This time last year I was still in Portugal but had made the decision to come home. With Covid over, I was hoping that Britain would begin a process of reflection and the core values of my country would reassert themselves. Instead, I watched with alarm as a new anti-democratic trend took hold.
The same dynamics and behaviours as took place under Covid – the creation of two groups, one ‘good’, the ‘other’ bad, with the former insulting the latter for questioning new policies – were repeating themselves in another form. This time, the focus was driving, especially by ordinary people. A range of new measures were being put in place to ‘persuade’ them not to drive. They involved road blocks, cameras and fines and their imposition was justified by the idea – by no means new – of having the facilities you needed in your local area. At its core was the Big Idea of the 15-minute city.
I wrote a piece for the Australia-based website Mercatornet from the uncomfortable insider-outsider perspective of someone who no longer recognises the country she grew up in.
Since then, while restrictions on the roads are being introduced apace, the use of term ‘15-minute city’ has died down. (Perhaps there’s been a realisation in some quarters that its unpopularity was not helpful.)
But next month, on February 29th, the 15-minute-city guru himself is coming to Oxford to give a talk. Carlos Moreno is an urban planner and professor at the Sorbonne who coined the term ’15-minute city’ at COP21, a model for future cities which has since been enthusiastically embraced by bodies such as the UN and become the focus of numerous websites.
The idea behind the event is clearly to gain support for an experimental scheme that was approved by Oxford County Council in November 2022 with cabinet member Duncan Enright explaining in the Sunday Times that the idea was to turn Oxford into a 15-minute city.
In autumn 2024, six traffic filters will effectively divide the centre of Oxford into 15-minute zones, with the owners of private cars allocated 100 permits a year to drive into them. The city will be monitored by ANPR cameras and any journeys taken without permits will result in fines. Unsurprisingly, the scheme, along with Oxford’s low traffic neighbourhoods, has generated a lot of controversy.
Mercatornet has now become Mercator and the pieces I wrote before the switch are no longer available on its website. So as it contains some useful context I am republishing ‘Why have 15-minute cities become “the hottest conspiracy theory of 2023”’ below. Researching it led me to Carlos Moreno’s take on the controversy. The piece by Forbes, quoted and linked, contains some revealing detail.
As my university city, by the way, Oxford has a special place in my heart. It’s where, as my mother observed when I came home after the first term, I got my “bicycle calves”.
Why have 15-minute cities become “the hottest conspiracy theory of 2023″?
Something strange is happening in the United Kingdom. An innocuous idea, not particularly original and not in itself controversial, has become the focus of a kind of war. It’s a war between people and authority and an ideological war between different sections of the population.
At the heart of all this strife is the 15-minute city, an urban planning concept developed by academic Carlos Moreno to address the ills of modern city living and embraced by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo as part of her 2020 election campaign. The idea is that everything you need for day-to-day living, such as shops, employment, education and health services, should be found within a 15 minute walk or cycle ride of your home.
So far, so ideal. As a born Londoner who has spent most of her life living in the British capital, I understand all too well how the city that grew from a series of villages has the potential for that kind of self-sufficiency. Reporting on public services in the early 2000s, I’m also familiar with the way councils used to use their limited funds and influence to promote local living. Back then, the trend, expressed in faddish terms such as ‘regeneration’ and ‘localism’, was benevolent and enabling.
But the 15-minute city has turned coercive. Oxford County Council is currently implementing a scheme to divide the city into six zones and limit the movement of cars between them. Drivers will have to apply to the council for a permit allowing them to make a hundred journeys a year – about two trips a week – between the newly-created districts, while those from the surrounding areas will be allowed 25 trips. The restrictions will be enforced with number-plate recognition cameras and drivers of unauthorised journeys will be fined.
Unsurprisingly, the scheme has provoked widespread protest, both among residents wondering how they’re going to live under such conditions and people concerned that the 15-minute city will come to their patch too. Their concern is well-founded: a number of other councils have professed interest in following suit, while Canterbury is considering banning driving between neighbourhoods altogether. Meanwhile, more and more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced, using the planters used to close roads ‘Because Covid’. In London, the Mayor’s proposed expansion of the Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (Ulez) is causing a rebellion by councils who fear the daily charge to drive a non-compliant vehicle will close businesses and cripple poorer residents.
