Backwards to the future

From the Guardian's Comment is Free blog, October 27, 2006:

Once again this weekend we in Britain will go through the annual masochistic ritual of inflicting an extra hour of darkness on ourselves in the evenings even though it is already dark enough for most of us. This is a totally unnecessary thing to do. A number of authoritative surveys, particularly one by the Policy Studies Institute , show that road casualties could be reduced by over 2,000 a year including a reduction in deaths of well over 100 if we had an extra hour of daylight during the winter evenings. Not only that it would boost tourism, increase leisure activities, conserve energy and possibly even lead to a reduction in crime. It would also make us all feel just a little bit better as we walk from work in daylight rather than in darkness.

In other words it is a policy that this beleaguered government could introduce at no cost that would have benefits in all directions. It also has an opportunity at the moment since a private members bill is going through the Lords advocating this but which will die the death through lack of government support.

Why does the government refuse what must be one of the very few free lunches in politics - producing widespread benefits at no financial cost at all? The government's official position is: "We consider that the present situation is a satisfactory compromise between those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter evenings and we are not convinced that a change to our wintertime and summertime arrangements would be in the best interests of the UK". Maybe I had better translate that sentence: "We would love to do it as all the evidence shows there would be big benefits but frankly we don't want to do anything that might lose us votes in Scotland where it gets darker for longer periods in the evenings than in the UK".

I sympathise with Scotland's position even though the research actually shows that the further north you go the greater would be the net reduction in accidents if we don't put the clocks back (ie an increase in accidents during darker mornings would be more than offset by fewer in the lighter evenings). No one likes long dark mornings per se and if Scotland prefers lighter mornings to a net reduction in accidents then that is the country's right. But it doesn't mean the rest of the UK should follow suit. Scotland could easily opt for flexitime (farmers and other early risers starting work an hour later) or the whole country could vote for a different time zone from the rest of the UK.Such a move could give Scotland a stronger sense of identity and would be an interesting example of devolution in action. The bill going through the Lords - which will die the death at the end of this parliamentary session - makes provision for different outcomes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

What can be done about it? It is an all too typical example of how a small focused lobby (farmers and other early-rising groups in Scotland) can triumph over millions of ordinary voters who are difficult to organise. Individual voices need to be heard. As a first step I have used the admirable website PledgeBank to promise that I will write to my MP as long as at least 50 others do the same. If you want to sign up just click here - or use a related web site writetothem - to make your views known to your MP or other representative.  Further information can be found here. The more you think about it, the more bizarre the present situation becomes. Imagine, for a moment, that the extra hour of daylight in winter was the status quo and the government suddenly decided that we were all to have an extra hour of darkness during winter evenings. It would be a huge vote loser and the Sun and the Daily Mail would be apoplectic. Let battle commence.

Comments

[Hilary Burrage]

Just to add, it's surely better if this movement has people with real names on it?? Would be grateful if those who have instigated this site felt able to identify themselves.
Thanks!
Hilary