From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
What I really wanted to comment on regarding the EV consultation was the gross disinformation below:
The Consultation Document is even more specific:
The so-called “industry research” comes not from the car industry at all, but from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), who would be better described as a Disinformation Unit. The link given takes us to their analysis here.
And the ECIU analysis makes it clear that they have based their petrol costs on the pump price, including fuel duty and VAT:
A typical comparison is the Zoe v Clio:
But when fuel duty of 69.54p/litre (inc VAT) is deducted, that £667 saving is reduced to just £167.
We also need to factor in the fact that VAT is charged at 20% on petrol, but only 5% on electricity. A 5% VAT rate on petrol would cut the saving cut to about £100.
It is of course valid to quote the full savings listed by the ECIU in relation to actual costs paid by drivers currently.
But the Government is not doing that. Instead it is deliberately claiming that drivers will benefit from the transition to EVs. But they know full well that by the time ICE cars are banned in 2030, the taxation raised by fuel duty and VAT on fuel will have to be raised from other sources. Consequently drivers may benefit from cheaper charging, but will see those savings cancelled out by road charging or some other revenue raising scheme.
The Government also ignore the fact that EVs cost much more to buy, wiping out whatever paltry savings might be made on fuel.
The Zoe, for instance, costs £4400 more to buy then the Clio.
If a business put out misleading advertising like this, they would be hauled over the coals by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Haven’t they just upped the road tax the UK state is off the rails a new govt can’t come soon enough
They have, for a 1.4 L engine it’s now £190
Government Disinformation – Everything it says.
The strategy/policy is to promise and then to u-turn on it. The latest case being the WASPI women – pensioners losing out who were promised compensation by Kier et al.
Post election? They can forget all about it. You cannot trust them, well, I certainly don’t.
Depressing stuff, ethanol will help!
In Kier’s veins?Sorry, that comes across as somewhat of a threat.
Well of course, that’s how politicians work.
Step 1: “Elect me, and this time next year we’ll all be millionaires!”
Step 2: “Thanks for that, I’ll get right on it. Oh, look over there – a three-headed monkey!”
Step 3: “Well, I made myself a millionaire, still working on getting you lot to that point. Which is why you should re-elect me!”
and repeat.
It is…. a Parliamentary dictatorship. And that’s how it has been since 1660
At least 1649.
Fig leaf added… by the restoration.
British politicians must be friendlier than the American ones. In the US, this is how politicians work — especially leftist politicians:
Step 1: “Elect me, because the other person is literally Hitler.” (If you are Democrat/leftist politician, the media will be happy to prove the other person is literally Hitler.)
Step 2: “I won! I don’t need to thank you because I’m better than you. Now stay 200 feet away from my shadow at all times.”
Step 3: “I know I made myself a multi-millionaire at your expense, I know I’ve done absolutely nothing you wanted or needed. But re-elect me because the other person is literally Hitler.”
“the media will be happy to prove the other person is literally Hitler”
hmmm… what year was Trump born? maybe the same year Hitler died? OMG, he reincarnated as Trump! /s
Not only that, Trump drinks water. Do you know who else drank water…
Trump will allow water to contain deadly Dihydrogen monoxide through deregulation!
Shockingly, he’s ok with it being up to 100% DHMO. It’s in all our reservoirs now, and the monster thinks it’s not a problem!
Hitler allegedly died 30 April 1945 and DJT was allegedly born on 14 June 1946.
Nazi scientists were working on fountain of youth. Coincidence? I hardly think so. Hitler/Trump is now 135 years old.
But your reincarnation theory is worthy of consideration.
yes /sarc for you clueless ones
Political parties exist for the sole purpose of garnering votes to win power. This is achieved by offering bribes that can be anything from cash to policy. It would be illegal in any other setting and should be in electoral matters. So, why is anybody surprised when promises are not kept and voters are treated with contempt? The take away is if you elect immoral crooks expect to be screwed. The irony is that the government does reflect the voters in so far as its the voters immorality, weakness or stupidity for being bought by a patently corrupt system.
What will ethanol help?
It certainly helps me…
EV Mandates vs. Freedom | Mark P. Mills:
I watch all of Mills’ videos. He’s smart, level headed, no BS. I only wish the MSM would look at his videos and publications.
Even if you accepted their bogus £667 annual savings figure, the purchase price differential would mean you would not start to make any saving for 6.6 years. Lord knows what Ed Miliband will have done to the price of electricity in the meantime. Cheap it will no be. Best move is to keep the £4400 price differential in your wallet.