The bizarre intertwining of social engineering with traffic management thinly veils the blatant incongruity at the heart of 15-minute city: the fact that there are no plans to support the creation of facilities in the new zones. The assumption seems to be that limiting driving will cause the necessary services to appear, either because they are already there but ignored by joyriding residents, or because restrictions on movement will somehow force new amenities into existence. But jobs, schools, health facilities and businesses don’t manifest at will, nor do the people we want to see or events we want to attend conform to municipal boundaries.
On your bike!
The response to objections by supporters of the scheme is simple: those who want to leave their zone more than permitted can walk, bicycle or get the bus (if there is one). And here comes another bizarre feature of the anti-driving movement: the lack of willingness to consider the human costs and practicalities. The fact that public transport is limited and some people are not able to cycle or walk any distance goes unacknowledged, as does the fact that others can’t get to their job or juggle work with family responsibilities without a car. Tradesfolk can’t transport tools and materials without a vehicle, and householders sometimes need to pick up heavy items from a shop or take waste to the tip. Community events tend to depend on one or two good folk driving crockery, costumes or equipment to a nearby park or hall.
Yet – here’s more strangeness – none of this seems to matter to the supporters of such schemes. Instead of discussing the implications of the policy in a reasoned way (I’m old enough to remember when we did do this, more or less, in Britain) objections are dismissed with suggestions that are patently absurd: plumbers can use tricycles, the Underground or riverboats to transport their equipment between jobs. Far worse is the painting of anyone who objects as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or a member of the ‘far Right’. And these crude ad hominem tactics come not from angry keyboard warriors but the mainstream media, well-resourced publications with editorial standards staffed by people trained in critical thinking.
Conspiracy labelling
Hard then to make sense of this non sequitur in the Times: ‘What are 15-minutecities and why are anti-vaxxers so angry about them?’ or this strapline from Wired U.K.: “A movement to promote neighbourhood with amenities within walking distance has enraged far-Right activists, climate deniers and extremists.” Comments from the father of 15-minute cities in this Forbes article shed light on the thinking: any criticism must necessarily come from a demographic that is recognisably mad and bad: “In an all too typical Venn diagram of tinfoilhattedness… they share climate denial, downplay of Covid harms and anti-vaxxer beliefs.”
As protests have mounted, the pattern of the repeating simple ideas, tainting by unwarranted associations has replicated across the media. The Guardian bemoans the fact that MPs have now joined “the online conspiracy theory” in expressing objections, a viewed echoed in the New Statesman, while the Conversation dubs them “the hottest conspiracy theory of 2023”. It looks increasingly as if the mainstream media is engaging in wilful misunderstanding, distracting from the right-under-your-nose point that the proposed restrictions do little or nothing to alleviate traffic problems.
The reason given for this regressive discourse is that objectors are exaggerating, characterising the measures as ‘climate lockdowns’ which will confine residents to their zones. And it is true that such language is inaccurate: beyond their permitted drives, Oxford residents will still be able to leave their area via the ring road, provided they have the time and money for the longer trip. But requiring residents to have a permit to drive grants local authorities unprecedented new powers, and the fines look very much like a tax on movement.
The feeling that a diminished way of life is being imposed from the top is heightened by evidence that authorities are blatantly disregarding public opinion. Oxford County Council’s Duncan Enright told the press that the scheme was ‘definitely’ going ahead before it was officially approved. In Bath, meanwhile, a councillor responded to an objection with the statement that an LTN can go ahead in the face of clear public opposition “because the proposal will help to achieve wider council objectives”. And in London, it seems that the results of the consultation about the expansion of Ultra-Low Emissions Zone were skewed: the Mayor’s office excluded 5,270 responses opposing the Ulez expansion as ‘copy and paste’ jobs but just three in favour on similar grounds.
