Reform UK has been labelled “utterly clueless about how to run a council” and accused of “pandering to the terminally online” after the Nigel Farage-led party pledged to remove all low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) from the areas it now controls – only for the local authorities themselves to confirm that they do not, in fact, currently have any of the traffic-calming schemes in place.
Last week, Reform UK’s chair Zia Yusuf promised to enact a “large-scale reversal” of existing LTNs, and block attempts to install new ones, in the 10 council areas in England where the right-wing populist party won control following its victory at the local elections earlier this month.
By limiting through traffic, via ANPR cameras or physical bollards, LTNs prevent rat-running through residential roads and promote active journeys on foot or by bike, all with the aim of reducing pollution, creating a safer environment for local residents, and improving public health.
They have, however, been controversial in some communities and on social media, attracting protests and, in some cases, vandalism, with critics claiming they lead to traffic displacement and congestion on boundary roads.

“LTNs have proliferated too quickly and there are far too many of them,” Yusuf, whose party campaigned against the schemes in the run-up to the local elections, told the Telegraph last week.
“We view these schemes with the same suspicion as mass immigration and Net Zero. They are policies which are supported by and made to benefit more affluent people, who are then insulated from the negative consequences.
“You can expect, if you live in a Reform council, for there to be a much higher bar for any proposals for LTNs and for the large-scale reversal of these existing LTNs.”
Yusuf also said that the 10 councils now under Reform’s control – Derbyshire, Doncaster, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, North Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, and West Northamptonshire – would soon become “islands of freedom for motorists, where people who want to use their cars are able to do so”.
However, when approached by the Guardian, the 10 Reform-run councils all revealed that they do not have any LTNs in their areas.
When asked about the absence of LTNs under their control, despite their pledge to remove these non-existent schemes, a Reform spokesperson pointed to mapping data showing the proportion of roads within the council areas which are not open to through-traffic.
However, as noted by the Guardian, this would also count traditional, non-LTN roads closed to through traffic, such as cul-de-sacs and housing estates, established long before the Conservative government’s push to install the traffic-calming schemes from 2020.
“It is not known whether Reform plans to open these up as through routes,” the Guardian’s senior political correspondent Peter Walker said.
With their plans to scrap LTNs have already proving a roaring success – considering there were none to begin with – Reform has also pledged to sack council staff working on climate change or diversity initiatives, telling Durham council employees last week that those with such roles should be “seeking alternative careers very, very quickly”.
However, like their LTN pledge, it’s unclear what real-world impact these words will have, with some councils, such as Lincolnshire, already confirming they do have any staff specifically assigned to diversity issues.

And Reform’s ill-fated anti-LTN messaging has prompted widespread ridicule from rival parties, who have accused Farage and his colleagues of “pandering to the terminally online”.
“This hollow pledge shows that Reform are completely shooting from the hip,” a Conservative source told road.cc on Thursday.
“They haven’t got a clue how to run a local council or deliver for local people and we’ll soon see the impact that will have on the people in those council areas.
“It’s clear with this pronouncement they’re more interested in pandering to the terminally online rather than working for the people they’re elected to represent.”
“Reform are utterly clueless about how to run a council,” added a Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
“From councillors who won’t take up their seats to schemes that don’t exist, it’s clear that they don’t understand the needs of their communities.
“Now they have some power, they need to learn how to Google things first. The Liberal Democrats will be holding Reform’s feet to the fire and standing up for our communities.”
With Reform’s rhetoric highlighting the challenges facing those seeking to implement LTNs and other similar schemes such as School Streets (which ban traffic outside schools at the start and end of the school day) Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman told the COP29 summit in November that he had been “involved in the emotional side of this at a local level”.
“We’ve been doing a lot of focus group work on what plays with people and we’ve spoken to them about it,” Boardman explained. “[Telling people] it’s worth £53 billion to the economy, they don’t care, I’m trying to pay my mortgage.
“But, when we talked about kids having transport independence and the ability to stay at after school clubs, suddenly they were leaning in and were really interested.
