Will the Ulez be a factor in next year’s general election?

The Uxbridge by-election may well have been decided on the question of the Ulez expansion. Sean O’Grady asks what this means for the parties in 2024

Independent candidates in Uxbridge and South Ruislip stage an anti-Ulez protest following Conservative Steve Tuckwell’s victory (PA)

The Conservatives have defied expectations and just managed to hold the Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat, formerly held by Boris Johnson, in a fiercely contested by-election. The swing of 6.7 per cent (that is, 67 voters in every 1,000, on average), from Conservative to Labour was a much smaller movement than was observed in the other seats choosing a new MP on Thursday night – Somerton and Frome, and Selby and Ainsty.

All concerned put the surprise down to the unpopularity of the ultra-low-emission zone (Ulez) charge, which is scheduled to be introduced in the area next month. Whatever its environmental benefits, it has proved to be electorally toxic. There may be lessons, too, for other local authorities or mayors seeking to copy the London Ulez charge, or to introduce similar schemes.

What’s the problem with the Ulez?

It’s expensive. Residents who run some older cars and vans, with more polluting engines, will have to pay £12.50 every time they take to the road. Visitors to the area, as in all the outer London boroughs, will also be liable for the charge. The penalty for non-compliance is £180, or £90 if paid within 14 days.

The charge will only affect about 10 to 20 per cent of the cars in the area, plus those coming in from neighbouring counties. Many petrol-powered cars up to about 15 years old will still be clean enough to be Ulez-exempt. However, there are concerns about how it could affect smaller businesses and less-well-off households who cannot afford to upgrade to newer, greener transport.

There are also fears that more vehicles will be pulled into the Ulez charge net as time goes on, and that the charge could rise, as has happened with the (separate) long-running congestion-charge scheme.

Critics see it as part of a war on motorists; they feel it is politically driven, has not been subject to proper consultation, and is unnecessary in the less congested suburbs of outer London. Supporters argue that there’s no such thing as a safe level of air pollution, as they cite the effects on lung health, especially in the young, and the need to hit national and international targets.

What has the Ulez got to do with the member of parliament?

Strictly speaking, it’s nothing to do with parliament (unless parliament wanted to interfere in the governance of London). The matter is entirely within the remit of the Greater London Authority, and the mayor has powers to implement it. However the Tory candidate, Steve Tuckwell, and his party made it clear from the launch of their campaign that this was going to be a one-issue election, and a referendum on the Ulez. He has certainly sparked a debate.

Funnily enough, the former MP, Boris Johnson, introduced the Ulez in inner London while he was mayor of London, but now decries it.

How did Labour mishandle it?

Tuckwell said after he was elected: “This wasn’t the campaign Labour expected, and Keir Starmer and his mayor Sadiq Khan need to sit up and listen to the Uxbridge and South Ruislip residents.”

Yet it should have been the campaign Labour expected, in the sense that Tuckwell declared, when he was selected as the Tory candidate on 16 June: “If Labour win in Uxbridge it will send Sadiq Khan a clear message that he can expand his Ulez and close our police station. A vote for the Conservative Party will tell him he can’t get away with it.”

Labour seems not to have noticed the potency of the Ulez as a factor, or perhaps chose to ignore it for too long. The Labour candidate, Danny Beales, a Camden councillor, had previously appeared to be supportive of the expansion of the Ulez, but at a hustings on 5 July, he flipped, saying: “It’s not the right time.” He wrote to Khan setting out his concerns, to no avail.

What will Labour (and Khan) do now?

Starmer, concealing some frustration, urged Khan to “reflect” on the impact of the Ulez charge, citing it as “the reason we didn’t win there yesterday”, and added: “We’ve all got to reflect on that, including the mayor.” Yet Starmer has no power to do anything, and, while sympathetic, Khan has promised only to “listen to people”.

Khan’s view is that clean air is “a human right, not a privilege”, and that “Londoners are struggling through this cost of living crisis, but Londoners are also suffering the consequences of air pollution.” Khan also blames central government for the hardships endured during the cost of living crisis, and points out that it has failed to offer any financial support for a scrappage scheme to get older vehicles off the road.

The policy debate might be overtaken by events, though. Four outer London boroughs – Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon – have joined Surrey County Council in going to court to stop the scheme, arguing that the mayor “lacks the legal power” to expand the Ulez and that “key information was not disclosed” in consultations.

Might it affect the mayoral election?

Yes. Although Khan currently enjoys a vast lead over his newly selected Tory rival, Susan Hall, the Uxbridge result stands as a warning of just how unpopular the Ulez charge will be with voters in outer London, who are traditionally more inclined to vote Conservative than their inner-London neighbours. Should, say, Jeremy Corbyn intervene as an independent Labour candidate in next year’s London mayoral election on 3 May, and draw significant support from Khan, and should the Ulez prove to be electoral poison, then Hall could conceivably beat Khan in the newly adopted system of first-past-the-post.

What about the general election?

There’s a band of “blue doughnut” Con-Lab marginals in outer London and adjacent areas that could help Labour get to an overall majority on a fairly low swing. These include Chipping Barnet, Chingford, Harrow, Finchley and Croydon South.

Any other backlashes?

At least one other straw in the wind. Labour-controlled Cambridge City Council proposed a congestion charge with no exemptions for residents. It was controversial, and Labour’s former deputy leader, Alex Collis, resigned over the plan. At the subsequent council by-election on 4 July, the Conservatives won the seat from Labour on the issue, installing their first representative on the council since 2012.

The idea was that all car users would pay a daily charge of £5 if they drove within the zone between 7am and 7pm on weekdays, while van drivers would pay £10 and HGV drivers £50. There are plenty more schemes like that one, and each carries with it electoral hazards. Labour, nationally, has only a limited influence on what happens at the municipal level.