ULEZ, Uxbridge by-election and the London 2024 Mayoral election

[DynamicSpirit]

I do hope Susan Hall has more to her manifesto than just scrapping the ULEZ expansion and more police, what's her policy on TfL and getting more funding for example?

Her statement for the selection for Conservative candidate is here. Unfortunately it contains very few policies - other than scrapping ULEZ and scrapping LTNs (low traffic neighbourhoods). And it says nothing about TfL funding

 

[Enthusiast]

If the narrative that a green agenda equals losing votes is allowed to take hold, we may see them setting environmental policies aside altogether.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if the electorate do not want green policies and might vote for parties which pledge to reduce or abolish them, they are "wrong". In short, what the electorate wants is really of no consequence if their requirements do not accord with current thinking.

I'm somewhat old-fashioned and believe it is the function of politicians to see that the wishes of the majority of the electorate are facilitated.

You may recall a similar atmosphere prevailing in the early 2010s when the issue of the UK's membership of the EU was being discussed. There was no substantial difference between the main parties and voters unhappy with the UK's membership had nobody to vote for. You may also recall how that turned out.

 

[Thirteen]

Her statement for the selection for Conservative candidate is here. Unfortunately it contains very few policies - other than scrapping ULEZ and scrapping LTNs (low traffic neighbourhoods). And it says nothing about TfL funding

To me, unless she expands her policies and promises, she won't win the Mayoral election.

 

[edwin_m]

What you seem to be suggesting is that if the electorate do not want green policies and might vote for parties which pledge to reduce or abolish them, they are "wrong". In short, what the electorate wants is really of no consequence if their requirements do not accord with current thinking.

I'm somewhat old-fashioned and believe it is the function of politicians to see that the wishes of the majority of the electorate are facilitated.

There are many London voters who favour the ULEZ, recognising the cost in health and lives of vehicle pollution in densely populated areas. There's also the principle of liberalism (in the broadest sense) that individual freedom should not come at a cost to others. Politicians need to strike a balance here between the right to drive a more polluting vehicle without financial penalty and the right of others to life and health.

I guess what is missing from the debate is some scientific evidence about the specific health benefit of ULEZ extension to the outer boroughs. However, recent political debate in the UK has been characterised by neglect or misrepresentation of facts.

 

[nw1]

What you seem to be suggesting is that if the electorate do not want green policies and might vote for parties which pledge to reduce or abolish them, they are "wrong". In short, what the electorate wants is really of no consequence if their requirements do not accord with current thinking.

I'm somewhat old-fashioned and believe it is the function of politicians to see that the wishes of the majority of the electorate are facilitated.

You may recall a similar atmosphere prevailing in the early 2010s when the issue of the UK's membership of the EU was being discussed. There was no substantial difference between the main parties and voters unhappy with the UK's membership had nobody to vote for. You may also recall how that turned out.

But if "the wishes of [a small] majority of the electorate", or, more accurately "the wishes of a small majority of those who voted" (which might be, in one well-known case, as little as 37% of the electorate) is damaging for society as a whole, should politicians' role be just to rubber-stamp it without applying any form of filter?

Politicians should listen to people's opinions, and take them into account when making decisions, but should not blindly rubber-stamp them without applying some sort of "sanity check" based on expert knowledge.

Would it be right to plunge the country into crises in the future just because of people's short-termist wishes in the late 2010s and early 2020s?

Would it be right to re-introduce the death penalty if that's what 52% of people in some referendum with around two-thirds turnout wanted, even if that meant innocent people being executed from miscarriages of justice?

Or taking a more left-wing example, would it be right to completely legalise hard drugs such as cocaine if that's what 52% of people in some referendum with around two-thirds turnout wanted, even if that meant an increase in violent crime?

I personally believe "sanity-checking" is needed, and believe politicians need to apply expert knowledge to critically assess whether people's desires are good for society as a whole. However, I will admit that too few politicians are real experts in the subject areas that matter; I'd like to see more people who are genuine experts in such things as science, medicine, education, and transport become MPs - not just people good at talking the talk, which is what the Houses of Parliament contains too many of.

For point of clarification I am not a "green" militant and would consider myself fairly moderate on green issues, but am simply stating that if people's short-termist wishes - on any subject - are going to cause big problems in the future, then politicians should not just act upon those wishes "just like that", but instead weigh them up against the bigger picture and come to a compromise decision. That's certainly what we should have done with B****t and it's what they should be doing on ULEZ. What are we paying politicians for if they are not applying expert knowledge?