Making sense of the non-sense
The tendency to take control and impose your own version of the world, psychologists and political theorists remind us, is a perennial temptation for humans. The authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, from Stalinism to Albania under Hoxha where private cars were banned, are testimony to the evils of political perfectionism, how the intention to create a good society, when imposed by force and without regard for the diversity and messiness of human life, inevitably leads to dystopia.
Perhaps there’s something in the urban planning mindset, with its aspiration to create ideal spaces, that can tip into ideological thinking and make its proponents feel entitled to override the wishes of ordinary people. You can hear it in the words of José María Ezquiaga who, in June 2020, led an attempt to divide a Madrid neighbourhood into ‘superblocks’ measuring 500 by 500. “With little more than a few cones and signage… vehicles that are not residents or merchants can be prevented from passing,” he remarked with satisfaction. The plan failed.
The bureaucratic mindset that prevails in the town hall undoubtedly shares this tendency, but money comes into it too. A recent investigation by Bloomberg showed how London councils are making millions in annual revenue from cameras at specific junctions. A revealing conversation between councillors suggests that local authorities are counting on fines from drivers to fill their coffers. “Is there a risk that the revenue we are predicting won’t be obtained because motorists wise up to the restriction and start complying?” asked Robert Canning in Croydon.
From civil strife to civil discourse
So how are we going to get out of this civil strife which risks dividing citizens physically as well as ideologically?
Here’s a thought, in fact, three. Firstly, if we have the slightest desire to have a peaceful society with any level of maturity we need to stop engaging in a childish public arguments consisting of name-calling and wilful misunderstanding. Secondly, we need to separate the issue of traffic restrictions from the complex question of how to create flourishing neighbourhoods and live in greater harmony with the Earth.
The third thought, while somewhat old-fashioned, sounds radical in these coercive times. How about shifting the attitudes and emotions underlying the control-and-punish approach and replacing them with respect and trust for our fellow humans? What if, instead of spending millions on cameras and administrative systems to issue permits and fines, councils used that money to seed local community projects? Just imagine, instead of corralling, prohibiting and infantilising, the good that could come from citizens giving free expression to their own inner authority and creativity.
Alex Klaushofer writes the Ways of Seeing Substack page, where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Excellently written peice of truth and common sense , especially the bit about expecting local facilities to just appear!
It’s the same mindset that allows large estates of new houses to be built without ensuring that schools, shops, GPs etc are provided.
It’s the “if we build it, they will come” mentality. And never mind the impact on the local population in the interim ….. or if they don’t.
They’ve done that around here – stonking great estates going up with no additional infrastructure, from sewerage to schools, and docs to public transport. Absolutely farcical.
Except it contains a fundamental muddle. 15 minute cities are a 20 year urban plan by Oxford City Council. The proposed traffic restrictions are from the Oxford County Council traffic circulation plan.
And all have been spawned by the WEF and UN
Welcome to Agenda 30. Where you do what you are told to do.
Oxford County Council was spawned by the WEF and the UN? Really?
Well well, firstly you were an expert on mRNA so called vaccines – that did not exactly turn out well but it did everyone else a big favour and you exposed yourself as an apologist for the most damaging intervention on human beings in recorded history as well as being utterly wrong, now you are an expert on Town Planning but blind to the agenda that has been driven by the WEF, UN and other undemocratic, unelected apparatchiks.
As with the utter rubbish you spouted about the efficacy of mRNA drugs, just who is yanking your chain? Dowden & Co? 77TH Brigade? GHCQ? MI5? Is there more than one “MTF Muddling Moron”?
A most helpful explanation of the damage nutter eco warrior extremists Councillors and other in local councils are up to.
Amongst the other stupidities, it is barking mad expecting tradesmen to use tricycles.
Anyone who remembers the excellently made Hovis bread TV advert which was shot on Gold Hill in Shaftesbury will realise the implications of living in a country which is not Holland [ie for those who don’t know – pancake flat].
Gold Hill would kill any trademan trying to tricycle up and if that did not work, it would certainly get them at speed on the impossible to go-slowly-downhill stretch.
