ULEZ, Uxbridge by-election and the London 2024 Mayoral election

[deltic]

ULEZ was introduced in 2019 covering the same area as London's congestion charge scheme to general widespread support. Indeed a number of London Boroughs lobbied for it to be extended to cover their areas. Proposed under Johnson and implemented by Khan it effectively had cross party support. Extended in 2021 to an area bounded by the North and South circulars by Khan. While it was Khan's proposal it was supported and indeed a condition for continuing emergency funding from central Government. There has been some opposition to its expansion, but it has generally been muted with people seeking exemptions for charities for example rather than it being removed. Khan is now proposing to extend ULEZ to cover virtually the whole of outer London in August this year. A legal challenge has been made and a judgement is expected by the end of this month. Regardless of the judgement it seems unlikely that that original timeline will be met.

There has been some very noisy opposition to the expansion, car ownership, while still lower than the UK average, is higher in outer London. The fact that the Conservatives managed to hold their seat in Uxbridge despite massive swings against them in Selby and Somerset suggests that ULEZ played no small part in their success. This raises the question as to what impact ULEZ will play in the London Mayoral election. While Khan is way ahead in the opinion polls, he was too in the 2021 election but the actual result was far closer than anyone anticipated.

The number of households impacted by the expansion of ULEZ is probably only around 15% in outer London, small but enough to swing an election? Perhaps surprisingly given the opposition to ULEZ Khan is also still talking about introducing a London wide road user charging scheme which is likely to be opposed by even more people.

Is the Uxbridge by-election result an indication that London's mayoral election will be far tighter than presently anticipated?

 

[yorksrob]

I'd hope that the opposition parties highlighted the fact that the Government of the day tied funding of it's basic services to the implementation of this policy, making it as much a Tory policy as anyone's.

 

[telstarbox]

Sure it was a factor but a majority of 500 votes isn't massive. If the Lib Dem and/or Green candidates had stood aside Labour would probably have won from those votes.

Labour still increased their vote by 6% and in a 'traditional' May election there would be more Brunel University students to vote in the seat.

 

[nlogax]

Sure it was a factor but a majority of 500 votes isn't massive. If the Lib Dem and/or Green candidates had stood aside Labour would probably have won from those votes.

This may be a very short tenure for Steve Tuckwell, MP.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Is there any actual evidence that the ULEZ made the difference? Or is it just something the Tories are shouting about in lack of anything else (and something Labour can blame for not winning the seat when they probs should have)?
The Tories have been making a lot of noise about clean air zones and the like in various places, but generally that argument hasn't got them anywhere at all (and indeed in some places like Bath may well have actually damaged their chances).

 

[brad465]

ULEZ was introduced in 2019 covering the same area as London's congestion charge scheme to general widespread support. Indeed a number of London Boroughs lobbied for it to be extended to cover their areas. Proposed under Johnson and implemented by Khan it effectively had cross party support. Extended in 2021 to an area bounded by the North and South circulars by Khan. While it was Khan's proposal it was supported and indeed a condition for continuing emergency funding from central Government. There has been some opposition to its expansion, but it has generally been muted with people seeking exemptions for charities for example rather than it being removed. Khan is now proposing to extend ULEZ to cover virtually the whole of outer London in August this year. A legal challenge has been made and a judgement is expected by the end of this month. Regardless of the judgement it seems unlikely that that original timeline will be met.

If we had a more competent media landscape this would be more well known.

 

[deltic]

Sure it was a factor but a majority of 500 votes isn't massive. If the Lib Dem and/or Green candidates had stood aside Labour would probably have won from those votes.

Labour still increased their vote by 6% and in a 'traditional' May election there would be more Brunel University students to vote in the seat.

In a general election one would expect the Lib Dems and Greens to do far better than they did in the by-election possibly taking more votes from Labour

This may be a very short tenure for Steve Tuckwell, MP.

I'm not so sure

Is there any actual evidence that the ULEZ made the difference? Or is it just something the Tories are shouting about in lack of anything else (and something Labour can blame for not winning the seat when they probs should have)?
The Tories have been making a lot of noise about clean air zones and the like in various places, but generally that argument hasn't got them anywhere at all (and indeed in some places like Bath may well have actually damaged their chances of doing well).

Allegedly it came up a lot on the doorstep and certainly there has been quite a bit of noise about it in outer London

I'd hope that the opposition parties highlighted the fact that the Government of the day tied funding of it's basic services to the implementation of this policy, making it as much a Tory policy as anyone's.

