Well they are hardly likely to say otherwise as alot of the drive (no pun etc.) to 2030 was coming from the auto industry as they need to recoup their investment.
"'Ministers are understood to have promised BMW that they would not relax targets as part of negotiations to secure a £600 million investment to build electric Minis in Oxford rather than China'."
It occurs to me that the easing might be changing to a complete ban on ICE sales in 2035 (in line with Europe) rather than a 2030 ban on pure ICE (allowing hybrids to still be sold)..
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
Regular reminder a good nearly new EV will set you back all of £12k, everyone will still be able to buy secondhand ICEs in 2030 and onwards, and even if they buy a new car in 2031 it can be a plug in hybrid which is basically an ICE with a little battery.
This is the kind of misplaced noblesse oblige increasingly beloved of Tories who believe they have suddenly become at one with some imagined common man.
Meanwhile British industry gets flicked the vs, again.
That's crap. No one deserves that horrible, horrible disease.
Indeed. You don’t have to particularly like someone to feel incredibly sorry for them - and those around them - with such a diagnosis. It’s indeed horrible.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Because car manufacturers are going to beat the 2030 deadline, some by several years.
This is anti-green posturing, with no basis in what is going on in the real world. You must be delighted.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE · 19m is he really suggesting that delaying green reforms will make Britain a better place “for our children”?
This type of commentary is completely divorced from the economic concerns of the average voter. For some people's children it might mean the difference between being able to afford a car and not being able to afford one.
Yes, the banning of new ICE cars would have pushed down the price of used ICE cars. So you are right - but in the opposite way to that you are intimating.
The banning of new ICE cars, is way likely to lead to them going up in value used, as a consequence of the constraint in supply. We saw this in 2021 and 2022 thanks to the pandemic.
Which is why the policymakers are determined to implement ULEZ everywhere, to stop people holding on to their last car and keep it running, leaving petrol as a weird enthusiast thing that people do on Sundays, as they do with horses at the moment.
What is really worrying the Germans is a potential EU ban on manufacturing petrol-powered cars, for export to countries that buy lots of cars and aren’t interested in banning petrol.
Except ULEZ is about air pollution in cities, and the transition away from ICE cars is about reducing carbon emissions (though helps a bit with the former).
A sensible policy would be to allow low emission but air polluting cars to keep driving outside of cities. Which is basically what the policy is at the moment 👍
That’s a polite way of telling people to either buy an EV or get the bus. As people start to realise that this is what’s happening, expect public opinion to swing considerably.
Of course everyone is in favour of ambiguous “net zero” pledges, provided they’re not personally affected.
It's happening naturally though. 20% of all new cars being sold are already EVs. By 2030, most large manufacturers will have been selling EVs only for several years.
Second hand petrol cars will be around for another 15 - 20 years. It's a pretty chill revolution, as they go. 66 years between flight and the moon.
This is a weird issue for the tories to go culture wars on as the future of cars is largely shaped by global commercial pressures that are outside their control. People who get an EV generally like them. Lots more people don't give a fuck one way or the other so the target audience for this nonsense is a small group people with an ideological attachment to ICE cars.
Our hybrid is great. Really like it. It is a big improvement on the ICE car we had before.
But I do think this is sensible from the govt as the infrastructure is just not there to support the rollout of EV's and unless they really got their skates on with regards to charging points and energy generation it won't be there in time for 2030.
I already get limited, at times, at the rate at which I can charge my EV. That will only get worse.
The infrastructure thing is I imagine the reason that the timescales have been moved from 2030 to 2035. People keep talking about EVs being 20% of all cars sold but the installation of new communal charging points continues at a snails pace. A company like I work for should be installing thousands of EV charging points each year, so far in 2023 we have installed 4. We work for Councils who publish documentation that they will be carbon zero by 2040, yet the projects such as rewires that we are quoting on for them do not include EV charging at public buildings such as schools, museums etc. or even their own works depots.So much talk, so little action.
Easily answered, given how local government funding has been run down. It's not social care or some other *immediate* legal obligation? Forget it.
In any case, schools and museums don't currently provide petrol for the public. (There is a good case for them providing EV charging for their own vehicles, of course. Edit: but that assumes they have any.)
Schools,museums and other public building are the ideal location for an EV charging point as you will need something to do for the hour it takes to charge the vehicle.
LAs are certainly spending fortunees advertising their green credentials and then not doing anything about it.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Hmmm - removing the obligation for wealthy landlords to install energy efficient boilers and better insulation means that their cash-strapped tenants will pay higher energy bills.
Maybe. Do you think "wealthy landlords" will not pass on the cost of the new boilers to their tenants.
Rents are mostly set to extract as much as the tenants can afford to pay, not the input costs of the landlords.
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
"Poppy Simister-Thomas" is pretty good, though. Could only ever be a Tory candidate.
Really? A classic LibDem name, surely? Double barelled and the rather wet "Poppy"...
