PRIME MINISTER RISHI SUNAK took some clever advice from his spin doctors when in 2023 he decided to rename certain gullible folk who sit behind the wheel of a vehicle “motorists.” Using this rather old-fashioned word he triggered one of the most blatant uses of propaganda in recent years in Britain, clearly spun for one purpose only — to win votes.

Sunak went on to portray “motorists” as some sort of persecuted group, a minority who are discriminated against, when in fact many of us travel in cars from time to time without feeling we are treated unfairly and would not want to include ourselves in his gang.

This irritating trope hasn’t yet faded away; it has grown into an anti-ULEZ monster that is set to be perhaps the only populist Conservative policy that is garnering support for the forthcoming general election.

The policy idea of rolling back anything that impinges on drivers pops up again and again whenever some mild change that affects car driving could be deemed an injustice. This week the Welsh parliament had to re-jig a few of its 20 mph speed limits even though they have been mostly successful.

“We told you it wouldn’t work” chanted a chorus of indignant, red-faced and angry self-styled “motorists” on X who would rather see a few more accidents than have to put their foot on the brake.
 
The term “motorist” was well chosen. It is used by Sunak to conjure up a dreamworld of motoring’s golden age — the 1930s, perhaps, a world of winding rural roads free of traffic, where the only sounds are bird song and the growling engine of a quaint open-top Morgan-type sports car.

No doubt the driver, a male of course, in his tweeds and flat cap, has a gorgeous “popsy” beside him, hair billowing in the wind as they tootle along to a country hotel. A world of Bergerac and Midsomer Murders, in a time when everything was so much better, when they had properly chromed metal RAC badges, a world that existed long before the Pandora’s box containing the phoney “war on the motorist” was opened by the unpopular and desperate Conservatives.
 
This fantasy ignores the dull reality for many people, passing hours each day sitting in stuffy tin cans, isolated from each other while polluting the air with petrol fumes with some driving recklessly causing premature death or serious injury that wreck lives and incur vast sums to the NHS and councils who provide lifelong care. I’ve already mentioned how the phrase “war on motorists” was cooked up by the government solely for propaganda purposes.

I have just been reading an excellent book by Peter Pomerantsev, an expert on propaganda and conspiracy theories, entitled How to Win an Information War, detailing how propaganda was used in World War II.

In it, he explains that the real power of propaganda is not to convince or confuse: it’s to give you a sense of belonging and for those who enjoy being cast as the downtrodden beleaguered car driver surely there is a warm and cosy sense of belonging and prestige that comes from being elevated to the title of “motorist,” from where, on their imaginary leather seats, facing an imaginary walnut dashboard, they can both look down on others as well as enjoy venting their anger, towards the enemy, (and propaganda creates enemies), which for them is often pedestrians who don’t move quickly enough, or cyclists or Sadiq Khan.
 
The audience for this propaganda is well chosen. Drivers are numerous enough to be a group worth targeting. It works, too. The only recent gleam of light for the Tories in a run of disastrous by-elections was their July 2023 win in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which, as all commentators agree, was swung by scare stories about ULEZ.

It is no wonder that Tory campaigners, local activists and the staff at Conservative campaign headquarters alike are mounting a vicious online attack on the low-emissions policy, generating demonstrations and vile racist slurs against the London mayor. This will certainly gain traction as the general election approaches, an election which promises to be the dirtiest in modern times.
 
The “war on the motorists” feeds well into the Tories’ broader anti-woke agenda, connecting as it does with environmental issues and the worst kind of identity attitudes.
 
Right now in my south-coast town, the council is trying its best, as are many councils all over the country, to make roads safer and cut death and injury by reducing speed limits on some roads and providing more cycle lanes.

Of course, this is angering the entitled “motorists” who, strengthened by Sunak’s words, are either protesting outside council offices, filling the letter pages in the local paper or going online, screaming at councillors for their lack of democracy in not holding a referendum.

But hey — a recent poll by Sustrans shows that, when surveyed, most people actually want better public transport and cycle lanes rather than money spent on improving roads. Who knew? Certainly not Sunak who is pretending there’s a “war on motorists” which is usefully enabling him to distract from a myriad of more pressing issues while pretending to be the saviour and champion of those self-important, whinging drivers.
 
The car driver, who may from time to time also be a bike rider or pedestrian, is encouraged to think he is put upon, having to pay over the top for the use of their vehicle, but studies show that throughout Europe car drivers are actually subsidised by an unbelievable £600 per person by governments, that is the sum for each and every person in the whole country.
 
Imagine if car drivers paid their dues in full instead of being subsidised: all that saved money could be spent on improving public transport. How much better for everyone if there were fewer cars, if speeds were reduced, and accidents minimised and how much healthier people would be if they walked to a bus or train that was frequent and clean?
 
It is shameful that this government should ignore all the facts and put car drivers before children, the disabled, the poor, the elderly and even animals who are unable or unwilling to drive a car and are most at risk of being injured, in this government’s attempt to win votes from an entitled and often privileged group.