Margaret Thatcher most likely never said that ‘anyone on a bus over the age of 25 is a failure’, but it’s handy for her supporters and detractors to pretend that she did. It encapsulates a certain view of the Iron Lady: that the individualism of cars was for the go-getters, a reliance on public transport for the life’s losers. Now, nearly three decades after she didn’t utter those words, it is becoming the de facto view of many Tories.
The Conservatives find little they agree on and often little to shout about, but the party has increasingly found its voice as the party of motorists. At both parliamentary and local level, Conservative politicians have become ardently pro-car at the expense of almost every other form of transport. Despite there being some logic in appealing to their voters, though, it has brought them into clashes with their own government and delivered uncertain electoral results.
The Tories are too reliant on drivers’ votes
This instinct is most striking among London MPs. The politics of the capital lend itself to a clash around transport. London Tories tend to represent richer seats on the periphery of London. Their voters use their cars more and public transport less, outside of the urban density of the inner city. Moreover, as most of the capital’s transport remains in the hands of the Labour mayor, they are keen to exploit disharmony. It’s the same instinct that sees them support more houses in principle, yet resolutely block every development on their patch – especially those where the mayor’s office has a big say.
Opposition to the Ultra Low Emissions Zone is the most obvious of these. Under the scheme, drivers of older, more polluting vehicles have to pay a charge of £12.50 to enter inner London. From next year, Sadiq Khan proposes to extend this to outer London boroughs, bringing far more drivers into the ambit of the charge. It’s partly a way of raising money following his transport funding battle with central government, partly about enforcing environmental standards. This has been met with revolt from the outer London Tories.
Closer into London, the Tories are also tending to take the driver’s side. Even though Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) were developed by the Tory government, in local politics they have become a partisan issue. Tory councils in Wandsworth removed LTNs as soon as they could, while elsewhere Labour councils have largely kept them in place. Local Conservatives have campaigned against them vociferously; one even compared the impact to apartheid. Equally, it was Westminster Tories who have opposed plans to pedestrianise various parts of the West End. In other cities, a similar pattern has developed with Labour supporting measures to curb cars, and Tories opposing.
There’s no philosophical reason why the Tories should automatically oppose these measures. As a party of the market, the Tories should favour charging for the negative externalities cars cause. Motor vehicles take up space and, especially older ones, churn out pollution, both carbon dioxide and other particulates that harm health. If these aren’t being paid for by the drivers, on the basis of usage, then they are met elsewhere – either from other taxes that have to compensate, or losses to the economy from delays and from the impacts of environmental damage. If the polluter or user doesn’t pay, the externalities don’t disappear, but are socialised.
The Tories, however, are too reliant on drivers’ votes to let that happen. Just as the party has become reliant on older voters, so too has it become dependent on the suburbs, and this means car owners. It’s Tory voters in Tory seats who bear the brunt of these changes – far more likely to drive and resent these policies in practice and in principle. Equally, when it comes to these changes, it’s older, richer voters who have the security of owning their own homes who are heard above younger renters who rely on other types of transport.
Over the last few decades, our worlds have become increasingly car-centric and the Tories have incentivised this. Regional bus services have withered, and major public transport projects have been repeatedly shelved, especially outside of the capital. Where once British cities boasted of trams and trolleybuses, now most have poorer transport than European equivalents, while central government control prevents local innovation. The result is also a car-centric politics, where often the ability to drive through somewhere seems to trump how a space is used and lived in. Tory MPs regularly seem anti-cycling and often indifferent to public transport.
This, however, may not be as popular as the Conservatives believe. Despite its loudness, opposition to LTNs proved to be a minority view. In May’s elections, the councils that embraced the quiet roads performed better than those that tore down the schemes. Equally, while the consultation on ULEZ expansion was largely opposed to it, a similarly timed YouGov poll found just over half of Londoners backed the scheme. Though they might enjoy a concentrated electoral gain, the Tories’ pro-car mindset could cost them elsewhere.
Poor public transport has arguably been a cause of low growth, especially in the regions, but there are a host of other issues. Cars isolate people from the communities they drive through, clogging up streets and making them unpleasant, poorly designed places to be. A lack of hubbub makes them more prone to crime, while the police being more car based has arguably alienated them from the communities they serve. With opportunities like automated vehicles and mobility as a service on the horizon, car ownership could also be on the decline.
Yet the Conservatives seem to see none of this. The party knows that its voting patterns align with motorists as much as with age and wealth. They are beholden to these interests and fail to see any opportunity in reducing car dependency. The 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.
Comments