Reginald SiNister-Thomas would be a good wicked Tory though…
My year's PPE group of about 16 in my Oxford college produced 2 MPs both Tory -Tim Smith (recipient of Al Fayed envelopes) and Gyles Brandreth -enough said!
Wasn't Anne Widdecombe in that same cohort?
In the 60s colleges were single sex!
As the Girton College Songbook put it (to the tune of My Darling Clementine);
Hundred rooms with running water, Tell me, who could ask for more? That's unless you have a boyfriend Who is over five foot four.
Were you at Girton? I'm going to be there this weekend.
Well they are hardly likely to say otherwise as alot of the drive (no pun etc.) to 2030 was coming from the auto industry as they need to recoup their investment.
And they were made promises. This government's promises are becoming as reliable as Putin's.
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
The car companies will end production of ICE-only vehicles well before 2030, right? So what's the problem?
ICE is a dead technology. Not only have the legacy manufacturers stopped investing in it, they're increasingly nervously looking over their shoulder at new manufacturers mainly from China.
EVs have the ability to utterly crush legacy manufacturers. Build a car which is relatively simple - very few moving parts, very few parts of any description vs a mechanical car. No service needed so no survival for expensive dealerships ripping people off with absurd service plans.
The only way they can hope to stay relevant or even survive is to transform their businesses. Legacy manufacturers are trying to maintain their high cost high faff production and service set-up, and are getting rapidly outpaced. So they will need to innovate or die.
What does that mean for the amoral rat-fuck Tories? They are literally howling at the moon. Lets say they push the cut-off date for sale of ICE back - who will be offering cars with those engines? The industry is not about to reverse course just because that lot want to cling to power in the UK.
We have made ourselves irrelevant in so many ways to global markets - it is happening. As a nation our chance was to lead this change. Instead we will be dragged kicking and screaming, then wondering why we are so poor whilst our neighbours have become so rich.
What does “rat-fuck” mean? Is it “rat” as in grass or informant”? Are these people informants/rats? Is it a short way of writing “Tories who fuck rats” so “rat-fucking”? Is it a regional insult or a favoured insult by the youth? Just never heard it before and as you use it quite a lot I thought I would find out what it means. Thanks
The car companies will end production of ICE-only vehicles well before 2030, right? So what's the problem?
ICE is a dead technology. Not only have the legacy manufacturers stopped investing in it, they're increasingly nervously looking over their shoulder at new manufacturers mainly from China.
EVs have the ability to utterly crush legacy manufacturers. Build a car which is relatively simple - very few moving parts, very few parts of any description vs a mechanical car. No service needed so no survival for expensive dealerships ripping people off with absurd service plans.
The only way they can hope to stay relevant or even survive is to transform their businesses. Legacy manufacturers are trying to maintain their high cost high faff production and service set-up, and are getting rapidly outpaced. So they will need to innovate or die.
What does that mean for the amoral rat-fuck Tories? They are literally howling at the moon. Lets say they push the cut-off date for sale of ICE back - who will be offering cars with those engines? The industry is not about to reverse course just because that lot want to cling to power in the UK.
We have made ourselves irrelevant in so many ways to global markets - it is happening. As a nation our chance was to lead this change. Instead we will be dragged kicking and screaming, then wondering why we are so poor whilst our neighbours have become so rich.
What does “rat-fuck” mean? Is it “rat” as in grass or informant”? Are these people informants/rats? Is it a short way of writing “Tories who fuck rats” so “rat-fucking”? Is it a regional insult or a favoured insult by the youth? Just never heard it before and as you use it quite a lot I thought I would find out what it means. Thanks
The net zero by 2030 policy (Johnson's I believe) is pure pie-in-the-sky. The number of people who would be affected by phasing out ice cars and gas boilers is huge. The mooted alternatives for them quite unpalatable given the absence of suitable infrastructure for their replacements. The imagined kudos from being a "world leader" as always is pathetic and laughable. This little step to bring UK in line with Europe is inevitable, as it the pearl-clutching response of anti-tories on this site and elsewhere.
Net zero by 2030 would be madness.
How about two decades later? Given technological progress it should be viable by then surely?
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
Regular reminder a good nearly new EV will set you back all of £12k, everyone will still be able to buy secondhand ICEs in 2030 and onwards, and even if they buy a new car in 2031 it can be a plug in hybrid which is basically an ICE with a little battery.
This is the kind of misplaced noblesse oblige increasingly beloved of Tories who believe they have suddenly become at one with some imagined common man.
Meanwhile British industry gets flicked the vs, again.
"all of £12k"
LOL.
You can surely find that down the back of your sofa, right?
Such sneering at such a miserly sum as 50% of the average annual salary I think proves my point exactly.
Who do Ford think they are? The UK is a MASSIVE global market, and if we want them to keep developing and selling cheap petrol cars then they'd better do so. Don't they know who is in charge here? 17.4m people voted for Ford to keep selling petrol Fiestas until 2050.
