Only if you read that article. It's incredibly biased and badly written.
Lots of snide comments like:
As often pointed out in this column, very few drivers want to buy cars which are totally unfit for purpose for most people.
I assume that Conservative Woman thinks "most people" are Range Rover drivers that need to tow Trixibel's pony so that they can go eventing. "Most people" don't drive very far at all for 95% of the year, so EVs are just fine.
Firstly EVs are continuing to be popular and sell well. 96k vs 107k is a bit lower but it's hardly devastating, and probably more reflective of the cost and the fact that we all have less money to spend on things.
Secondly points like "EVs are effectively worthless once they get near to the expiry of battery warranties, typically 100,000 miles or eight years. " are just daft most cars aren't worth much after 100,000 miles unless they are high end. You can sell a Tesla X with 100k miles for £30k. The cheapest EV on autotrader with more than 100k miles is a Kia Soul at 6k.
The only nugget of truth in there is that there is an issue with the affordability of EVs. Once the current round of cars reaches the end of fleet life in 2025/6/7, the second hand market will start to get lots of really good second hand EVs. Battery tech will also become cheaper and prices will come down.
if the sole reason for buying a car is to sell it without too much depreciation, then you might have cause to be concerned. Most people really don't care about that. They get a car, pay for it on PCP and then get another one after 4 or 5 years.