A good example with ULEZ would be to implement it, but listen to people's concerns by funding them to upgrade their vehicles.

On the other hand, sometimes we have the opposite problem, when politicians refuse to take into account the wishes of the public at all. I do find that politicians are keen to "sanity check" left-wing opinions (better public services, better pay and conditions) based on expert economics knowledge, without considering public opinion at all - but rather less keen to "sanity check" right-wing populist opinions. They need to apply the "sanity checks" to all wishes of the electorate, not just the more left-wing ones. A good example is how the DfT completely ignore the opinions of the rail-travelling public when demanding TOCs implement savage cuts to services. That's the opposite extreme and equally unwelcome.

To me, unless she expands her policies and promises, she won't win the Mayoral election.

While I'm not a Londoner I would guess the Tory would win Hillingdon, Harrow, Barnet, Havering, Bexley, and Bromley.

Possibility they would win Enfield (though at Westminster this area has been trending leftwards), Croydon and Sutton. Perhaps also Richmond and Kingston if they adopt a liberal-Tory stance and go against the Government on a number of "social" issues - though that would be a big "if".

I think they'd struggle to win anywhere else, based on recent trends. Looking at the list of boroughs, this would presumably be not enough for them to win.

 

[geoffk]

There are many London voters who favour the ULEZ, recognising the cost in health and lives of vehicle pollution in densely populated areas. There's also the principle of liberalism (in the broadest sense) that individual freedom should not come at a cost to others. Politicians need to strike a balance here between the right to drive a more polluting vehicle without financial penalty and the right of others to life and health.

I guess what is missing from the debate is some scientific evidence about the specific health benefit of ULEZ extension to the outer boroughs. However, recent political debate in the UK has been characterised by neglect or misrepresentation of facts.

"Carrot and stick" then, and perhaps current policy is too much stick. The carrot would include improved public transport, easier to achieve in London's regulated system than elsewhere, but still coming at a cost which we are told the country cannot afford.

 

[Busaholic]

Her statement for the selection for Conservative candidate is here. Unfortunately it contains very few policies - other than scrapping ULEZ and scrapping LTNs (low traffic neighbourhoods). And it says nothing about TfL funding

I knew absolutely nothing about her, but reading that statement she seems to exhibit an incredible amount of personal antipathy towards Sadiq Khan. I shall be following her career very closely now, and raking back through her past utterances in case they mysteriously disappear from public view!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

LabourList has published an article by the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency Labour Party treasurer that puts an interesting different spin on the by-election defeat there. It suggests that - to paraphrase/summarise - Labour failed to take the seat in part because of the national Labour party trying to impose an outside candidate who didn't understand the constituency, and that the (externally imposed) Labour candidate Danny Beales then spoiled his chances by changing his tune on ULEZ half-way through the campaign: https://labourlist.org/2023/07/what...ge-a-view-from-the-constituency-labour-party/

Unfortunately, the entire process from back in December 2022 was taken out of the hands of the CLP by the regional party, who dissolved the selection committee. The party cited alleged rule breaches but the move prompted suspicions it was due to fears that Danny Beales, who many considered to be the leadership’s preferred candidate, having received only a single ward nomination, might not make the shortlist. Then, during the campaign, despite efforts by members of our CLP executive to reach out to Danny Beales’ team, we were not given the full opportunity to be proactively involved and provide the local insight we had to offer.

Given the wide-reaching impact of ULEZ, it is no surprise that it became an election issue. Whatever stance Danny Beales took on it would have alienated some of our electorate. However, what almost always has a detrimental impact is to appear to change your mind mid-campaign when it looks to be advantageous. In this case it handed a victory to the Tories in the form of legitimising their framing. If people are going to vote based on a single issue, they aren’t going to vote for a person who changes their position on it mid-campaign. I have no doubt it was thought that this change of messaging would undercut the Tory campaign, but arguably all it did was make our candidate seem disconnected and hesitant on a key local issue.