My reading is that the Government pushed for the extension to the North and South circulars not the extension to cover the whole of outer London

 

[Blindtraveler]

Is there any actual evidence that the ULEZ made the difference? Or is it just something the Tories are shouting about in lack of anything else (and something Labour can blame for not winning the seat when they probs should have)?
The Tories have been making a lot of noise about clean air zones and the like in various places, but generally that argument hasn't got them anywhere at all (and indeed in some places like Bath may well have actually damaged their chances of doing well).

I have a friend who both lives in the constituency and voted in the by election. The Tories made their usual points about clean air zones but were quick to criticize the labor London assembly implementation of the ultra low emissions zone and all its flaws and faults for stop the labor candidate haven't got anything whatsoever of use or value to say when challenged about it and didn't even stand up in defence

This according to my friend was really all that the majority of voters needed to know. If they can't actually put up a fight against one of their parties flagship policies within greater London then why bother was my friend's opinion


I also think this is a highly useful for taste of things to come. Not sure if there will be any further London Westminster by elections between now and the mayoral election but a couple more defeats like that will pretty much set the scene on what's going to happen at city hall next year.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is there any actual evidence that the ULEZ made the difference?

Change in the Tory vote compared to 2019:

-26.0% Selby and Ainsty
-29.6% Somerton and Frome
-7.4% Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Does that count as actual evidence?

I do wonder whether this is down not just to the Tories pushing the issue but to Labour running scared. To my mind, there are very good reasons to be pushing ahead on clean air, but it seems Labour wasn't willing to make the case for that and just tried to hide from the issue, with Keir Starmer himself refusing to give a clear answer on whether he supported the ULEZ expansion. Considering the numbers of people with cars that are impacted by ULEZ isn't that high a proportion of the electorate - might there have been a different result in Uxbridge if Labour had actually gone out and tried to explain why ULEZ was so important, instead of letting the Tories do all the running on it?

 

[duncanp]

Change in the Tory vote compared to 2019:

-26.0% Selby and Ainsty
-29.6% Somerton and Frome
-7.4% Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Does that count as actual evidence?

I do wonder whether this is down not just to the Tories pushing the issue but to Labour running scared. To my mind, there are very good reasons to be pushing ahead on clean air, but it seems Labour wasn't willing to make the case for that and just tried to hide from the issue, with Keir Starmer himself refusing to give a clear answer on whether he supported the ULEZ expansion. And the numbers of people with cars that are impacted by ULEZ isn't that high a proportion of the electorate. Might there have been a different result in Uxbridge if Labour had actually gone out and tried to explain why ULEZ was so important, instead of letting the Tories do all the running on it?

Don't forget that there are "clean air zones" in other cities such as Birmingham and Bristol.

They could be watching to see what happens in London, to see whether it would be possible, or politically expedient, to extend these zones to cover more of their respective areas.

 

[RT4038]

So is the answer no ULEZ charge for residents, ULEZ charge for everyone else? Do that everywhere? Won't affect the local politics so much then.

 

[156421]

Sure it was a factor but a majority of 500 votes isn't massive. If the Lib Dem and/or Green candidates had stood aside Labour would probably have won from those votes.

Labour still increased their vote by 6% and in a 'traditional' May election there would be more Brunel University students to vote in the seat.

Do a significant number of students actually change their voting address? My experience of university (albeit a few years ago) was that most students who cared about politics would go back "home" for a long weekend to enable voting on the Thursday prior to the long weekend. I don't know why they couldn't just do a postal vote...

 

[yorksrob]

My reading is that the Government pushed for the extension to the North and South circulars not the extension to cover the whole of outer London

If that's the case, they probably have more of an argument.

 

[deltic]

Change in the Tory vote compared to 2019:

-26.0% Selby and Ainsty
-29.6% Somerton and Frome
-7.4% Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Does that count as actual evidence?

I do wonder whether this is down not just to the Tories pushing the issue but to Labour running scared. To my mind, there are very good reasons to be pushing ahead on clean air, but it seems Labour wasn't willing to make the case for that and just tried to hide from the issue, with Keir Starmer himself refusing to give a clear answer on whether he supported the ULEZ expansion. Considering the numbers of people with cars that are impacted by ULEZ isn't that high a proportion of the electorate - might there have been a different result in Uxbridge if Labour had actually gone out and tried to explain why ULEZ was so important, instead of letting the Tories do all the running on it?

I agree - some politicians have become so risk adverse that they just wilt at the first sign of discontent rather than sticking to their guns and explaining their position. As some commentators suggest there is increasing reluctance to stick with net zero policies as it will upset a sizeable proportion of the population.