Then wipe out any savings you might imagine with the paltry resale value after that, if you can sell it at all.
If EVs are so magical, why are Hertz trying to offload thousands of them?
In general, people don’t want to own or rent EVs.
Story tip
Nissan decision throws future of Sunderland car factory into doubt as Stellantis looks to axe Luton jobs https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/nissan-honda-merger-decision-sunderland-stellantis-luton
Add in Ford and the outlook is net zero joy for a great many.
A bunch of lies being told about this, mainly that the country can just swap out ICE for EVs and carry on as normal. Which it cannot, they are not the same product and don’t fit the same use.
But also that the UK electricity grid can support the swap-out, that at the same time it can be converted to wind and solar, and that all this will make some difference to the total of global emissions and temperatures.
So yes, all this is lies or fantasy or a mixture. But governments can do pretty much anything they want, and they have a variety of means at their disposal, which the present UK Government is almost certain to use to the full.
It can be made and will be made just too expensive and inconvenient to own and use an ICE or mild hybrid car. That is the only way the present (Labour) government will get within striking distance of the EV percentage sales goals which the previous (Conservative) government set, so they will do it.
What’s extraordinary about the UK political scene at the moment is that there was a change of government by a landslide. The previous government seemed to be radically out of touch with the electorate, and frozen in the headlights. Now, you may think that was not surprising in a party that has been in office for 15 years, and they finally got kicked out. But the present government seems to be in exactly the same state after only a couple of months. And on energy policy nothing much has changed – maybe current policies are a bit more fantastic and pointless than the previous ones, but there is not a lot in it.
Reform now has as many members as the Conservative Party. A visiting extra-terrestrial anthropologist would have to report back at this point that in four years from now a landslide to Reform is on the cards, and getting more likely every month that goes by. Just because people really do want a change from all this nonsense, and that is the only way to get it.
You have complete woke lunacy in the shape of the SNP and the Liberals. Then you have two parties almost equally woke, Conservative and Labour. Who else are people to vote for but Reform?
The striking thing is that none of the woke parties seem to have the slightest idea what is coming towards them. Will they wake up in time? They show no signs of it. They all seem to be in the helpless shrug of shoulders state that led Sunak to call the election. Well, we shall see!
Seems they took a page out of Kamela’s campaign playbook.
What is a mild hybrid? Hybrid, but less paprika?
Assuming this is a serious question. There are two kinds of hybrids,
The advantage of a mild hybrid is that it improves fuel economy substantially at very little extra cost. The battery is small, so adds minimal weight and expense, the added complexity is minimal. Driving them is no different from an automatic ICE car.
Plug-ins may be a lot more economical on fuel, depending on the way you drive. If, for instance, most of your trips are under 50 miles. But the price is higher cost, bigger and heavier battery and greater complexity. The advantage over a purely electric EV is range.
The current UK government seems to be proposing to limit the sales of mild hybrids, perhaps all hybrids, earlier than the previously set date of 2035. In pursuit of ideological purity and the move to net zero as fast as possible.
Governments swinging from party to party won’t fix the problem because parties are the problem. It does not matter what stripe they are they are all of the left. Independents are individualistic and of the right as opposed to the collective left of parties. Furthermore independents are safe in that their vote has no power without a democratic majority. Also in selecting an independent voters must use a different criteria. One that might involve ethos, integrity, ability etc. In other words things that party politicians are mostly devoid of.
Governments swinging from party to party won’t fix the problem
I see you making this point often. I don’t necessarily disagree – you are right in principle.
The problem is that we have to live in the real world, and what you’re suggesting requires a massive change in human behavior in general.
Do you have any practical and realistic alternatives?
I accept that it will take a change in human behaviour. Is not the definition of insanity ‘doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result’. Anyway, I think you will find that the terms impractical and unrealistic have been applied to many things in the past only to be proven wrong eventually. Powered flight comes to mind.
Powered flight comes to mind.
The logical fallacy of the undistributed middle. Some A is B, this is an A, therefore this is a B. Doesn’t follow.
It is true that some – many – things have been thought impossible that later turned out to be possible. But this has no bearing on whether a particular thing that we are now discussing is impossible.
