Shocking Revelation: The Jaw-Dropping Myth of the Motorist in Politics Finally EXPOSED!

Receive free updates on UK politics and policies

We will send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding last UK Politics and Politics news every morning.

If an Englishman’s home is his castle, then the car is his steed. The motorist is so deeply ingrained in the national and political psyche that pivotal voting archetypes are described by their ride. Political strategists have, over the years, worried about the affections of the White Van Man, the Mondeo Man, and the Galaxy Man. Such is the framing that a student of British politics might be surprised to learn that women drive too. (Women voters receive epithets based on houses or shops: Worcester woman and Waitrose).

There are 33 million cars in the UK. Only England has it 12 cars for every 10 families. Driving is seen as synonymous with freedom, usurpations on it as an attack on fundamental rights. There’s no reason to think that the British are more obsessed with their cars than other nations, certainly no more than the Americans. What is perhaps different, though, is the place of motorists in the political mythology. Drivers enjoy the power to be equated with target constituents. So when Rishi Sunak declares himself a pro-auto fighter in the ‘war on motorists’, it’s easy to understand the political excitement.

Few of these political stereotypes stand up to serious pseudological scrutiny. The Mondeo man was originally identified by Tony Blair as the Sierra man. But the Mondeo, an affordable sedan, replaced that model and was also refreshingly alliterative. Insofar as the Mondeo stood for anything, it was an average ambitious family whose support Labor needed to reclaim. Later, Blair would move up the income ladder with Galaxy man, a people transporter that he used himself.

Perhaps more consistent was the white van man, representing an independent trader. Initially an offensive term for inconsiderate drivers, it was adopted by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper, which ran a column devoted to the views of this working-class hero. While these classifications are still too broad to be truly useful, a politicians they represent a set of social values ​​and voters electorally in tune.

Since the fuel tariff protests that destabilized the Blair government in 2000 — years before the French gilets-jaunes — fuel taxes have been the most sensitive. The leader of that revolt was hailed by the media in ways unimaginable for trade unionists. Although he was driven by hauliers rather than motorists, MPs have since routinely been nervous about stepping up the duty.

And the current assertion of an anti-car agenda holds up. Major cities have introduced congestion charges, pedestrian zones and hostile road layouts. Drivers sit in traffic jams staring down wide, empty bike lanes. Low-traffic neighborhoods have moved drivers and their emissions to already-clogged highways. The fact that proponents have justifications for each policy does not dispel the sense of a strategy to heckle drivers out of their cars. And road pricing could be the next front as EVs reduce fuel tax revenues.

What elevated the issue to national politics was last month Uxbridge by-election, where the Conservatives attributed their success to the campaign against a heavy tax on polluting vehicles imposed by the Labor mayor of London. Even if there is something to this, it is almost certainly being over-interpreted as well. Such questions are useful for supplementary protest votes but seldom central to national polls.

Yet the argument can be described as a struggle against condescending city dwellers who have no desire to live in the outer suburbs and rural areas where public transport is limited. Conservatives perceive, probably correctly, that support for green policies weakens once people feel the cost and inconvenience. Although, as likely, his words are worth little, Sunak aims to be the voice of painless moderation against the imaginary absolutists.

However, it is a strategy to strengthen the base rather than a plan for victory. It’s not enough to divert voters from evicting a frazzled government that presided over — and deepened — a cost-of-living crisis. Today’s equivalents of the Mondeo, Galaxy and White van man care about their cars but care more about the stalling economy.

However, the gap illuminates a deeper political issue. Neither Sunak’s defense of the motorist nor his pushback net zero measures risks altering the course of the elections. But the car crash is a proxy for a larger philosophical competition between collective public policy goals and individual freedoms.

The climate agenda will see citizens required to make individual sacrifices for the greater good of achieving net zero goals. The Tory discomfort with it stems from this, rather than a distrust of science. They see a statist mentality and a back door to socialism. Some refer to environmental activists as “watermelons,” green on the outside, red on the inside.

After years of prioritizing individual rights, the political pendulum is swinging back towards collective demands. This goes beyond net zero to a fundamental diagnosis of the UK economy. Blair’s think tanklistening to Keir Starmer, called for planning powers to rush decisions for infrastructure, for the centralized use of personal data and for a digital identity for all citizens.

From planning to taxation, artificial intelligence to climate change, the battle ahead is over how far people are ready to hand over liberties to what Labor calls ‘the strategic state’. This, not some overblown crusade against cars, is the real political battle of the next decade. Buckle up.

robert.shrimsley@ft.com