Opinion

Not even scientific studies can reach consensus about how effective central London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has been, so it’s no surprise that the expanded version – the world’s largest such zone, which came into operation last week – doesn’t exactly have unanimous backing.

The arguments against – with which I have varying degrees of sympathy – are numerous.

It will make precious little overall difference, given that London’s air quality is improving anyway and more polluting cars will naturally reach the end of their lives soon enough; that nobody especially wants to drive around London but many have few alternatives; that it will disproportionately affect those who can afford it the least, especially shift workers; that if the authorities were really serious about improving air quality, they would ban domestic fireplaces and wood burners, only that can’t be used as a revenue-earner for cash-strapped Transport for London; that as it applies to those who visit Heathrow airport, it’s a tax on holidaymakers to the potential tune of tens of thousands of pounds a day; that applying it to motorcycles is particularly pointless; that if the authorities didn’t want us to drive diesels, they shouldn’t have spent 20 years telling us to; and that ultimately it feels like a cynical attack on personal freedoms.

To that last one, the counter-argument – and it’s also a compelling one – is ‘so you want the freedom to gas babies, do you?’.

There’s truth on both sides, consensus on nothing. Although the ULEZ does seem to be a vote-loser on the London margins, and I note that the protesters vandalising and removing infrastructure (almost 500 cameras, according to the BBC) don’t seem as unpopular as some other recent dissenters. But it’s here.

Anyway, onto something good that could come from it. London has introduced a scrappage scheme to help some residents of the new ULEZ make the move to cleaner vehicles, and a charity helping cars get to Ukraine has proposed that 4x4s traded into the scheme could, instead of being crushed, be shipped to the besieged nation, which is keen on having any working diesel 4x4s.

Unfortunately, well, the number of times ‘unfortunately’ was said in a response from London’s City Hall to this request will be familiar to anyone who has tried to get officials to go beyond their normal box-ticking remit.

“There are unfortunately some barriers that would stop this being possible”, “unfortunately, it is not a simple or quick process to change [processes]” and “unfortunately, the main request of acquiring vehicles due to be scrapped is not going to be possible”.

It’s properly depressing ‘computer says no’ stuff – as Car for Ukraine charity organiser Richard Lofthouse says, “a classic brush-off”. 

He told Autocar: “Lovers and haters [of the ULEZ] can find common cause at least in saying: ‘It’s horrible to scrap a perfectly good car. Why on earth can’t we send some to Ukraine?’ Anyone can see that this isn’t hard to do as long as the owner agrees.”

Quite so. Are you telling me it’s possible to implement the world’s largest low-emission zone, controlled by numberplate-recognising cameras, with signage and fines and the back end to run it, yet not to manually make some inputs to a spreadsheet that would let a handful of working 4x4s be donated to a country that desperately needs them?

Are we really going to crush valuable cars while charities scrabble to raise money to buy them? It can’t be impossible to implement one but not the other.

Not even scientific studies can reach consensus about how effective central London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has been, so it’s no surprise that the expanded version – the world’s largest such zone, which came into operation last week – doesn’t exactly have unanimous backing.

The arguments against – with which I have varying degrees of sympathy – are numerous.

It will make precious little overall difference, given that London’s air quality is improving anyway and more polluting cars will naturally reach the end of their lives soon enough; that nobody especially wants to drive around London but many have few alternatives; that it will disproportionately affect those who can afford it the least, especially shift workers; that if the authorities were really serious about improving air quality, they would ban domestic fireplaces and wood burners, only that can’t be used as a revenue-earner for cash-strapped Transport for London; that as it applies to those who visit Heathrow airport, it’s a tax on holidaymakers to the potential tune of tens of thousands of pounds a day; that applying it to motorcycles is particularly pointless; that if the authorities didn’t want us to drive diesels, they shouldn’t have spent 20 years telling us to; and that ultimately it feels like a cynical attack on personal freedoms.

To that last one, the counter-argument – and it’s also a compelling one – is ‘so you want the freedom to gas babies, do you?’.

There’s truth on both sides, consensus on nothing. Although the ULEZ does seem to be a vote-loser on the London margins, and I note that the protesters vandalising and removing infrastructure (almost 500 cameras, according to the BBC) don’t seem as unpopular as some other recent dissenters. But it’s here.

