Peter Doveston says liberals should reframe the transport debate by talking about the way public transport can offer freedom from the burden of car ownership.Here is a quotation from the concluding chapter of Not thinking like a Liberal by Raymond Geuss:
Liberalism, in the sense I have been using it, is committed to the inviolability of individual taste and opinion, the need to protect maximum unfettered choice, and free enterprise. Anyone who, in our world, can see a viable path from this conception to a situation where we avoid ecological disaster has much sharper vision than mine.
I came across these sentences recently and it dawned upon me the intractable nature of the problem we face when it comes to our behaviours and the environment.
It has often been my opinion that to sufficiently address our environmental challenges we will need to reduce what we consume in quite a stark way. However, how will this ever materialise when the principles of liberalism, as it is defined above, are so embedded within our institutions and our everyday lives?
Of course, this isn’t the first challenge to have been placed at the feet of liberalism. Prior to the Liberal landslide election of 1906 there were many conversations as to how the Liberal Party could address poverty and maintain liberal beliefs at its core.
The answer? Liberalism was reframed and instead of just considering 'freedoms to' it was surmised that it should also include 'freedoms from'. Yes you have the freedom to speak, trade, assemble etc., but you also should have the freedom from poverty and ill health.
Outside of London and a few other anomalous places, public transport is suffering in modern Britain and, arguably, it is the fault of uninhibited liberalism.
In the 1980s bus services were deregulated and were, by and large, taken over by private enterprise and, to remain commercially viable, many services have been cut. British Rail was sold off and became the patchwork of regional services we see today supposedly competing against each other in a free market.
The freedom to own a car was taken up on a massive scale. Roads were built to maximize this freedom. Services such as shops redesigned themselves to capitalize.
If liberalism died then you might expect a queue of environmentalists at the funeral, ready with spades to help fill in the grave.
Liberalism, however, is not going to die anytime soon. Despite my negative review thus fair, it has given us the kinds of lives that the people of 1906 Britain could not have even dreamed of. However, perhaps we could take one lesson from 1906 and ask how we might reframe liberalism to face the challenges of our time.
Instead of thinking of the car, for instance, as a freedom, we might perceive it as a ball and chain. After all, in places where you are stuck having to use a car you also have a vast list of charges to pay:
- cost of driving lessons and test
- insurance
- tax
- fuel
- maintenance
- cost of car and financing
- parking costs.
You are also obliged to drive it everywhere and when you no longer can drive it, perhaps due to ill health, you are stuck. Then there is the polluting element causing illegal levels of air pollution in some places. Should we not develop our towns and cities so that people are free from all these burdens?
The question then becomes: how do we free people from these burdens?
Luckily, in Britain our capital city provides solutions and some of them not so unfamiliar to liberalism. Franchised bus services might be one way we could go or municipal bodies, like TFL does in London, running services in towns and cities.
For trains we need to look at the successes of our European neighbours and create a unified network and, as I mention in another post I have written recently, we need to bolster that network with the reopening of former lines.
Liberalism faces many challenges when it comes to environmental concern, modern consumerism being the most difficult. However, perhaps by using public transport as a model, we could show how the behaviours we consider to be archetypally liberal are, in fact, quite the opposite.
Peter Doveston is part of the Northampton Streets Campaign and writes for CA-WN Exchange. You are welcome to contact him by email.