Rishi Sunak the motorists' friend

The Conservatives think that the ULEZ issue could badly damage Labour in London and are hoping that a more general appeal to motorists across the country will win them votes.  Given that there is evidence of voter concern about climate change and other green issues, they need to be careful.

Lord Hayward, a Tory peer and veteran pollster, said in The Times that the “politics of the motor car” would have an “impact on a lot of people’s voting intentions and it is going to be something the Tory party focuses on”.

Analysis by The Times shows that one in five of Labour’s London constituencies is a marginal seat — 13 out of 49. Of those, two are already in an Ulez zone and 11 will be by August. 

Potentially the most vulnerable Labour MP in London is Jon Cruddas, who holds the Dagenham & Rainham constituency with a mere majority of 293. He has been publicly critical of the expansion of Ulez, saying that it is not fair to do it during a cost of living crisis. Another marginal seat is Ilford North, which is the constituency of Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary.'

An economist’s critique

Meanwhile, economics guru David Smith criticised ULEZ midweek in the paper.    Following Adam Smith, 'Good taxes should meet the conditions of fairness, certainty (people should know how much they must pay), convenience (taxes should be easy to pay) and efficiency (collection costs should not be too high relative to revenue).

The £12.50 daily charge for people driving cars within the zone, when it is expanded to all London boroughs in just over a month’s time, plainly fails the fairness test.

A Nissan Micra with a 1 litre engine, first registered in the early 2000s, will have to pay the charge, while a more recent 4.2 litre petrol Jaguar will not. An eight-year-old small diesel hatchback will pay it, while a newer massive diesel-guzzling SUV, the kind you often see on the school run, will not.

Not all older cars are driven by people on lower incomes, but the correlation is close. Unlike London’s congestion charge, which offers a 90 per cent reduction for residents within its zone, anybody moving their non-exempt car, perhaps to a parking place nearer their home, must pay it in full. Policing it requires a network of cameras, which has Big Brother implications, and the infrastructure has been costed in the hundreds of millions, calling into question its tax efficiency.

Nobody would argue with improving air quality in London but there are better ways. Tim Leunig, who as a Treasury adviser was instrumental in the introduction of Sunak’s furlough scheme, has suggested some, including requiring people to have compliant cars when they change their vehicles, that do not hit them immediately.'

I would suggest that people read my book Autos, Smog and Pollution Control but even a second hand copy now costs over £100!

Some quick points:

1. ULEZ is aimed at ground level (substratopsheric) air pollution, not climate change.
2. There is good evidence that air pollution from vehicles is impairing Londoners' health.  OK, the underground may be even more of a risk.
3. ULEZ would benefit from a more generous scrappage scheme, but the Government has turned down a request for additional funds saying it is a devolved matter.
4. In areas like Uxbridge transport into London is acceptable, but more needs to be done to improve  local links.