Anyway, onto something good that could come from it. London has introduced a scrappage scheme to help some residents of the new ULEZ make the move to cleaner vehicles, and a charity helping cars get to Ukraine has proposed that 4x4s traded into the scheme could, instead of being crushed, be shipped to the besieged nation, which is keen on having any working diesel 4x4s.

Unfortunately, well, the number of times ‘unfortunately’ was said in a response from London’s City Hall to this request will be familiar to anyone who has tried to get officials to go beyond their normal box-ticking remit.

“There are unfortunately some barriers that would stop this being possible”, “unfortunately, it is not a simple or quick process to change [processes]” and “unfortunately, the main request of acquiring vehicles due to be scrapped is not going to be possible”.

It’s properly depressing ‘computer says no’ stuff – as Car for Ukraine charity organiser Richard Lofthouse says, “a classic brush-off”. 

He told Autocar: “Lovers and haters [of the ULEZ] can find common cause at least in saying: ‘It’s horrible to scrap a perfectly good car. Why on earth can’t we send some to Ukraine?’ Anyone can see that this isn’t hard to do as long as the owner agrees.”

Quite so. Are you telling me it’s possible to implement the world’s largest low-emission zone, controlled by numberplate-recognising cameras, with signage and fines and the back end to run it, yet not to manually make some inputs to a spreadsheet that would let a handful of working 4x4s be donated to a country that desperately needs them?

Are we really going to crush valuable cars while charities scrabble to raise money to buy them? It can’t be impossible to implement one but not the other.

This must be just about the point where we can start to discuss Lotus’s new-age electric cars in isolation from the weighty heritage attached to the emblem they bear. 

Lotus Technology is in essence one of many new Chinese electric car firms with a range of tech-heavy SUVs and saloons primed for global roll-outs over the coming years; it just so happens it has the privilege of operating under a name we know and revere, much like SAIC’s MG Motor.

New 2024 Lotus Emeya electric saloon revealed with 905bhp

Acknowledge that distinction and the company’s plan to achieve mammoth sales figures with a line of luxurious, capacious EVs becomes a much easier pill to swallow. And even easier still when you consider just how attractively styled and specified these EVs are.

In one fell swoop, the new Lotus Emeya saloon has outpaced, out-ranged and out-teched some of its most formidable rivals, and if it’s as likeable and competent to pilot as the Lotus Eletre SUV, it looks a nailed-on contender for class supremacy. 

It's not a Lotus in the traditional sense, maybe, but it's almost certainly bound for venerability comparable to the lithe two-seaters that the brand has always done best. 

Volkswagen’s decision to revive the world-beating Golf GTI as an EV comes at a perfect time for the Wolfsburg giant to inject new interest and impetus into one its most famous nameplates. 

Although all eight iterations of the seminal 47-year-old petrol GTI have been terrific cars, there has been a recent creeping feeling that the idea reached its zenith a few years ago; that yet another iteration of the Volkswagen’s transverse front-engined hot hatch, firmly bounded by the conventions of design and layout that have applied to all its predecessors, was possibly one too many. 

The original GTI (and I vividly remember the 1978 arrival of earliest UK deliveries in left-handed, four-speed form) was remarkable for its refreshing purity inside and out, and the single-minded focus of its specification. 

Read more: Volkswagen ID GTI is affordable EV hot hatch for 2026

If anything, that original GTI has become more of an icon than ever in later life. Today, a nice Mk1 retains an appeal that some say eludes the best of the rest.

Back in the day, there was simply nothing like a Golf GTI on the market, which is why it created dealership stampedes. Rivals plodded along in its wake, none matching its elan.    

Now, by virtue of new proportions, new dimensions and new weight distribution, VW gets the chance to recreate the sharpness of its original car, using proven but appropriately adapted EV components. 

The latest image doesn’t give much away: we’re seeing a neat corporate nose and a promising, typically VW cleanliness of line.

If this new GTI also packs the sporty cues at which VW is adept, uses radical proportions and avoids body bulk, it can join the greats. As many current EVs demonstrate, great off-the-line performance won’t be a problem

And the Cupra Born shows how VW Group engineers understand EV chassis development. Beat the Born and the Golf crew will be on a winner.