Thread by @SteveAkehurst

An ongoing thread on the risk - to both parties - of reading way too much from Uxbridge/ULEZ into wider voter attitudes on the environment and climate change.

Posting it here not least for posterity. 🧵

Whatever your view of ULEZ, it’s always been far more contentious than other green policy. Here's it's the only one in negative territory nationally.

It’s joined btw by fracking + North Sea drilling - policies pushed by NZ sceptics. So no lectures from them on public opinion.

Also should be noted ULEZ is far more popular in Khan’s electorate (albeit depends bit how you ask Q, and intensity of antis usually > pros)

But politics makes more sense in LDN, and tbf it matters: it has already significantly reduced toxic air in LDN
standard.co.uk/news/london/sa…

Also annoying that climate gets held to different standards.

It’s consistently top 3/4 voter issue, above crime + education, yet gets treated as metro lib fringe issue.

“People like it until they have to pay”. Well ok, that's also true of basically all other areas! eg crime

Yes, support on eg petrol car + gas boiler phase out is delicate; so construct policy which handles it carefully! As you would other areas.

There's nothing pre-ordained that it be a costly nightmare. That’s a function of political choice.

Is why fight on Lab's £28bn matters

Anyway, it’s not just me saying this: it’s anyone paid to study public opinion - including many of the best Conservative pollsters. Here is @LukeTryl for example.

All of the excellent folk at Public First have argued the same, as have @Onward.

https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1682699681946542081

And here’s former Conservative pollster @jamesjohnson252 warning the Spectator podcast of the same thing.

Amid the Supermarket Sweep of crap hot takes that’s followed Friday, very much worth noting what these people are saying.