- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom
The government has endorsed a conspiracy about “15-minute cities” as part of its major policy announcement prioritising car owners – despite having already debunked the theory.
Speaking to the Conservative party conference in Manchester today, transport secretary Mark Harper called himself “proudly pro-car,” while describing the concept of 15-minute cities – where local amenities are located within a 15-minute walk or cycle – as “sinister”.
“What is sinister, and what we shouldn’t tolerate,” said Harper, “is the idea that local councils can decide how often you go to the shops, and that they can ration who uses the roads and when, and that they police it all with CCTV.”
There has been opposition to 15-minute cities from those who say they are a front for “everlasting surveillance” and designed to restrict people’s freedom.
But these theories have been widely debunked, including by the government itself.
You must log in or register to comment.
I want to believe normal people aren’t stupid enough to take this seriously, and will recognise it for the pathetic lie that it actually is. But I’m struggling to believe it.
The Tories clearly feel confident in pushing this narrative presumably because the Tory press have done enough of the groundwork that it seems less wild to their readers, so it will be lapped up in certain quarters where it fits their pro-Carbon, climate change intolerant agenda.
I’ve heard comments from multiple sources (including the Times, which is hardly left-leaning) that the current batch of Tories tend to assume that the Daily Mail is the voice of the whole electorate, and so what plays well with the Mail is what the public wants. I hope it backfires on them spectacularly.
Quite amazing hearing a senior minister say that in public.
What a sad state of affairs
I mean 15min cities are dense areas. Yes if you live in a dense city there is way more survelleince. Most stores will have survellience cameras and its becoming quite common with homes to. If you can see your neighbors home they can see yours but personally I like to be able to walk to get groceries.
I’m not sure 15 minute cities necessarily have to be dense. They can be if you assume that all the amenities have to be full-sized ones (ie, it has to be a Tesco superstore, not a small-medium Co-op), making it necessary to pack in a lot of housing nearby in order to support the amenity size. If, however, you take the approach that the amenities only need to be as large as the nearby population requires, you can manage a lower density of housing supported by lots of small amenities rather than a few big ones. This would likely generate more employment as a side-effect.
yeah still the housing and businesses are likely to have cameras nowadays so unless you want to live so far away you can’t see your neighbors. Well you gonna be on survellence. Lets not forget most folks have a smartphone and can snap pictures or be doing video at any time. Even if you do live way out your gonna go shopping or out every so often. So im not sure how they think they are going to get away from survellence of anykind. Granted that “local councils can decide how often you go to the shops, and that they can ration” is bs. The control who uses the roads already happens with the toll roads and electronic pay systems.
But that surveillance exists regardless of whether it’s a 15 minute city or not, because whether you walk or drive to use an amenity, the same houses and businesses will have cameras in them. The only difference is, potentially, your neighbour’s Ring camera sees you walking rather than driving. Or you get filmed walking into your local Co-op rather than into the Tesco superstore on the other side of town. I’m really not seeing how a 15 minute city leads to more surveillance of people going about their everyday lives.
yeah. that is actually my point. they are taking something that is happening anyway and pretty much dressing it up to be a result of 15 minute cities and it really has nothing at all to do with them. hey you know. I think they are actually using a strawman which is funny because I see that and gaslighting thrown at me when, well, I don’t really think its what im doing. but in this particular case I think the original post article is about a strawman kind of thing.