I'm wondering if the Net Zero leak was deliberate: start the debate, gauge the reaction, then tone the actual announcement up or down based on that initial reaction.
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
Peep Show is masterpiece. Only a few comedy programmes of recent decades can be considered its peers IMHO - maybe The Royle Family, Derry Girls, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Succession. I think this article overdoes the bleakness of the show, though, and the era. And the writer fawns over the absurdly overrated Fleabag so is clearly an idiot.
But Fleabag is so edgy as the main character breaks the fourth wall while taking it up the backside !!!!
As far as breaking the fourth wall goes, Mrs Brown's Boys does it better. At least it is occasionally funny.
"'Ministers are understood to have promised BMW that they would not relax targets as part of negotiations to secure a £600 million investment to build electric Minis in Oxford rather than China'."
It occurs to me that the easing might be changing to a complete ban on ICE sales in 2035 (in line with Europe) rather than a 2030 ban on pure ICE (allowing hybrids to still be sold)..
In reality that was going to happen anyway because no OEM is going to open up a special UK factory to make right hand drive ICE cars specially for our market. But Rishi couldn't be seen to be copying the EU. No siree, that's not what we took back control for.
The net zero by 2030 policy (Johnson's I believe) is pure pie-in-the-sky. The number of people who would be affected by phasing out ice cars and gas boilers is huge. The mooted alternatives for them quite unpalatable given the absence of suitable infrastructure for their replacements. The imagined kudos from being a "world leader" as always is pathetic and laughable. This little step to bring UK in line with Europe is inevitable, as it the pearl-clutching response of anti-tories on this site and elsewhere.
The problem for the Tories is that there are an awful lot of anti-Tories.
Whatever. There are many non-committed "don't knows" who will see sense in this little u-turn
What is the 'sense' in the U turn other than to convince idiots you have done something when in reality you have done nothing because the markets will determine we meet the former deadline anyway.
The net zero by 2030 policy (Johnson's I believe) is pure pie-in-the-sky. The number of people who would be affected by phasing out ice cars and gas boilers is huge. The mooted alternatives for them quite unpalatable given the absence of suitable infrastructure for their replacements. The imagined kudos from being a "world leader" as always is pathetic and laughable. This little step to bring UK in line with Europe is inevitable, as it the pearl-clutching response of anti-tories on this site and elsewhere.
Net zero by 2030 would be madness.
How about two decades later? Given technological progress it should be viable by then surely?
Replace "would be" with "is". It is the current policy, believe it or not.
The net zero by 2030 policy (Johnson's I believe) is pure pie-in-the-sky. The number of people who would be affected by phasing out ice cars and gas boilers is huge. The mooted alternatives for them quite unpalatable given the absence of suitable infrastructure for their replacements. The imagined kudos from being a "world leader" as always is pathetic and laughable. This little step to bring UK in line with Europe is inevitable, as it the pearl-clutching response of anti-tories on this site and elsewhere.
Net zero by 2030 would be madness.
How about two decades later? Given technological progress it should be viable by then surely?
In June 2019, with the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, the Government committed to a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. This is referred to as the net zero target.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Hmmm - removing the obligation for wealthy landlords to install energy efficient boilers and better insulation means that their cash-strapped tenants will pay higher energy bills.
Maybe. Do you think "wealthy landlords" will not pass on the cost of the new boilers to their tenants.
Some would try, no doubt. But not installing energy efficient boilers and better insulation will push up all tenants' bills.
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
The net zero by 2030 policy (Johnson's I believe) is pure pie-in-the-sky. The number of people who would be affected by phasing out ice cars and gas boilers is huge. The mooted alternatives for them quite unpalatable given the absence of suitable infrastructure for their replacements. The imagined kudos from being a "world leader" as always is pathetic and laughable. This little step to bring UK in line with Europe is inevitable, as it the pearl-clutching response of anti-tories on this site and elsewhere.
Net zero by 2030 would be madness.
How about two decades later? Given technological progress it should be viable by then surely?
In June 2019, with the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, the Government committed to a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. This is referred to as the net zero target.
I think Barty knew that - his satire may have been a bit too subtle for some though.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
Yeah, but all Rishi is interested in is winning the Election in 12 months time...
Is he?
He might be happy enough if they win, but I think he would be happier if they lose
Really? Why?
So he can go and live in California
Presumably the ideal for Sunak is to lose but not be humiliated. More 1964 than 1997.
Dammed hard to engineer, though.
I don't think it matters. His future is "husband of billionaire", not "successful Tory PM"
A thought occurred to me. What nationality is Sunak? Presumably British - but what else? People here keep talking about his scooting off to live in California. Does he have US citizenship as well? Indian citizenship? Just wondering....
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
If Labour keep being as evasive on this as they've been this morning I'm going to scream.
