The dust is starting to settle on the general election, Keir Starmer the new Prime Minister and Labour enjoying a landslide victory to take a huge majority into the House of Commons next week.
Let’s face it, despite relentless culture war noise around cycling in recent times, cycling and active travel were never prominent during the election campaign. With that said, we would hate to miss the opportunity to dig deep into the road.cc archives and pick out some of the politicians we’ve reported on during the last four-and-a-half years and see how they got on. Spoiler alert: not very well.
It’s our (at times tenuous) cycling election round-up. We’ll start with the most recent Transport Secretary.
Mark Harper (Conservative) LOST
The final Tory Transport Secretary lost his Forest of Dean seat to Labour (you’ll be hearing more of that) in one of the tightest results of the election. Harper’s majority from 2019 had been more than 15,000, but in a disastrous night for the former minister for transport, a huge swing to Labour, plus Reform taking 17 per cent of the vote, saw him lose his seat in Parliament by just 278 votes.
In more recent times, as one of his last acts in the role, Harper agreed to a proposal to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure, as he said “it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law”. That legislation was not passed in time, due to Rishi Sunak calling the election, although during the campaign Labour pledged to introduce it in the next Parliament.
Grant Shapps (Conservative) LOST
Where do you start with Grant Shapps? Another former Transport Secretary, Shapps’ time was, from the viewpoint of a cycling website’s interests, defined by that mad week in August 2022 when he proposed number plates, insurance and speed limits for cyclists… before making a rather quick U-turn. Shapps lost his Hertfordshire constituency of Welwyn Hatfield to Labour after his share of the vote plummeted 19 per cent.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative) LOST
North East Somerset and Hanham also went to Labour, Jacob Rees-Mogg presumably already banging on the GB News studio doors shouting to be let in. We’ve had less involvement with Rees-Mogg than others, although his opposition to a bike lane in Keynsham and use of an “extremely offensive racist term” while talking about “lunatic” cycle lane plans earned him some road.cc time.
Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative) WON
The former Conservative leader spearheaded the campaign to introduce the aforementioned new ‘dangerous cycling’ laws. Iain Duncan Smith kept his Chingford and Woodford Green seat, largely due to the opposition vote being split between the former Labour candidate Faiza Shaheen (who was replaced and subsequently ran as an independent) and the then-instated Labour candidate Shama Tatler.
Nick Fletcher (Conservative) LOST
The Conservative former MP who was criticised for touting a known 15-minute city conspiracy in Parliament, and who later claimed cycling routes have turned his city into a “ghost town”, lost his Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme seat to Labour.
Thérèse Coffey (Conservative) LOST
Thérèse Coffey, the Conservative politician who for a brief period during the autumn of 2022 served as health secretary during Liz Truss’ stint as prime minister, lashed out at an active travel project in her Suffolk constituency, claiming that it is “anti-driver”. Coffey lost her Suffolk Coastal seat to Labour, her share of the vote down a third on 2019.
Steve Tuckwell (Conservative) LOST
Less than a year on from winning the by-election in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, his campaign heavily centred around opposing ULEZ (London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone), Conservative Steve Tuckwell has lost it, Labour gaining the seat also formerly held by Boris Johnson.
Louise Haigh (Labour) WON
The former shadow transport secretary easily kept her seat in Sheffield, Louise Haigh since officially appointed as the next government transport chief now her party is in government. In November, concerns were expressed after Haigh began to outline her stance on active travel policies, 20mph speed limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods.
However, she later insisted that active travel is “essential for economic growth” and “every pound invested delivers a huge return in benefits”. She also said comments about Sheffield being too hilly to cycle in were a “light-hearted joke”.
Louise Haigh MP @LouHaigh has been appointed Secretary of State for Transport @transportgovuk. pic.twitter.com/e95O40Gbpq
— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) July 5, 2024
And finally, anyone know how this guy got on? At least he’ll have a driver taking him everywhere from now on…
> Sir Keir Starmer was ‘making U-turn’ when he hit cyclist, says witness
22 thoughts on “On your bike! How did the politicians who made questionable comments about cycling get on at the general election?”
renounce velophobia or the
renounce velophobia or the omnipotent cycling lobby will cancel you
Shh! Only the taxi folk, the
Shh! Only the taxi folk, the Association of Bad Drivers and a few others have spotted that cyclists have *literally* taken over!
I was most disappointed to
I was most disappointed to learn here that Duncan Smith had retained his seat despite the exit poll prediction that he had <1% chance of doing so. Still, there a fair bit of compensation from the demise of the other rabid anti-cyclist deadbeats listed above
Him holding was pretty much
Him holding was pretty much inevitable once Labour had their little internal squabbles. Fazia was a loose cannon.