​

 

[Busaholic]

LabourList has published an article by the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency Labour Party treasurer that puts an interesting different spin on the by-election defeat there. It suggests that - to paraphrase/summarise - Labour failed to take the seat in part because of the national Labour party trying to impose an outside candidate who didn't understand the constituency, and that the (externally imposed) Labour candidate Danny Beales then spoiled his chances by changing his tune on ULEZ half-way through the campaign: https://labourlist.org/2023/07/what...ge-a-view-from-the-constituency-labour-party/

​

That all sounds very plausible to me. Electorates are not, in the main, fools and will see through such tactics. Will this be a wake-up call to Sir Starmer and the New Labour Revival Band? I doubt it: this last week I heard the unmistakeable voice of Douglas Alexander back on the airwaves, for the first time in ages. He was unceremonially dispatched from his seat back in 2010 when the Scots Nats got their act together and, intelligent though he undoubtedly is, Labour shouldn't be reaching out to ex-toadies from the Blair/Brown years going forward, any more than to Corbyn, Chris Williamson and Rebecca Long-Bailey. 2024 has enough new challenges of its own requiring fresh thinking on a massive scale.

 

[GS250]

Mid term by elections often produce some interesting results. If ULEZ wasn't an issue...I think Labour would have won this by a few 1000 seats. However I'd suggest it would have returned blue come the next general election regardless of ULEZ or not.

One item that may have tipped the balance...was that the Tory candidate Tuckwell has been very pro active in trying to resolve the lease issue at Grosvenor Vale, home of Wealdstone FC and numerous youth sporting outfits. A site that if redeveloped could potentially provide a huge sporting facility for the borough. Beales on the other hand...has been very apathetic about this. An item like this may not usually be seen as an election clincher...but if it went down to a few 100 votes...

 

[nw1]

Mid term by elections often produce some interesting results. If ULEZ wasn't an issue...I think Labour would have won this by a few 1000 seats. However I'd suggest it would have returned blue come the next general election regardless of ULEZ or not.

That would be very much going against the overall nationwide trend though. Without ULEZ to influence things, why would a London seat such as Uxbridge remain Tory if Labour win overall nationally?

Remember Boris' win in 2019 wasn't immense, certainly compared to some other seats - and without Boris, I suspect the majority would have been even less. It would ordinarily seem an obvious Labour gain, certainly more obvious than Selby, or Tiverton for the Lib Dems.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If ULEZ wasn't an issue...I think Labour would have won this by a few 1000 seats. However I'd suggest it would have returned blue come the next general election regardless of ULEZ or not.

Without wanting to bang the same drum time and time again, it is worth remembering that Labour have not won in that specific area (the current constituency or its predecessor) since the 60's. Not even the Blair "landslide" won it for Labour. So to have expected Labour to win it by "thousands" is a bit naive IMO!

That would be very much going against the overall nationwide trend though. Without ULEZ to influence things, why would a London seat such as Uxbridge remain Tory if Labour win overall nationally?

The point from above. Even when Labour had Blair's landslide in 1997 Uxbridge stayed blue. Outer London politics is often more similar to the home counties than it is to inner London.

 

[Thirteen]

The issue with the Conservatives in London is that none of their candidates have been remotely appealing. They really lucked out with Boris against Ken Livingstone in 2008.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Without wanting to bang the same drum time and time again, it is worth remembering that Labour have not won in that specific area (the current constituency or its predecessor) since the 60's. Not even the Blair "landslide" won it for Labour.

I'm not sure that's particularly relevant and it looks to me like, making excuses. London as a whole has been moving steadily towards Labour for at least 30-ish years, which means that in any London seat, as you head back in time, you're heading into a period when London was much more Tory. So the fact that a Tory seat in London was also Tory in 1997 (a) is not remotely surprising, and (b) tells you very little about whether Labour could reasonably be expected to gain it in a by-election.

So to have expected Labour to win it by "thousands" is a bit naive IMO!

I don't think it's naive. Based on the 2019 result in Uxbridge, Labour needed a swing of only about 7% to win the seat. National opinion polls are currently showing a swing far in excess of 7% - as confirmed by Selby and Ainsty - so it's perfectly reasonable to expect Labour to have won the seat.

 

[Broucek]

I live in Zone 4 near the tube and buses. No one here would dream of using a car or van to get into London unless they had a good reason. But there are often good reasons to use cars or vans for local journeys. Could some be made by bus easily, sure, but journeys often involve transporting things, individuals who are less mobile, late evening trips (security).

I think most people recognise that we need to use cars less. But we're also fed up of out-of-touch politicians blithely saying how easy the change would be...

