Show the Working

Back Drivers with Policy Reforms

Conservative · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Conservative’s policy “Back Drivers with Policy Reforms” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy removes or constrains several state-imposed restrictions on how people use their vehicles — road pricing bans, reversing ULEZ charges, and requiring local referendums before 20mph zones or LTNs are imposed. That is a net reduction in state coercion over movement and bodily/economic choices, which is what O10 measures.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the referendum requirement would in practice block democratically-supported schemes or merely add procedural legitimacy — if referendums pass, the coercive schemes remain and the liberty gain is limited to blocking undemocratic impositions.

Our reading: O10 asks whether state coercion over people's choices is reduced or increased. All three limbs of this policy reduce or constrain existing or prospective state coercive instruments applied to drivers. Road pricing would levy a per-mile charge enforced by the state as a condition of using public roads — banning it removes a prospective coercive instrument. ULEZ charges drivers financially unless they replace their vehicle — reversing the expansion removes that financial compulsion from the affected outer London area. LTNs and 20mph zones restrict where and how fast drivers may travel through public space without requiring local democratic consent; requiring referendums before new schemes are imposed adds a democratic check that constrains top-down state action. The measurable evidence that only 18% of people felt heard on LTNs supports the claim that existing processes were insufficiently accountable, meaning the referendum requirement addresses a real democratic gap rather than creating empty process. The liberty improvement is genuine across all three limbs: it either removes a charge/restriction (ULEZ, road pricing) or raises the bar for imposing future restrictions (referendums). Magnitude is moderate rather than major because the ULEZ element is geographically confined to London, road pricing does not yet exist nationally, and the referendum requirement leaves schemes possible where local majorities support them — it constrains imposition, not democratically-endorsed use. The counterfactual absent this policy is that road pricing could be introduced without primary legislation, ULEZ would remain expanded, and LTNs and 20mph zones would continue to be rolled out by local authorities on current administrative bases. This policy meaningfully shifts the balance of power toward individuals against administrative imposition.

Cost of living — Helps

minor · low confidence

This policy would save money for the small share of drivers with non-compliant vehicles currently paying ULEZ charges, and prevent future road-pricing costs — but the financial benefit is narrow and concentrated, and blocking road pricing may ultimately shift costs elsewhere if fuel duty revenues continue to fall.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether blocking road pricing leads to equivalent or higher costs via alternative taxation or deteriorating roads, which would erode or reverse the apparent saving.

Our reading: The most direct cost-of-living effect of this policy is the removal of ULEZ daily charges (£12.50/day) for owners of non-compliant vehicles in outer London. However, E7 shows that 96.7% of vehicles were already compliant by September 2024, so the population that benefits is narrow — roughly 3% of outer London drivers. At national scale, this is a small group, limiting population-level impact on the cost-of-living indicator. The road pricing ban has a wider theoretical reach — it prevents a future per-mile charge being imposed on all drivers — but this is a counterfactual benefit (preventing a cost that does not yet exist), and its value depends entirely on whether road pricing would have been introduced absent this policy, which is unresolved. Against this, E2 and E3 project that fuel duty revenues are falling as vehicles electrify and that a replacement charge is considered necessary. Blocking road pricing does not remove the fiscal pressure; it may simply displace it into alternative levies or allow road infrastructure to deteriorate, both of which affect household costs. The net effect is a modest, narrowly distributed financial relief for current non-compliant vehicle users, offset by genuine uncertainty about whether the longer-run cost picture worsens. The referendums for 20mph zones and LTNs have no direct cost-of-living mechanism in the evidence. On balance, the policy marginally improves immediate out-of-pocket transport costs for a small group, but confidence is low because the medium-term fiscal displacement risk is real and unresolved by the evidence provided.

Crime, justice & national security — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This policy is mainly about transport and environment; its direct effects on streets being safe or the country being secure are very small. There is a marginal road-safety trade-off around 20mph zones and a small emergency-vehicle access angle from LTNs, but neither is material at the scale O5 measures.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether removing or slowing the rollout of 20mph zones would produce a measurable increase in road casualties at population scale, versus the countervailing gain from faster emergency-vehicle access where LTNs are removed.