Will anyone re-establish democracy in this country or are we now all to be ruled by the diktats pursued with the wealth of billionaires on the WEF to undermine our democracies?
Will we ever get democracy back?
I share the author’s worries about where all this is coming from and where it’s headed, but this sort of phrase really frustrates me.
There is nothing unique in the “urban planning mindset”. The world is full of people who crave telling others what to do. And when circumstances permit they do.
We are in the midst of an epidemic of collectivism and it seems to be growing. Collectivism is where all these people thrive. The people who satisfy their will to power by lording it over others with the excuse that they are pursuing the common good. The common good is just a cover for pursuing their base instincts.
We really need to stop being naive about the existence of these people and their actual motivations.
People who make it their business to “try to make the world a better place” are as a general rule dangerous and should be treated as dangerous. And they are everywhere,
100% and I share your frustration.
Decades ago I had a chum who got a job designing road traffic systems. We parted ways rather acrimoniously when I pointed out that, as a non-driver, they didn’t have the first clue about how drivers actually used roads and the excuse ‘didn’t need to’ because ‘models’ was not only pathetic but potentially dangerous. Didn’t go down well!
Talking common sense to woketards is always futile.
The Establishment has spent the best part of 100 years, particularly post WW2, creating a society and economy which relies on car ownership and the ability for people to move around the country in non-linear ways (ie not all “roads” lead to London).
They have, through their policies, encouraged family generations to splinter and live many miles away from each other, weakening “family resilence.” They’ve encouraged dual-income families, with children needing to be cared for by a third party who is not a family member.
Unless you live in a large city, it is virtually impossible to live your life in the UK without a car (or access to one) and the freedom to drive where you need to go.
Yet now, in the space of just a few years, the aim is to turn back the clock …. and the impact on the affected population, which is most of us, is either denied or ignored.
Basically, the authoritarians are deliberately stoking a revolt. We’re seeing the start of it with the ULEZ blade runners. It won’t be long before we have our own Yellow Vest campaign.
I quite like being able to move around the country in a non-linear way. Whatever splintering there has been in my family has been through choice, not because we’ve been encouraged by the state.
Same here. All I was saying is that the policy of encouraging car ownership facilitated the splintering of extended families living in the same location.
My parents (born around 1930) lived in (a) an East End family where I estimate 40 close family members lived in a half-mile area. (b) a Hampshire family, in a tiny village, where half the village was related to each other …. and had been for at least 400 years.
None now live in the East End – they are in Essex, Norfolk, Somerset, Dorset, Northamptonshire, Liverpool and elsewhere.
None now live in the Hampshire village; they have spread all over south-west England and into Wales.
They’ve all done it through choice. But without cars, it would not have been possible.
Indeed, but I thought you were inferring this was intentional.
The dispersal of the East End was done by intellectuals working as town planners. There was a documentary about the East End slum clearances that included a family from Deptford. One family member described how the families and the street would look after each other. The post war ‘good intentions’ of slum clearing dispersed families all over the South East. In the documentary a highly articulate official described how important the slum clearance was because the housing stock was beyond help while he glibly asserted that all those dispersed were thriving. It is ironic that the old Victorian ‘slums’ that have survived demolition are considered highly desirable.
Here is another documentary of the well intentioned but socially destructive redevelopment of Newcastle. At 11:37 is a section describing an area where the original builders ran terrace housing in lines up the hill, while the modern development, to get away from the Victorian terraced housing now has fairly pleasant houses running along the contours. Perhaps it’s best to hear the narrator describe what has happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iUm0lXF5e8
Newcastle’s Lost Neighbourhood of Scotswood
Has the establishment really created that or is it how our society has evolved through the individual decisions of millions of people. I suppose the state helped build the roads. But the instinct to buy a car in order to be able to move around is entirely ours. I would say it’s all been driven primarily by natural demand.
Which in my view is how almost everything really works. All the state and the establishment do is muck around with that, often doing more harm than good.