I was astonished at their evasion as was the Sky presenter
Are they acquiring a mindset that we have won and mustn't scare the horses too much ?
No, I think it just media discipline, and awaiting instructions from the top on what the party line is before speaking. Oceana has always been at war with East Asia.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
Regular reminder a good nearly new EV will set you back all of £12k, everyone will still be able to buy secondhand ICEs in 2030 and onwards, and even if they buy a new car in 2031 it can be a plug in hybrid which is basically an ICE with a little battery.
This is the kind of misplaced noblesse oblige increasingly beloved of Tories who believe they have suddenly become at one with some imagined common man.
Meanwhile British industry gets flicked the vs, again.
"all of £12k"
LOL.
You can surely find that down the back of your sofa, right?
Such sneering at such a miserly sum as 50% of the average annual salary I think proves my point exactly.
What does a good nearly new ICE car cost? That is the relevant comparison. Can you please demonstrate with evidence how much money a car owner is going to save as a result of the government's u turn?
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
I would just ask this gently but do you ever think you may be wrong?
This luddite tendency should be a warning to the Tories. Remember that they spent a load of money on a consultation to bring back Imperial weights and measures? And then quietly buried it because the survey didn't say what they wanted?
So much of our wealth was gained during the industrial revolution. Investing in new technology which we then exported to the world. Projecting economic power. That was our opportunity this time, and the Tories blew it.
And now they want to double down, actively demanding that the likes of Ford keep developing and manufacturing and selling cheap ICE cars for our non-standard market as everyone else departs. Instead of being the leading edge, prospering from the change, we will be dragged by it in whichever direction it develops with no influence over it at all.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
Regular reminder a good nearly new EV will set you back all of £12k, everyone will still be able to buy secondhand ICEs in 2030 and onwards, and even if they buy a new car in 2031 it can be a plug in hybrid which is basically an ICE with a little battery.
This is the kind of misplaced noblesse oblige increasingly beloved of Tories who believe they have suddenly become at one with some imagined common man.
Meanwhile British industry gets flicked the vs, again.
"all of £12k"
LOL.
You can surely find that down the back of your sofa, right?
Such sneering at such a miserly sum as 50% of the average annual salary I think proves my point exactly.
What does a good nearly new ICE car cost? That is the relevant comparison. Can you please demonstrate with evidence how much money a car owner is going to save as a result of the government's u turn?
And then compare to the damage to the UK economy because you have broken your promises to vehicle and battery manufacturers.
FORMER London mayor Ken Livingstone and ex-Labour councillor Pam Bromley accepted a settlement offer today [15th September] from the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
In its report into anti-semitism in the Labour Party in October 2020, the EHRC singled out Mr Livingstone and Ms Bromley for allegedly having “contributed” to “unlawful harassment related to Jewish race and religion.”
The two politicians brought a legal challenge against the equalities watchdog, which was aimed at overturning parts of the quango’s report. ... The two politicians accepted a deal offered by the EHRC, in which each side withdraws from the case and bears its own costs. ... It is understood the EHRC legal costs were over £215,000, while the Labour Party and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also spent tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
One thing we should do is to move the subsidies from expensive EVs down the price range. This is what they are doing in the US and Canada, for example.
The market for £50K+ EVs is roaring along. Growing like anything. No need for subsidy now.
Put the subsidy on the lowest price vehicles, on a taper based on price, extending to vehicles *cheaper than those currently available* for the 100%
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
Yeah, but all Rishi is interested in is winning the Election in 12 months time...
Is he?
He might be happy enough if they win, but I think he would be happier if they lose
Really? Why?
So he can go and live in California
Presumably the ideal for Sunak is to lose but not be humiliated. More 1964 than 1997.
Dammed hard to engineer, though.
I don't think it matters. His future is "husband of billionaire", not "successful Tory PM"
A thought occurred to me. What nationality is Sunak? Presumably British - but what else? People here keep talking about his scooting off to live in California. Does he have US citizenship as well? Indian citizenship? Just wondering....
He’s a British citizen, he did previously have a US Green Card, and has access to hundreds of millions of pounds that in practice means he can live anywhere he wants. He has previous business interests in California, and has holidayed there with friends every year since he became a government minister.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
I would just ask this gently but do you ever think you may be wrong?
I am often wrong! And have done plenty of mea culpas on here.
I am not wrong on this, and the tweet from Ford UK backs this up. As does the demand from BMW that the UK would not do what it appears we are now to do. Despite telling BMW the opposite only last week.
The UK is a small non-standard market. We do not own any volume car manufacturers. So we are beholden on foreign global businesses. Who are going with the market. They will only invest in things that promise a return on investment. That isn't ICE, and isn't a Britain howling at the moon against modernity.
This luddite tendency should be a warning to the Tories. Remember that they spent a load of money on a consultation to bring back Imperial weights and measures? And then quietly buried it because the survey didn't say what they wanted?
