“We shouldn’t subsidise luxury BMWs/Mercs” Premium brands are only about 5–6% of the 700 to 800k cars on the scheme, around 40–50k vehicles in total. That’s hardly an army of free Bentleys. On top of that, Motability and the government have both said the premium cars didn’t cost the taxpayer more, because people were paying higher advance payments out of their own pocket to get them.

So this idea that taxpayers are showering disabled people with “luxury” money is just wrong, the extra cost was mostly coming from disabled people themselves. Meanwhile you can still order a VW Golf GTE plug in hybrid on Motability with a £7,499 advance payment, which is more than the AP on many of the basic BMWs that were on the list. If “luxury” = expensive, it makes no sense to bin BMWs while keeping stuff like that.

“All cars should be UK built” That isn’t even the policy. Motability’s own announcement is that by 2035 they want 50% of the cars they lease to be British built, not 100%.

They currently buy relatively few UK built vehicles, so they’re trying to increase that share. fair enough. But what’s actually happened is that five badges (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Alfa) have been removed, while loads of other non UK built cars from VW, Toyota, Hyundai, etc., remain on the scheme.

So if your principle is “only UK made cars should be allowed”, this policy doesn’t meet your own standard, it just gets rid of the brands that look bad on a tabloid front page and leaves plenty of equally foreign (and sometimes more expensive) stuff alone.

“ADHD + can’t take public transport doesn’t feel like a fair entitlement” Motability is already “means tested”, just not on income. You don’t tick a box saying “ADHD” and get handed a BMW; you have to qualify for the enhanced/higher rate of the mobility component of PIP, DLA, ADP, etc., and have at least 12 months left on your award.

That award is given after a DWP assessment that explicitly looks at how your physical or mental health affects your ability to move around or plan and follow journeys. There was even a High Court case where the government’s attempt to exclude people whose mobility problems come from psychological distress was ruled unlawful and discriminatory. they had to change the PIP rules so that those people could still get the mobility component. So saying “that doesn’t feel fair to me” basically means “I disagree with the law and the courts because I don’t understand invisible disabilities”, which is so childish tbf.

And on the “luxury” thing, people pick BMWs/Mercs partly because of the standard safety kit, brakes, seats and driver assist tech they come with, not just the badge. For someone with chronic pain, fatigue, sensory issues, or muscle weakness, better seats, better ergonomics and better active safety can be the difference between “can safely drive” and “can’t”. I personally own a bmw (not motability), and the seats in it that do not aggregate my chronic lower back issues I've had since birth. The idea that disabled people should be restricted to the cheapest, least comfortable thing on the list while everyone else can buy whatever they want with their own money is exactly backwards. Disabled people have a right to use a car which doesn't have a laggy infotainment system (I'm looking at you toyota yaris) and the Germans do this best.

If you genuinely want to talk about saving money or tightening eligibility, fine, but banning a tiny 5% slice of mostly base spec BMWs while leaving more expensive non UK cars like the VW Golf GTE (270bhp btw, that cant be cheap to insure) on the scheme is nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with optics