 

[Simon11]

I live in Hillingdon although I don't live in the Uxbridge area but I have seen the huge dissatisfaction for the ULEZ scheme (plus a lot of ULEZ camera removals taking place by the public) and along with quite a lot of people, we are very happy to see Conservatives hold the seat.

In Hillingdon, it is a very green borough and most people are only a few minutes from a very large open space, the countryside or Ruislip woods of course. The quality of air in the majority of Hillingdon is absolutely fine and doesn't need a policy like ULEZ which will make little difference when we have something called Heathrow plus M25.....!

If the ULEZ scheme was better designed such as a slow build-up over several years to gradually exclude older polluting vehicles, slowly increasing costs from the start and offered a better scrappage scheme, then I think most people would agree with it. However, asking for people with a 7 year old diesel car to pay £12.50 a day or fork out +£10k for a new car is not fair.

Take a charity I support. They have a van which is 15 years old and only gets used to transport camping equipment for youth groups. It gets used around 15-20 times a year, hardly does any miles and does a perfect job. Now with ULEZ, they either have the choice to pay £15k for a new van (with maybe only several thousand pounds of grant to support) or make the decision to pay the fee (£500 per year). As you would expect, they have made the decision to retain the van and will now have to fund raise an additional £500 per year in order to support their existing activities for zero benefit to the environment.

As to a final point, I have just looked at my i-phone weather app for my local area and it reports that air pollution here is 1- Low out of 10. What pollution?

The existing ULEZ scheme isn't the right policy for Hillingdon or several other boroughs, and is like using a hammer to crack a tiny tiny nut.

Will be very interesting to see what happened next year with the Mayor elections!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Don't forget that there are "clean air zones" in other cities such as Birmingham and Bristol.

They could be watching to see what happens in London, to see whether it would be possible, or politically expedient, to extend these zones to cover more of their respective areas.

As I said further up, there have been recent elections in some of those places though (Bath is the main one I'm thinking of as it is local to me) and the clean air zone was basically a non issue for the voters regardless of how much the Tories pushed it. Obviously not everywhere is the same, but I wouldn't be so quick to believe the line that such schemes are 100% unpopular with residents (that isn't to mean its not an issue for a lot of people, but maybe not as big an issue as the Tories want to make it out to be).

Change in the Tory vote compared to 2019:

-26.0% Selby and Ainsty
-29.6% Somerton and Frome
-7.4% Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Does that count as actual evidence?

Its an area Labour have always struggled in though. As far as I am aware, they didn't even win it's predecessor during the Blair years. So to suddenly say that them not winning it is clear evidence of it being related to the ULEZ seems a bit of a stretch to me.

I do wonder whether this is down not just to the Tories pushing the issue but to Labour running scared. To my mind, there are very good reasons to be pushing ahead on clean air, but it seems Labour wasn't willing to make the case for that and just tried to hide from the issue, with Keir Starmer himself refusing to give a clear answer on whether he supported the ULEZ expansion. Considering the numbers of people with cars that are impacted by ULEZ isn't that high a proportion of the electorate - might there have been a different result in Uxbridge if Labour had actually gone out and tried to explain why ULEZ was so important, instead of letting the Tories do all the running on it?

I do agree with that mind you, and I think it is a challenge for those of us who support such schemes. I've mentioned Bath further up, but even there (where the local Tories tried and failed to make the Clean air zone an issue in the council elections) it has been quite difficult to get through to some people.

 

[MikeWM]

As some commentators suggest there is increasing reluctance to stick with net zero policies as it will upset a sizeable proportion of the population.

Is that surprising though?

It is just starting to get through to the general population that net zero will mean a significant deterioration in their quality of life - much more expensive bills, less comfort in their own homes, less of the food they like to eat, less independence via their cars, less holidays - in exchange for pursuing policies that have little proof they will have any particular effect at all, and even if they did will be entirely useless until/unless countries such as China and India totally change course, which they have no sign of doing whatsoever.

Once people fully realise that, I think there will be a *massive* backlash against net zero. What happened in Uxbridge yesterday may be seen as the start of that.

 

[edwin_m]

Is that surprising though?

It is just starting to get through to the general population that net zero will mean a significant deterioration in their quality of life - much more expensive bills, less comfort in their own homes, less of the food they like to eat, less independence via their cars, less holidays - in exchange for pursuing policies that have little proof they will have any particular effect at all, and even if they did will be entirely useless until/unless countries such as China and India totally change course, which they have no sign of doing whatsoever.

Once people fully realise that, I think there will be a *massive* backlash against net zero. What happened in Uxbridge yesterday may be seen as the start of that.

