2030, achieving full decarbonisation by 2035.
Political parties have spent huge sums on digital adverts during the campaign so far. As of 25 June, the Tories and Labour combined had spent over £3 million on Meta adverts that had gained an estimated 400 million impressions.
“Advertising blasts like this – especially when micro-targeted – can have a significant influence on people’s thoughts and behaviours,” said Buchan.
“In an increasingly fragmented media environment, digital advertising can be a fantastic way to target hard-to-reach people with your message. In an election where honesty is at a premium, it’s very concerning to see so much money – up to £70,000 on the adverts we’ve counted – spent on such spurious claims.”
This war on multiculturalism is an affront to our country
Sarah Owen is the Labour MP for Luton North
What does Lee Anderson mean when he says “I want my country back?” Who does he want it back from – and why is it only his version of our country that matters?
Because as far as I can see, there has been no take over. Most people in control of our country still look like Lee Anderson. They are his demographic and age, if perhaps not class. So who else could he possibly mean?
This comes with the backdrop of his demonstrably Islamophobic comments about Sadiq Khan (which he still refuses to apologise for) and his most recent former Party receiving political donations from a man who says that Diane Abbott makes you want to ‘hate all Black women’ and wishes she was shot. Only some Conservatives have admitted it was racist, but stopped short of apologising for racism and no Ministers have indicated that the money should be handed back. It is a shameful lack of leadership that Sunak is having to be dragged to admit what is clear for everyone else to see.
The idea that any of this can be forgotten about, as the Prime Minister wants, is for the birds – not because it has dominated the media cycle for the last two weeks, but because this racism is the cold reality of too many people’s everyday lives in Tory Britain. Recorded incidents of both Islamophobia and Antisemitism have risen following the geo-political crises in the Middle East, and a 2022 study found that nearly two thirds of Black workers in the UK have encountered racism in their workplace.
This war on multiculturalism is an affront to our country. I am from a multicultural, mixed heritage family – my father is white British and my mother is from Malaysia. I have considered it to be a blessing in many ways but the political discourse lately ignores the fact that our country is so much richer for its diversity – not just in culture, but also economically. Luton came third in JustGiving’s 2023 list of the highest donating areas. Our community is as generous as it is welcoming, and it comes as no surprise to me that the bulk of our donations are given during Ramadan.
The town I live in, love and represent is Luton North. It is a town that knows the importance of community cohesion and that it doesn’t just come without trying, especially when those in power or particular media outlets seek division and distraction from government failure.
Despite the furore, the recent attack on London mayor Sadiq Khan by the now-suspended Conservative MP Lee Anderson should come as no surprise. In much the same way, neither should we be surprised at prime minister Rishi Sunak’s failure to call out what Anderson said as being anything other than blatant Islamophobia. When it comes to the Conservative party, we have been here before. For them, this is Islamophobia 101.
The recent controversy began when Anderson – who was until very recently the party’s deputy chairman – told GB News that Sadiq Khan had “given our capital city away to his mates”. As he went on, “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London”.
Since then, Anderson has doubled down, adding: “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”.
Anderson has lost the whip, but beyond that the message coming out of the Conservative party has been tempered. Sunak has failed to even acknowledge Anderson’s comments as Islamophobic, let alone condemn them as such, saying instead: “I think the most important thing is that the words were wrong, they were ill-judged, they were unacceptable.”
The Conservatives’ problem with Islamophobia
In recent years, the Conservative party has struggled to disentangle itself from various allegations that it is Islamophobic. In 2018, the Muslim Council of Britain presented the party with a dossier detailing near-weekly incidents involving various party members.
For those such as the former party chair Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the dossier was merely the tip of the iceberg. Noting how experiences of hate and discrimination are notoriously under-reported she claimed at the time that Islamophobia is “widespread [in the party]…from the grassroots, all the way up to the top”.
In the same year, former prime minister Boris Johnson referred to Muslim women who choose to wear the full-face veil as “letterboxes” and “bank robbers” in an article for the Telegraph. He dismissed the comments as little more than a gaffe but the allegations prompted the then home secretary Sajid Javid to ask his rivals during a BBC Conservative leadership debate to commit to an external investigation into Islamophobia, whoever the next leader might be. All, including Johnson, agreed.
