Lining up to embrace motorists just makes our politicians look silly - and it will have no winners

A DEPRESSING SITUATION is now engulfing our transport politics - and in exploring how and why this has come about, I thought it might be helpful to start with a history lesson. It would appear that the phrase ‘The Silly Season’ was given its first public outing in July 1861, when it was the title of an article in the Saturday Review commenting on the lower standards of reporting in The Times during the summer months. Putting this phenomenon down to the combined facts of the better journalists being on holiday and most politicians likewise, the author of the piece (who obviously had a low opinion of Times employees of any calibre) commented that the summer crew “sink from nonsense written with a purpose, to nonsense written because the writer must write either nonsense or nothing”.

This summer just ending, UK politicians both to the right and left seem to have entered into the spirit of the Silly Season themselves, certainly as regard the subject of transport, taking the Parliamentary recess as the cue for jettisoning sound reasoning, jumping to foolish conclusions, blithely ignoring their own stated policy, and jeopardising their own and their constituents’ best interests. And all to prostrate themselves before a portion of the electorate that is tiny, if indeed it exists at all.

By which I mean “motorists”.

More of which in due course. But, first, a brief reflection on when, where and why this particular silly season started. I date it as beginning in the early hours of Friday 21st July, and locate that start point as the Queensmead Sports Centre in South Ruislip in the London Borough of Hillingdon, where the result of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election result was announced. The constituency of that name was only created in 2010, and has only ever returned a Conservative MP. It’s latest, Steve Tuckwell, won the by-election, by just 495 votes from Labour. He replaced one Boris Johnson, of whom you may have heard, who had recently resigned from the post, for reasons you might be familiar with.

Another history lesson for you. The U&SR constituency was created from the previous, separate, Uxbridge and Ruislip-Northwood constituencies. The latter, which seems to date back no further than 1950, had only ever returned a Conservative MP prior to it losing its identity in 2010. As for the Uxbridge constituency, I can find electoral results going back as far as 1885. Between then and 2010, it returned a total of twelve different MPs, ten of which were Conservative and two of which were Labour. The first of the Labour MPs was returned in the election held shortly after World War 2, and the second was in post for just one term, from 1966 to 1970.

In short, this is a part of London with a very strong track record of returning Conservative MPs, with the last time there was a Labour MP there being over half a century ago. Even in the Blair landslide year of 1997, the sitting Conservative MP in Uxbridge held on with a majority of 724 over his Labour opponent, despite his share of the vote reducing from 56.4% in 1992 to 43.5% and Labour’s rising from 29.4% to 41.8%. The sitting Conservative MP in Ruislip-Northwood also had a reduced majority and share in 1997 compared to 1992, though was more comfortably returned.

I go into these staggeringly boring details to make a simple point: Uxbridge and South Ruislip is not Labour territory.

Since 1970, they got pretty close, once, in an election where the party, nationally, achieved the best result in its history and the largest majority by any political party since WW2.

Because the record of the current Government seems to be held in such low esteem generally, and because the previous incumbent at Uxbridge and South Ruislip had been the Prime Minister less than a year prior to the recent by-election, and left that post in some disgrace, I quite understand why Labour really, really, wanted to win it; and why they really, really, thought they could. But they didn’t, and by a margin that must have felt agonisingly small. Given all that, I can also quite understand why the Labour party leadership was extremely disappointed to lose, and even why its Leader might have been quite cross.

But, in his anger, Keir Starmer added to his losses that night by mislaying his sense of perspective, and laying the (seemingly sole) blame for the failure to win at the feet of Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s proposal to introduce an extended Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) covering outer London (and thereby Uxbridge and South Ruislip). Drivers of vehicles that don’t meet the emission standards need to pay a daily charge to drive in the zone, though nine out of ten cars in outer London on an average day do meet the standards. So, was it really the one reason Labour didn’t take the seat? Whatever, when things go wrong, many people like to lash out at a convenient target, and it seems the would-be-next PM is one of those people, and/or is surrounded by such people.

