Some good stuff in the Telegraph today. “The electric car carnage has only just begun”, writes Matthew Lynn.
As with so much of the legislation passed during the last five years, setting a quota for the percentage of EVs companies had to sell probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Manufacturers now have to ensure that 22pc of the cars they shift off the forecourt are battery powered, rising steadily to 80pc by the end of this decade, and 100pc by 2035. If they don’t hit their quota, the senior executives will get ten years hard labour in Siberia (well, actually it is a fine of up to £15,000 per vehicle, but it nonetheless feels extremely draconian). Like Soviet planners in the 1950s, the architects of this legislation presumably assumed that all you had to do was set a target and everything would fall into place.
The trouble is, quotas don’t work any better in Britain than they did in communist Russia. EVs have some serious problems: the range is not good enough, we have not built enough charging points to power them, the repair bills are expensive, the insurance ruinous, and second hand prices are plummeting. Once all raw materials and transport costs are factored in, they may not be much better for the environment.
Yet the masterminds foisting this legislation on businesses don’t appear to have given much thought to what will happen if the quota isn’t met. Now Ford, one of the biggest auto giants in the world, and still a major manufacturer in Europe, has provided an answer. “We can’t push EVs into the market against demand,” said Martin Sander, the General Manager of Ford Model eEurope, at a conference this week. “We’re not going to pay penalties… The only alternative is to take our shipments of [engine] vehicles to the UK down and sell these vehicles somewhere else.”
In effect, Ford will limit its sales of cars in the UK. If you had your eye on a new model, forget it. You will have to put your name on a waiting list, just as East Germans had to wait years for a Trabant. Heck, we may even see a black market in off-the-books Transit vans. Ford is the first to spell it out in public, but we can be confident all the other manufacturers are thinking the same thing. They can’t absorb huge fines. The only alternative is to limit the sales of petrol cars.
Difficult to see what else they can do.
The actual solution of course is to end this nut zero communism.
Well done Ford in stating clearly who’s fault it will be and hopefully other manufacturers will soon follow.
Personally, approaching retirement, I will be on the look out for a new car in a year or two (the one I have has a good three or four years left). I will be able to stand a price hike and a wait to get it (if I have to), but many will not be in so fortunate a position.
This insanity has to come to a head sooner or later and the sooner the better!
So any sensible car corporation would smarten up some milk floats (used in the UK and powered by lead-acid batteries), add a cabin and sell them for a few thousand pounds, to meet the quota.
The elected government did try to change policy on “Net Zero” – but the courts ruled (only last week – the ruling was overshadowed by the local council elections) that to do so, the government would have to first repeal the Environment Act.
I am not a fan of the judges – but they have a point. If you want to change policy you must first repeal the Acts of Parliament, and International Agreements, on which existing policies are based.
So there is the test – if you want cheaper energy and less expensive cars, you must repeal the Environment Act, and get the United Kingdom OUT of various International Agreement (sorry – no more going to United Nations conferences, or international Corporate events).
It is the same on “Woke” matters – a person can not, honestly, stand for Freedom of Speech and refuse to repeal the various Acts of Parliament that attack Freedom of Speech.
And it is the same on economic matters – one can not have a freer economy whilst a stranglehold of power is held by the Bank of England and its Corporate “Partners”.
If you are going to have fiat money (and I HATE it – but most people seem to support it) then it must be under elected control, no more handing out money (created from nothing) to the banks and other Corporate entities – and then borrowing it back again (so the “City” types can profit).
I’m struggling to see why, from the point of view of those who thought the EV mandate was a good idea, car companies declining to sell to UK buyers would be regarded as a problem.
Indeed, where’s the problem? It’s the net zero plan: no more motoring for the proles.
It’s not, but many of those who take such a view imagine that the bubble they inhabit is totally insulated from the consequences of the childishness.
It’s not of course, and they are not the “elite” they imagine themselves to be.
