As the Nissan Exec who brought the Nissan LEAF to the U.K., weakening the U.K. ZEV mandate would be a profound mistake @Heidi_Labour . It will be presented as “pragmatism”: protecting consumers and manufacturers from weak EV demand. But it will achieve precisely the opposite — higher costs, less innovation, greater oil dependence and a weaker British car industry. Start with cost of living. Yes, EVs remain too expensive to buy in many segments. That is the problem we should fix. Once bought, they are considerably cheaper to run. HMRC’s benchmark for home charging is around 7p/mile. A petrol car doing 40mpg at £1.50/litre costs about 17p/mile — roughly £1,000 more over 10,000 miles. Why slow the transition to the cheaper-to-run technology? The problem is purchase price — and demand is price elastic. Put an EV beside an equivalent ICE car with a £5,000 premium and of course demand suffers. Close the gap and demand rises. The mandate creates pressure to achieve the scale, competition and battery cost reductions needed to close that gap. Then there’s the claim that the mandate is crippling manufacturers. Show us the evidence. The ZEV mandate deliberately includes banking, borrowing and credit trading. Manufacturers have met their obligations within these flexibilities in all years and likely in 2026. If OEMs say this is costing billions, publish the TPVA data. Show actual transaction prices, not list prices. Show the real incentives on BEV versus ICE. Show the contribution margins. Demonstrate that incentives really are higher and profits lower on EVs. Industrial policy involving billions of pounds of investment shouldn’t be rewritten on anecdotes. And then there’s China. You don’t protect an industry from technological change by protecting yesterday’s technology. China became formidable by investing relentlessly in batteries, motors, power electronics, software and manufacturing scale. Weakening our mandate doesn’t keep Chinese manufacturers out. It risks giving them more time to increase their cost and technology advantage while we continue investing in two powertrains. Consumers will ultimately buy the best technology at the best price. British and European manufacturers must compete, not retreat. Recent events around Iran add another dimension: energy security. Around 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz. A crisis thousands of miles away can therefore increase the cost of driving in Britain. An EV can run on electricity generated from wind, solar, nuclear, gas or hydro. Electrification gives transport something oil never can: energy diversity. And climate change hasn’t disappeared because the politics have become difficult. Transport remains one of Britain’s largest sources of CO₂. The physics hasn’t changed. Finally, consider investment. Automotive product decisions are made five or ten years ahead. Factories and battery plants require billions in capital. Constantly changing policy tells international boards considering Britain: the rules might change again. Fix expensive public charging. Accelerate infrastructure. Bring EV purchase prices down. And if manufacturers can prove the mandate is damaging them, examine the evidence. Don’t mistake difficulty executing a transition for evidence that it’s wrong. If the problem is affordability, make EVs cheaper. If it’s manufacturer profitability, show the data. If it’s China, compete. If it’s energy security, reduce oil dependence. If it’s climate change, decarbonise. Britain will not protect its car industry by slowing technological change. We protect it by making sure British engineers, factories and suppliers lead it. If we slow down while China speeds up, don’t be surprised by who wins. @Heidi_Labour changing the mandate doesn’t makes investment in the U.K. car industry more likely - it makes foreign owned Boards further distrust U.K. policy makers and their reliability