So much of our wealth was gained during the industrial revolution. Investing in new technology which we then exported to the world. Projecting economic power. That was our opportunity this time, and the Tories blew it.
And now they want to double down, actively demanding that the likes of Ford keep developing and manufacturing and selling cheap ICE cars for our non-standard market as everyone else departs. Instead of being the leading edge, prospering from the change, we will be dragged by it in whichever direction it develops with no influence over it at all.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Hmmm - removing the obligation for wealthy landlords to install energy efficient boilers and better insulation means that their cash-strapped tenants will pay higher energy bills.
Maybe. Do you think "wealthy landlords" will not pass on the cost of the new boilers to their tenants.
Some would try, no doubt. But not installing energy efficient boilers and better insulation will push up all tenants' bills.
In a housing market where we have 99%+ occupation of available properties, the incidence of costs will fall entirely on the consumer. The only limitation is the ability of the consumer to pay.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
I would just ask this gently but do you ever think you may be wrong?
I am often wrong! And have done plenty of mea culpas on here.
I am not wrong on this, and the tweet from Ford UK backs this up. As does the demand from BMW that the UK would not do what it appears we are now to do. Despite telling BMW the opposite only last week.
The UK is a small non-standard market. We do not own any volume car manufacturers. So we are beholden on foreign global businesses. Who are going with the market. They will only invest in things that promise a return on investment. That isn't ICE, and isn't a Britain howling at the moon against modernity.
I could understand that if we were cancelling the ban on ICE vehicles but to provide an extension to 2035, whilst allowing hybrids anyway, does not seem to me to be anything other that a sensible move not least as it then becomes the same as Europe
The anger and fury from some is predictable but this is a hugely complex subject when other opinions are entitled to be set out
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
One thing we should do is to move the subsidies from expensive EVs down the price range. This is what they are doing in the US and Canada, for example.
The market for £50K+ EVs is roaring along. Growing like anything. No need for subsidy now.
Put the subsidy on the lowest price vehicles, on a taper based on price, extending to vehicles *cheaper than those currently available* for the 100%
Yes. The premium SUV EV market is booming - legacy manufacturers whose production set-up forces compromised packaging forces a high vehicle. Punters like SUVs so lets churn then out. Efficiency? Meh.
They are already looking in increasing horror at Chinese manufacturers. They largely control the battery industry, they have endless money to invest, and they can undercut production costs in the west with no drop in quality.
So if the EU want Stellantis, VAG, BMW etc to survive, they need help. Stop building luxo-barges in small numbers and develop smaller mass market cars. We're increasingly seeing electrified versions of ICE platforms (e.g. Peugeot e208) which are expensive, heavy and cramped. Making them cheaper would be a start, and investment will be needed to replace the old engine under bonnet manufacturing with axle or wheel motor platforms. China is already there, Europe needs to catch up. Fast.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
I've never paid more than £1,500 for a car, and I wouldn't expect to pay masses more than that when buying a second-hand EV, when there are lots of ten year old EVs to buy.
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Hmmm - removing the obligation for wealthy landlords to install energy efficient boilers and better insulation means that their cash-strapped tenants will pay higher energy bills.
Maybe. Do you think "wealthy landlords" will not pass on the cost of the new boilers to their tenants.
Rents are mostly set to extract as much as the tenants can afford to pay, not the input costs of the landlords.
Yup. If tenants could afford to pay any more then landlords would already be charging it. What is there to stop them?
Braverman framing it in terms of bankrupting the country is uncomfortably strident framing, that hints at further watering down if it politically suits them. One could almost say disgusting. Par for the Braverman course.
Why drop all these things 7 years out, and extend by 5. Seems arbitrary. Try your damnedest to get there, there is space for pragmatism in delivery, but backslide less and a little closer to the time and on minimal elements. Thus, political culture war timing.
Imagine if May had said Brexit was too hard at the outset and had managed to get the EU had agreed a 7 year timeframe for A50 talks. You know that may have had a seed of truth, but politically.... imagine. A bit more of the Brexit get on with it spirit for net zero please (but not Boris style).
If net zero opportunities there are too be, then this is managed declinist.
All in all, pragmatism is all well and good, but yuck.
Nah. It's them being sensible. 2030 was always ridiculous. No charging points, cars too expensive, range issues. The reaction to the ULEZ swap your £7k at the time govt-approved diesel for £2k cash scheme always pointed to this decision.
People were nervous that with boilers and cars they would somehow soon be facing a bill of several thousand pounds to stay where they are, lifestyle-wise. Those who are rich would have shrugged it off and gone on marches (or flown over from LA to go on marches) while those struggling would have struggled.
Good morning. Nice post!
tyvm
I don't think PB is a good demographic to opine on the "rat fuck Tories" who don't want to spend £40k on an EV.
Even our lefties have oodles of cash and embody the term champagne socialism.