I’m a bit surprised that a plan hasn’t been generated to do away with private car ownership entirely. It wouldn’t be difficult really- the all knowing State owns the cars and permits private use on the basis of need.
“Congratulations, citizen, you’re saving the planet by taking the buses to work now!”
They can’t absorb huge fines. The only alternative is to limit the sales of petrol cars.
That’s *EXACTLY* what those pushing this crap want.
A better solution would be for the car manufacturers to close their plants in the UK (Ford, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall/GM etc.) and let the loss of taxes and the resultant redundancies hit the Government in the pocket with a double whammy.
Since Mercedes and others manufacture cars in Mexico and other countries worldwide, then if they still want to sell cars in the UK, they can build them more cheaply abroad and import them. A double win for the manufacturers and again depriving the Government of taxes.
“I’m a bit surprised that a plan hasn’t been generated to do away with private car ownership entirely.”
There is a plan. This is it.
“As with so much of the legislation passed during the last five years, setting a quota for the percentage of EVs companies had to sell probably seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Seemed like a good idea to whom? Only an imbecile would think that it could ever work.
“Once all raw materials and transport costs are factored in, they may not be much better for the environment.”
May not be? Of course they aren’t better for the environment, only an ignoramus would think that they were.
Then again our ruling class thinks that cutting down forests in the US and shipping them here to burn in Drax power station is a good idea too.
There’s about nine million of us who live in the rural part of the UK that really do not have an alternative to cars. Bicycles are too dangerous on the roads and there are no pavements, just grassy verges. My nearest supermarket is seven miles in one direction or a smaller one five miles in the other direction. Diesels are very popular round here.
Indeed, where’s the problem? It’s the net zero plan: no more motoring for the proles.
But the ‘proles’ have to get to work from wherever they live, and for many there is no or limited bus service. Then they may have to use a vehicle for work. And then they may have to travel some distance for other services, like schools or hospitals. As a consequence the elites may find it difficult and expensive getting work done or food produced and delivered.
The Government has developed a society of fewer bigger schools and hospitals with larger catchment areas which often require people to drive themselves to these (usually) urban centres. Are we to see a matching outbreak of cottage hospitals, parish schools and corner shops. It won’t be cheap.
I repeat – if you want to change policy on “Net Zero” you have to repeal the Environment Act and (and) get the United Kingdom out of the international agreements and organisations.
It is the same with everything from Freedom of Speech to economic policy (yes – economic policy, both monetary policy and tax-and-spend fiscal policy), to restore such things as Freedom of Speech and fiscal (and monetary) sanity you have to both repeal key Acts of Parliament and get the United Kingdom out of international agreements and organisations.
If you are not going to do that, if you are not going to both repeal key Acts of Parliament and get Britain OUT of international agreements and organisations, then you are wasting your time asking for the government to change policy on XYZ – because it CAN NOT (CAN NOT) do so.
Asking Mr Sunak (or whoever) to “do something” is pointless – because unless key Acts of Parliament are repealed and the United Kingdom is got OUT of international agreements and organisations, no Prime Minister can change policy on the things that really matter.
Are we to see a matching outbreak of cottage hospitals, parish schools and corner shops. It won’t be cheap.
Isn’t that what 15-minute neighbourhoods are supposed to be? A school on every corner – with three pupils! A one-bed hospital in every neighbourhood. 35,000 branches of B&Q.
@jgh
I’d be astounded if the 15 minute neighbourhoods were put in place before private cars were reduced.
“The only alternative is to limit the sales of petrol cars.”
A feature.
Not a bug.
Back in the day when there was an extra sales tax on new cars, ‘grey market imports’ of right hand drive ‘nearly new’ cars from lower tax jurisdictions such as Malta and Cyrus were a thing. I can see that business becoming a thing again.
As is often the case politicians, and the public, will only do an about-face when one foot dangling off the cliff precipice.