“We were talking about the same thing but we were talking to the outcomes that they could connect to.
“When you’re going to change the streetscape locally, don’t give it an acronym that people can disassociate from emotionally and learn to hate, like LTNs, for example. Call it a child safe zone. Then if you want to campaign against it, fine, but you’re campaigning against a child safe zone.
“It just changed the whole framing and people understand and realise why this difficult thing is happening.”
Reform’s “hollow” anti-LTN pledge also comes in the same week active travel groups published a report calling for the “most radical reforms to road safety since mandatory seat belts”, ahead of the Labour government’s highly anticipated release of its Road Safety Strategy.
The report, co-commissioned by the Bikeability Trust and Living Streets charities, recommended an immediate nationwide ban on pavement parking, default 20mph speed limits for motor vehicles in all urban areas, enshrining mandatory cycle training into the national curriculum, and spending at least 10 per cent of transport funding on cycling and walking.























42 thoughts on “Reform UK branded “utterly clueless” after pledging to scrap LTNs – where none exist”
“They are policies which are
“They are policies which are supported by and made to benefit more affluent people, who are then insulated from the negative consequences.”
Lol, they want to get rid of them specifically because they don’t benefit more affluent people. Affluent people like MP’s live in gated communities where rat running is impossible. They would just like to rat run through the poor’s neighbourhoods on the way to parliament.
thrawed wrote:
Quite right. There are so many double-standards:
Street trees – take up valuable space and drop leaves and branches there – but they’re only of benefit for the affluent who get to look at them when they drive past.
Bus stops – expensive and people graffiti them and they look ugly. Do you see these in gated estates? Not likely! They’re just inflicted on hard-working people.
Footways – take up space that the working people of England who can’t afford four acres of garden could be parking in. Let’s use a bit of common sense – people walking can just use the road along with cars. We have trained and licenced drivers (an expensive system to administer BTW) – we should show them some trust.
chrisonabike wrote:
Presumably the next update to the highway code would suggest that pedestrians using the road should “walk in primary position” to “take the lane” for safety and visibility purposes and that cars should leave 1.5 metres space when overtaking pedestrians? It is possibel that in places like London travelling at a steady 4mph behind a pedestrian would be both an improvement in average speed and hark back to the early days of motoring!
Backladder wrote:
Rule 163 is already a thing. You have to give at least 2 metres of space when passing pedestrians in the road. And pedestrians are recommended to walk against traffic for safety and visibility purposes in Rule 2.
You have to give at least 2
You have to give at least 2 metres of space when passing pedestrians in the road
Except you don’t, because if you submit a HD video of somebody passing much closer to a pedestrian or a cyclist the sniggering coppers will eject it straight into the bin, as we all know. I have just reported to We Never Do Anything OpSnap (remember that we were told yesterday that DaiRozzer has declared an NFA Amnesty for all offenders committing offences which are deemed worth only the joke advice letter, which is the overwhelming majority no matter how close the pass) a double pass where the total distance between the nearside mirror and the kerb was just over 1.7 metres. This is proved by road furniture, and this distance is about the same as permitted to me by a police car back in March. Naturally, the police refused to respond to that report. In this era of unaccountable anti-cyclist police, things are not going to improve.
https://upride.cc/incident/ef65vwlpn63yha_cmaxberlingo_doubleclosepass/
With Reform now leading the
With Reform now leading the council in Northants I can’t wait for them to announce plans to rip up all the pesky town centre pedestrianised zones in the county’s towns.
My son picked up a ticket
My son picked up a ticket going through this LTN in Wellingborough. Basically left work a bit early and was on auto pilot. I assume he can expect a refund and this decades old LTN will now be removed. No, I thought not.
Quote:
I can’t wait for them to announce multiple compulsory purchase schemes so that they can open up all those culs-de-sac (cul-de-sacs? culs-des-sacs?) to through traffic.
“Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s chair
“Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s chair, said last week there would be a “large-scale reversal” of existing LTNs in the 10 areas across England where the party won control of the councils in local elections on 1 May.”