Individual decisions, as far it goes. But in many areas, the development of specific industries created the demand for labour, which drew people in to wherever the business was.
Absolutely.
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
Richard Feynman
Let’s not forget the impact of the Beeching Report and the ripping out of a perfectly good rail system combined with disinvestment in public transport in the countryside. It is nigh on impossible to live a life in the countryside without a car. At some point, they will no doubt attempt zoning out in the counties – ANPR cameras have a nasty habit of appearing for no apparent reason – I noted some that were along the A272 west of Petersfield in Hampshire back in December last year. I applaud the Bladerunners – it’s movements like this, at considerable risk of fines and imprisonment, who lead the British way of cocking a snook at the little authoritarians who want to exercise their powers. I have a deep feeling that we will win in this because what they are doing runs against all that reasonable freedom loving peoples hold dear.
A lot of the small towns in Scotland are the result of the Victorian rail transport system. Once north of the central belt, you can be 30 miles away from a railhead. A lot of track west of Perth has gone, eg the line out to Crieff and St Fillans. The Highlands were probably more accessible by public transport in Victorian times than they are now.
Ditto Stirlingshire and what was Dunbartonshire. Little now in the way of bus services so cars are essential for modern life. Getting to a large hospital is almost impossible without a car.
A couple of picky points about language.
1) “Guru” according to the great Wikipedia is a Sanskrit term for a “mentor, guide, expert, or master” of certain knowledge or field. It seems overly generous to refer to this man as a guru. Chief Charlatan maybe.
2) “With covid over…”. Did “covid” ever start? I remember lockdowns and “vaccine” fascism. I didn’t notice “covid”.
I certainly don’t want my local council spending my money on “local community projects”. They struggle to do the basic things that local councils are meant to do, and I don’t trust them to spend my money wisely.
In theory, local communities collect money to provide important services to everyone that otherwise probably wouldn’t exist. Or not as well. e.g. rubbish collection, roads. That’s the theory.
In practice the power to tax has been abused and corrupted. They now collect money, use some of it for those services and the rest of it is a pool of money for people with authoritarian tendencies to pursue their pet projects for “making things better for others”. Because they know what’s best for everyone.
From my local district council’s website, under the “Major investment projects” section, they tell us they are getting some cash from central government:
How will the money be spent?Having engaged with partners across the district to identify investment priorities, the council agreed to support four areas:
Councils are there to provide infrastructure, they do not exist to “govern” us or manage us. They seem to be attempting to move outside their remit.
Indeed. In many ways this seems natural to me. Politics will attract that kind of person, and most large organisations will expand if allowed to. Up to us to push back on this.
Well said. They seem to think they’re something else but WE need to remind THEM what they really are: public SERVANTS
That also goes for Banks too. We are the customer they’re supposed to serve, not a commodity!
Yep, that’s about right tof. And the money left over from the above nonsense goes to paying the pensions of Council Directors.
A good list illustrating the point that they take money from us to then indoctrinate and control us.
All for the common good, of course.
I suppose the will to power is an inextricable part of the human condition. And the tax machinery is probably the most powerful tool ever devised to satisfy that instinct. And boy do those who can get their hands on it use it.
Our ambitions are high. We want to make East Herts a place where:
[…]
strong partnerships result in a resilient cultural infrastructure that offers our diverse communities a wide range of cultural opportunities
I’m willing to donate £1.37 to East Hertfordshire Council if a single person working there is capable of stating what that’s actually supposed to mean.
Lol, I think your money is safe.
Translated into English it means “We’re wasting your council tax money, sucker!”
East Hertfordshire Council is roughly comparable with Kreisverwaltung Rhein-Hunsrück, the German district I was born in. They also have a web site which is here (German only but has some nice pictures of the area):
https://www.kreis-sim.de/Startseite
That’s all about services like getting car number plates, driving licenses and stuff like that. There’s also something ‘cultural’ in there, namely, the district college of music. They have no Corporate Vision, no Cultural Strategy and certainly no Human Rights Policy, all of which seems seriously above the pay grade of a district council. I mean, East Hertfordshire Council has its own Human Rights Policy! That’s certainly grandiose! I’m wondering if they’re also planning to establish formal diplomatic relations with distant, alien countries, like, say, Kent. Will they have something to say on the human rights situation there?