The price of EVs is dropping. Not from the legacy manufacturers - they want to make as much cash up front as they no longer profit from expensive and pointless servicing. No, the price is coming down as China starts to flood the market.
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
We are talking timing, not intent or content. You are missing the point. You want it done and you want it done now. It is much more sensible to extend the timeframe so as to make it more affordable for more people.
The Wales and Net Zero issue seem to stem from one problem - cars. I think cars break peoples' brains. The individually owned car is a creation of neoliberalism and is emblematic of it - the hyper individualised space that you own and can give you hyper mobility and is forever tied to oil production. When cars are sold to you they are not selling you an item, they are selling you the concept that you can be free; free to travel where and when you like, free to take things with you, free from home.
But cars are, in my view, a driver of atomisation. Driving and interacting with other drivers has the weird sensation of making everyone else a threat (because if they aren't driving safely then you could crash) and an annoyance (if they drive too safely they prevent you being free and driving how you want). You don't see the other driver as much as you see the other car - so immediately you separate the will of the driver from a human and assign it to an object, the car, dehumanising them. The internal environment of the car is fake and highly regulated - increasingly you don't have to experience the wind or noise or bumps or anything from the outside environment. You are cozened from the world, kept comfy from anyone else, you can control that space and not be influenced by anyone else whilst in it.
The process to get to mass driving also atomised society. London and most urban centres had miles of tramways, the country had significantly more local train and bus stops, and "15 minute cities" were just considered the norm because you would have a local grocer, butcher, post office etc. Transport infrastructure was purposely dismantled in a manner to increase car sales, and when everyone has a can that distorted peoples' idea of time and distance to lead to the creation of huge shopping centres and supermarkets, which led to the first wave of high street death (pre mass internet shopping). Whether it is apocryphal or not, the idea attributed to Thatcher that if you're "25 and using public transport, you're a failure" is a below surface feeling in the UK - the car is a symbol of success and freedom that is necessary to feel good.
That mass car production is unsustainable (even if we went fully electric) is neither here nor there for people - cars stay the solution. With every year that goes by traffic gets worse, the proposed solution of widening roads or building more lanes occurs, and yet whenever more roads appear the traffic is still bad. Because when you have hundreds of thousands of people, all making basically the same journeys with small variations on leaving point and destination, the movement of traffic cannot be efficient the smaller you make the travelling unit. If the same resource was put into trains or buses as cars, I think we could have an amazing system of transport that allows most people to get where they want, when they want just more efficiently than individual car ownership currently allows.
Is the government planning to force petrol stations to stop selling fossil fuels at some point?
Perhaps in typical joined-up government fashion they could speed this process up as a way of placating the people who are upset about delaying the ban on new vehicles.
The PB meltdown about this is extraordinary. The EU decided to delay its ban on ICE vehicles to 2035, and we've decided to follow suit - how this warrants the howls of outrage we're currently seeing is completely beyond me.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Because car manufacturers are going to beat the 2030 deadline, some by several years.
This is anti-green posturing, with no basis in what is going on in the real world. You must be delighted.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE · 19m is he really suggesting that delaying green reforms will make Britain a better place “for our children”?
This type of commentary is completely divorced from the economic concerns of the average voter. For some people's children it might mean the difference between being able to afford a car and not being able to afford one.
Yes, the banning of new ICE cars would have pushed down the price of used ICE cars. So you are right - but in the opposite way to that you are intimating.
The banning of new ICE cars, is way likely to lead to them going up in value used, as a consequence of the constraint in supply. We saw this in 2021 and 2022 thanks to the pandemic.
Which is why the policymakers are determined to implement ULEZ everywhere, to stop people holding on to their last car and keep it running, leaving petrol as a weird enthusiast thing that people do on Sundays, as they do with horses at the moment.
What is really worrying the Germans is a potential EU ban on manufacturing petrol-powered cars, for export to countries that buy lots of cars and aren’t interested in banning petrol.
Except ULEZ is about air pollution in cities, and the transition away from ICE cars is about reducing carbon emissions (though helps a bit with the former).
A sensible policy would be to allow low emission but air polluting cars to keep driving outside of cities. Which is basically what the policy is at the moment 👍
That’s a polite way of telling people to either buy an EV or get the bus. As people start to realise that this is what’s happening, expect public opinion to swing considerably.
Of course everyone is in favour of ambiguous “net zero” pledges, provided they’re not personally affected.
It's happening naturally though. 20% of all new cars being sold are already EVs. By 2030, most large manufacturers will have been selling EVs only for several years.
Second hand petrol cars will be around for another 15 - 20 years. It's a pretty chill revolution, as they go. 66 years between flight and the moon.
This is a weird issue for the tories to go culture wars on as the future of cars is largely shaped by global commercial pressures that are outside their control. People who get an EV generally like them. Lots more people don't give a fuck one way or the other so the target audience for this nonsense is a small group people with an ideological attachment to ICE cars.
