This morning I thought I had better do my duty and have a look at the Government’s ZEV Mandate Review.

Upon opening it, I couldn’t stop a crushing weight from falling upon me. [It wasn’t a piano. It was helplessness.] The consultation PDF is 90 pages. Clicking through to the “Questions” section, I found that there are 45 questions. Of course, they do not want plebs responding, and they will do their utmost to build a citadel around the review to prevent them from so doing.

These two factoids made me question even the point of reading on. Read it, or just click on that little X in the top right hand corner? [All right, it’s not in the top right corner as I type this. It’s kind of in the middle, amongst a morass of tabs.]

I propose to begin at the beginning, and see how far I get. I do not see myself answering the questions. It would take far too long to formulate intelligent responses. The option to reply by saying “scrap the mandate” is unlikely to exist.

The beginning is the Ministerial Foreword.

OK, paragraph 1 opens with what is almost a logical fallacy, which is not very promising:

The UK’s transition to zero emission vehicles is vital not only for the environment, but for consumers and industry. For individual drivers, electric vehicles provide running cost savings of up to £1,400 per year, as well as insulation from fuel price shocks.

A transition that benefitted consumers would happen organically, without intervention, and would obviate the need for a Mandate or a Review of a Mandate. The saving in running costs are the result of political decisions to place a huge burden of duty and tax on petrol and diesel cars. Since the savings are phantoms, and the penalties of owning an ICE car are passed directly to the Treasury, it is sure that they will evaporate like Scarbo.

But soon his body developed a bluish tint, translucent like the wax of a candle, his face blanched like melting wax – and suddenly his light went out.

The next paragraph is also misleading. We in the UK are ahead of the game, it says. Yes: because of your carrot and stick policies. In fact, horse apples land on horse apples as we go down.

The UK government is investing record sums to make the most of these benefits, with £7.5 billion to grow the market, boost electric vehicle manufacturing, increase sales and build up the UK charging network.

The gov’t is wasting money on things that would develop on their own, if people wanted or needed them. As an obvious example, the government did not invest billions in rolling out petrol stations. Why does it need to do so for a charging network? There is an obvious risk of money being destroyed here. Next it says 160,000 have benefitted from the Electric Car Grant. Great. But this is a complete waste of cash. The people who need help are the ones dropping £1500 on credit on a 20-year-old car (and who then have a shock when they see the tax they have to pay to own it, at up to 50% of its value per year JUST FOR A LICENCE TO USE THE ROAD). No-one needs a grant off a new car retailing at £40K+. The grants, says the Foreword, have moved the cost of an EV “closer than ever” to that of an ICE. Irrelevant again, if the £1,400 per year saving actually mattered. Blah blah blah… 120,000 chargers already installed and 100,000 more in the pipeline. This circles back to the mythological line that people won’t go electric because “there is a lack of charging infrastructure.” As I said in Charging Towards the Future, EVs make up (or did then) 5.5% of the fleet, and we were already 40% (120K / 300K) of the way towards the targeted number of chargers. In other words, there are far more chargers per car now than there will be at the end of this “transition.”

To support this pace of change, this government has always been clear and consistent about our zero emission transition milestones – we are committed to phasing out new cars relying solely on internal combustion engines by 2030 and to 100% of new car and van sales being zero emission by 2035.

“…this government…” Yes. But now the united façade across politics has a big crack lacing it. I’d vote for a party who promises to end this mad scheme. I have a better approach. No mandates, no favouritism of one platform over another, fair taxation, support to keep older vehicles running rather than punitive road tax. That is surely greener than the make-believe idea that manufacturing emissions can be easily made good. The old cars have been built. They can run for many thousands of miles more, for the same emissions of manufacturing a new car. That is “obvious” even if in some quarters it is unpalatable.

Next, the Minister notes that there are a few headwinds. These are energy price increases, growing international competition and uncertainty re: how UK vehicles will be able to access export markets.

The pachyderm in the parlour is that people prefer the kind of car that is being banned. Not all of them. But a large enough proportion exists that no government committed to representing all its people would proceed with the ban.

These views [the responses to the review, i.e.] will inform our approach as the UK continues to transition to zero emission vehicles and as we continue to work together with industry to make Britain cleaner, more secure, and more prosperous.

“…make Britain cleaner” by doing mining, refining and manufacturing somewhere else, while taxing perfectly useable old cars off the road. [And, as noted, the beady eye of Sauron must then turn on the vehicles that are presently being promoted with tax breaks, so that money can be shovelled into the black hole at the Treasury.] Make Britain more secure, by importing vehicles with a permanent data connection to the parent company, which just happens to reside in the territory of a geopolitical rival (don’t laugh; a mouse and a combine both have their eyes on the same ear of wheat). Make Britain more prosperous? There seems to be a lot of hopium there. There is a free market case to allow cheap imports (as, for example, the now-ubiquitous “Temu Range Rover,” the Jaecoo 7). I don’t think this should apply here, for the simple reason that the bar to entry is such that once lost, complex manufacturing is very hard to regrow. Maybe, if push came to shove, we could start making our own grommets again. But security must imply at least some home-grown capability for every essential, and without that, prosperity is a hostage to fortune.

Well, that’s about the end of the Foreword, and I’ve already pegged my cynicism meter. I’ll read the rest of the consultation, when I’ve recovered. That may take some time. Whatever I find out, I’ll post in comments below, unless anyone else feels a burst of enthusiasm and beats me to it.

Political sideswipe

Meanwhile, the Burnt Ham has announced that one sort of scallywag or the other is not going to be let out of jail early, but several other kinds are. [When they were wheeling out Minister after Minister to say “We’ve looked at this, turned over every rock, et cetera, and there’s literally nothing we can do,” it was perfectly obvious that a shrieking 180 was inevitable.] He does not seem to have got the hang of running the country. Did he wake up one day and find himself PM, with no memory of how he came to take up the highest office in the land? [“Wow. I’m the PM? How did that happen?] A couple of weeks ago, I heard him say, and I paraphrase lightly, [and put on Burnham’s accent when you read this] “Ever since I came into office, weeks ago, I’ve been pushing on this topic every day. Now I think we have managed to find a solution.”

Dude, you’re the PM, not the teaboy. [Put Churchill’s voice on, and repeat my misquote of Burnham.]

As to the miscreants themselves, they supposedly have to be let out because they are too crowded inside, and therefore the rest of us have to be put into a larger jail (the country, i.e.). I have no problem with multiples in cells. I do have a problem with anything more technologically advanced than a book in a cell. The problem with sharing cells is that the poor sods have got to share the same space with someone who is probably not the nicest guy you ever met, for almost the entire day. Out of the cells early, and back in late, I would say, and make sharing work because for most of the time the occupants are asleep. Naturally, that leaves the problem of what to do with prisoners between 8am and 10pm. Work, education or training might be an idea, especially if you are planning on releasing them to mingle with the law-abiding masses. Maybe start off with some hard exercise before breakfast and move on from there. We can’t afford that? Well, it’s all a matter of priorities. We spend more on debt interest than education.

/message ends

==

PS. If, like me, you were prepared to give the government one chance to prove it would not abuse the emergency alert siren, the advice to avoid juggling with lit sticks of dynamite because A&E was busy probably came as a disappointment. The good news is that there is an easy way to turn it off. Of course, there is always the possibility that the government will override my overriding of their control over my device. We’ll see.