UK I am on motorists’ side, says Sunak as he orders review of anti-car schemes - Are they finally backing off? Or are they just going to be sneakier?

I am on motorists’ side, says Sunak as he orders review of anti-car schemes​

By Edward Malnick, SUNDAY POLITICAL EDITOR
29 July 2023 • 9:00pm

TELEMMGLPICT000344214294_1690655.jpg
Rishi Sunak said he was supporting people ‘to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them’ | CREDIT: Paul Cooper

Rishi Sunak promised drivers that he is “on their side” as he ordered a review of controversial anti-car schemes being rolled out across Britain.
In an interview with The Telegraph, the Prime Minister said the vast majority of people “are dependent on their cars” and that “anti-motorist” policies fail to take account of how “families live their lives”.

Mr Sunak has ordered the Department for Transport (DfT) to carry out a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), which often use cameras, giant planters and bollards to turn away cars.

A source said he was “concerned by the levels of congestion outside the roads in which they are implemented”, amid fears that the measures simply displace traffic to neighbouring areas.

The source added: “Of course we want better air quality. But people have to consent and be happy to live in areas where, to varying degrees, cars and vans are blocked.”

Mr Sunak said: “The vast majority of people in the country use their cars to get around and are dependent on their cars. When I’m lucky enough to get home to North Yorkshire, it’s more representative of how most of the country is living, where cars are important.

“I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them.”

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister faced mounting pressure to delay the 2030 phase-out of petrol and diesel cars as it emerged that Chris Stark, the head of the committee on climate change, had told MPs the 2030 ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles may be too soon.

Separately, more than 40 Tory MPs and peers have written to Mr Sunak calling for the deadline to be pushed back. But he insisted that “we are not considering a delay” despite pledging to take a “proportionate and pragmatic” approach to net zero.

Elsewhere in his interview, Mr Sunak launched a highly personal attack on Sir Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was lacking principles.

He said: “I have a set of principles and values that are important to me, and that anchor my approach to life and to government. I don’t see that across the despatch box.”

Amid growing divisions over net zero, Mr Sunak is preparing to announce a new round of licenses for North Sea oil and gas exploration this week as he seeks to make political capital out of Labour’s pledge to halt new drilling.

But in an attack from within his own party, Lord Hammond, a former chancellor, said successive Conservative prime ministers had been “systematically dishonest” with the public about the trillion pound cost of achieving the 2050 net zero target.

Mr Sunak used the interview to pitch himself as the pro-car party leader – setting himself against Sir Keir, who has been coming under pressure to tell Sadiq Khan, the Labour London Mayor, to axe his planned expansion of the capital’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez) after a public backlash.

Speaking on a visit to Wales, the Prime Minister claimed the Labour Party had become “anti-motorist”, citing schemes such as Ulez and the Welsh government’s plan to introduce a 20mph limit in all residential areas in September.

TELEMMGLPICT000344287909_1690662.jpg

But he is also concerned about car schemes, such as LTNs, that have become increasingly prevalent since the onset of the Covid pandemic and aim to reduce traffic in residential areas and cut carbon emissions.

The zones, originally introduced by Mr Khan in London, have since been rolled out to places such as Oxford, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, with funding from the DfT.

Earlier this month, Mark Harper, the Transport Secretary, told The Telegraph he had put an end to Government funding for projects “that are about... banning cars or making it difficult for motorists”.

He suggested local authorities should now consider scrapping existing LTNs where they are unpopular and were implemented with insufficient consultation of local residents.

However, the review ordered by Mr Sunak could lead to the Government intervening to halt existing schemes, including by issuing guidance to councils that those without local support should be scrapped.

The source said: “He [the Prime Minister] is particularly worried by the LTNs that allow no vehicle wider than a bike to travel through – blocking delivery vans, cars for elderly people and families, and sometimes emergency vehicles.”