If this wasn’t real, it would make a really good satire.
That reeks of empire expansion to justify more minions and higly paid managerial posts to push paper around! I don’t want to pay for this type of useless carp…
Lol. I only know one person who works for EHDC and as far as I can understand he actually does useful stuff and is a serious, intelligent, hardworking person. I’m sure like a lot of organisations they have always had inefficiencies but I expect at some point most of their efforts were focused on visibly useful stuff. I would love to know when the insane over-reach started in earnest. Lots of these councils are close to going bust – blamed on horrid Tories usually. I wonder if spending money on things like Human Rights Policies has something to do with it.
We’re a fairly tranquil and prosperous district – probably the senior leadership and politicians at some point got bored with steady as she goes management of their core functions and decided they needed to save the world, starting with East Herts.
Street plant pots!
Here is a quote from a Roman Co Consul.
It is the responsibility of leadership to work intelligently with what is given, and not waste time fantasizing about a world of flawless people and perfect choices.
These ideas of 15 min cities, DIE and such come from people who have everything given to them on a plate, and none have had to work at anything to get what they desire.
There is no prospect of England becoming again a peaceful society with a level of maturity in the foreseeable future. The authoritarian, collectivist scum, who have taken over the state and all large institutions, are determined to destroy western civilisation and impose their vile preferences on all of us. They are incapable of being reasoned with or of being reasonable. They need to be fought with maximum vigour and destroyed utterly.
Indeed, and sadly much of the population seems to either acquiesce or actively welcome this.
Totally agree
Green plan for living in greater harmony with the earth:
Living in harmony with the earth means absolutely nothing. Harmony is the name for the theory of overlapping sound waves in music. I’m not a sound wave. And neither is the earth. Hence, we cannot resonate with each other.
Permits to leave your zone, where are we living, Berlin 1946?
As for jobs, what sort of job will you get within 15 minutes, do the numpties that dream up these ideas have the faintest clue where people work outside of shops and council offices?
Post war governments have created this nightmare….most people would love not to have to commute, but since house prices and the cost of moving have become a serious drain on finances, you have to buy further away from where you work, and if you change jobs moving house is often not affordable due to taxes…stamp duty can be 10s of thousands of pounds now. British families have been priced out of many cities by foreign investors, and immigration, which together with destruction of UK industry have sundered old communities.
Trying to re-create pre-1960s lack of mobility by force is really not going to end well, as the government has destroyed the supporting infrastructure and asset stripped the UK piece by piece over the last 70 years.
The trouble is that many of those seeking to get into the council are simply not fit for the job. Once there, they can exercise their imaginary powers by complicating people’s lives and creating rafts of regulations. The planning departments of councils seem to be full of these types.
Found this little gem online – an estate agent’s view of where to buy if you want (ffs) to live in a 15 minute city:
https://www.dwh.co.uk/advice-and-inspiration/15-minute-cities/
My question behind all of this is a simple one – how is ’15 minutes’ actually defined? As walked by a fit & healthy 35 year old with no bags on flat ground? What about a mum with two kids, a pushchair and shopping bags? A wheelchair user/assistant animal user? A doddery octagenarian with sticks or shopping trolley? In a hilly environment (parts of Bristol, Sheffield, etc for eg)? In areas of urban decline which might not be safe? What about guaranteed well-lit at night? – oh that’s right, they’re taking out street lights because climate.
Could it thus be argued that the whole concept is massively discriminatory not just to vehicle users, but to the disabled, parents, the elderly, the geographically challenged and so on?
I’m with the “conspiracy theorists”…..The convenience is just a smokescreen for control, hence the cameras going up before any real town panning, parks etc.
I think 15-minute cities are a brilliant idea. No! Wait!