And the fact is, representative democracy without parties may or may not be theoretically possible. But what is certain is that there has never been and is not now any working example.
only to be proven wrong eventually
Your example is one of a technical matter. Your desired end requires a fundamental change in human nature of millions of people. That fundamental change being a move away from tribalism, something that has been part of human nature, and could even be argued to be genetic, for our entire history.
michel addresses the logical fallacy with this. A change of this nature of that scale makes powered flight look like solving 1+1 for a child’s first time. Unless you have insights into the human mind that nobody else does, we aren’t even close to understanding people well enough to try to make such a change.
Also, from your response, I take it that you do no have any ideas on how to accomplish what you advocate. Until you can do that, we have what we have. It is pointless to wish for something else – reality is what it is, and that’s what we have to work with.
A better example than powered flight would have been the abolition of slavery as this was a moral shift rather than technical. Impossible is, first , a state of mind. If one thinks something is impossible then conceiving a solution is impossible.
I do know how what I advocate will be accomplished. There will be a broad shift from the collectivism of parties to the individualism of independents by the voters. I think it is beginning and if it is momentum will quickly build. There is no other way which I see as proof of concept.
There isn’t an alternative to parties. Or rather, there isn’t a practical democratic alternative. And there is no way of preventing them emerging in a representative democracy. Are you going to somehow ban the elected representatives from getting together and reaching agreements on legislative programs?
Anyone who thinks there is another way needs to sketch out what it is. And point to an historical example of a representative democracy without them. Don’t believe there is one.
Independents will always coalesce into groups. What matters is why and for how long. When a body of independents vote on an issue they form two groups – for and against. This allows the issue to be the dominant part rather than political positioning. The groups then dissolve back to individuals until they coalesce differently for the next issues vote.
The mistake you are making is to get the task and the environment wrong. You would be right if a government was presented with a series of independent decisions. But they are not. The issues are what coalesce. You can see it in the UK’s postwar history. You can predict how someone will think on one subject from how they think on others.
Parties come into being because of this. They are driven by the fact that people think similarly on a range of issues. Now, it may be that the issues are not logically connected. There is, for instance, no reason why people who think Israel is committing genoicide in Gaza and that Hamas is a progressive movement of national liberation should also believe that self identification of sex is correct. But they do, so you find that when one issue is discussed, so are the others, and you end up with agreement on a range of issues. Same thing happens to their opponents. There is no reason why people supporting fox hunting should also be skeptical about climate change – or why people persuaded about the climate crisis should also believe in the merits of wind turbines. But this is just how it is.
Read the comments section of Ars Technica, and you can see this happening in real time. This is the early stages of party formation, the crystalizing of opinions on a lot of issues into a shared ideology.
There are many things wrong with different party systems, but in the end, you want representative democracy, you have to do the best you can with parties, because you are going to get them. The issue is making them work as best they can, not trying to do without them. And anything you do to abolish parties is going to be authoritarian to the point of being dictatorial. When, as the Bible says, your last state will then be worse than your first.
It is rather like families. We are going to have families, so we have to learn to make the best of them. There are many things wrong with family systems in different cultures – honor killings, forced marriages and so on in some, indifference and lack of any discipline in others. But children are going to be raised in families no matter what idealists think about the merits of collective child rearing, so the only thing to do is make them work in the best way they can.
I do not advocate that parties should be abolished. I advocate that they should disappear because nobody supports them. I understand how and why parties have come to dominate politics. I think parties are wrong in principle and are immoral. I put it to you ‘how can any person represent another if they cannot first represent themself?’ Independents are free to vote according to conscience. Party politicians are not.
Parties are pretty much essential to the functioning of parliamentary democracy. Look at the UK for an example – as soon as parliamentary government happened, post 1688, you had parties. They gradually coalesced into recognizably modern form during the 18th century.
The reason is its the only way a government can get a secure majority and be able to enact a program of legislation.
Burke, that idol of the right, is in many ways a very silly writer, but on this particular point he had insight and was correct.
The UK is an example of ‘Parties are pretty much essential to disfunctioning of parliamentary democracy’
A government should gain a majority for its legislation by parliamentary democracy.
I should add that if party dominance is required to pass legislation then perhaps it is not good legislation.
UK democracy has actually worked pretty well. As has US democracy. You have to realistically compare their functioning with the alternatives that others have tried. Both have survived wars, industrial revolution, civil disorder for hundreds of years. Both have had very bad failures. Both, you could say, are the worst way of doing things – except for all the alternatives.
