Who’s talking, who’s listening- and what language are they using? It’s a problem for society - and for transport people too

LAST TIME OUT in this column, I wrote, in essence, about how politicians seem to equate popular opinion with clamour and noise. About how, if they have an inbox/mailbag in which a given view predominates over others, and/or if they hear a given view expressed in loud voices, the conclusion they draw is that the view in question is the majority view, rather than simply the majority view of their correspondents. This, and the associated matter of how strongly held opinions and an ‘us/them’ taking of sides are so popular with demagogues and writers of ‘culture wars’ headlines, are such significant contemporary issues that I want to further develop my thinking on them this time. They are colouring the professional landscape as much as the popular discourse.

At a political level, that landscape is looking more uncomfortable to professionals than it has done for many years. As an example, the one thing that seemed to unite Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak in the aftermath of July’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election, was their acquiescence in the lazy consensus that “It woz the ULEZ wot won it for the Conservatives”. Amongst other things, this ‘truth’ inspired Sunak to require of his Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, that a so-called ‘plan’ for ‘drivers’ be hurriedly thrown together for launching at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month. More on that ‘plan’ and on other by-election results in due course.

But first, some thoughts about language and perceptions.

My colleague Oli recently told me about a book called The Righteous Mind by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. In it, the author points out that many of the challenges we face when communicating with others is that we have fundamentally different views of what ‘a good society’ should look like. Accordingly, we need to redouble our efforts to understand other people’s points of view if we are to engage with them meaningfully.

There are valuable insights about our differences in judgment in Jonathan Haidt’s book

Haidt has concluded that people tend to build their world view on a moral framework comprising up to six distinct foundations: Care, Liberty, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. While I haven’t space to go into this in much detail, I will just report Haidt’s finding that those on the left and right of the political spectrum have different takes on these foundations. Those on the right, for example, give broadly equal weighting to all six, while those on the left overwhelmingly prioritise the first three. This can lead to the right seeing the left as dreamers, and to the left thinking the right has no conscience. And it’s not just the balance, but the interpretation of the foundations that comes into play. So, for example, the left tends to view Care as a fight for the oppressed and powerless, while the right thinks Care should focus much more on those who’ve previously sacrificed for the wider community. Similarly, Liberty tends to be equated with equality by the left, and with freedom from government interference by the right.

If these conclusions are reliable, and they seem highly credible in the light of my own experience and observations, then they place even greater emphasis on the need for professionals to ensure the messages they’re intending to communicate are correctly tuned for appropriate reception by whomever they are addressing.

Here I shall take a short dive into (once) popular culture, as I like to often do, for a suitable reference. I imagine that very few of my readers are familiar with the 1937 film ‘Shall We Dance?’, starring Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. I mention it here because it features a song entitled ‘Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off’ written by brothers George and Ira Gershwin. This strikes me as relevant because it features lines in which different pronunciations of the same word are cited as reasons why two people in a relationship are becoming incompatible. As a sample (presented here phonetically) the duo sing: “You like potayto and I like potahto/ You like tomayto and I like tomahto /Potayto, potahto; tomayto, tomahto/ Let’s call the whole thing off”.

These words hardly constitute deep insight, I grant you, but they came to my mind (which works like that, for better or worse) as a reminder that what I say and/or how I say it isn’t necessarily received by others in the way I might assume. So, for example, I give you ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, ‘15 Minute Cities’, ‘Ultra Low Emissions Zone’ and (dare I mention it?) ‘Shared Space’, and you give me ‘car bans’, ‘restricted personal freedoms’, ‘a tax on motorists’ and ‘no-go areas for vision impaired people’.

The first set of phrases are all terms around which controversy is raging, or once raged and may rage again. But what do they really mean? More importantly, what different things do they mean to different people? Is what a ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ means to a transport professional the same as what it means to a resident who lives in such a neighbourhood who is neither a transport professional nor a campaigner for active travel? What indeed is ‘Active Travel’ to anyone who isn’t directly engaged with the work or issues that almost all you good people reading this article are. In public discourse, are professionals and campaigners in danger of using terms the meaning of which is clear to them, but which are simply jargon to the public and perhaps loaded with unwanted trigger significance?

Yes, we are.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong to use such terms, but it does mean we need to work much harder at explaining what’s behind them to people who might otherwise switch off, be bemused, or – worse – misconstrue them. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve seen, on social media, people who are fans of ‘15 Minute Cities’ or ‘20 Minute Neighbourhoods’ lose their patience with, or poke fun at, others who insist that they’re a tool of the Deep State to trap people within ‘ghettos’.

Actually, I haven’t lost count, because I never started. But you know what I mean because it’s a very familiar idiom. By contrast, though it might now be a familiar idiom to us, a ‘15 Minute City’ is a term that didn’t exist until a professor at the Sorbonne university in Paris, one Carlos Moreno, coined it in 2016. Even those who are familiar with the idea, and are in favour of it, can be a little vague about details, although the basic principle is clear: that we should be trying to enable people to live in places where most of the destinations /facilities they need to go to on a daily basis are ‘local’, i.e. within a short walk or cycle ride.