The danger in him taking such a stance was immediately clear. As political commentator Ian Dunt wrote on what was still called Twitter back then, “(The result) demonstrates the kind of opposition which can be rallied to environmental policies and it’s very easy to imagine the Conservatives being seduced into becoming cheerleaders for those angry about climate change policies. It’s also very easy to imagine Labour suddenly becoming more nervous about proposing them. It’s crucial that progressives do the thinking now on how to take people with us on climate change policy rather than alienate them.”

In the immediate aftermath of the by-election, as if to prove the validity of Dunt’s concerns, David Frost, former Conservative Brexit minister, tweeted that, “The lesson is surely that green policies are very unpopular when there’s a direct cost to people. This time that hit Labour. But soon it could be us unless we rethink heat pumps and the 2030 electric car deadline”. Man-of-the-people Tory MP John Redwood added that, “After winning Uxbridge by speaking out against ULEZ will the government now act to stop so many attacks on motorists?” And the self-made caricature Jacob Rees-Mogg MP chipped in with, “The lesson is that high-cost green policies are not popular. There is no need to rush the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars.”

I wonder if, just possibly, those three have a personal vested interest in opposing ‘green policies’.

Adopting a tone that Labour shadow ministers would soon echo, Conservative Party Chair Greg Hands said that “The government is not opposed to ULEZs. But… policies like this need to be introduced gradually, so that they go with the grain of human nature. Sadiq Khan botched the consultation on the ULEZ policy, and this shows that Labour cannot be trusted to run things”.

In other words, “We’re prepared to talk a good game, but we’re unlikely to actually do anything if we think it’ll harm our electoral chances. And, by the way, let me just have a quick dig at my electoral opponent for actually doing something we’re not opposed to.”

Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, took a dispiritingly similar line for Labour. Brimming with pusillanimity, she said that “I think it (ULEZ) is the right policy – I suspect it’s the way it’s being done that is problematic. And I hope that Sadiq will look at it again. I know that we’re asking him to.”

What a pile-on, as you might say. But, putting all this self-serving politicking to one side, the thing that strikes me most is the assumption by all these commentators (and many more), that it was Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ policy that was almost solely responsible for Labour’s failure to win a seat they haven’t held for over 50 years, and which they got closer to winning in 2023 than they did even in 1997.

Ian Dunt wrote, “It’s a ULEZ result, the result of local anger about a local policy”. Even the winning candidate, Steve Tuckwell, claimed “Sadiq Khan has lost Labour this election”, when it wasn’t Labour’s to lose and when you might have thought he’d prefer to say something positive about his own policies.

It seems nowadays to be the nature of these things that one dominant narrative takes hold, and no-one can be bothered to check if it’s true. “Everyone says the reason Labour didn’t win a historically unwinnable seat is because of the ULEZ, so I guess it must be so”.

Keir Starmer was even quoted as saying that, “We didn’t take it (Uxbridge) in 1997 when we had a landslide Labour victory. And ULEZ was the reason we didn’t win there yesterday”. He’d probably had very little sleep at that point, so I’ll cut him some slack over this non sequitur. But the first of those two sentences is surely indicative of the main reason they didn’t win in 2023 either, isn’t it?

I don’t deny that some people in Uxbridge and South Ruislip voting with an anti-ULEZ sentiment might have tipped the balance. But for the key takeaway message to be “We need to avoid taking radical but necessary steps”, rather than, “We need to work harder at explaining why we need to take radical and necessary steps”, seems to me to be foolishness. And, what’s more, bad politics.

A little over a week after the by-election, Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, in a stroke which he (and/or his advisors) probably thought was one of genius, took the opportunity to sit in a solid and reassuring period-piece old car, get photographed doing so, and tweet, “Talking about freedom, sat in Margaret Thatcher’s old Rover. Earlier, I spoke to the Telegraph about how important cars are for families to live their lives. It’s something anti-motorist Labour just don’t seem to get. And it’s why I’m reviewing anti-car schemes across the country”.