They have been better than the alternatives. Your own alternative, you can’t specify how it would work, how you would stop it producing the party system which you object to, you can’t point to anywhere it works at scale. Its classic utopian idealism which invariably deteriorates during implementation into authoritarianism, purges and mass murder..
A far greater enemy to well being, and to democracy, is political idealism. That is, the pursuit of revolutionary social or political change in accordance with some fantastic utopian blueprint.
Karl Popper is a better guide on these matters than Burke. And an even better guide than the idealists!
Every warmongering despot has been the head of a political party. Parties are a type of structure that propels that type of person to the top. Parties thrive on division and discord.
The perfect political system does not lay in the past. It is in the future otherwise the world would not be the mess it is now.
A parliament of independents would be very safe from the excesses of totalitarian players because it would lack the unified base that would require. think – Democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. Rather than democracy of the party, by the party and for the party.
Please tell me what number I multiply by three in order to get the “cheaper” price.
An oft repeated example of how innumerate the green experts are.
Shouldn’t that be “take away the number you first thought of”?
Workdwide, the manufacturers that export EVs are closing factories, furloughing workers, and are dependent on foreign supply chains.
The UK suppliers of supporting materials for UK automotive makers depend on UK electricity and transportation that mainly come from burning “fossil” fuels. EVs still run on coal, when thatt is used to generate electricity.
The crumbling electricity supply situation and fuel scarcity will prevent EVs from running at all unless electrical costs to the consumer are subsidized heavily and the grid upgraded by several orders of magnitude.
Steel, in particular, will increase in cost dramatically as UK foundries and refiners are closed.
Few of the 152000 Automotive Industry workers in the UK are involved in manufacturing for export.
Worldwide markets for EVs are saturated, there will continue to be little market for exports from the UK.
Changing the UK automotive industry to EV production will remove most, if not all, of that £19b from the economy. Switching will put most of those 152k workers on the dole — which somehow seems to be the purpose of the Labour government.
.
As soon as the word subsidies is used, people paying attention immediately recognize that the money has to come from somewhere and that means all taxpayers pay more.
I almost quoted that same line.
The intended meaning is clear – automobiles are exported.
What the author wrote was – the automobile industry is exported.
Do literary degrees now indicate both Illiteracy and innumeracy?
Maybe [she/he/it] meant that it was important to export all good? That’s nearly been accomplished.
Shades of Harry Potter!
Few have been educated enough to use ‘then’ and ‘than’ correctly.
I wonder what caused the dramatic increase in electricity prices from 2016 to 2023?
Answer: Adding windmills and Solar to the grid and closing conventional generation is what caused the increases in prices.
Windmills and Industrial Solar are a Cancer on the Electric Grid, and thus, a Cancer on People’s budgets.
Increasing electric demand using EV’s will just make matters worse.
UK leadership is completely clueless about the future. They are shooting in the dark.
Printing money? USA government shows no intent to raise as much as it spends.
Yet, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, Nick Stokes will chime in to inform us that Wind and Solar are cheaper than any other form of energy.
EV fan boys use this approach: “lies, damned lies and statistics.”
It would be a grave mistake to take anything the U.K. government says regarding EVs as reliable.
Those mentally ill woke folks lie as if it is printed, plus it is not applicable to the US.
On an A-to-Z basis, mine to hazardous waste landfill, the CO2 of EVs is much higher after an optimistic 8 years of driving or 70,000 miles, than of an equivalent, efficient gasoline car.
The EV capital cost amortized over 8 years, plus the increasing cost of O&M, is much higher than of an equivalent, efficient gasoline car
Quick look on autotrader, a new Zoe (electric) starts at £27,395, and the Clio (petrol, hybrid) starts at £18,175.
You’ve already had to find another £9,220 down the back of the sofa to show off your love for the planet.
The following year you decide to sell your car.
The Zoe will have lost ~50% of it’s value in a year, you’d be happy to get £15,000 for it. Your virtue signaling has cost you £12,395.
The Clio you would sell for ~£15,000 too, but of course it was much cheaper to buy so your planet destroying motoring has only cost you £3,175.
Thankfully for EV’s some people have more money than sense.
Those people are politicians and the rich, elite, virtue signalers.
Check out videos on YouTube by a chap who calls himself the Macmaster. He has lost some 100 000 GBP in depreciation on his Porsche Taycan.
