Let us suppose that one prefers electric cars to petrol and diesel. In a country with a free market economy, such a person would purchase an electric car whilst someone else who prefers a petrol car would purchase a petrol car. This is not only the way that free societies have conducted both small and substantial transactions for millennia, but it is also the force that drives innovation. Why for example did companies stop producing VHS VCRs some decades ago? There was no government diktat, requiring that new VCRs should cease being sold. Instead, the marketplace decided that the DVD was a superior format and once DVD players became affordable due to mass production, people stopped buying the older machines.

In 1943, Sir Winston Churchill said, “Man has parted company with his faithful friend the horse, and has sailed into the azure on the wings of eagles—eagles being represented by the infernal….uh, er, ah…..I mean internal combustion engine”.

Sir Winston was well known to have lamented the fact that the marketplace adopted the motor car in place of the horse, something that makes his Freudian slip rather amusing. Even though Sir Winston’s wartime government exerted unprecedented powers over the lives of ordinary people, no government forced the motorcar upon the public. It took many decades for the motorcar to become a more popular form of transport vis-à-vis the horse and even when the motorcar did outpace the horse in terms of ubiquity, horses continued to trot along the streets beside cars for many decades hence.

In a free market, petrol and diesel cars could disappear from the roads just as the horse did in the last century and as the VCR did at the beginning of this century. But this is for ordinary people to decide. The market is more astute than governments at determining the true cost and necessity of products. When socialist governments attempt to determine the price and variety of foodstuffs available, one sees empty shelves and famine. When such governments ration luxury goods, the result is that goods considered ordinary in free countries become the penultimate luxury for the socialist citizen.

Far from creating equality, this creates spectacular inequality. Cold War era Soviet leaders always had cars, stereos and colour televisions, yet these things were often considered the rarest of “unnecessary” luxuries for ordinary people.

By forbidding the purchase of cars that people want, one is bearing witness to unabashed socialism of the worst kind. The conclusion of this mad experiment is that either people requiring new cars in 2030 will be unable to afford them or otherwise, companies and/or individuals will have to be subsidised by the government to sell/purchase something that would otherwise be unaffordable. These scenarios are unacceptable in a free society.

Conservatives and classical liberals understand the inevitable imperfections of human nature. Such people do not attempt to play God, as they know that this is impossible in practical terms and blasphemous to those of faith. But the socialist thrives on playing God. For the socialist, patience, moderation and circumspection are vices, whilst an avaricious and fanatical desire to change the world through compulsion is requisite.

If government ministers, their wives, girlfriends etc., hold strong convictions about the superiority of electric cars, they would be well placed to be patient and see whether most people in this country agree. If they do, the demand for electric cars would increase and as a result, car manufactures would mass produce such cars, thus making them more affordable.

This is the natural way that a free economy governs itself. Demand creates supply in a free society. But in an unfree and unnatural society, supply is determined from the top and those at the bottom are forced to accept a situation that is wholly alien to their own needs, desires and circumstance.

This Government’s most unnatural green programme is really a red revolution. Although it’s not easy being green, just wait until one is forced to be red.