The MP and the 15minute city conspiracy

[Ming the Merciless]

Does seem odd, he must realise encouraging those 15 minute walks or cycle rides instead of driving is going to better for everyone. Doncaster is ideal as well as it’s flat as pancake.

 

[mjr]

Are you sure ? It is pretty important in the story as it about policy.

It's difficult. That party is split on this issue. Nationally, their policy is supportive of people having essential services near where they live, but the blockers in local government are nearly always from that same party ( but it's not the whole party). It's bizarre. Are they in favour of the personal liberty and autonomy of walking and cycling, or the oppression of urban areas by generally-richer generally-older motorists from elsewhere?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Does seem odd, he must realise encouraging those 15 minute walks or cycle rides instead of driving is going to better for everyone. Doncaster is ideal as well as it’s flat as pancake.

I think the underlying beef is not with the ends, but the means. If the means involve restrictions or regulations on individuals then there is a certain class of people who see these as non-negotiable infringements of personal freedom regardless of the general outcome for everyone.

For balance: It's not just libertarians who can be like that. Remember the furore about the Shell sponsorship of British Cycling. The end may be a good one in that BC get more dosh (actually that's debatable too ) but the means, that they get it from a petrochemical company, is what was objected to.

 

[Alex321]

I think the underlying beef is not with the ends, but the means. If the means involve restrictions or regulations on individuals then there is a certain class of people who see these as non-negotiable infringements of personal freedom regardless of the general outcome for everyone.

Understandable, but the means don't involve any restrictions on individuals here.

The MP in question, and various other conspiracy theorists seem to think they do, but those people are simply wrong.

The whole point is to give people choice. It will mean they don't have to travel by car to access most things, but they can still go further if they want, and use their cars to do so.

But for some reason, those "arguing" against the concept seem to think it is removing that choice.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I think the underlying beef is not with the ends, but the means. If the means involve restrictions or regulations on individuals then there is a certain class of people who see these as non-negotiable infringements of personal freedom regardless of the general outcome for everyone.

I understand that. I've heard the same argument here when people say "You can't close roads/make them narrower/take away parking spaces for cycling or pedestrians because that will take away freedom of choice".

Of course, what the people making the argument fail (or refuse) to see is that when you encourage car use, you're still taking away people's freedom of choice, it's just different people; by definition planning decisions either support the well being of motorists or the well being of everyone else; you can't have both.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

You can't close roads/make them narrower

They are already made a lot narrower by allowing people to abandon their personal property (cars) in the highway. Remove that allowance and the roads will be wider and no new road build work required.

 

[Dogtrousers]

OK I've read a bit of the background and I take it all back. My idea that "you should rationally expect this kind of response because this is the logic that libertarians follow" is nonsense. There's no logic here at all. The opposition to "15 minute cities" seems to be based around the idea that anyone travelling more than 15 minutes from their home will be summarily shot, which would be bad ... or something like that. It's just nuts.

I've heard all about "arguments from authority" and how we should be wary of taking things at face value just because "they" say so. But sometimes it makes sense - when you see that some highly respected thinkers are aligned on an issue you really should pause and consider as it's likely that they have a point. If such heavyweight intellectuals as Right Said Fred, Neil Oliver, Laurence Fox and Katie Hopkins are backing this, then surely there must be something to it.

What's happening here is not libertarianism. It's playground politics. If I see something that I think the kind of people I don't like might agree with then it must be wrong.

 

[matticus]

OK I've read a bit of the background and I take it all back.

Praise be! That saves me a lengthy - yet entertaining and perceptive - rebuttal of your previous post.

Welcome, brother

 

[Jameshow]

What does annoy me is that if you shop locally you get penalised.

I don't mind if the corner shop is charging a bit extra for milk or bread that's to be expected as they don't have the economies of scale.

However when the likes of Tesco Coop etc charge you more because you shop local or because you cannot afford to run a car to the supermarket then I think that's unethical.

 

[mjr]

However when the likes of Tesco Coop etc charge you more because you shop local or because you cannot afford to run a car to the supermarket then I think that's unethical.

Coop agree and stopped doing it. For a while, the biggest coop had a three tier pricing largely inherited from its purchase of Somerfield. There are still some variations between the various operating coops ( central England, Scotmid, group...), but I don't know of any varying by store size any more. They are often slightly dearer than the bigger less-ethical chains because of a reluctance to screw suppliers.

Now, Tesco charging more in small Express stores for the same lines, and especially charging independents as much in their cash&carry as the retail price for the same item in their big Extra stores, thereby forcing a lot of small shops to charge more than a supermarket? Yeah, that's gouging.

 

[PK99]

What does annoy me is that if you shop locally you get penalised.

