Londoners could get relief from Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ push as Tory mayoral contender James Cleverly vows ‘full review’
James Cleverly, who has quit the Conservative frontbench to stand as the party's London mayoral candidate, has pledged a "full review" of Sadiq Khan's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) policy. He accused the Labour mayor of waging a "vindictive assault on drivers", particularly in outer London, and said he wanted to ease the financial pressure on people who drive for family or business reasons, though he stopped short of promising to scrap the scheme entirely.
ULEZ was introduced by Khan in 2019 and charges non-compliant vehicles £12.50 a day, with the zone controversially expanded to cover all 32 London boroughs three years ago. Cleverly, who is stepping back from frontline politics and will not seek re-election in his Braintree seat, said Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had been supportive of his decision but would remain neutral in the party's selection process. He also criticised Andy Burnham's devolution plans as an attempt to centralise power in Manchester at London's expense. Khan, currently in an unprecedented third term as mayor, has not said whether he will seek re-election in May 2028.
- Cleverly pledges full ULEZ review if elected London mayor
- Quit shadow cabinet to launch mayoral bid, won't scrap ULEZ outright
- Khan hasn't confirmed whether he'll seek re-election in 2028
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of a review or scrapping ULEZ argue that outer London residents, who often lack viable public transport alternatives, are being unfairly penalised for needing a car to get to work, ferry children to school, or run small businesses, and that a flat £12.50 daily charge is regressive, hitting lower-income drivers hardest. They contend that expanding the zone to all 32 boroughs went beyond its original purpose, was imposed without sufficient consultation or public consent, and that a mayor should be responsive to communities who feel targeted by a policy they see as more about raising revenue than air quality.
The case against
Defenders of ULEZ argue that it was introduced on clear public health grounds, reducing toxic emissions linked to thousands of premature deaths and childhood respiratory illness in London, and that the policy has demonstrably cut pollution since its expansion. They contend that scrapping or watering down the scheme would reverse hard-won environmental and health gains, undermine London's climate commitments, and that the vast majority of vehicles on the road already comply, meaning the charge only affects the most polluting minority while support schemes exist to help those who need to upgrade.