 

[Parjon]

The Tories have trash talked themselves out of office by default. On their own (absent) merits and appeal, they couldn't win a chook raffle. Only monumental Labour turn offs can keep them in. That's why Sir Starmer is keeping his opinions steadfastly behind locked doors. As long as he keeps his mouth shut, he's in.

What does make me laugh are the news stories "business leaders say dropping green pledges electoral suicide".

ULEZ definitely lost Labour this win. Only the ironically plastic laden "Just Stop Oil" crew, and vested business interests, would democratically object to fuel and other bills coming down, let alone be in favour of new punitive taxes!

 

[duncanp]

The Tories have trash talked themselves out of office by default. On their own (absent) merits and appeal, they couldn't win a chook raffle. Only monumental Labour turn offs can keep them in. That's why Sir Starmer is keeping his opinions steadfastly behind locked doors. As long as he keeps his mouth shut, he's in.

What does make me laugh are the news stories "business leaders say dropping green pledges electoral suicide".

ULEZ definitely lost Labour this win. Only the ironically plastic laden "Just Stop Oil" crew, and vested business interests, would democratically object to fuel and other bills coming down, let alone be in favour of new punitive taxes!

The problem is that, as the general election approaches, it is going to be more difficult for Sir Keir Starmer to continue keeping his mouth shut.

People are going to want to know what Labour are going to do about the NHS, the economy, our relationship with the EU... etc., and if he cannot elaborate on these points there will be the suspicion that he either does not know what to do, or that what he wants to do is embarrassing and unpalatable to the electorate.

 

[Parjon]

It's a gamble for sure. But I'd wager even then that mere suspicion someone is a bad meff will be outweighed by recent lived experience.

On top of the state of things (be it their fault or not), the fact is that the Tories prioritised their own petty squabbles well above every other consideration.

Even the looming threat of a malevolent dictatorship couldn't stop them. With the UK then the galvanising Western leadership behind Ukraine, that dictatorship could easily have chosen to capitalise on that moment to gamble.

Not only do they deserve to lose, they deserve to be banned from office for life.

That kind of dirty doesn't wash clean. Certainly not with the people who might otherwise have turned out to vote conservative.

 

[Yew]

Politicians need to strike a balance here between the right to drive a more polluting vehicle without financial penalty and the right of others to life and health.

This is not a matter of "the right to drive a more polluting vehicle" it is the right to get to work, to have a life and engage in social activities without undue fines. I'm sure people driving a 2003 Ford fiesta, or a diesel Vauxhall insignia would love a newer, cleaner vehicle; but the economic reality is that for many, it's simply not possible during a cost of living crisis.

 

[BrianW]

I live in Zone 4 near the tube and buses. No one here would dream of using a car or van to get into London unless they had a good reason. But there are often good reasons to use cars or vans for local journeys. Could some be made by bus easily, sure, but journeys often involve transporting things, individuals who are less mobile, late evening trips (security).

I think most people recognise that we need to use cars less. But we're also fed up of out-of-touch politicians blithely saying how easy the change would be...

This is well observed re car use. Uxbridge is in TfL Sone 6- back of beyond regarding buses -routes, frequencies, costs. Uxbridge- Piccadilly Circus 58 mins. A lot of two or more cars, parked on street or on verge, not conducive to overnight or at-work charging, or sharing! Much more sub-urban than London. EVs a non-starter. £12.50 a day- a laugh; a loser.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm sure people driving a 2003 Ford fiesta, or a diesel Vauxhall insignia would love a newer, cleaner vehicle; but the economic reality is that for many, it's simply not possible during a cost of living crisis.

That would seem to be about 20,000 vehicles throughout the UK, not nothing but considering there's something like 1.5m Fiesta's registered in total that's not really very many...

FORD FIESTA (model family) - How Many Left?

Statistics for FORD FIESTA (model family) model family.. See how many cars of any make and model are left on Britain's roads.

www.howmanyleft.co.uk

 

[edwin_m]

This is not a matter of "the right to drive a more polluting vehicle" it is the right to get to work, to have a life and engage in social activities without undue fines. I'm sure people driving a 2003 Ford fiesta, or a diesel Vauxhall insignia would love a newer, cleaner vehicle; but the economic reality is that for many, it's simply not possible during a cost of living crisis.

There are other ways of doing all those things without driving a more polluting vehicle, so those rights are not being denied. Instead, people exercising them face extra costs, either directly financial (paying the charge or replacing the vehicle) or indirectly (such as needing more time if they have to take a slower journey by bus or cycle).

