Boris Johnson has 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 to expand the city’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) by the end of August.
In a video posted on social media yesterday, the former Prime Minister – who, during his stint as the Mayor of London, announced the introduction of the world’s first ULEZ in the city in 2015 – also claimed Khan’s planned expansion of the zone to include outer London was “unreasonable and unnecessary for air quality” and is only being introduced to help steady Transport for London’s turbulent finances.
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.
> Sadiq Khan is “treating Londoners with complete and utter contempt” over ULEZ expansion, says London Assembly member
However, in recent weeks, 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.
Last month, the Conservative-controlled Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, and Hillingdon councils released a joint statement on the expansion, saying they would “do everything in our power to stop it from going ahead”. They have until the end of February to decide whether to ask the High Court to intervene in the matter.
Khan, meanwhile, has claimed that the vocal opposition to the extended ULEZ is simply a political strategy by Tory councils who he says are “in the pocket of vested interests”.
According to the BBC, the councils which are keen to instigate a judicial review accept that it would be unlikely to succeed, but that it would nevertheless act as a “delay tactic” to “tangle the mayor up in court and push a decision on the matter closer to the 2024 London mayoral election”.
Yesterday, Boris Johnson – whose Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency includes Hillingdon – weighed in on the expansion, which he claimed will “hit hardworking families and businesses in outer London with an unfair tax grab”.
In a video posted to social media, the former Prime Minister said: “I know quite a lot about improving air quality in London. I brought in a lot more cycling, I brought in new hybrid buses, I brought in green electric taxis, and we got nitrous oxide down by 20 percent… and that was before we brought in the ULEZ for inner London.
“You do not need an all-London emissions zone… It’s inner London that has the air quality problem. And of course, you don’t need an outer London emissions zone, an ultra-low emissions zone for the whole of London, in the way that Sadiq Khan is imposing one, because by 2030 all new cars in this country are going to be much cleaner and greener anyway.”
He continued: “There’s only one reason why he’s doing it, and that is because he has bankrupted TfL by his mismanagement of the finances of London. He wants to rake in money from motorists in outer London and beyond in a way that is completely unreasonable and unnecessary for air quality.
“So, stop Khan’s mad ULEZ expansion plan… Fight his plans to take money off hard-pressed motorists at a very, very difficult time, and stop this mad lefty tax on people’s lives and livelihoods.”
Responding to Johnson’s claims, a source close to the London mayor insisted that the expansion will improve London’s air quality as well as the health of the city’s residents.
“This just shows how far Boris Johnson has moved away from the days when he was respected for his environmental credentials,” the source said.
“The ULEZ has had a transformational impact reducing dirty emissions in the capital so far, and it’s irresponsible to say that people in outer-London should keep breathing in the dirty air that leads to so many Londoners dying prematurely every year.
“In once again showing his disregard for the facts and for scientific experts, all Boris Johnson is doing is putting the health of Londoners at risk.”
> Andy Burnham accuses Boris Johnson of “playing dishonest politics” over Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone plans
Yesterday’s intervention isn’t the first time that Johnson has added his weight to a debate concerning charging zones designed to tackle pollution.
Last year, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, hit back at the then-Prime Minister after he labelled plans for a clean air charging scheme “badly thought out” and “wrong”.
A Clean Air Zone (CAZ) was set to come into effect in Greater Manchester at the end of May 2022, which would have introduced daily charges for high-emission vehicles ranging from £7.50 for taxis to £60 for HGVs, buses, and coaches (private cars would have been exempt from the new scheme).
However, the scheme was put on hold last March following a backlash from businesses over the cost of making vehicles compliant. In July and August, a new case for an investment-led, non-charging plan was submitted to the government, with the redrafted initiative aiming to “clean up the air we all breathe without adding to the cost-of-living crisis, harming local businesses or our economy”.
When asked during Prime Minister’s Questions last year whether Burnham’s initial plan was an “attack on jobs and opportunity”, Johnson – who abolished the western extension of the London Congestion Charging zone in 2010 – responded: “Yes, and as somebody who once had to deal with a badly thought-out low emission zone, it is totally wrong to impose measures thoughtlessly that damage business and do not do very much to protect clean air.
“The Mayor of Greater Manchester has done the wrong thing, and I am glad we are delaying it.”
In a statement released after PMQs, Burnham criticised the government’s lack of clarity concerning the future of clean air schemes in the UK and accused Johnson of “playing dishonest politics”.
Add new comment
39 comments
Boris who?
Boris Johnson will say anything if he thinks it'll get him some political support. He's trying to weasel his way back in to a position of power.
Anybody who is still falling for Johnson's faux concern for the "hard-pressed", and his whole "hardworking families" schtick, after all the champagne he has quaffed at their expense, deserves to have him as their leader. But their gullibility shouldn't come at our expense. Here's a modest proposal: let's forget about Scottish independence and split the UK in another way. Everyone who still believes he can deliver the "sunlit meadows" he sold them should move to the east of the Greenwich meridian, and form a new country called Borisland. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together, move west. We could then build a wall, behind which they can drive dirty old bangers like they used to in the good old days, shout racist and sexist jokes at passers-by with no fear of cancellation by the "woke mob", and run down any children playing in the street as a deliberate policy of survival of the fittest. I'd give it precisely three hours before Johnson himself hopped over the wall to get away from the very people he claims to love and defend.
Boris Johnson LOL. One could spend all day listing the amount of lies he's come up with starting with 350m a week, via 'oven ready deal' to 'I didn't attend any parties'. Who is stupid enough to believe this liar any longer? Surely they must be a minority?