In a letter to the Prime Minister, organised by the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, led by Craig Mackinlay, and Conservative Way Forward, a campaign group, 42 parliamentarians warn that the 2030 ban on the sale of petrol cars will do “grave harm to the economy”.

The signatories include the former ministers Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Davis, and Esther McVey, as well as Red Wall MPs Lia Nici and Marco Longhi.

Source (Archive)
 
I want Jeremy Clarkson to become a leader of the Bri'ish Car party and gradually instate the First Car-Reich. All cyclists will be gassed.
Well, he'll need to do the British thing and go wait in queue for that scheme. A Lib Dem is already planning to gas drivers.

That said I'm doing what Bongs might call "'avin' a roight laff" at the fact a Poojeet is more proudly pro-British than any Englishmen in public office over there.
 
The biggest issue with anti car movements is they piss off the overwhelming majority of people who actually vote for politicians. Since the type of people to approve of such policies don't drive and typically don't work either. It's why they'll try paying lip service to leftists but they will never stick to it if they don't have to.
 
Well, he'll need to do the British thing and go wait in queue for that scheme. A Lib Dem is already planning to gas drivers.

That said I'm doing what Bongs might call "'avin' a roight laff" at the fact a Poojeet is more proudly pro-British than any Englishmen in public office over there.
They want to gas the car drivers because we're the superior race. We want to gas the cyclists because they are pests, trannies and libtards.
 

Are they finally backing off? Or are they just going to be sneakier?​

>believing what a politician says
>believing what a modern day Tory politician says
>believing what a modern day Tory politician says when they're staring down the barrel of getting absolutely fucking obliterated at the next general election

He's just latching onto a new political fad because anti-ULEZ sentiment meant he only got completely fucked in two by-elections instead of three. If you think that
a)he actually gives a shit, or
b)that he'll do any better at sticking to his promises than he has with any of his other promises
then I have a nice bridge to sell you.
 
Sunak is on a General Election war-footing, with rumours of an early GE doing the rounds (this Autumn being the latest time mentioned by those seemingly 'ITK').

He knows that he will lose the GE, when it happens, and is acting now as if there's nothing to lose - he'll be okay, even outside of Politics, and a lot of Tories have admitted that they will 'be lucky to get 100 seats'.

However, Labour aren't making much headway and seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory under Starmer, with internal divides in the party being impossible to bridge.

Sunak will say popular things in a vain attempt to look credible - he'll lose, but will appear to want to go down fighting as both Reform UK or a Right Wing Coalition and the Liberal Democrats cash in on the failure of the big two.
 
Screaming Guardian rant about how Sunak will lose this fight because of the opposition to him. Ends with "Just as with the “war on drugs” or the attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel, Sunak is backing a loser." Says it all really.

Isn’t it extraordinary that the Tories scent blood over that most prosaic of innovations, the ponderously named low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) – and yet the idea that a few bollards and barriers strewn across residential areas should still become his main line of electoral attack is just further proof that the Tory government has abandoned any attempt to demonstrate serious intent.

Let’s be clear. There is precious little blood to be drawn in LTNs. This is a niche concern, affecting a very small percentage of the population, of whom only a minority are opposed. Moreover, as with the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), the issue that has triggered this renewed interest in LTNs, it is the Tories who originally encouraged the concept by persuading and funding councils to introduce them during the pandemic. There is, too, an irony in the fact that the “pro-motorist” campaign against LTNs, previously articulated by the transport secretary, Mark Harper, is now being spearheaded by a prime minister whose default transport mode is a helicopter.