To be clear, I'm not saying that the "right to drive a more polluting vehicle" should be ignored, just that we need to consider that there are people's lives and health on the other side of the equation, which seems to have been mostly ignored in this discussion. As far as I'm aware, nobody has produced any evidence of how much the use of older vehicles, specifically in outer London, has impacted health.

 

[Parjon]

There are other ways of doing all those things without driving a more polluting vehicle, so those rights are not being denied. Instead, people exercising them face extra costs, either directly financial (paying the charge or replacing the vehicle) or indirectly (such as needing more time if they have to take a slower journey by bus or cycle).

To be clear, I'm not saying that the "right to drive a more polluting vehicle" should be ignored, just that we need to consider that there are people's lives and health on the other side of the equation, which seems to have been mostly ignored in this discussion. As far as I'm aware, nobody has produced any evidence of how much the use of older vehicles, specifically in outer London, has impacted health.

People accepting abstract arguments like this is nirvana to those who would impose ever increasing bills on us.

I mean, how far do you draw the line in calculating and recovering "indirect costs" incurred by others by our actions?

Should some people pay a supplement to the NHS to cover the cost of my blood pressure pills, for example?

 

[DustyBin]

What you seem to be suggesting is that if the electorate do not want green policies and might vote for parties which pledge to reduce or abolish them, they are "wrong". In short, what the electorate wants is really of no consequence if their requirements do not accord with current thinking.

I'm somewhat old-fashioned and believe it is the function of politicians to see that the wishes of the majority of the electorate are facilitated.

You may recall a similar atmosphere prevailing in the early 2010s when the issue of the UK's membership of the EU was being discussed. There was no substantial difference between the main parties and voters unhappy with the UK's membership had nobody to vote for. You may also recall how that turned out.

You appear to be advocating what's now referred to as "populism" which is the root of all evil. Politicians shouldn't listen to ordinary people as they are stupid and don't know their own minds, apparently.

There are of course occasions when popular opinion shouldn't dictate policy, and @nw1 makes some good points in this regard (even if we may disagree as to when those occasions should be!).

I guess what is missing from the debate is some scientific evidence about the specific health benefit of ULEZ extension to the outer boroughs. However, recent political debate in the UK has been characterised by neglect or misrepresentation of facts.

It sounds as though you're asking for some kind of cost-benefit analysis. We don't do those anymore.

But if "the wishes of [a small] majority of the electorate", or, more accurately "the wishes of a small majority of those who voted" (which might be, in one well-known case, as little as 37% of the electorate) is damaging for society as a whole, should politicians' role be just to rubber-stamp it without applying any form of filter?

Politicians should listen to people's opinions, and take them into account when making decisions, but should not blindly rubber-stamp them without applying some sort of "sanity check" based on expert knowledge.

Would it be right to plunge the country into crises in the future just because of people's short-termist wishes in the late 2010s and early 2020s?

Would it be right to re-introduce the death penalty if that's what 52% of people in some referendum with around two-thirds turnout wanted, even if that meant innocent people being executed from miscarriages of justice?

Or taking a more left-wing example, would it be right to completely legalise hard drugs such as cocaine if that's what 52% of people in some referendum with around two-thirds turnout wanted, even if that meant an increase in violent crime?

I personally believe "sanity-checking" is needed, and believe politicians need to apply expert knowledge to critically assess whether people's desires are good for society as a whole. However, I will admit that too few politicians are real experts in the subject areas that matter; I'd like to see more people who are genuine experts in such things as science, medicine, education, and transport become MPs - not just people good at talking the talk, which is what the Houses of Parliament contains too many of.

For point of clarification I am not a "green" militant and would consider myself fairly moderate on green issues, but am simply stating that if people's short-termist wishes - on any subject - are going to cause big problems in the future, then politicians should not just act upon those wishes "just like that", but instead weigh them up against the bigger picture and come to a compromise decision. That's certainly what we should have done with B****t and it's what they should be doing on ULEZ. What are we paying politicians for if they are not applying expert knowledge?

A good example with ULEZ would be to implement it, but listen to people's concerns by funding them to upgrade their vehicles.