Our hybrid is great. Really like it. It is a big improvement on the ICE car we had before.
But I do think this is sensible from the govt as the infrastructure is just not there to support the rollout of EV's and unless they really got their skates on with regards to charging points and energy generation it won't be there in time for 2030.
I already get limited, at times, at the rate at which I can charge my EV. That will only get worse.
The infrastructure thing is I imagine the reason that the timescales have been moved from 2030 to 2035. People keep talking about EVs being 20% of all cars sold but the installation of new communal charging points continues at a snails pace. A company like I work for should be installing thousands of EV charging points each year, so far in 2023 we have installed 4. We work for Councils who publish documentation that they will be carbon zero by 2040, yet the projects such as rewires that we are quoting on for them do not include EV charging at public buildings such as schools, museums etc. or even their own works depots.So much talk, so little action.
Easily answered, given how local government funding has been run down. It's not social care or some other *immediate* legal obligation? Forget it.
In any case, schools and museums don't currently provide petrol for the public. (There is a good case for them providing EV charging for their own vehicles, of course. Edit: but that assumes they have any.)
Schools,museums and other public building are the ideal location for an EV charging point as you will need something to do for the hour it takes to charge the vehicle.
LAs are certainly spending fortunees advertising their green credentials and then not doing anything about it.
Thanks - interesting thought. It would fit into the commercial activities of the average museum. Bookshop, cafe, room hire, so the budgetary setup and sales desk will be there. But schools, perhaps not so much.
Is the government planning to force petrol stations to stop selling fossil fuels at some point?
Perhaps in typical joined-up government fashion they could speed this process up as a way of placating the people who are upset about delaying the ban on new vehicles.
The PB meltdown about this is extraordinary. The EU decided to delay its ban on ICE vehicles to 2035, and we've decided to follow suit - how this warrants the howls of outrage we're currently seeing is completely beyond me.
Not just PB. The hysteria in the msm too. Some of the language is verging on the deranged.
You’d think Sunak had, single handedly, caused the climate ‘crisis’ to get 100 times worse overnight.
Comments
My friends Mom, who I have known for over 40 years, is in a home with Alzheimers. It is horrendous and very sad to see what it does to people.
This is the kind of misplaced noblesse oblige increasingly beloved of Tories who believe they have suddenly become at one with some imagined common man.
Meanwhile British industry gets flicked the vs, again.
LAs are certainly spending fortunees advertising their green credentials and then not doing anything about it.
Sunak has set the politics on fire with his proposals and started a debate that is needed
Labour on Sky this morning were evasive both about the 2030 date and the change from gas boilers
It will be very interesting to see just where this goes
Also chaos continues in Wales with 260, 940 signatures on the petition with no sign of it slowing (excuse the pun)
I would just make the point that in some cases like Delyn (Hannah Blythyn Labour) over 8,646 have signed and Vale of Glamorgan (Jane Hutt Labour) 9,294 and those are a lot of potential votes in their constituencies
'Horrific, like a funeral procession' - drivers describe life in 20mph Wales
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/horrific-boring-like-funeral-procession-27747008#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
But you know who else lost his marbles at the end...
Working age population I suspect less so.
Its American political slang. I didn't know either so good question!
How about two decades later? Given technological progress it should be viable by then surely?
Doubtful and perhaps the contracts are watertight and can’t be reneged on now . If not the u-turn could explode in Sunaks face .
LOL.
You can surely find that down the back of your sofa, right?
Such sneering at such a miserly sum as 50% of the average annual salary I think proves my point exactly.
Edit Oh, scrub that, it's 2050. Apols
In June 2019, with the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, the Government committed to a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. This is referred to as the net zero target.
Are they acquiring a mindset that we have won and mustn't scare the horses too much ?
The point is very simple. The cheap petrol cars will not exist. Manufacturers have already killed ICE - it is a legacy technology they are fading out as rapidly as possible to ensure their own survival.
The Ford UK boss has been on, basically tearing the government a hole. BMW were promised the opposite of this new policy only last week by the same ministers. They are not going to keep this going just because luddite Tories think they can win a few votes from the old and morally confused.
With all of the mainstream manufacturers heading out of ICE as rapidly as possible, what will be left? Renault have shown how you can continue to use old platforms and technologies by building Dacia cars with 5-10 year old hand me downs. Not that there is anything wrong with Dacia. But if this policy was actually adopted, all that would be left would be Dacia and similar operations set up to sell old tech.
The market has moved. You are howling at the moon. The moon won't reverse course whether you howl at it or not. It is done. So the question is do you want to prosper in the new market or not?
And a 20mph limit would be quite popular in this small Essex town.
So much of our wealth was gained during the industrial revolution. Investing in new technology which we then exported to the world. Projecting economic power. That was our opportunity this time, and the Tories blew it.