“A Liberal Democrat source said: “Reform are utterly clueless about how to run a council. From councillors who won’t take up their seats to schemes that don’t exist, it’s clear that they don’t understand the needs of their communities.”
So Reform UK is either incompetent or simply “misinforming” the public in the hope of encouraging their support…
Or both.
Either of them should be a bar on holding office.
Quote:
Translation: “We’re suspicious of everything that has come along since the fall of Margaret Thatcher. We feel that going back to the 1980s will benefit everyone. The country will be great again if we bring back filofaxes, being able to drive at 50 mph in built-up areas, and my hairline.”
Said the former Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs banker, and cofounder of a luxury concierge company, who is pretty-well insulated from any negative consequences thanks to the £31 million he got from its sale, and thus able to dabble in far-right politics.
Don’t forget being able to
Don’t forget being able to smoke fags everywhere – that change was a massive loss of liberty!
(Which prior state makes an interesting parallel with our current state of motornormativity).
… and revoke seat belt laws
… and revoke seat belt laws, bring back 240 d/£ and the thruppenny bit, and °F …
When wearing a seat belt was
When wearing a seat belt was made compulsory, motorists killed 40% more cyclists, they felt safer, so they took more risks and caused more accidents – the government knew what would happen before motorists were made to wear seat belts, but we were told there is a net gain in lives lost so it is a good idear.
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
One of the key Trump dynamics here: “hey, people whose lives are in or close to the gutter and doomed to stay that way, we (not at all rich) republicans get you and where you’re coming from – don’t listen to those woolly elitist liberals…”
David9694 wrote:
“Drain the swamp! Those alligators have turned this great place into a swamp that only suits them! We semi-aquatic dinosaurs are total outsiders to this corrupt system. Completely different! And we are uniquely placed to expose the swamp of inefficiency and evil the alligators have created and drain the swamp! (Which – once we cut off the water – we’ll probably replace with a series of highly efficient mini-wetlands better sized to us and our pals…)
I’m really confused by Reform
I’m really confused by Reform UK’s stance on LTNs. They complain about LTNs controlling people and restricting people’s movements but, as The Brexit Party, they were successful in removing our Freedom of Movement. You know guys and gals, make up your mind!
Rantyhighwayman
Rantyhighwayman
“I had a quick look on a map of Lincolnshire and found a couple of historic controls I’m sure the residents would fight tooth and nail to keep. This is typical un-thought out nonsense by this limited company and its gurning affiliates.”
https://bsky.app/profile/rantyhighwayman.bsky.social/post/3lpo6jadxr223
A bit like all those
A bit like all those ‘unicorns’ and ‘punishment beatings’ and ‘sunlit uplands’ and ‘they need us more than we need them’ and ‘oven cooked deal’ . . . . . . . . all non existent nonsense.
“utterly clueless”. They
“utterly clueless”. They only called them that because what they really thought wouldn’t have been printed.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
Should
“However, like their LTN pledge, it’s unclear what real-world impact these words will have, with some councils, such as Lincolnshire, already confirming they do have any staff specifically assigned to diversity issues.”
be
“However, like their LTN pledge, it’s unclear what real-world impact these words will have, with some councils, such as Lincolnshire, already confirming they do NOT have any staff specifically assigned to diversity issues.”
Not missing anything, it
Not missing anything, it should be, such as Lincolnshire, already confirming they do NOT have any staff
Come and join us in the Tea
Come and join us in the Tea Shop for more on Reform as its middle ranks comes to grips with what actual responsibility means.
Give it a year and there’ll
Give it a year and there’ll be government appointed commissioners running some of these councils.
I doubt it will come to that.
I doubt it will come to that. You’ll have officers telling them they can’t do things because it’s illegal or they have no powers to effect something.
I reckon more will resign when they realise a) what the job requires b) when they realise how little impact they can have c) when they are held to account for their performance.
Then they’ll just blame everyone else for their failure to deliver.
Hirsute wrote:
Exactly e.g. wrong kind of Brexit.