The idea that I could find all the employment, entertainment, choice of watering hole, medical facilities and retail services I would reasonably want within a 15-minute cycle ride or walk from home is enchanting. Of course, for the apparently ‘unreasonable’ things I’d also like to take occasional days out in the countryside and sometimes eschew community theatre for a West End or Stratford (no, the other one) production. Of course, I realise it’s not just about me: I understand some people even like to attend some football matches or other sporting events too.
Thing 1 is: That’s what it would have to be – a magical enchantment.
Thing 2 is: To achieve anything like this you don’t start by imprisoning the population in whatever area they happen to live. Start by encouraging the services.
Thing 3 is: Who voted for this? Which manifesto was it in? I can well believe it was in Oxford’s ruling party (for example) political manifesto – but did the voters realise this? Who didn’t vote against it?
Oxford’s city council last year approved a 20-year urban development plan to create neighborhoods where essential services are accessible by walking no more than 15 minutes. Opponents appear to have confused that commitment with a separate Oxfordshire County Council circulation plan designed to reduce through-traffic within the city.
No connection between the two ( obviously )…
“With Covid over, I was hoping that Britain would begin a process of reflection and the core values of my country would reassert themselves. Instead, I watched with alarm as a new anti-democratic trend took hold”…….Well what do you expect; the culprits are still walking free, even moving on to a new “Permacrisis”.
All held together by paper mache. The economic woes that are coming will make all of these fantasies seem like quaint memories. The depopulation agenda will move to a coarser level and then disappear and by that point we will all be looking for caves to live in anyway. It doesn’t matter. Like the Buddha said, a short life and a long life – they are the same. That was the whole message of the gospels – that the quantifiable world and the spiritual world are very different. When things start to happen you will see reality and you will see those people who are and have always been true people never choosing the dearest of illusions over the harshest of realities.
“because the proposal will help to achieve wider council objectives”
And there it is. These are not ‘objectives’ of the wider community, that the council represents, but the council’s objectives. Who decided that these were the council’s objectives and where does the taxpaying citizen fit in? What is the point of our councils if they are now the play things of various ideologues?
We are in a new era of Lysenkoism, where pseudo-science is enforced using Soviet style repressive techniques.
One thing we do know, as it has been made abundantly clear to us; the concept of “government by consent” has been completely binned.
I am totally against the freedom to move around our country whenever, and where ever I want.
If towns and cities had sufficient infrastructure, doctors, hospital, schools, shops work etc, fewer people would want or need to move around. Problem solved.
People don’t travel for the hell of it, usually they have to get to the services they need.
One can only ask: “When is the next City Council election?”. These nutters who imposed these restrictions should realise that they can be voted out more easily than voted in.
What I do wonder with these people, is whether they have sat down and worked out the economics of providing *all* the services, i.e. shops and facilities *we* want, i.e. not decided by them, in that 15 minute ghetto. If a business is effectively limited by ’15 minutes’, are many of them economically viable? And anyway, are the council now going to dictate where businesses can be established, and are they effectively banning competition?
No doubt of course, they’ll exempt themselves from the 100-permit limit. Reminds me of when Eric Pickles MP made some claim about needing ‘privileges’ to get to work on time, on BBC QuestionTime I think, and an audience member quipped in response something like “welcome to the real world mate”.
The thing that for me that represents the smoking gun that all is not as it is being sold to the public – the picture-postcard vision of thriving small communities of yesteryear where everyone lives just a short walk away from everything you’ll ever need – is the choice of priorities in the development of “15-minute cities”:
As the author points out that “There are no plans to support the creation of facilities within the new zones”. I would expand on this with the following consideration: What ARE there plans to do, and what is the FIRST aspect of this whole new mythical utopian infrastructure to spring up? Not the shops, schools, parks, medical facilities, places of worship, town halls, sports facilities, kids’ playgrounds, restaurants or cafes…. No, it’s the ANPR cameras! First comes the enforcement aspect, and then the mirage of utopian community with diversity, equality and safety espoused by the academics, the urban planning theorists, will fade into distant memory and all we’ll be left with is the cameras and the admonition not to drive out of your zone too often!