It is a measure of Sunak’s desperation that he has been sucked into the battle over the “war on motorists”. There is, of course, no war on motorists. It is an invention of the Daily Mail and other rightwing newspapers that argue against any restriction on the freedom of motorists to act exactly as they wish. The rightwing press consistently but incoherently rails against speed cameras, parking controls and, most recently, Ulez. But what would ultimate victory in this war mean? Are they seeking the junking of the whole panoply of motoring laws so that drivers can park anywhere, drive as fast as they like, ignore road signs and stop paying the egregious vehicle tax? None of this bears the slightest scrutiny; yet Sunak has now put himself firmly and foolishly on the side of the motoring libertarians.
https://archive.ph/o/B6s1m/https://...ow-traffic-neighbourhood-ltn-traffic-planning
All of these measures, including the LTNs, help to impose some sort of order on the motorisation of society, which has been spiralling out of control for decades. The result of leaving it unchecked can be seen in Los Angeles – and even Sunak, in his saner moments, might realise that such car domination, which results in 12-lane highways, is not a desirable societal goal.

That is also why Keir Starmer has made a fundamental misjudgment in undermining the attempt by his own London mayor to reduce the impact of vehicle emissions on people’s health. A more courageous politician – indeed, a more savvy one – might have advised his candidate in Uxbridge, Danny Beales, to stand firm rather than calling into question the expansion of Ulez.
Yes, perhaps Sadiq Khan should have implemented a more comprehensive scrappage scheme, given that the impact is likely to be felt most by poorer people with older cars, and phased in the rather high £12.50 fee; but ultimately the Ulez policy is a step in the right direction. Starmer should have realised that if your opponents see this as a war, then you have to respond as if it were one. That requires strong resolve and articulating support for policies that Starmer, like any other averagely socially aware person, must understand are ultimately the “right thing to do”. Given that his own policies are so influenced by polling and focus groups, he should look at the wider evidence on LTNs, which shows strong support in representative polls – in other words, properly undertaken surveys, rather than the “consultations” by local councils, which are often hijacked by vociferous groups on either side of the debate.
https://archive.ph/o/B6s1m/https://...h-speed-limit-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltns
Rather than trying to join Sunak in opposing the “war on motorists”, Starmer should sit on his hands and watch as the prime minister launches himself into a war he cannot win. LTNs have been installed by local councils with, by and large, the support of local people. Candidates standing on avowedly anti-LTN policies, with the odd exception such as the Tory taxi driver recently victorious in Cambridge, have not been elected. For most local people, it is not the issue that determines who they vote for. Sunak – and indeed Starmer – have misread what happened in Uxbridge. There was, indeed, some vociferous opposition to Ulez – but overall the result was not bad for Labour, a near 7% swing and a better result than in 1997, when the constituency was more favourable. But by panicking over the issue, Starmer has fanned the flames of opposition to measures designed to reduce the impact of cars and congestion.
Sunak’s political inexperience suggests he may not understand that central government has no power to remove LTNs – or perhaps he simply does not care. He is scrabbling about for an issue that he thinks will win over a few voters and satisfy his potential critics in the rightwing press. He must know that any review will founder in the mire of complex legislation that will ensure that the vast majority, many of which date back to the last century, will remain in place. Just as with the “war on drugs” or the attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel, Sunak is backing a loser.
Bonus from the comments section
Person adjacent to one of these zones
I live on a boundary road, sandwiched between two LTNs. Our road is narrow, exclusively residential and completely unable to cope with the huge volumes of traffic that are now being funnelled down it. We are now being forced to deal with 1800 extra vehicles a day, leading to standing traffic for prolonged periods. The effect was instant in November when these schemes were brought in, and there has been absolutely no reduction since then. It is a public health emergency for those living on our road, which includes families, vulnerable residents in sheltered accommodation, those who are pregnant and low income households.
Average Guardian commentor
t’s not possible for traffic to be at a standstill and for there to be 1,800 extra vehicles. Which part of your statement is untrue?
I dispute them because for them to be true an extra three cars must pass her home every minute on top of the existing volume. That’s not compatible with traffic being at a standstill. Maths.
3 cars a minute. 180 cars an hour. Assuming we're talking a 10 hour day that's 1800 cars, passing the 1800 mark in less than half a day at that rate. Maths.

Here's the original Guardian link for anyone who wants to read the comments section

 
Last edited:
Back