On the one hand, they’re
On the one hand, they’re “back to basics”* pledged to not splashing the cash on stuff like comms, EDI, Green stuff – but on the other, all that fighting solar farms and asylum hostels don’t come cheap either, especially if you lose.
* insert whatever meaning you may attach to that phrase
The anti-cyclists are stupid
The anti-cyclists are stupid people who make up facts and use selective reporting in their media articles.
Reform claiming victory over
Reform claiming victory over LTNs in boroughs where no LTNs exist is like celebrating the defeat of unicorns in a unicorn-free zone. If you’re going to run a council, at least start by understanding what’s actually there. Empty promises don’t make for effective governance. Send them back to the pub to help them think up another click bait idea…
Cycling Artisan wrote:
Unicorns are everywhere: we voted for Brexit. If you can’t see them, you hate Britain.
Apparently many folks want to
Apparently many folks want to get the Brexit unicorns by getting out, but want the heraldic unicorns in, despite them apparently “propping Scotland up”. I’m a bit confused… but then, cultural and political history isn’t my strong suit. Maybe some art can help me?
The clowns have just
The clowns have just announced they won’t be doing any DOGE style staff cuts in North Northants after all. They seem to have only just realised that staff levels were cut to the bone after 14 years of Conservative government funding cuts.
Shame really, they seem to have worked so well in the US🤣🤣
I notice this morning (25th
I notice this morning (25th May 2025) that the BBC is again fawning over toad-face and giving him lots of free publicity when they don’t do the same for other parties. They’re about as impartial as a Eurovision Song Contest jury.
BBC is again fawning over
BBC is again fawning over toad-face
An outrageous and odious comparison! I’ll have you know that Toad is a much-loved non-fascist character about whom many sensible and serious Britons have much good to say.
wtjs wrote:
Poop poop!
Reported on bluesky that he
Reported on bluesky that he does not own a house in Clacton as previously claimed but the property is owned by his girlfriend.
His girlfriend must be a
His girlfriend must be a woman of impeccable taste. Perhaps his ace flying exploits reminded her of Tom Cruise in Top Gun?
Hirsute wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/23/nigel-farage-clacton-home-bought-girlfriend-property
“The main reason my name does
“The main reason my name does not appear is for security reasons.”
I feel there may now be a flaw in that argument.
Seems fair enough to me – he
Seems fair enough to me – he wants to ensure the security of the money he’d otherwise have to pay in tax.
“Don’t tell him, Pike!”
“Don’t tell him, Pike!”
Presumably it is not so dumb
Presumably it is not so dumb and that Reform are hoping that anti-LTN people living in other areas will then vote for Reform to try to get rid of their LTNs, or at the very least further erode the Tory vote.
The “problem” with some LTNs in London is that they are in areas with low car ownership and the residents actually really appreciate them, don’t deserve to have rat-running speeding motorists buzzing through them, and those LTNs have made a huge positive difference to the lives of residents of those areas e.g. in London Borough of Lambeth.
I think it’s quite likely the
I think it’s quite likely the people who want the ability to travel *through* any given (small) area far outnumber those who reside there – so it may always be a net “win” politically.
And even some of the residents can be persuaded that they’ll be “trapped in their homes” and “the ambulances won’t get through”. The latter two are not completely spurious – there may initially be additional pressure on the routes around an area (so meaning that it is indeed harder to turn out / in etc.)
The problem with congestion and “longer car journey times” is we see these entirely as negatives to be eliminated or reduced. In fact they’re an important part of the feedback mechanism to limit the amount of driving we do. Why else wouldn’t you drive that trip – or even some you don’t already drive. Once you’ve got the car, the apparent fuel (inc. electric) cost per journey doesn’t seem much.
That may seem circular or indeed begging the question – why on earth would we want to limit driving? Free transport is what we want right?
But of course the issue is that (aside from other negatives) private motor transport is massively space-inefficient compared to almost any other mode. Plus there are other things which we want to run on roads e.g. those ambulances and emergency vehicles, transport of goods etc.