It’s surely that principle that we should be talking to people about, not a three-word slogan for an urban planning ideal. We should only use our term as shorthand when talking with people who have already grasped the principle. The same might be said of many of the other terms I listed earlier. Shorthand phrases and acronyms can be useful tools, but if they aren’t properly understood, or if they’re fully misunderstood – wilfully or otherwise - they can easily undermine the clarity of communication that we should always be striving for. In particular, they can be turned into ‘things/causes’ that can be railed against or vilified, rather than ideas or proposals meant to benefit people, not harm them.

Back in February 2016, I wrote in these pages that we should stop using the term ‘Shared Space’ because the phrase only served to confuse. I suggested instead, and have often done before and since, that we should simply talk about what we propose to do and avoid trying to give it a name or, heaven help us, creating a brand or a campaign slogan out of it .

When good ideas are given names or acronyms that people can refer to as ‘things’, you risk ending up with enormously embarrassing – and potentially damaging – eventualities. Such as a sitting Secretary of State for Transport telling his recent party conference that “The Prime Minister has already tasked me to conduct a review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, building on my decision to ensure that no Government money funds them”, that “I am calling time on the misuse of so-called 15 Minute Cities (because) what is sinister, and what we shouldn’t tolerate, is the idea that local councils can decide how often you go to the shops”, and that “Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion is a Labour tax on the poorest drivers”.

Enough has already been said, including in the pages of LTT, about The Plan for Drivers that Mark Harper was introducing with this speech. Some of the contents of that ‘plan’, if enacted, may do real, long-term harm, however, and those to whom Harper was trying to appeal will not be remotely exempt from those downsides . Moreover, as my LTT piece last month suggested, the kind of nonsense that he spouted will actually likely harm his, and his party’s electoral chances. Which is bizarre; because, let’s face it, it was specifically to improve his party’s electoral prospects that the ‘plan’ was hurriedly rushed out and that Mr Harper said those regrettable things I quoted above.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper launched the Government’s Plan for Drivers - but is it really his plan, or is he just holding the Prime Minister’s new baby?

We have already had the opportunity to see how well-received that electioneering has been with the electorate, because, on 19th October, just 17 days after Harper’s speech, and the launch of the ‘plan’ for ‘drivers’, there were by-elections in Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire. Sir John Curtice, the renowned political scientist, summarised these as “One of worst nights any government has endured”. Going into detail, he noted that, in Tamworth, the 23.9% swing from Conservative to Labour was the second highest in post-war by-election history, and that no government has previously lost so safe a seat to the principal opposition party in a by-election contest. As for Mid-Bedfordshire, the swing was a little lower (20.5%), but the Conservatives’ share of the vote fell by even more than in Tamworth, with the 28.7% drop in the Bedfordshire constituency being the sixth biggest fall in Conservative support since WW2.

But, I hear you think, perhaps that are hardly any ‘drivers’ in Tamworth or Mid-Bedfordshire. Well, Mid-Bedfordshire is in fact 4th out of the 573 constituencies in England and Wales when it comes to the lowest proportion of households with no car or van (just 8.6%). Tamworth is 204th on that list – almost in the top third – with just 16.5% of households having no car or van.

As I quoted Telegraph columnist Suzanne Moore last time: “Must I accept that being a motorist is possibly someone’s primary identification and will influence the way they vote? 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?” Certainly not the party of the ‘plan’ for drivers!

As a very recent YouGov poll has shown, the national electorate has got a lot more on its mind than being inconvenienced while driving. People may make a loud noise about such issues, but they don’t generally seem to carry that frustration or anger to the ballot box.

The poll shows that 24% of people think the environment is one of the most important issues facing the country. Additionally, according to a recent ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, 74% of adults reported feeling worried about climate change, the second biggest reported concern. Of the 9% who reported feeling unworried about climate change, 55% did so because they think there are more urgent priorities to be worried about. The only greater reported concern was the rising cost of living (79%).

You might think that, if the Government, or indeed His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, were really trying to encourage people to vote for them, they’d focus more on these issues than trying to appeal to ‘motorists’ or ‘drivers’. To do so may be characterised as ‘populist’, but election after election, and not just those on 19th October, have revealed that it’s not actually that popular.

With this in mind, it has occurred to me that perhaps Mark Harper and many of his ministerial colleagues at the Conservative Party Conference were not actually playing to the national electorate but, having already given up any hope of winning the next general election, were principally just playing to the voters in the room – Conservative Party members – such that they (or the individual they support) might by party leader once that anticipated defeat has come to pass. But what do I know?

I turn now, therefore, to something more close to home for me – the Local Transport Summit, held last week in Sheffield and organised, as ever, by the editor/publisher of this fine periodical and his colleagues. Those of you who familiar with it will not be surprised to hear that some of the issues I have touched on above were also given a good airing at this always thought-provoking event. It may just have been to my ears, but I came away with the sense of there being a very clear consensus that the transport planning profession needs to get much better at crafting its narrative concerning the issues it thinks are most important, and/or to work with others who can help us get our message across better, to various audiences. Several specific contributions helped me draw this conclusion.