Leaders take battle on transport policy to social media

It wasn’t actually Margaret Thatcher’s old Rover, by the way. Just an ex-Special Branch car she likely got a lift in now and again.

Be that as it may, emboldened by the popular narrative surrounding the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election result, the PM seems to think that trying to establish clear blue water between car-loving Conservatives and car-hating Labour is a smart move. But is it?

To help answer this question, let me cite journalist Suzanne Moore, writing in the aforementioned Telegraph! Commenting on the PM’s bold new stance, she asked “Must I accept that being a motorist is possibly someone’s primary identification and will influence the way they vote? What Sunak is trying to appeal to is the libertarian idea of the car symbolising individual freedom versus any collective responsibility. The provisional wing of the motoring lobby [my insert – which seems to count Frost, Redwood and Rees-Mogg amongst its number] does not care about pollution, hates speed cameras and speed limits, and just wants to be able to do whatever the hell they like. They particularly hate cyclists, cycle lanes, buses and pedestrians”.

“A few hundred votes in Uxbridge has triggered some panicky thinking about how this was all a reaction to the proposed ULEZ extension”, Moore continued. “But was it? It’s worth remembering that the ULEZ was Boris Johnson’s idea and it was extended by [Conservative] Grant Shapps.”

“I’m concerned about the city I live in (London), which is dirty and polluted. Do we ignore this, or is it something we should try and do something about? Locally, when you ask people, it is. Many would also like their kids to be able to play outside and their residential roads not to be used for car rabbit-runs.”

Returning to the politicking on this subject triggered by the by-election result, Suzanne Moore concludes by saying, “All of this short-term thinking is a dereliction of political duty. The rowing back on greener pledges by both parties is desperate stuff and enough to give anyone road rage! When investing in infrastructure and clean energy are seen as costly vote losers, who actually wins? The lone, angry motorist?”

I make no apologies for quoting Ms Moore so extensively. Partly because she sums up much of my own thinking so succinctly, and partly because she did so from within the pages of one of our most pro-motoring/anti-green policies newspapers.

Wading further into this imbroglio, Starmer called on Sadiq Khan to “reflect” on the implementation of the ULEZ. Asked what “reflect” meant and whether the scheme should now be scrapped, Starmer replied: “We’ve got to look at the (by-election) result. The Mayor needs to reflect. And it’s too early to say what should happen next.”

It’s also actually now too late to rethink the ULEZ. The expanded scheme went live on 29th August. Although I hold no brief for Sadiq Khan, I admire him for sticking to his guns on this matter. In response to the bullying he was getting from his party ‘colleagues’ in Parliament in the aftermath of the by-election, the Mayor was forthright in saying that “The decision to expand the ULEZ was a tough one, but it’s the right one. Why? Because every year across our city, roughly speaking, 4,000 people die prematurely. There are children with stunted lungs forever, adults with a whole host of health issues, from asthma to cancer, dementia to heart disease. So, we do want to clean up the air in London. I think it’s a human right, not a privilege”.

Asked if ULEZ would cost Labour votes in the mayoral election next year, or in the general election, he replied, “Londoners are struggling through this cost of living crisis. But they’re also suffering the consequences of air pollution. I’m quite clear; it’s the poorest Londoners who are least likely to own a car, [and to] suffer the worst consequences [of air pollution]. That can’t be right. It’s black Londoners least likely to own a car who suffer the worst consequences. That can’t be right. This is an issue of social justice and racial justice.”

It would be a good idea to review the Highways Act, Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Regulation Act, Traffic Management Act, and other Acts of their ilk in pursuit of a new paradigm of making the use of roads and streets both fairer and more efficient, and dare I say it, paid for more sensibly.

