Forum Topic

Tories and motorists - The Spectator

I know the Spectator is popular with some local forumers so here is an interesting opinion piece from John Oxley highlighting the divide between central Conservative policy and ideology and local Conservative politicians' obsession with defending motorists:"Why are the Tories so obsessed with defending motorists"https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-the-tories-so-obsessed-with-defending-motorists/"The [Conservative] party ends up with a petrol-headed populism which rather than supporting individualism, instead takes away freedom of choice, as public and human-powered transport options are squeezed out by car dominance. Driving as an identity overtakes the need for more, nicer, transport options. Cars should always have their place, but often a man on a bus, a bike, or a tram will not be a sign of failure, but of policy success."

Paul Campbell ● 1359d2 Comments

I've always thought it bizarre that the Tories' "petrol-headed populism" has ended up alienating a whole swathe of potential Tory voters: middle class professionals in London, many who own cars but favour measures to reduce car dependency and the associated externalities of congestion, air pollution, CO2 emissions, serious injuries and deaths.Identity politics aren't inherently toxic - women's rights, LGBT rights, civil rights, environmental campaigning and anti-racist movements all promote positive identities.But they have a flipside - whether it is misogynistic frat or bro culture, white supremacy, QAnon conspiracy or anti-immigrant populism.The main difference between civil rights and white supremacy is that the former is based in reality and legitimate grievances and the latter is not.  The toxicity of the civil rights debate comes not from those demanding equality and respect, but from those who deny they deserve these things.It is the same with the car supremacist identity.  A good example is on another thread about LTNs where Simon Hayes and Tom Pike are "debating".  Simon's arguments are mainly based on false premises and he rejects out of hand any evidence that doesn't back up his views as biased or false while Tom's arguments are based on data and evidence.Jeremy Parkinson, the OP on that thread, draws a broad equivalence between the two sides, but there is a clear distinction between them - one is based on a denial of reality and the other isn't.  You don't have to look hard for more examples of reality denial underpinning this identity - whether it is the £10m in parking fines raised on two roads in 6 months, cyclists are more dangerous to pedestrians than cars, cyclists cause pollution, LTNs are racist and/or discriminate against poor people, fewer passing cars puts women pedestrians at risk of assault, bike lanes make cycling more dangerous, contiguous bus lanes were removed from CHR for the bike lane, all cyclists wear lycra and go through red lights, the LCC runs the council etc. and ad. nauseam - the identity politics of the car supremacists is toxic because it is a cult of victimisation that is not based on reality.  Car supremacists do feel they have something to lose of course - their heavily subsidised and exclusive use of the roads.  But their loss is similar to what white supremacists feel they have to lose by racial equality or men lose by being paid the same as women.It is OK for them to "lose" because both they and society as a whole will be better off if we have cleaner air and fewer injuries and deaths - and they'll still be able to have a car and drive where they want along with other transport options which are cheaper and faster.

Ed Saper ● 1359d

I saw today that Nick Rogers, the Conservative AM for SW London, noted the FT's analysis of how the long-term trend of propensity to vote Conservative with increasing age is changing with Millenials and Gen Z. They are not becoming more likely to vote Conservative as they age. Nick rightly points out that this is a major problem for London Conservatives and calls on a determined effort to create policies that attract Millennials and GenZers to the party for the 2024 London election. And yet he vocally and vigorously opposes the ULEZ extension, obviously cursing favour with older Conservative voters but seemingly unaware of the massive downside of pushing a policy that the younger generations find unforgivably repellent. Voters have already been rejecting Conservative's pro-car policies. Demographics in London mean this will only get worse for them. Will they wake up and smell the fumes before it is too late .... I doubt it. We'll just have to make sure their pro-pollution and pro-climate change opinions are surfaced and made clear to the people who can vote them out of office. Starting with Nick and our local Conservative Councillors of course ....

Paul Campbell ● 1359d