Once Johnson had secured the party leadership however, the investigation was shifted away from Islamophobia onto discrimination more widely. Doing so enabled the party to distance itself from the very reason why such an investigation was deemed necessary in the first place: claims of widespread Islamophobia.
Quibbling over definitions
Another way the Conservatives – and indeed others – have chosen to deny allegations of being Islamophobic is to claim that they do not have a definition for Islamophobia and therefore cannot assess whether comments such as Anderson’s are Islamophobic. Such a premise is of course a farcical, straw man argument.
Like all other discriminatory phenomena – from racism to homophobia – plenty of definitions have been put forward that could be adopted by the Conservatives. They could simply look to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which in 2018 made history by putting forward the first working definition of Islamophobia in the UK. In its report Islamophobia Defined, it posited that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Despite this definition being adopted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and various local governments across the country, the Conservative party announced it was not intending to adopt the definition on the basis that further consideration was necessary.
Continuing to deny the existence of an appropriate definition is, at this point, a convenient way to avoid being accused of being Islamophobic. As I put it in my 2020 book Reconfiguring Islamophobia, all the debate around definitions achieves is to afford detractors permission to do nothing about the problem itself.
Attacks on Sadiq Khan
Opposition parties were immediately critical of Anderson’s comments. But while the Labour party Chair Anneliese Dodds described them as “unambiguously racist and Islamophobic” and the Liberal Democrat London mayoral candidate Rob Blackie castigated the MP for “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories”, it is interesting that no one has highlighted how attacking Khan specifically is becoming an alarmingly common political tactic.
This was nowhere more evident than during Zac Goldsmith’s 2016 London mayoral campaign. Branded “disgusting” at the time, Goldsmith published a piece in the Mail on Sunday with the headline: “Are we really going to hand the world’s greatest city to a Labour Party that thinks terrorists are its friends?”. Goldsmith went on to paint rival Khan as a security risk, claiming he had past links with extremists and that he supported Islamic State. Sound familiar?
So too does the Conservative party have a history of laying claim to Islamist extremists infiltrating other parts of British society. Michael Gove, during his time as education secretary, launched an investigation into claims “Muslim hardliners” were taking over state schools in Birmingham, despite the letter that made the allegations being immediately dismissed as a hoax by the police. In 2015, Theresa May, while home secretary, took it even further, launching a campaign against “entryist” infiltration across vast swathes of the public and third sectors by Islamist extremists.
While there should be no hierarchy when it comes to hate or discrimination, the reality is that when it comes to Islamophobia, the scrutiny directed at other forms of prejudice is undeniably absent. What can be said and alleged about Muslims in political (and public) spaces cannot be said about other religious groups and communities.
It should be shocking that the prime minister cannot even acknowledge Anderson’s comments as Islamophobic – but it isn’t. It’s just another example of the sheer disregard and utter contempt that is shown by political leaders towards this problem.
Far-right parties and politicians are mounting election campaigns all over the world in 2024. Join us in London at 6pm on March 6 for a salon style discussion with experts on how seriously we should take the threat, what these parties mean for our democracies – and what action we can take. Register for your place at this free public session here. There will be food, drinks and, best of all, the opportunity to connect with interesting people.
Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference, 2024 CPAC, at the National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, February 22, 2024
CAMPAIGNERS have called on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to withdraw the whip from Suella Braverman and Liz Truss, warning that their propagation of “toxic racism and Islamophobia” could fuel far-right hatred on the streets.
The demands came after the Tory whip was removed from Lee Anderson after he made Islamophobic comments to GB News about London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
…
Mr Sunak removed the whip, but only after Mr Anderson failed to apologise for his comments.
…
Mr Anderson’s comments were soon followed by an article in the Daily Telegraph by former home secretary Suella Braverman.
She wrote: “The Islamists, the extremists and the anti-semites are in charge.”
Across the Atlantic, former Prime Minister Liz Truss attempted to drum up new support by attending the far-right Conservative Political Action Conference.
While a guest on War Room, the podcast of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, she said that “a radical Islamic party” could win the Rochdale by-election.