Our reading: O5 covers safety, order, justice and national security. This policy's main levers — stopping road pricing, reversing ULEZ, and adding a referendum requirement for 20mph zones and LTNs — operate primarily on transport economics and air quality, not on crime, policing, the courts, or national security. The only plausible O5 pathways are: (1) road safety — making 20mph zones harder to introduce could marginally increase road casualties, since those zones aim at safety; (2) emergency access — LTNs demonstrably delay emergency vehicles by up to 45 seconds, so removing or blocking LTNs could modestly improve emergency response. These two effects point in opposite directions and are both small. No provided evidence quantifies the net casualty or response-time effect of the referendum requirement at national scale. Absent that, neither channel rises to the 'material population-scale effect' threshold required for a direction other than negligible. The direction is therefore negligible on O5, with a minor caveat on road safety that could in principle shift the verdict if better evidence were available.

Clean environment & nature — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Reversing the ULEZ expansion would undo air-quality gains linked to fewer premature deaths and lower pollution exposure, especially for deprived outer-London communities. Requiring referendums for 20mph zones and LTNs adds friction that would slow schemes with similar local air and active-travel benefits.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the already-high compliance rate (96.7%) and pre-existing downward trends mean ULEZ reversal has a smaller marginal effect on future emissions than the headline modelled figures suggest.

Our reading: The clearest O6 signal is the ULEZ reversal. Modelled evidence shows the expansion was associated with a 31% reduction in exhaust emissions relative to the counterfactual, and a June 2026 Imperial College study links it to material reductions in cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions. Reversing the scheme would, absent a substitute mechanism, reintroduce non-compliant vehicles into outer London, eroding these gains. The GLA-modelled 80% reduction in illegal-pollution exposure for deprived communities is a projected figure from an interested party (the Mayor's office) and should be weighted accordingly, but it is directionally consistent with the independent Imperial College evidence. The 2021 Imperial College skeptical study is genuine countervailing evidence that the magnitude may be overstated due to pre-existing trends — this is why confidence is moderate rather than high — but it argues the effect is smaller, not zero. On LTNs and 20mph zones, the evidence shows they reduce traffic and promote active travel, both beneficial for local air quality. A referendum requirement raises the barrier to new schemes; the net effect is to slow the spread of measures with documented environmental co-benefits. This is a secondary but real worsening signal. Absent this policy, ULEZ would remain expanded and LTNs/20mph zones would face lower barriers — the counterfactual is a continuing modest improvement trajectory on urban air quality. This policy reverses the ULEZ portion of that trajectory and slows the LTN/20mph portion. Overall: a moderate near-term worsening of air quality and emissions, concentrated in London but with precedent-setting implications for other urban measures.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

minor · low confidence

Requiring local referendums before new 20mph zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are introduced gives communities a formal democratic say they currently lack. The effect is real but narrow, and the Bill's unspecified design details could determine whether referendums genuinely empower communities or simply block schemes.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether referendum thresholds and challenge mechanisms would be designed in ways that meaningfully empower communities or effectively veto schemes regardless of majority preference.

Our reading: The clearest O9-relevant element of this policy is the referendum requirement for new 20mph zones and LTNs. This directly addresses a measurable democratic deficit: only 18% of people surveyed felt heard on LTN decisions under the current process. Mandating a public vote is a concrete, statutory mechanism — not a soft aspiration — that materially strengthens voting and democratic rights at the local level. This earns a genuine 'improves' signal on O9's democratic rights indicator. The magnitude is minor rather than moderate. The policy applies to new schemes and the scope is limited to road-scheme referendums, a narrow slice of democratic participation overall. The divergence in views even among councillors (44.2% of Conservative councillors supported LTNs) suggests the referendum mechanism would reflect genuine community disagreement rather than a predetermined outcome. The ULEZ reversal has a weak O9 connection. Any equity argument about disproportionate health impacts on deprived communities sits primarily within O6 (environment) and O3 (health), not within O9's core indicators of anti-discrimination law, voting rights, or due process. It does not drive this verdict. Confidence is low because the Bill's precise referendum design — thresholds, who can trigger a challenge, what majority is required — is unspecified in the evidence. These details would determine whether referendums genuinely empower communities or function as a blocking instrument. The direction leans improves on the evidence provided, but the magnitude and ultimate effect remain uncertain pending legislative detail.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on clean environment & nature →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home