'More rational policies, less gesture politics'

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) gives its take on the policies of the main London Mayor can

Drivers have been penalised by policies introduced by Ken Livingstone over the last few years. Is that surprising considering his alleged past comments of, “I hate cars"? Private cars are still the most frequent mode of transport for Londoners, and are essential for anyone living in the suburbs. But we have faced the London Congestion Charge, increased penalties for trivial traffic infringements, swingeing penalties for accidental parking infringements, cameras that spy on us all the time and the transfer of public road space for reserved use by buses, taxis and cyclists. Even traffic lights have been re-phased to give more time to pedestrians and less to road users, with no obvious need or benefit.

The London Congestion Charge has been an abject failure, with the charge increased from the initial £5 to £8, and soon it will be £25 for larger vehicles. But with 70% of the revenue going into operating the system, this must make it one of the most inefficient taxes ever. Traffic speeds are now almost back to what they were before the charge was introduced. Even the environmental benefit is illusory with no reduction in air pollution as measured within the congestion charge zone, despite the false propaganda that emanates from the Mayor and Transport for London.

How do the other mayoral candidates line up on this issue? The Association of British Drivers would like to see the Congestion Charge scrapped as we are opposed to all forms of road pricing but only the UK Independence Party candidate Gerald Batten would go that far. Conservative candidate Boris Johnson would reform it in several ways. Firstly he would redo the consultation on the western extension and listen to the results – and there is nothing like true democracy. Secondly he would change the system to be “account based” so that accidental penalties could not be incurred, and review other aspects of the system. He would also abandon the £25 Congestion Charge proposal which even TfL admits has no possible environmental benefit. So he goes some way in the right direction.

Brian Paddick of the Liberal Democrats seems to be confused, with policies to scrap the western extension and the £25 charge, but he wants to introduce a new £10 charge to enter the Greater London cordon. No votes there amongst our members for sure.

However both Paddick and Johnson support rephrasing of traffic lights and the vigorous tackling of the problem of road works which we can wholeheartedly support.

What the ABD would like to see is a more rational approach to the road transport problems of London. We do not like the “gesture politics” promoted by Mr Livingstone – unnecessary attacks on car drivers in the spurious name of road safety or environmental benefit. We would also like more attention given to the economic issues associated with such policies. Therefore we are keen to improve the air quality of London and reduce unnecessary emissions from road vehicles, but we opposed to the way the Mayor introduced the Low Emission Zone – a massive cost with almost no benefit.

We would like a new mayor who listens democratically to all Londoners, including car drivers, and does not treat us like second class citizens to be hobbled and pilloried all the time. Private cars are a massive convenience to most Londoners and there are few practical alternatives for many purposes. Let’s stop discriminating against car drivers in favour of bus users, cyclists or anyone else. Policies should be practical not impractical. For example 20 mph zones everywhere are difficult to adhere to and impossible to enforce. Road safety policies should be dictated by real evidence not fanciful claims (road deaths in London are not falling significantly despite the rash of speed humps, 20 mph zones, speed cameras and other attacks on road users in recent years).

London’s transport system will not grind to a halt if we stop discouraging car use – in reality traffic levels in London have remained remarkably constant over the years because they are self regulating despite the rise in car numbers. Traffic levels have even fallen in outer London boroughs in recent years.

No we don’t need to remove cars from London at all. Just take some sensible steps to reduce pollution (already falling rapidly of course) and reduce the congestion that they cause by some sensible traffic management measures.

Roger Lawson is the London Region Coordinator of the Association of British Drivers

To find out who you should be voting for on May 1st visit our Fantasy Mayor site.

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times