ULEZ expansion, judicial shenanigans

I made a comment today on a thread about the judicial review of the ULEZ expansion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CghvWMnOeHs. Yesterday, the judge accepted two further matters into the judicial review due on July 4th. The vlogger, Brown Car Guy, reported on this very positively. Myself, I’m not so sure. So, here’s what I wrote:

Brown Car Guy, thank you for the great work you have been doing on behalf of everyone to whom personal mobility is important.

I apologize if my comment may seem to some people here long-winded and maybe even a little off-topic, but there are some points I feel I need to make on this subject.

In summary, I don’t see this as a win. Just a re-organization of our enemies’ forces behind their lines.

There were 5 points in the councils’ submissions. (1) Breach of statutory requirements. (2) Failure to consider compliance rates. (3) Failure to consult on the scrappage scheme. (4) Failure to do cost-benefit analysis. (5) Failure to do a proper consultation.

(1) and part of (3) were accepted earlier.

The new concerns accepted seem to be: (A) Failure to do a proper consultation on compliance rates. (B) Failure to do a proper consultation on the scrappage scheme.

I haven’t looked at the documentation on these, so I’m relying on Brown Car Guy’s summaries. I for one don’t see the difference between (3) and (B). As to (A), it seems irrelevant. People should have been asked whether they wanted ULEZ expansion or not, not whether or not they would comply with it if it happened.

The two kickers in the councils’ submissions are (4) and (5). The new concerns accepted do not address (4) at all. They appear to address (5), but only as far as it applies to (2) (which in my view is irrelevant anyway) and (3) (which is a minor issue. If there were no ULEZ, there wouldn’t be any need for scrappage!) I think these “concessions” are no more than window-dressing, to try to take our attention away from the real issues. (4) Is the ULEZ expansion a nett benefit to the people affected by it, or not? (5) Was there dishonesty of any kind towards us in the conduct of the “consultation?”

As to (4), the following link to a government website is instructive: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/government-investment-programmes-the-green-book/. “The 2020 review of the green book concluded that it failed to support the Government’s objectives in areas such as ‘levelling up’ the regions and reaching net zero. The review said this was because the process relied too heavily on cost-benefit analysis, also known as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The review found that the BCR placed too much weight on benefits that could easily be assigned a monetary value, with insufficient weight given to whether the proposed project addressed strategic policy priorities.” So, “strategic” policies, such as “net zero,” are no longer subject to even a pretence of analyzing whether or not they are a benefit to the people? And this is supposed to be a democracy? Government for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the people?

As to (5), again, I haven’t studied the detail, but if Sadiq Khan has not been dishonest towards the people he is supposed to serve, I would be very surprised.

Leave a Reply