Richard Leeming, Southwark Councillor
It’s clear that the local elections in May 2024 were a triumph for the Labour Party. But digging beneath the headlines to look at what the results mean for active travel three further conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, it seems clear that parties and politicians that support active travel and have delivered successful schemes have benefitted at the ballot box. Secondly, parties and politicians who’ve opposed successful active travel schemes were not rewarded by the electorate and thirdly – which is not good news for some local Labour parties – parties and politicians who’ve equivocated about active travel schemes or compromised on delivery suffered in the polls.
The headline result is undoubtedly the London Mayoralty where Sadiq Khan comfortably won an unprecedented third term with a substantial swing towards Labour, a winning margin of 275,000 votes and 44% vote share.
Khan’s victory came in the teeth of vigorous campaigns against his record of rolling out the ULEZ and funding councils to deliver LTNs. The Tory candidate Susan Hall relentlessly talked about Khan’s ‘War on the Motorist’ while Reform, the Social Democrats and Britain First also campaigned on pro-motorist policies. But Hall’s hopes of beating Khan thanks to a Tory surge in the suburbs failed to materialise. In the end she only gained a big majority in Bexley and Bromley, and even there the anti active travel vote was split, with Reform UK’s pro-car campaigner Howard Cox gaining nearly 10,000 votes. Being pro-motorist and anti active travel didn’t benefit Britain First, who were beaten by Count Binface!
There were also good results for Labour in inner London in boroughs who are delivering active travel schemes with Khan winning big, and such good results for Labour MLAs that the party only ended up with one member from the London-wide list. Bye-elections also went Labour’s way, a potential upset failing to materialise in Lambeth where the council has had to temporarily suspend the controversial Streatham Wells LTN. Anti-LTN candidates had sought to capitalise on the removal and campaigned hard on the issue in two by-elections. In the end they gained just 19% and 14% of the votes, with Labour winning both seats comfortably.
In outer London however there were signs that the anti-ULEZ campaign still has salience, with good results for the Tories in five bye-elections. They held onto seats in Bromley, Croydon and Hillingdon, gained a seat in Sutton council and another in Wandsworth from Labour.
Outside London, the picture is less clear at the mayoral level. While Labour won everywhere except Tees Valley its not clear that active travel was a factor in any of the metropolitan mayoral elections – and in the West Midlands Andy Street’s work on active travel wasn’t enough to save him from going down to a narrow defeat to Labour.
But while Labour candidates in areas who’ve delivered active travel did well, the party suffered where they’ve failed to be bold about delivering schemes. In Oxford, there’s been a long running row about LTNs introduced in East Oxford by the County Council. In March the Labour-run City Council voted against them and at the local elections in May Labour failed to regain overall control of the city council, losing four seats to the anti-LTN Independent Oxford Alliance Party and 2 seats to the pro LTN Green Party.
In Bristol, the Labour council delayed a trial of a planned ‘Liveable Neighbourhood’ scheme amid local opposition in 2023 and failed to mention active travel in its 2024 manifesto. This did not prove to be a vote winner as the Green Party took several seats from Labour leaving them on the cusp of outright control of the council. The Green Party in Bristol has gone from having 11 of the 70 seats in 2016, to 24 seats in 2021, to 34 seats in 2024. The Labour Party correspondingly has gone from 37 seats in 2016, to 24 seats in 2021, to 21 seats in 2024.
Similarly, in Newcastle, Labour also lost seats to the Tories, LibDems and the Greens after the city council ended trials of LTNs in Jesmond and Heaton early.
The conclusion seems to be that while voters reward Labour councils and mayors who introduce active travel measures and are prepared to face down local opposition however virulent, seeking compromise isn’t a successful electoral strategy as you get shot by both sides. Where Labour councils have backed away from LTNs in the face of local campaigns voters who are against active travel have rewarded parties who’ve campaigned against the measures, while voters who want active travel policies vote for parties like the Greens who are seen to be strongly in favour of environmental policies.