And now they want to double down, actively demanding that the likes of Ford keep developing and manufacturing and selling cheap ICE cars for our non-standard market as everyone else departs. Instead of being the leading edge, prospering from the change, we will be dragged by it in whichever direction it develops with no influence over it at all.
Whither Global Britain?
FORMER London mayor Ken Livingstone and ex-Labour councillor Pam Bromley accepted a settlement offer today [15th September] from the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
In its report into anti-semitism in the Labour Party in October 2020, the EHRC singled out Mr Livingstone and Ms Bromley for allegedly having “contributed” to “unlawful harassment related to Jewish race and religion.”
The two politicians brought a legal challenge against the equalities watchdog, which was aimed at overturning parts of the quango’s report.
...
The two politicians accepted a deal offered by the EHRC, in which each side withdraws from the case and bears its own costs.
...
It is understood the EHRC legal costs were over £215,000, while the Labour Party and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also spent tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Mr Livingstone’s and Ms Bromley’s costs amounted to £35,000 and were funded from a fighting fund established at the end of 2019 by former Labour MP Chris Williamson from the costs he won from the Labour Party.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/livingstone-bromley-offered-settlement-ehrc-anti-semitism-allegations
The market for £50K+ EVs is roaring along. Growing like anything. No need for subsidy now.
Put the subsidy on the lowest price vehicles, on a taper based on price, extending to vehicles *cheaper than those currently available* for the 100%
Bring back Boris! He may be amoral, lazy, dishonest, incompetent, and always a gaffe away from disaster, but he's better than this Sunak twerp.
I am not wrong on this, and the tweet from Ford UK backs this up. As does the demand from BMW that the UK would not do what it appears we are now to do. Despite telling BMW the opposite only last week.
The UK is a small non-standard market. We do not own any volume car manufacturers. So we are beholden on foreign global businesses. Who are going with the market. They will only invest in things that promise a return on investment. That isn't ICE, and isn't a Britain howling at the moon against modernity.
The anger and fury from some is predictable but this is a hugely complex subject when other opinions are entitled to be set out
They are already looking in increasing horror at Chinese manufacturers. They largely control the battery industry, they have endless money to invest, and they can undercut production costs in the west with no drop in quality.
So if the EU want Stellantis, VAG, BMW etc to survive, they need help. Stop building luxo-barges in small numbers and develop smaller mass market cars. We're increasingly seeing electrified versions of ICE platforms (e.g. Peugeot e208) which are expensive, heavy and cramped. Making them cheaper would be a start, and investment will be needed to replace the old engine under bonnet manufacturing with axle or wheel motor platforms. China is already there, Europe needs to catch up. Fast.
NEW THREAD
But cars are, in my view, a driver of atomisation. Driving and interacting with other drivers has the weird sensation of making everyone else a threat (because if they aren't driving safely then you could crash) and an annoyance (if they drive too safely they prevent you being free and driving how you want). You don't see the other driver as much as you see the other car - so immediately you separate the will of the driver from a human and assign it to an object, the car, dehumanising them. The internal environment of the car is fake and highly regulated - increasingly you don't have to experience the wind or noise or bumps or anything from the outside environment. You are cozened from the world, kept comfy from anyone else, you can control that space and not be influenced by anyone else whilst in it.
The process to get to mass driving also atomised society. London and most urban centres had miles of tramways, the country had significantly more local train and bus stops, and "15 minute cities" were just considered the norm because you would have a local grocer, butcher, post office etc. Transport infrastructure was purposely dismantled in a manner to increase car sales, and when everyone has a can that distorted peoples' idea of time and distance to lead to the creation of huge shopping centres and supermarkets, which led to the first wave of high street death (pre mass internet shopping). Whether it is apocryphal or not, the idea attributed to Thatcher that if you're "25 and using public transport, you're a failure" is a below surface feeling in the UK - the car is a symbol of success and freedom that is necessary to feel good.
That mass car production is unsustainable (even if we went fully electric) is neither here nor there for people - cars stay the solution. With every year that goes by traffic gets worse, the proposed solution of widening roads or building more lanes occurs, and yet whenever more roads appear the traffic is still bad. Because when you have hundreds of thousands of people, all making basically the same journeys with small variations on leaving point and destination, the movement of traffic cannot be efficient the smaller you make the travelling unit. If the same resource was put into trains or buses as cars, I think we could have an amazing system of transport that allows most people to get where they want, when they want just more efficiently than individual car ownership currently allows.
The car is the enemy of humanity.
And probably something that would make even DuraA blush.
Congestion outside of rush hour is bad; during, the kind of gridlock that takes 30 mins to move less than a km.
On benefit of the HiPass toll card is that it gave access to a 5.7km tunnel underneath the mess.
Drivers not particularly aggressive - apart from the buses and scooters who are lunatics.
You’d think Sunak had, single handedly, caused the climate ‘crisis’ to get 100 times worse overnight.