Why Should I Pay For The ULEZ Scrappage Scheme?
The Mayor’s pet anti-pollution project the ULEZ scheme is controversial to say the least.
This article on the BBC is entitled ULEZ: Labour MPs In London Call For ULEZ Scrappage Scheme Review.
So even MPs in his own party don’t agree with the current policy!
Consider.
- I am a non-driver after a stroke ruined my eyesight.
- The only possible benefit, that I might get, is slightly less pollution around where I live.
- But the jury is out on that and the current evidence is dubious, as the Mayor has paid for it to be collected.
- In 2021, the population of London had the chance to remove Sadiq Khan, but decided to re-elect him, despite his ULEZ policy.
- So I have no sympathy for those, who have to rely on a non-compliant car or van to go about their daily business.
- They knew they had to either get a compliant vehicle, pay the £12.50 per day or move to somewhere with a friendlier transport policy.
- If the Mayor wanted to cut pollution in London, he could at least have a hydrogen policy, which allowed large trucks based in London to use this clean fuel.
We have another Mayoral election in 2024!
I shall not be voting for any candidate, who proposes to use London taxpayers’ hard-earned money for a scrappage scheme or who doesn’t have a feasible hydrogen policy.
The Anonymous Widower 
As I read it, the Labour MPs like the ULEZ policy, and want to expand the scrappage scheme to cover more people. The BBC article leads to another fact-checking article which discusses various claims for and against the expansion. An obvious issue is that people aren’t being given enough time to comply.
Personally, I think that all urban areas should restrict these old vehicles and move towards getting them off the road. If that means using public funds to help those on low incomes etc to do so, fine.
Comment by Peter Robins | June 23, 2023 |
A few points
1/ with your criteria, you might find there is no candidate to vote for. Morally in that situation I would suggest spoiling the paper adding words like “no confidence in any of the candidates”.
2/ The last mayoral election was supplemental vote; and Labour needed the transfer of second votes from the other candidates (of which they got the majority) to get over the line. The second most popular candidate (and I think anti-ULEZ) was a very poor candidate overall (Conservatives should not have selected him, and I think quite a few people who would vote conservative did not vote for the candidate). So the conservative candidate failed to attract sufficient first and second votes. I think a lot of people would not have ever countenanced giving the Conservatives their second vote, regardless of quality or policy. I would also note that, quickly eyeballing the first round results, more people voted against Labour than for Labour (although some of the other candidates would have also supported ULEZ type schemes).
So I think you are being excessively harsh on your 4th bullet, the possibility to not have ULEZ was maybe not that feasible.
Upcoming election time it will be FPTP, which means a smaller number of votes will be required to win.
3/ There is another way to handle scrappage, over the longer run: Make the ULEZ charges collected refundable for residents on scrappage of the vehicle that triggered the charge (for vehicles owned on the implementation date, not future ones). Potentially with a funded topup, and maybe extend the scheme (fully or partly funded) to a halo zone just outside the GLA boundary. Yes fund scrappage for charities.
4/ One point you missed: local authorities will also be paying ULEZ chargers for their own non-compliant fleets. You could argue that they shouldn’t have such large fleets, but that’s also a speed of implementation problem (expectation that the vehicle would serve for all of it’s useful life rather than waste scarce money on early replacement)
Comment by MilesT | June 23, 2023 |