One was from Pete Dyson, a behavioural scientist now at the University of Bath. His presentation was about Sticks and Carrots, and I felt it helpfully challenged us in several ways. Firstly, to avoid being quite so simplistic, or indeed binary, about what it is that motivates people to change, and why. Secondly, to be conscious that ‘sticks’ may be used to beat people for habits for which they are not personally responsible, such as car-dependency. Thirdly, that to talk in terms of sticks will always conjure up the idea of punishment, and that’s not often an effective motivator towards the change we’re hoping to see. Even referencing carrots might reasonably make some people think we’re trying to lead them where they don’t willingly want to go.

Dyson suggested that we would do well to focus on ‘working with the willing’ and I think we should take more time to explore which people are willing to change, and why. Based on the latest YouGov and Census findings about people’s concerns relating to the environment and climate change, for example, we should think harder about how to meet and work with them in their concerns. Too often, we simply say, in effect, “It’s grim, and we’re all doomed unless we all change now!” - without thinking how hard that change might be, in practical terms. In this regard, Dyson showed us a nugget he’d found in Bath and North East Somerset council’s Transport Delivery Action Plan for Bath (Phase 1, 2020). This was a comparison of actual and preferred methods of transport to school, which showed that pupils themselves have a strong preference for increased cycling and scooting, and less for walking and driving. It’s easy to metaphorically pat these children on the head for their views, then ignore them and focus on the ‘grown ups’. But shouldn’t such findings prompt us to think about better ways to engage with pupils and parents/carers alike?

I also found the presentation by Professor Ian Loader full of ideas that were fresh, at least to me. He’s a criminologist at the University of Oxford, and the first person with that background that I’ve ever heard address a gathering of transport planners. I think what had led to him being invited to speak to us was his unexpected research finding that, when asked about ‘crimes’ that concerned them, a significant proportion of a cohort of respondents in Macclesfield identified speeding vehicles and badly-parked vehicles as key issues. In some ways, this shouldn’t be surprising, because if we allow ‘anti-social behaviour’ to fall into the category of a ‘crime’, then both of these matters can easily be seen to qualify.

Again, information like this should give us inspiration for how better to go about listening to people about what really concerns them, and about engaging with them about problems we also want to solve.

Loader’s final slide had three bullet points on it. The first invited us to rethink cars as objects of social disorder, a fascinating concept, prompted by the research mentioned above. The second touched on different responses to ‘auto-disorder’: activism; fatalism; othering (“It’s their fault”); and complicity (“We are agents of our own peril”). I see the last of these responses as both a challenge and an opportunity: that people recognise that they do the kind of things (speeding, parking badly) that they dislike in others, is surely a basis for constructive discussion about addressing these behaviours.

As for the final bullet, this posited that slogans like ‘the war on motorists’ and ‘the plan for drivers’ might actually be misunderstanding the public mood. You may possibly have read someone else suggesting that!

And so, I draw to a close with a comment from another contributor at the summit; a former Transport Minister, no less. And what I wish to pass on from him is that his prior knowledge and experience of the current Transport Secretary left him both surprised and disappointed that Mark Harper should have found himself writing and saying such tosh as can be found in the ‘plan’ for drivers, and in his conference speech. I pick on this statement because it’s almost exactly what the current Deputy Minister for Climate Change in the Welsh Government also said about the current Transport Secretary at the recent National Transport Awards.

In other words, one former and one current politician, each from different parties, but neither Conservative, made a point of saying “I really thought Mark Harper was better than that” when they could just as easily have said “What an idiot, eh?” I’d like to think that, if he were to re-read his speech to conference again, Harper would do so with his head in his hands, that’s when he wasn’t shaking it ruefully. To utter such hogwash, and to write such pitiful nonsense in his ‘plan’, only to have the voters of Tamworth and high-driving Mid-Bedfordshire effectively throw those words back at him and his boss – who made him use them –just days later, must be a bitter pill to swallow. And self-administered medicine, at that. A lesson to us all that we should be very careful what we say, and how we say it. Especially if we’re hoping others will change their habits as a result.

A good start might be to properly understand what our target audience are really thinking before we seek to sell them a line, or ‘put them straight’ on what should be happening.

My final quote for this piece is another remark heard at the Local Transport Summit: “We need to avoid the Transport Planning profession being like the Remain campaign – probably right, but ultimately losers”. To do so, we also have to avoid viewing what we do just through our own lens, or approaching it principally from our own backgrounds and perspectives. It’s too easy for us to rail against the idea that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, because we think people are in real need of expert advice to help them make wise decisions. But if you look closely at what Leave-promoting Michael Gove said when using this phrase during the EU referendum campaign, he added that the experts in question were “from organisations with acronyms saying they know what is best, and getting it consistently wrong”.

Transport Planners, like other experts, should appreciate that nobody likes being told what to do, especially if it’s at the point of a morally wagging finger. So, the more necessary and urgent we know it to be that people should change how they travel, the more the narratives we employ should meet people where they are, not where we are. It’s time we started being less technocratic and more empathetic.