Much rejoicing in the Forest
Much rejoicing in the Forest of Dean: Harper is gone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYMy2qdNPF0
I live in Wales where cycling
I live in Wales where cycling is a devolved matter, so we’re not really affected by the election. I don’t think any of us are sorry to see the back of the Tories and their love bombing of drivers. Indeed it hasn’t gone unnoticed that they lost Uxbridge and South Ruslip, Boris’ old constutuency. Holding onto it after he jumped before being pushed was atributed to Tory opposition to ULEZs, LTNs and cycle lanes. Hopefully we’ll see a national integrated cycling policy which will stop the removal of bike lanes just to pander to motorists. Let’s hope they all have the sense and the courage to turn away from our car-centered system and follow the Dutch model. It worked for them so why not for us.
On the subject of bike lanes, we fought long and hard for improved cycle facilities; so let’s use them and not give the anti-cyclists any argument for their removal.
biking59boomer wrote:
I’m not convinced that Labour will be any more bike friendly that the Tories were. They certainly haven’t been in the past and haven’t given any indication that they will in the future.
As for bike lanes, I’ll happily use them when they’re better for me than using the road, but those shitty lanes that stop in the wrong places or don’t join up with anything will remain unused. If you see a cyclist not using a bike lane, then that’s purely the fault of the crappy bike lane and not the cyclist who’s just using good judgement and local knowledge.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree. However, it doesn’t appear that they have any appetite to undermine other levels of government that are more bike friendly, as the Tories were planning to do.
Steve K wrote:
Yeah, I think the Tories were getting a bit desperate to hang onto power and were grasping at straws whilst stirring up “culture wars” to distract people. It’s something that Labour shouldn’t have to worry about for a couple of years.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yep. After the perception that the Uxbridge by-election was won on the anti-ULEZ vote, they tried to replicate it across the country. And they lost Uxbridge.
Not necessarily local
Not necessarily local knowledge but can be a lack of local knowledge.
I did a trip in outer london where the lane kept swapping from one side to the other. By the time I realised that there still was a lane, just not on my side, it was too hard to get over, so I just carried on till it either reverted back or there was a chance to cross over.
Agree. Generally driving
Agree. Generally driving somewhere doesn’t involve time in advance scouting on Google Streetview and browsing local “driving forums”.
A measure of this can be acceptable – cycling is a relatively local mode after all. Perhaps every few miles – like this route in the countryside. But more is inconvenient, confusing and means you have to interact with motor traffic.
Witness this in Milton Keynes, sometimes touted as “world-beating” cycle infra:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/they-built-it-and-they-didnt-come-the-lesson-of-milton-keynes/
Annoyingly, it’s not at all clear when the Redway switches sides as you cycle along it; at one of these roundabouts, I continued straight on, only to find myself at a bus stop with no continuing off-carriageway route.— aseasyasridingabike
Traditionally in the UK cycle “routes” and infra favour those with pathfinding abilities, often cyclocross skills and the time to “recce” routes ahead of time.
The internet won’t necessarily help – carpets of broken glass, diversions for works and other obstacles can appear with little or no warning. And good luck guessing from a map if a local authority has decided to tackle foliage, flooding etc.
That fits my nature … but even if others didn’t already have reasons not to cycle (eg. they already have a car, and everyone drives) those would be good reasons to be dissuaded.
Perhaps unsurprisingly where I am in Edinburgh we’re never short of money for cycle route signs. Making those routes connect up though…
chrisonabike wrote:
And “route” does not always equal “path” anyway. A “route” is a ‘suggested’ or ‘preferred’ route that you might take, probably mapped by someone who doesn’t ride a bike, and marked out by teeny tiny little blue roundels…
Yeah, I can think of a few
Yeah, I can think of a few places where I feel a bit self-conscious (slash hooted at) for not using some passable separated cycle infra parallel to the road I’m on – but have not worked out where I’m supposed to enter it without crossing the road and mounting a high kerb.
Hirsute wrote:
But if its not obvious where the cycle lane goes then that is a crappy cycle lane!
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think there might be a “car” vs “driver” thing going on here!
As an Entitled Cyclist I
As an Entitled Cyclist I reserve the right to ignore “cycle lanes” should they be “cycle farcilities” as many in the UK are, or if they’re full of debris, water, too narrow etc. All while simultaneously calling for actual proper cycle infra (eg. separate cycle paths, improved junctions, modal filters for quieter streets etc).
I think it’s “we appreciate the thought – we really do – but now that you have done so you’ll want to give people what they actually want, rather than buying too cheap and thus wasting money?”
Do we need a cnotrastni
Do we need a contrasting piece about cycling MPs amongst the new Parliament?
One I am hearing about is John Healey. the new Def Sec.
mattw wrote:
covefe
I like the extra commitment
I like the extra commitment to the joke by actually misspelling ‘covfefe’.
That’s right – I definitely
That’s right – I definitely did that on purpose 😀
Guilty as charged.
Guilty as charged.
I was on my tephelone !
Now corrected.