Once so clogged with noxious fumes that it earned the nickname the Smoke, London has been battling pollution for more than a century. From the Great Stink to the Great Smog, successive public health emergencies have for decades prompted ambitious anti-pollution measures, gradually transforming the capital for the better.
The Victoria Embankment containing Joseph Bazalgette’s pioneering sewer system, the magnificent Abbey Mills pumping station and the groundbreaking Clean Air Act 1956 stand among other initiatives as testaments to the unflinching conviction of past leaders in tackling London’s pollution problems head-on.
Since 2000 the city’s elected mayors from both main political parties have continued progress, with Ken Livingstone introducing the congestion charge in 2003 and Boris Johnson announcing plans for the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) in 2015. Though further action is needed on the capital’s illegally high air pollution and to stop utilities companies dumping sewage into London’s waterways, it is undeniable that remarkable strides have been made in a city where sulphurous “pea soupers” still lurk within living memory.
Despite many incremental successes, in recent years the Conservatives have begun campaigning to drop anti-pollution measures, especially the Ulez expansion planned by London mayor Sadiq Khan. Now, after narrowly scraping victory in last week’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip byelection by just 495 votes, Tory spin doctors are claiming that restrictions on polluting vehicles spell electoral suicide. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, seems to agree, saying that Labour’s defeat shows the party is doing something “very wrong”.
But a deeper reading of the byelection result paints a different picture: in fact the Conservative performance in Uxbridge was lacklustre, with Tory support collapsing by more than 11,000 votes compared with the 2019 general election. The real story is that with Labour 19 points ahead in wider polls, increasingly frantic Tories are trying to confect a new car-centred culture war. It’s a tactic they have been attempting in London for years, without success.
In 2021, the Tory mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey put cars at the heart of his doomed bid to become mayor, promising to oppose affordable housing built on car parks, cut congestion charges, block the Ulez expansion and spend more than £37m funding 30 minutes of free car-parking. Bailey had hoped car-loving Londoners would carry him to power but Sadiq Khan was comfortably returned to City Hall with a renewed mandate.
In 2022, the Conservatives again pinned their London local election dreams on cars, with a campaign heavily centred on removing low-traffic neighbourhoods, more Ulez opposition and 60 minutes of free car-parking. Again the plan flopped, with more than 100 Tory councillors losing their seats. Even in Wandsworth, a Conservative stronghold for 44 years, voters opted for Labour’s promises to “reduce emissions” and “crack down on car idling” over the Tory incumbents.
Ultimately opposing traffic restrictions, though popular with a vocal minority of disgruntled drivers, is simply not a big vote-winner. Research by the University of Westminster has confirmed that politicians who declare public support for low-traffic neighbourhoods do not suffer on election day.
The failure of car-centric campaigns to capture hearts and minds is not surprising given the demographics of vehicle ownership in Britain. We own fewer cars than our neighbours in comparable countries, such as Germany and France and vehicle ownership here falls with income, meaning working-class families are far more likely to live car-free than their middle-class counterparts.
In this context, pro-traffic political campaigns have historically failed to connect with UK voters, particularly in London, where despite the lowest rates of car ownership in the country, the city is dominated by cars, with more land used for roads than housing. In Tower Hamlets for instance, although two-thirds of households are car-free, 17.1% of land is taken up by roads – more than double the 7.5% reserved for homes.
Yet despite the generous provision of infrastructure for London’s drivers, and their double drubbing at the ballot box, Conservatives have continued to escalate their pro-traffic campaigns with more far-fetched talking points. In February Tory MP Nick Fletcher joined internet conspiracy theorists in claiming a plot to “take away personal freedoms” lurked behind calls for basic necessities such as shops and doctors’ surgeries to be within 15 minutes’ walk of residential areas.
Their increasingly fanatical commitment to pro-traffic campaigning may be an attempt by the Tories to shore up commitments from polluting donors ahead of an anticipated spell in opposition, or perhaps they fear successful traffic restrictions could damage their future prospects. “With low-traffic neighbourhoods, people living in them are experiencing quieter, greener, better places,” says urbanism writer George Kafka. “Traffic restrictions are a political threat – because they’re so effective.”
Kafka speculates that the real reason Conservatives may be keen to ignite a car-centred culture war is because the benefits of reduced traffic could boost public support for ambitious green policies elsewhere. “I have a van and I love driving,” Kafka explains, “but low-traffic neighbourhoods prove that life can actually get better with climate action – which is politically dangerous for anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.”
Every new anti-pollution measure has seen pushback from climate crisis deniers resistant to change. Even following the 1952 smog, which killed 12,000 Londoners, some Conservatives falsely claimed influenza was responsible for the deaths and attempted to stop new legislation reducing inner-city coal-burning. The mark of great leadership is facing down such myopic resistance for the greater good.
With Rishi Sunak’s party trailing in the polls, increasingly frantic Tory activists are employing desperate tactics to spin a near defeat in Uxbridge as a triumph for their pro-pollution, pro-traffic agenda. Labour must not allow itself to be drawn in to this specious new breed of Tory identity politics, which is propped up on conspiracy theories and misinformation. Rather than squabbling over 495 lost votes, Starmer and Khan should stand together for a cleaner, greener and safer capital.
Phineas Harper is chief executive of the charity Open City