Anything that Boris disapproves of is, by default, A Good Thing.
Seems to be fairly typical BoJo - about half true with lashings of self-interest.
The increasing cycling and reducing emissions stuff is true and OK, but the more stringent targets were set by the Govt after a legal action iirc, and devolved to local authorities to implement (up here Derby needs a Ulez, Nottingham does not aiui).
His constituency is around Ruislip, so I'd suggest he's clutching at the pro-motor anti-LTN etc same straw as a lot of Conservatives around London to try and hold his seat, which looks under threat with a majority of 7000.
Somebody tell him there will be lots of fit potential mistresses cycling through his constituency due to the Ulez, and he'll reverse his position in 3 seconds flat.
If anything tells me that the ULEZ isn't such a bad thing, it's this self serving buffoon taking umbrage with it.
I thought your average
nest feathering lying arseholeTory was all for raking in money from hard pressed members of the public no matter what the ethics of the situation are. Maybe take a look at water & energy companies first eh chummy?Pointing out that recycling usually doesn't work and that traffic is not a force of nature were one of the few things he got right.
I resent being accused of driving a "High poluting" vehicle. The difference between Euro 6 and 5 (my car) is tighter NOx, everything else is unchanged. I live outside London so this is only an issue when looking to visit (museums or shows usually). Thing is an off-peak travel card is over £40 for the family, so still cheaper to drive and pay.
Wherever a line is drawn, it's always and understandably going to feel unfair to those just the wrong side of the line. However NOx pollution is a serious problem and the difference between Euro 5 and 6 is a cut from 180mg/km to 80mg/km, so it's a pretty significant "tightening".
Johnson should crawl back under his rock.
He would, but it evicted him, disgusted: even rocks have standards.
I've heard that the rock was loaned to him by someone else.
Would a grant of up to £2K help a low-income person to buy a compliant car?
Also, what happens to those scrapped cars? How environmentally friendly is the scrapping-and-recycling procedure, nowadays?
£2K..... you could buy a bike with that.
That's more than I've paid for my bike, and my spare bike, and my family's bikes, all put together...
Yes: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&fue...
Perhaps not though, I may be wrong but wouldn't the 2k grant only be available towards a brand new vehicle!
No, it is for scrapping a non compliant vehicle. Reading the stuff on line, I don't think you need to buy a car with the scrappage money.
I think you could buy a bike, join a car club, spend it on subsidising public transport etc.
It is not available to all. Mainly those on low incomes etc.
Would road.cc have reviewed an e-bike or two which could carry some cargo, for under 2K not a year ago (mind you, inflation...)? I believe so!
Question: if it's a war on the hard-pressed motorist, and London's so expensive and all, how on earth are low-income Londoners still managing to run cars? Could it be that actually it's the opposite of common perception and motoring - despite costing money - is still too cheap (through being subsidised by the government)?
Surely the question is why the ULEZ isn't nationwide? The only argument I can see is that the pollution and other environmental costs of scrapping and replacing highly polluting vehicles outweighs the damage saved.
That isn't an argument against the London expansion as it is a big win in terms of a contribution to the nation's pollution, but there should be no argument against the principle.
I would also throw health in to the mix. If we can save money by reducing the burden on the NHS.
To go off at a tangent, it annoys me when Tories go on about tax cuts they never point out that the electorate could help them deliver by helping reduce the tax burden. Eg people could get healthier and reduce spend on the NHS
Because the emission problems it is seeks to tackle are very localised (it isn't a CO2 tax). Because most places don't have the quality of alternative modal options that London has. And because it's a hard sell, politically.
That's a good start, to point out that outside London it is often infeasible to use public transport for the travel scenarios tht have evolved since Thatcher did her best to destroy public transport. I would argue though that car pollution is a countrywide problem, ULEZ is targeting an arbitrary level, but any car producing noxious output is a problem anywhere. The days of the environment being a magical bottomless pit for pollution processing have long gone.
The policy that has been implemented nationwide is to change out the vehicle stock to ULEZ compliant vehicles over a much longer time period. My wife drives a petrol 2005 VW Golf (which is ULEZ compliant) we rarely see a car on the road that is older than hers. Hence, almost all petrol cars have been changed out. The same thing will happen with diesels over a longer year period. All diesels from September 2015 are compliant.
The people that may be affected by this are the minority of people running old diesels. These cars can have a long life if you want them too. You may well have limited capital if this applies to you.
Of course the move to cleaner cars was..... an EU benefit. Not that I think Brexit will make any difference, the UK won't have a car industry the way things are going. I don't think the car manufacturers would bother producing non EU rule compliant cars just for the UK market. We have moved to a place where we could decide these things to one where we have no say. Odd taking back control isn't it?
“hit hardworking families and businesses......."
You know the tories are really desperate when they invoke the "hard-working families" meme: the same hard-working families they've put onto the breadline. Just come back from donating to the most rapidly expanding businesses in the UK; foodbanks. Thanks Boris.
What happened to "I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use"
I was on the North Circular last week, weekday day-time, which is the outer edge of ULEZ. The air was rank with fumes.
Exactly this, councils should have a statutory obligation to reduce polution to safe levels.
In just over 6 years time you won't be able to buy a new petrol/diesel car. Surely the sensible plan is to get the worst of the polluters off the streets now.
Does Johnson even know where outer London is? When was the last time he was spotted in his constituancy?
Pages