I don't mind if the corner shop is charging a bit extra for milk or bread that's to be expected as they don't have the economies of scale.

However when the likes of Tesco Coop etc charge you more because you shop local or because you cannot afford to run a car to the supermarket then I think that's unethical.

No it is not The Staff cost vs Sales ratio is different for the different scales of shop

 

[HobbesOnTour]

It's not only in Britain either, in Berlin they are also trying to experiment with curtailing car freedoms and meeting with strong opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/11/berlin-car-free-city-plan-culture-war

I read that article (unaware of his thread) and I'd have some sympathy with those opposed.
There seems to be a deliberate attempt to withhold information about how the scheme is to be implemented and that is going to be pounced on by opponents.

I have had my own experiences with local governments implementing ideas and that also bolsters my sympathy.
In NL, in a city of 200,000 souls the one-way direction outside my house changed three times in about 18 months without telling me!
That same city also changed the Fire Safety Inspections from being carried out by the Fire Brigade to Council employees, a change from Professional to untrained inspectors. The results were truly frightening.
I have a host of examples of individuals or groups within the council "running" with terrible ideas that were implemented with great rigour only to be quietly shelved when the obvious flaws became well, obvious.
If the locals have similar levels of confidence in their administrators then I can understand some degree of opposition.

I sold my car and lived very happily car free for a couple of years but I had a definite goal in mind. Without that goal if someone had suggested the idea I'd have thought them mad. It's not difficult to see how some would see this as the thin end of the wedge to being forced to go car free.

But that doesn't explain this

Not matter how much I read on the matter, I'm still struggling to understand how people can conflate these issues with wider conspiracy theories though.

To my mind there are a variety of complex reasons behind it, but a major one is the Internet for giving a voice to those who would be ignored down their local, an audience of like minded ignored-in-their-locals and also changing the manner and way of debating and teasing things out.
(There is also the distinct possibility (as I become a conspiracy theorist) that a lot of online division is being deliberately fomented.)
And, of course, once there's a group out there that think "X" someone will be along shortly to use that group for their own ends.

Years ago I was taught that feelings of being persecuted often arise in people who otherwise would be invisible in an indifferent universe. Better to feel persecuted than ignored.

For me this is an interesting observation. I don't necessarily agree with it but it does raise the important question "Why?"
Why do so many ignore so much evidence that diverges from their opinion?
Why are they so trenchant in those opinions?
Why is there an observed move to the extremes so that discussions avoid the middle ground where consensus and understanding can grow?

It's very easy to hurl an insult at someone. Much more difficult to spend some time understanding why they might think that way.
Without the "Why" there can't be consensus, only an imposed solution. And that will veer over and back depending on who wields the power. (Any current examples belong in NACA.)

I think what is often forgotten is that the changing of an opinion is an internal process. Not external. Insulting, mocking, ignoring someone will not change their mind. There has to be a line of communication and some degree of trust so that questions can be asked and the person has to explain the "Why", even if only to themselves.
It's probably also a good idea to let them retreat from their view with a degree of grace, if that time ever comes.

So, maybe hugging a Conspiracy Theorist is actually a good first step

 

[Milzy]

Hopefully this will never happen. It’s no conspiracy though. It has been discussed in our cities council meetings and is a legitimate idea by some crack pot. Like someone mentioned if we can get electric infrastructure in then no real need for a smart city. If they ever did go ahead people could be easily controlled though. That’s probably the frightening part.

 

[ExBrit]

There are just too many idiots in the world. I blame Health & Safety as clearly most of these should have fallen by the wayside after drinking bleach or something similar.

You mitigate Darwinism at your peril

 

[Andy in Germany]

Hopefully this will never happen. It’s no conspiracy though. It has been discussed in our cities council meetings and is a legitimate idea by some crack pot. Like someone mentioned if we can get electric infrastructure in then no real need for a smart city. If they ever did go ahead people could be easily controlled though. That’s probably the frightening part.

I'm not sure how people can be more easily controlled by having to rely less on technology. How often do we hear people being effectively imprisoned in their neighbourhood because they have no car, or saying certain things are "impossible without a car"? If you want to control people, make them car dependent and then put a curfew on driving. Making it possible to walk or cycle everywhere make people harder to control because they can gather quickly without travelling.

These proposals have been tried and they create neighbourhoods which are far more pleasant to live in, and more economical too, and they remove the need for expensive and wasteful private electric vehicles. They aren't uncommon in European cities; even central Stuttgart is known for it.

I'm in one such neighbourhood. I'm within fifteen minutes walk of the local banks, PO, school, kindergarten, food shops, chemist, and railway station. I'm also within fifteen minutes of my work. It took some planning on my part to achieve this but it's worth it. Why isn't this the norm?