“…and they emit fewer dangerous particles which can damage health and worsen air quality…”
The primary source of particulate emissions from vehicles is tire wear. EVs have greater wear rates than ICEs due to their weight.
In many cases, the exhaust of a modern ICE is cleaner than the ambient air.
You missed highlighting another dubious claim in the passage quoted above: “…and they emit fewer dangerous particles…”
I don’t know how they substantiate this claim, according to the government’s own web site*: “…The remaining half of UK concentrations of PM come from human activities in the UK, such as wood burning, various industrial processes and tyre and brake wear from vehicles.” No mention of particles arising from vehicle fuel combustion and I am sure they would have mentioned it if it was not effectively zero. EVs are typically heavier than equivalent ICE vehicles and therefore it seems likely that they generate more and not less particulate matter. Some of the poorest air quality to which Londoners are exposed re particulates was found on London Underground platforms, arising from the brakes of electrically powered trains.
Talk about bait and switch ….. what they fail to mention is with the way electricity prices are increasing it will soon cost more $/mile for an EV over ICE cars. Then with no gasoline to tax EV ownership must be taxed to pay for the road building and upkeep. Add the increase in the cost of buying and voila …. EVs will increase your cost of car ownership.
Until now EVs have been exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)in the UK but from 2025 on EVs will have to pay this in the UK at the same lower first year rate and then much higher second year on rate as petrol and diesel vehicles. Drivers of EVs costing more than £40,000 will also pay a luxury supplement. VED is the tax for road building and upkeep.
The Office for Budget Responsibility expects Fuel Duty to raise £24.7bn in 2024
saw the video and it was great but did not mention the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that is how much real estate will need to be covered with solar and turbines to recharge 150 million ev’s between the hours of 6pm and midnight?
The government is controlled by the lobby, which is backed by the oligarchs who want to control everything you eat, live in, or drive. Don’t continue to be suckers.
Never underestimate the scale of scientific ignorance most politicians are blessed with.
I say this having listened to a political SPAD tell us country folk, badgers are bad because when they ‘bite’ cattle they pass on TB.
That is the scale of ignorance the special political advisors have, that is then passed onto a politician.
That’s a whole lot of BS.
Annual fuel costs depend on how many kilometers you drive. Many drive less than 10.000 km, some lower than 5000 km.
The cheapest EV is garbage compared to the petrol car. Few range, slow charging.
Charging at home? Well that’s the biggest problem and reason why we don’t want an EV. I have the news articles: Charging an EV is more expensive than diesel.
Everyone who don’t own a big house with solar panels will pay more in fuel.
I have 18 year old car, retail was 16500, only maintenance is buying new tires and brakes. I call that pretty cheap. Try having a small collision with an EV and compare the cost.
More idiocrasy: 40 new homes build, expensive with all green technologies, but these days they want to preach collective stuff. You can’t park your car at your home, parking lot and mailboxes are collective. Do you understand the stupidity? They want you to drive an EV but then you buy an overpriced house with solar panels but you can’t charge at home!
One more thing I can’t wrap my head around. Charging an EV at home. But you buy a car to go to work, so you can’t charge at home since it only works during daylight with sun. If I was home all day I wouldn’t need a car.
One more stupidity, they call the Zoe a city car. But the whole point of living in a city is not needing a car. And minimum 60% in cities doesn’t have private parking so they can’t charge anyway. EV’s are flawed in every way, except for rich people.
The ZOE falls into insurance groups 20 to 23, depending on exactly which model you choose. This is noticeably higher than you’ll pay for an equivalent Renault Clio, which falls into group 10, so do check insurance costs before settling for the ZOE if you’re a new or younger driver.
The difference in insurance is about UKP100 a year for a 40yo driver
The difference in depreciation is that the ZOE depreciated by 69% over 3 years (!) whereas the Clio depreciated by38%.
You are being lied to.
So good savings for those people who can
A Afford a new EV, unlike 90% of the population, and
B Afford a home that allows one to charge an EV at home. Unlike 90% of the population.
Once again, savings for the rich, paid for by the poor! Almost everything about ‘solutions’ to the supposed Climate Crisis ™ seem to have the exact same effects. Weird that, isn’t it?
WHY is it SO difficult to remember that the word “thEn” is entirely different in meaning that the word “thAn”.? (then the Clio)
Until individuals are held accountable in government we can expect to hear this kind of lying and cheating. This kind of government manipulation is a bad bad thing. It must stop now.