ULEZ isn't about net zero - in fact replacing older diesel cars with petrol would probably increase CO2 emissions. It's about particulates and nitrogen oxides, which directly affect the health of people living where the emissions take place.

 

[MikeWM]

ULEZ isn't about net zero

True, I was replying to something specifically mentioning net zero rather than ULEZ, but maybe that needs a different thread.

But all these issues are certainly getting lumped together in the public consciousness at this point, not least because the effect of the policies is similar.

 

[Simon11]

What the ULEZ does is provide a very strict blanket ban across a very large area. While the inner/ mid-way borough in London definitely do need this policy in place and have good access to public transport, boroughs particularly on the outskirt of London don't really require a policy such as this.

If you take a look at this live map, around say 95% of air monitors in London report good quality of air and the air monitors are likely to be in places where there is likely to be lots of pollution. https://www.iqair.com/gb/air-quality-map/uk/england/london

Is there any air pollution map websites which shows particulates and nitrogen oxides quality across London and highlights that even boroughs like Hillingdon have bad quality of air?

 

[Thirteen]

In regards to ULEZ, I assume the promise of scrapping it by the Torys won't apply to central or inner London.

 

[nlogax]

In regards to ULEZ, I assume the promise of scrapping it by the Torys won't apply to central or inner London.

Just the expansion by the looks of it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is that surprising though?

It is just starting to get through to the general population that net zero will mean a significant deterioration in their quality of life

What do you imagine the impact will be on everyone's quality of life if we don't achieve something close to net zero, and therefore see runaway CO2 emissions causing more extreme weather, frequent floods in places that never used to flood, sea level rises, loss of arable land across the world, more desertification, tropical diseases coming to the UK, etc.?

 

[MikeWM]

What do you imagine the impact will be on everyone's quality of life if we don't achieve something close to net zero, and therefore see runaway CO2 emissions causing more extreme weather, frequent floods in places that never used to flood, sea level rises, loss of arable land across the world, more desertification, tropical diseases coming to the UK, etc.?

Assuming all those things will happen, obviously that wouldn't be great. But your 'therefore' is doing quite a bit of work there, and even if we grant that this is entirely true, it is fruitless for us to destroy our own quality of life if China and India and others aren't on board, and they're not, and there are no signs they will be anytime soon.

But even given all that, whether this is a good thing or not, human nature leads me to think that the vast majority of people aren't going to quietly accept a massive degredation in their way of existence, in order to avoid something that may happen in the future and may have various hard-to-grasp negative effects. People only did that for covid because it was sold as temporary (although of course it turned out to be rather less temporary than first sold to us, 'three weeks to flatten the curve') and because people were frightened into thinking there was a good change they were going to *imminently* die. 'The world may be a couple of degrees warmer in 50 years unless you permanently accept being poorer and doing less of the things you want to do' simply doesn't have the same effect. As I say, what we've just seen in Uxbridge may be the first stirrings of that.

 

[Enthusiast]

I'd hope that the opposition parties highlighted the fact that the Government of the day tied funding of it's basic services to the implementation of this policy, making it as much a Tory policy as anyone's.

Do you have a source for that?

As far as I am aware, among the conditions for the £1bn TfL bailout were that the Mayor must find new revenue streams to help stabilise TfL’s finances. But as far as I know there was no specific instruction to expand ULEZ. It has always been well known - long before the pandemic - that Mayor Khan was keen on the idea and it is no secret that his long term plan is to introduce payment per mile (or per minute) for driving in London (which extends well into the surrounding countryside and farmland). Quite simply, he is against private motoring in the Capital.

Don’t you think, especially as the ULEZ issue looks likely to be a major factor in determining how the people of London vote in the next Mayoral election (in which Mayor Khan intends to stand) that if your contention was correct, he would have made it known and produced evidence of it by now? He would know that the previous Labour Mayor (Ken Livingstone) was deposed mainly by the votes of those in Outer London (which ULEZ mainly affects) albeit for a different reason.

 

[yorksrob]

Do you have a source for that?

As far as I am aware, among the conditions for the £1bn TfL bailout were that the Mayor must find new revenue streams to help stabilise TfL’s finances. But as far as I know there was no specific instruction to expand ULEZ. It has always been well known - long before the pandemic - that Mayor Khan was keen on the idea and it is no secret that his long term plan is to introduce payment per mile (or per minute) for driving in London (which extends well into the surrounding countryside and farmland). Quite simply, he is against private motoring in the Capital.