On the other hand, sometimes we have the opposite problem, when politicians refuse to take into account the wishes of the public at all. I do find that politicians are keen to "sanity check" left-wing opinions (better public services, better pay and conditions) based on expert economics knowledge, without considering public opinion at all - but rather less keen to "sanity check" right-wing populist opinions. They need to apply the "sanity checks" to all wishes of the electorate, not just the more left-wing ones. A good example is how the DfT completely ignore the opinions of the rail-travelling public when demanding TOCs implement savage cuts to services. That's the opposite extreme and equally unwelcome.

As above, I agree with your general point.

 

[edwin_m]

It sounds as though you're asking for some kind of cost-benefit analysis. We don't do those anymore.

NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) does them all the time for proposed new NHS treatments, assessing the cost of the treatment against the increase in Quality Adjusted Life Years (basically the total amount of years of life in reasonable health across the population if this treatment is approved). It might be possible to use something like this work out if the State is justified in imposing the measure and how much compensation (in whatever form) it pays out to individuals who are financially disadvantaged.

 

[GS250]

Without wanting to bang the same drum time and time again, it is worth remembering that Labour have not won in that specific area (the current constituency or its predecessor) since the 60's. Not even the Blair "landslide" won it for Labour. So to have expected Labour to win it by "thousands" is a bit naive IMO!


The point from above. Even when Labour had Blair's landslide in 1997 Uxbridge stayed blue. Outer London politics is often more similar to the home counties than it is to inner London.

To be fair I don't think it's all that naive. This is a by election and results can often be surprising. That Chesham seat for example that went liberal. A true blue Tory area that decided to stick two fingers up at the party. Ok, so areas like this have seen a demographic shift with lots of trendy, young, high earning left leaning types moving in. Interesting how these types usually end up moving to traditional old whitey Tory areas but I digress. You have to remember most aren't wedded to a particular party. Theres a natural fatigue building up with the Tories now. Voters see that SKS isn't going to impose high taxes on anyone earning a higher than average salary, he's not Corbyn MK2. So...ULEZ aside, Hillingdon man may well be tempted to change.

 

[DustyBin]

NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) does them all the time for proposed new NHS treatments, assessing the cost of the treatment against the increase in Quality Adjusted Life Years (basically the total amount of years of life in reasonable health across the population if this treatment is approved). It might be possible to use something like this work out if the State is justified in imposing the measure and how much compensation (in whatever form) it pays out to individuals who are financially disadvantaged.

The key difference is that the cost effectiveness of public health interventions isn't a political hot potato (at present!). It's therefore possible to have a sensible conversation about it, free from the influence of "fashionable nonsense".

 

[GS250]

Looks like ULEZ expansion has been deemed lawful.

 

[DC1989]

I think Susan Hall has a better chance of winning than most others think. Especially with the Tories making the London elections FPTP (I wonder why they have done that!) It's a real possibility she sneaks in with 30-35% of the vote - especially if Corbyn runs as an independent

ULEZ is a funny old thing for voters. Almost everyone I know in London around my age doesn't have a car and they don't even know about ULEZ - that's to say it's not even a factor on their agenda when they come to vote. It wouldn't even make the top 10 of things. Yet for a minority of others it's seen as a huge thing (Understandably if you have an affected vehicle of course)

It's why I don't really buy all of this Uxbridge was a referendum on ULEZ spin. 54% of people didn't vote at all ! Almost a thousand people voted Green !

 

[edwin_m]

I think Susan Hall has a better chance of winning than most others think. Especially with the Tories making the London elections FPTP (I wonder why they have done that!) It's a real possibility she sneaks in with 30-35% of the vote - especially if Corbyn runs as an independent

ULEZ is a funny old thing for voters. Almost everyone I know in London around my age doesn't have a car and they don't even know about ULEZ - that's to say it's not even a factor on their agenda when they come to vote. It wouldn't even make the top 10 of things. Yet for a minority of others it's seen as a huge thing (Understandably if you have an affected vehicle of course)

It's why I don't really buy all of this Uxbridge was a referendum on ULEZ spin. 54% of people didn't vote at all ! Almost a thousand people voted Green !

Do you live in inner London or outer? What you describe seems more likely if inner.

The combination of a low turnout an an unexpected result could be explained by the Tories making a big issue of ULEZ and getting those who are opposed riled up and ready to vote, when many of the rest of the electorate didn't have any strong views and just stayed at home. The Green vote could even be a sign of those in favour of ULEZ choosing it as the best way of making their views felt. Of course if half of those thousand had voted Labour the result would have been different...