Across the political divide, came another voice of reason. Chris Skidmore - the Conservative MP who recently led a review of net zero policies for the government - has urged politicians to be honest about the need for policies like the ULEZ extension. “The reality is that ULEZ was a Conservative policy, introduced by Boris Johnson as Mayor and recently agreed by this government to be expanded in May 2020, as part of Covid loans to the Mayor. It helps no one in politics if we are not honest about the reality of pollution in our cities and the health consequences of this, but we also need to be honest about what investments are needed to deliver policies with public support. This is what the Net Zero Review very clearly set out: we need long-term investment to encourage private sector investment and to create a just transition by establishing the effective incentives to decarbonise.”

Amidst all this to-ing and fro-ing, one thing strikes me as extraordinary. This is that politicians like Sunak would try so hard to court ‘motorists’, and that politicians like Starmer would try so hard not to offend them, despite the fact that, as Suzanne Moore suggests, ‘motorists’ – in the form of people who vote primarily (or even partially) on motoring-related issues – are almost certainly a vanishingly small part of the electorate.

One other thing strikes me as perhaps even more extraordinary. And this is that the evidence of election after election, and of impartial professional research, is that the majority of the electorate are in favour of ‘green policies’, not against them. I haven’t got space to go into the details here, but my own delving into local election results in areas where active travel and ‘anti-car schemes’ like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have been controversial and much talked-about issues, shows that those candidates supporting such schemes have almost always gained votes, with those opposing having lost votes.

Similarly, regarding general public’s views about measures that some would seek to brand as ‘anti-motorist’, the following headlines from representative research paint a consistent picture. ‘Plurality of Londoners Support Expanding London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone’. ‘More Voters Annoyed by Cars than by Traffic Calming Measures, Polling Suggests’. ‘Pro-LTN Councillors Do Not Suffer at Ballot Box, Research Suggests’. Results of one of these polling exercises are reproduced in the table above

Polling has suggested Londoners do not prioritise the interest of motorists

In short, for all that Keir Starmer might assert that the ULEZ was the main/sole reason for failure to win in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, because “We know that. We heard that on the doors”, almost all the more objective evidence that can be found on the subject indicates strongly that, especially when they have the reasons for action effectively explained to them, the electorate is – who could have guessed? – generally supportive of measures that clean their air, improve their health, and which helps stave off climate change.

I’ve never seen more than a few clips of the Westminster TV satire ‘The Thick of It’, but I gather it’s more than a little disparaging about the insightfulness and wisdom of many/most politicians, even high-ranking ministers. That being so, I would love to see the series revived for a special episode (or two) riffing off the fallout from Uxbridge. The anger, the recriminations, the panic, the ‘bright ideas’, the Westminster whirl – all triggered by received wisdom about ‘what we heard on the doorstep’, and maintained by headlines based on the same hearsay.

Contrast that with the considered wisdom to be gained from patiently listening, doing diligent research, committing to enacting evidence-based policy on behalf of the electorate, and talking honestly and openly to that electorate like they were actual grown-ups.

What am I hoping for by having written so many words on this topic? Perhaps just this: that more and more people would start to realise that, especially as it relates to the field of professional endeavour that I know best – action at the local level to make places better - doing the right thing is also the popular thing in the eyes of most people. There may well be marches against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods; there may well be numerous people (or bots) on Twitter/X angrily opposing anyone and anything that may seem to impinge upon the freedom to drive (of those who have a vehicle available for the purpose); and one may well hear ‘on the doors’ that some people are opposed to having clean air if it might cost them something.

However, while some of that noise relates to genuine concerns about the effect of change on real people, a great deal of it is, to misappropriate a line that Shakespeare put into the mouth of Macbeth, a self-serving tale ““full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Wherever and whenever you can, try to avoid being carried along by apparently popular narratives that may well be only narratives. To find out what’s actually popular (or not) let’s do some proper investigation and research. Let’s seek out and listen to the ‘seldom heard voices’ – the largely silent majority – rather than just to those who voices are often hard to avoid.

And let’s, for goodness’ sake, stop talking about people as though a mode of transport defines their personalities, their lifestyles, their hopes and dreams, and their voting intentions. It is surely ‘Identity Politics’ gone bonkers to do so.