Oxford – the cycle friendly City

Having recently moved to Oxford from the wilds of car worshipping West Kent I am enjoying your cycle friendly city. The majority of drivers are brilliant – bus drivers in particular are very considerate of cyclists. Yes, you get the few Neanderthals who try to run cyclists off the road or deny them space, but overall cycling here is a joy.

But even Oxford could improve the environment for cyclists. Local cycling campaign Cyclox is not impressed with the City Council’s proposals to improve the layout of a major round about ‘The Plain’. See their ideas of how to improve the roundabout for cyclists here:

http://www.cyclox.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/The-Plain-Cyclox-Submission-Oct-131.pdf

Other measures to improve cycling have been suggested by Green Party Peer and member of the London Assembly Jenny Jones:

She continues her campaign for presumed liability: in an accident cyclists and pedestrians would automatically be entitled to compensation unless there was proof of fault or alternatively the Dutch version where the driver is automatically 50% liable. She also argues for more widespread use of driving bans as punishment and for longer bans.  

My personal favourite is her plea for Advanced Stop Lines to be treated the same as yellow box junctions with the offence being decriminalised so that enforcement can be done by local authorities. Do have a look at the web site below for more detail on her cycle friendly proposals.

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/sustainability/peer-proposes-changes-to-make-roads-safer-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists/

So yes, there are a few inconsiderate drivers even in Oxford, but the vast majority are extremely considerate towards cyclists – thank you.

The country that hates foreigners

So where are the floods of Rumanian and Bulgarian immigrants promised by David Cameron and other politicians? Keith Vaz MP could only find two new Rumanian immigrants entering the country via Luton airport on 1^st January – and both had firm job offers.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/02/romania-ambassador-jinga-mps-migrants-airports-godot

Why would Rumanians, who mainly speak French not English, choose to come to this country in masses? The figures of Bulgarians and Rumanians already working in the UK show that this country is not an attractive destination for these workers. Approximately 141,000 Bulgarians and Rumanians already work in the UK, about 0.3% of the working population – hardly the threat to our jobs and working conditions that Labour claims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23707274

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/01/immigration-british-workers-romanians-bulgarians

Worryingly, an e-petition to stop ‘mass migration of Bulgarians and Rumanians’ garnered over 100,000 signatures before it was closed.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41492

Yet the impact of such immigrants on the labour forces is likely to be minimal. In fact immigrants are more likely to be working, less likely to have health problems and generally an asset to this country. See comments by Jonathon Potts and others here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23712988

We even treat highly qualified immigrants who have a lot to offer as though they were a threat. The government’s declared aim is to attract the ‘brightest and best’ immigrants. Yet the restrictive policies and petty requirements for academics trying to get work visas in this country are leading to highly qualified international academics being forced to leave the country even when they have firm job offers  Read several haunting personal accounts here:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/non-eu-scholars-struggling-with-the-uks-visa-policy/2010106.article

When did this country start to hate and fear immigrants so much? During World War 2 we were a safe haven for those fleeing danger, now we have become a  small minded fortress.

White Poppies - a different kind of remembrance

It’s that time of year again. As we approach Remembrance Day, 11^th November, red poppies will become highly visible in our everyday lives. They are worn on lapels and stuck on the front of cars. What does the red poppy really mean?

Most people are aware of the inspiration of the poem ‘In Flanders fields the poppies blow’ but how many of us know that the first red poppies were made by the women of Northern France at the instigation the US to raise funds for children who had suffered in the war? Only later were they adopted by the British Legion as a fund raising tool and over the years the red poppy has become ubiquitous in October/November every year.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/red_poppy.html

There is now an unpleasant tendency to use the Poppy Appeal as a propaganda tool to glorify war. The British Legion does much good for services personnel and their families but is this role they should be taking on? 

‘The question lingers: if the dead are said to have 'sacrificed' their lives, then why weren't the living, who came out of the same danger, being suitably honoured and cared for by the state that sent them’

http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/red_poppy.html

Instead of looking back at the past, wearing the white poppy is a symbol of wanting to prevent future wars. Our service men and women would not need intensive support services if we did not send them to fight unnecessary wars. White poppies are not intended as an insult to the fallen, many of whom were husbands, brothers or father of the women of the Cooperative Women’s Guild who first made them. It is intended as a reminder of the horrors of war and to insist that those in power should resist war and try to solve conflicts peacefully. So buy your white poppy and remember all the victims of war.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/ppushop/

We will not be gagged

The current version of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Bill if it became law would stifle democratic debate and increase apathy with the political system.. 

‘In connection with’

The new test of ‘in connection with enhancing the standing of parties and/or candidates’ (clause 26(3) is much broader than the existing test of whether material can be ‘reasonably regarded as intended’ to be for election purposes.

For example, if an NGO or charity lists those election candidates who support a particular policy that activity could be caught by the Bill’ Such naming of supporters of a public policy is a common, and legitimate, campaigning tool currently used by organisations to promote their preferred policies. 

See the briefing by the Electoral Commission for examples of currently allowed campaign activity which would potentially be prohibited under the Bill:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/162144/Transparency-of-Lobbying-Non-Party-Campaigning-and-Trade-Union-Administration-Bill-Second-Reading-Briefing.pdf

‘Controlled expenditure’

‘Controlled expenditure’ which must be reported has been set at 2% (clause 27(3)) compared to 5% in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. No rationale or justification has been given for this discrepancy and it is puzzling that non-party political organisations should be subject to stricter regulations than political parties.

For the full text of the Bill see:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0108/140108.pdf

 

Staff costs

Third parties are required to declare staff costs within controlled expenditure. This is stricter than the regime for political parties under the PPERA, where the argument was accepted that it can be difficult to divide staff activity between election activity and non-election activity. Why should charities, NOGs and campaigning organisations be treated more harshly than political parties?

One year period

Expenses are capped for a whole year before an election. This is an unacceptable constraint on campaigning activity for non-party political organisations.  An election can be called with less than one year’s notice. Therefore applying these spending caps retrospectively strongly curtails activity for campaigning organisations. Past activity would have to be audited and accounted for before they could plan future expenditure which might be considered to be ‘in connection with’ electoral promotion.

Big business

The main reason for thsi Bill is a public perception that big business has far too much influence over the parliamentary process, partly because of the resources they have available for lobbying. This Bill will do nothing to stop that as business is expressly excluded from the provisions of the bill. 

Part 1 of the Bill only applies to professional consultants who lobby. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 explicitly exempts those carrying out a business or employees of a business where lobbying is not the main purpose of their business. For example, an employee of Glaxo Smith Klein can lobby an MP or a Minister with impunity on behalf of GSK and not be subject to the provisions of the Bill. To read the Schedules see:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0097/14097.pdf

This Bill should be rejected by Parliament or our democracy will suffer.