Leaving a vacuum is a mistake

Tweet

 

Conventional wisdom decrees that Labour lost the Uxbridge by-election because of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and Labour and the Conservatives alike have since been furiously back-pedalling on anything that looks like a commitment to halting climate change. I wonder, though, whether there is rather more nuance here. Did they, in fact, lose because people thought that the charge was going to affect them, and didn’t understand just how few vehicles were really going to be affected? It seems likely that the number of people who thought that it was going to affect them is considerably higher than the number actually going to be hit by the charge, and the Tories won by playing on that unjustified level of fear. None of that alters the fact than those most likely to be affected were those owning the oldest vehicles, and thus likely to be relatively less well-off, or that the scrappage scheme seems to have been inadequate. And the information about whether they would be affected or not was readily available, but depended on people seeking it out rather than being informed more directly.

The Welsh government may be putting themselves in a very similar position with the 20mph zones being widely introduced next month. Like ULEZ, this was a scheme initially supported by the Tories, but they have seen an opportunity to make mischief and attract support by now deciding to oppose it. Just as with ULEZ, the impact on people is likely to be much less than many are assuming, because of the large number of exceptions. And, just as with ULEZ, information on those exemptions is freely available (although in this case much harder to interpret; the website is far from being intuitive), but, again, people have to seek it out rather than being notified in a more direct fashion. The way the Tories are seeking to use the policy is simultaneously shameful and shameless, but they’re pushing at a door left open by the Welsh government. If a party devoid of principle or consistency decides to campaign in this way, playing on or exaggerating people’s fears, part of the responsibility, at least, falls on those whose woeful failure to communicate effectively what is happening has enabled the Tories’ innate dishonesty.

Given a choice of how to get from A to B, my choice is generally likely to be ‘as quickly as possible’: the ideal would be for Scotty to simply beam me from A to B in a few seconds. In the absence of Star Trek technology, there is always going to be a compromise between various factors, including (but not limited to) speed, safety and environmental impact. On balance, the Welsh government have probably got it about right, and can tweak it as necessary in the future if the need arises, but they are dismally failing to explain or persuade. That leaves a vacuum which is largely being filled by disinformation and distortion. And those are Tory specialities.

What's the real issue?

Tweet I thought that this story was rather confused and confusing when I read it first; and after re-reading it, I haven’t changed my mind.  There is a lack of clarity about whether the problem is where the powers lie, whether it’s about what is done with those powers, or whether it’s simply about spending priorities.

The headline claims that failure to devolve more road safety powers to Wales is costing lives on Welsh roads because the numbers of deaths and serious injuries have fallen more slowly here.  But the reasons for that are less than entirely clear – lack of devolution surely means that the policies being followed in Wales are the same as those in England - the question about why they have a different result is more complicated than simply where the power lies.

And later in the story, the director of the RAC which is the organisation behind the report says that “The UK risks breaking apart in terms of road safety policy with different administrations having varying levels of power, funding and political will to deal with death and injury on the highways”, which sounded to me more like an argument for less devolution than more - in direct contradiction of the headline.

In essence, the detail of the criticism seems to be more about whether the Welsh Government is spending enough on road safety than about where the power lies, but that looks more like a criticism of the Welsh Government for not setting the same spending priorities as England than of any lack of devolution.  It’s an argument for consistent central decision making rather than for more devolution.

And that, perhaps brings us to the nub of the issue here – as on so many issues, there is a lack of understanding of the fact that the very existence of devolved administrations inevitably means that there will be differences in outcomes in the different countries of the UK.  I don’t say that to defend a situation where Wales is failing to reduce deaths and injuries on roads as quickly as England; no-one would want to defend that.

Comparisons with what happens elsewhere are inevitable and entirely proper, and with England being so close, it’s the obvious point of comparison.  The RAC are right to draw attention to the divergence in outcomes, and it is something which should concern us.  I’m not sure that the story sheds much light on the answer though – calling on the Welsh Government to spend more in any area where it is underperforming (whilst it has no control of its total revenue) is easy; saying from where the cash should come is a great deal harder.