Private car use has been declining for decades in London and more and more people are using buses and bikes to commute. Space on the roads is at a premium and is needed for deliveries, essential services and buses. Smart cities around the world are enabling better use of their road space to reflect changes in population and the way people are living in cities these days.

So the author's prescription for cleaner air in London is:

- More cars on the roads
- Turn Trafalgar Square from a public plaza into a gyratory system
- Ban New Years Eve Fireworks
- ....errr....that's it.

Look, London is crowded and there are loads of delivery and construction vehicles on the roads compared to ten years ago, with the number of private vehicle journeys falling.

There just isn't enough road space for every single Londoner to be able to drive into town every morning, park up and drive home again at 6pm, so we have to make a shift towards public transport, and, for those really short journeys, to walking or biking.

If more roads are the solution, then what does he propose to do once they're full?

I do sympathise, and there are certainly idiots among all users of any mode of transport.

I would just mention this though in the case of people killed while on their bikes. Most of the people killed on bikes by motorists on London's roads are not your stereotypical lycra-wearing 30-something. No, those guys will be speeding off into the distance.

The people who were killed were people disproportionately young ladies like Esther Hartsilver, Ying Tao and Anita Szuchs. It's been suggested that the reason for this is actually that as less aggressive riders, they tend to stick in the gutter and go slowly, making them vulnerable to the big lorries and blind spots.

This would suggest to me that the roads are currently designed to suit the aggressive types you mention, rather than the many people who would love to bike 1 or 2 miles but don't because of the danger on the roads. No motorist or lorry driver wants to kill someone or does it deliberately, so we're going wrong with our road design somewhere. The best in the world in this regard are the Dutch, and I think we should learn from them.

Some fair points made, but then a contradiction. Alex argues that housing developments are held up by concerns over congestion, yet then argues for increasing the number of cars on the road?? Looks to me like a recipe for recreating the concrete jungle estates of the 60s, or worse still, American-style car-dominated developments inhabited by the terminally-obese.

I'm also not sure why he picks on the pushbike either, which is probably THE most Conservative form of transport: cheap, personal, has least effect on others, tax-efficient and RMT/ASLEF-proof!

There are hundreds of thousands more journeys in London (and probably other places) which could be done by bike or foot, but which aren't. Every day, I go past a primary school whose catchment area is ONE MILE at its widest point, yet I see dozens of parents (many still in their pyjamas) driving their kids up the narrow street and clogging the roads with their diesels. These children should be walking or cycling like their healthier counterparts in the Netherlands would. Other children down the road will be arriving at their secondary school on subsidised bus travel, a big drain on the public purse. So I think Mr Morton has the wrong target in mind here.

On a positive note, Alex Morton is losing his argument, as towns and cities realise that to make themselves more pleasant and healthier, they need to be making it easier for people to travel under their own steam.

Is there actually any evidence that the smoking ban caused pubs to close?

I hear it trotted out often, but how can we be sure it's not down to changing behaviour patterns, supermarket alcohol being so cheap, expensive beer in pubs, massive rent hikes on pub premises or even just people doing other things with their leisure time?

And most importantly, since we're supposed to be in the election-winning business, could we maybe think about some policies that people might actually like?

Spot on.

Student debt is a millstone round the neck of people in their 20s and 30s, and along with dangerously low levels of property ownership among young people, represents a time bomb ready to go off under our Party.

If we think we can go on winning majorities based on our target supporters being stuck in debt and rented accommodation, we need to think again.

"The Conservatives are now the party who look after the interests of people who've already acquired wealth and assets"

A good starting point, but what are we doing about it? I agree that we can't out-Corbyn Corbyn, but we should at least be offering something where young people can see how they'll be able to get on in future, own their own home and look forward to a nice life.

We could offer something serious on the big long-term issues, but our proposals in these areas are either non-existent, or actively hostile to the interests of younger voters:

- Housing (we need massive housebuilding but our councillors around the country only care about blocking development and looking after their own property prices)
- Automation in the workplace (nothing offered, no policy groundwork done)
- Education and training (Our approach is still stuck in the past, thinking only about University vs technical apprenticeships and arguing over the 11+, rather than looking at ongoing training and personal development.)
- Liveable cities and pollution/air quality (Our cities should be powering the country ahead yet local conservatives only seem to care about blocking housebuilding and development and protecting the unfettered right to drive anywhere and everywhere)
- The environment and energy (Govt has locked us into a deal whereby we pay exorbitant costs to foreign governments for nuclear power way into the future; basically getting younger people to pay higher bills because older people don't want to pay to develop renewable technology)
- Online government and services (Some good work done through GDS in terms of improving online access to services, yet too much of government still runs on a 9-5, paper and letter model, which doesn't suit modern life)

There are some really innovative conservative solutions and policies out there that can appeal to younger voters, but our problem is that we're not interested in appealing to them. The whole election plan was based on turning out old people, and hoping the young didn't vote. We need to give younger people a reason to think we're at least interested in their vote.

(And one more thing. This thread was meant to be about policies to attract young people, yet 90% of the responses have just been whining about the possibility of reducing the voting age. I agree that 18 is about right, but when you talk about young people being "uneducated" or "brainwashed" you're demonstrating part of the problem. There are plenty of brainwashed or uneducated older voters too, who left school at 14/15 and get their opinions from the Daily Express. Why is that OK, but young people aren't allowed an opinion?)

At the end of the day, to care for an increasing number of people who will need longer term care, will require money.

Instead of clobbering the unfortunate ones with a massive inheritance tax, we should be pooling the risk across the whole country, all 65 million of us and we need to be grown up enough to accept we're going to need to put aside say 3% of our wages to go into a pot to take care of us in our old age.

This would cost the average worker £60 a month. £15 a week. It's that or face up to a lottery that could wipe your family out. £30,000 over your lifetime in small chunks while you're earning to protect hundreds of thousands of pounds, should be a no-brainer. This Dementia Tax came about because the leadership were too scared to have a conversation over £15.

We need to be wary of accusing young people of just "wanting free stuff".

The things Corbyn was talking about (and I don't agree on a practical level with them as policies), were things our parents and the post-war generation took for granted: decent well-paid jobs, college education that didn't put you in debt, the ability to own your own home.

The biggest whingers for free stuff are the undeserving elderly. Bus passes, Christmas bonuses, free TV licences, huge pension increases allowed them to hold cowardly politicians over a barrel. At the same time, they opposed all attempts to build more homes for the young while sitting on vastly-inflated property nest-eggs.

Ben Gummer was the architect of the disastrous manifesto and let's face it, wouldn't even be in politics and parliament if it weren't for who is dad is. I'm sure he'll not starve for want of a sinecure, non-exec, or consultancy.