Don’t you think, especially as the ULEZ issue looks likely to be a major factor in determining how the people of London vote in the next Mayoral election (in which Mayor Khan intends to stand) that if your contention was correct, he would have made it known and produced evidence of it by now? He would know that the previous Labour Mayor (Ken Livingstone) was deposed mainly by the votes of those in Outer London (which ULEZ mainly affects) albeit for a different reason.

I was responding to another post, however, this is from the BBC news feed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-66181315

We've had this comment from the Tory MP Chris Skidmore who led a review into net zero policies for the government.

It called on the government to be more ambitious with its policies to tackle climate change.

He argues: "The reality is that that politics of protest will always be a key feature of by-elections: indeed that’s why polling experts refuse to read much into them.

"In Somerset they vote for the Lib Dems, and in Uxbridge they voted against Ulez: when it comes to the general election, both will be irrelevant.

"Uxbridge became a micro-referendum on ULEZ and its implementation, where there are issues around the limited scrap page scheme, though with such low turnouts these votes then get captured by those protest voters.

"The reality is that ULEZ was a Conservative policy, introduced by Boris Johnson as mayor and recently agreed by this government to be expanded in May 2020, as part of Covid loans to the mayor."[QUOTE\]

I'm not against the policy personally - clean air is an important issue. However, given that it has been implemented and incentivised by Conservative administrations both in City Hall and from Westminster, anyone voting for the Conservative candidate on the basis of opposing the ULEZ has been conned.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Do you have a source for that?

The letter from Grant Shapps (as Transport secretary) to the Mayor in May 2020 around the emergency funding to TfL from the government: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/extraordinary-funding-and-financing-agreement-may-2020.pdf
Specifically, as a condition, the letter requires:

The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes

Note the line "widen the scope and level of these charges". I'm sure some people will be quick to say this doesn't mean it had to be extended in the specific way it has been, but it certainly does show that in general extending it is government policy and was required of TfL and the Mayor.

 

[deltic]

Do you have a source for that?

As far as I am aware, among the conditions for the £1bn TfL bailout were that the Mayor must find new revenue streams to help stabilise TfL’s finances. But as far as I know there was no specific instruction to expand ULEZ. It has always been well known - long before the pandemic - that Mayor Khan was keen on the idea and it is no secret that his long term plan is to introduce payment per mile (or per minute) for driving in London (which extends well into the surrounding countryside and farmland). Quite simply, he is against private motoring in the Capital.

Don’t you think, especially as the ULEZ issue looks likely to be a major factor in determining how the people of London vote in the next Mayoral election (in which Mayor Khan intends to stand) that if your contention was correct, he would have made it known and produced evidence of it by now? He would know that the previous Labour Mayor (Ken Livingstone) was deposed mainly by the votes of those in Outer London (which ULEZ mainly affects) albeit for a different reason.

There was a series of letters from Grant Shapps to Sadiq Kahn on TfL Funding arrangements - these required the mayor to implement the extension of ULEZ to the north and south circular but refused to allow government funding to be used for the capital costs of extending ULEZ to cover outer London.

 

[Enthusiast]

There was a series of letters from Grant Shapps to Sadiq Kahn on TfL Funding arrangements - these required the mayor to implement the extension of ULEZ to the north and south circular but refused to allow government funding to be used for the capital costs of extending ULEZ to cover outer London.

Which leads me to believe that if there was any slight chance of laying the blame for ULEZ expansion on to the Tory government, it would have been laid loud and clear by now. Instead we get this:

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said there was "no doubt" Ulez was the reason his party failed to win the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.

But when pressed by BBC political editor Chris Mason on whether plans to expand in London should be scrapped, Starmer swerved the question, saying London Mayor Sadiq Khan needs to "reflect" on it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do you have a source for that?

As far as I am aware, among the conditions for the £1bn TfL bailout were that the Mayor must find new revenue streams to help stabilise TfL’s finances. But as far as I know there was no specific instruction to expand ULEZ. It has always been well known - long before the pandemic - that Mayor Khan was keen on the idea and it is no secret that his long term plan is to introduce payment per mile (or per minute) for driving in London (which extends well into the surrounding countryside and farmland). Quite simply, he is against private motoring in the Capital.

If he is against private motoring in the capital, then my reaction is, good for him! London is choking from people needlessly making car journeys that often could perfectly well be made by less destructive means, and which clog up the roads, slowing down buses and also generally slowing down everyone else's travel.

BUT... considering that it was Sadiq Khan who decided to build the Silvertown Tunnel, which itself is practically certain to bring more traffic into London, I'd be pretty surprised if your claim that he's against private motoring is true.