Search found 370 matches

by ferdinand
13 Sep 2015, 7:58am
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party
Replies: 787
Views: 23025

Re: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party

NUKe wrote:
bovlomov wrote:"Hard left" or "extreme left" are descriptions used by people with no imagination and no historical knowledge. Or by people who are scared of ideas and want to close down all debate.

Better to argue on individual policies. Some of Corbyn's ideas are traditional left wing, and others are not out of place in Merkel's Germany. Is Merkel hard left?

Well said

For me and yes I voted for him, the best thing he will do is make the Labour party a democracy again. The low point for me, of the last 20 years was when they physically ejected an 80 year old man from conference for daring to ask Lionel Blair a question on the Iraq war.


I called Corbyn "Far Left" because I think it is accurate. I avoid "extreme left" and "hard left", though I think the latter is also a fair description.

He got his Islington North constituency in 1982-3 after an internal struggle by Militant and other far left groups for the constituency party. Similar battles were in (eg) Coventry for Dave Nellist, and fought off by eg Frank Field. I think we will see similar struggles over the next 3-4 years, depending on whether mandatory reselection for candidates is brought in or not.

Corbyn survived until now. Nellist did not survive, and now heads the small Socialist Party, which is what Militant became when it changed its strategy from entryism into Labour after Kinnock & Co threw them out.

I believe JC has not substantially changed any of his views since then. Far Left was a suitable term then, and it still is now. The cap fits.

The one thing I don't think he believes in is revolutionary, as opposed to democratic, politics, at least for the UK.

Can a radical leader disliked by their party and seen as too revolutionary for the electorate ever become PM?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 82479.html


The Thatcher comparison is interesting. One main difference is that Thatcher had a 5 year cabinet career before winning the leadership. Others who won their leadership unexpectedly were Ian Duncan-Smith and Ed Milliband. Both had Shadow Cabinet experience; Miliband had also been a Cabinet Minister.

By comparison JC is the Outsiders' Outsider.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
12 Sep 2015, 6:44pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party
Replies: 787
Views: 23025

Re: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party

On a slightly lighter note, I have just seen someone quip that we can work out how many Tory MPs joined as Supporters by counting the £3s that appear on Parliamentary Expenses.

F
by ferdinand
12 Sep 2015, 6:33pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party
Replies: 787
Views: 23025

Re: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party

firedfromthecircus wrote:
Ben@Forest wrote:Probably about 25% of the electorate are sympathetic or can be made sympathetic to Corbyn's worldview and policies. That's not enough to win an election.


The Tories won the 2015 election with the votes of 22.5 % of the electorate.

37% (Tory share) of 61% (turnout).


@firedfromthecircus

I suppose I should point out that the turnover in the Election in May was 66.1% not 61%, so the calculation is:

2015: 66.1 (turnout) * 37% (share) = 24.4% of the Electorate, which compares to:

2001: 40.7% share * 59.4% turnout = 24.2% of the Electorate
2005: 35.2% share * 61.4% turnout = 21.6% of the Electorate

The result is within the historical range, and is recovering as turnover is bouncing back.

Mr Cameron has more of a mandate than Mr Blair and Mr Brown did for most of their time in Government. If we think that New Lab were entitled to introduce the reforms they did during their latter 2 terms, then so is Mr Cameron.

But my take is that that stat is meaningless, because people who choose not to vote exclude themselves voluntarily and do not get a say, and we choose to have an FPTP system which exists to produce a clear result. I'd say that the "OMG only 24%" stuff has more to do with people who lost the election looking for consolation and ammunition.

You can argue that we need PR of some type, but we have had a recent referendum, and PR makes us hostage to small parties with the balance of power.

As for JC pulling 100% of the possible 25% of the Electorate that *may* support his policies - that is also the part that is notorious for not voting if it rains. I don't see it happening, but I will be impressed if it does and will eat my hat Paddy Ashdown style.

I'm just going to listen to the zooming noise until Thursday 7th May 2020 when there will be a loud thud as the British far left reaches the bottom of the cliff it just jumped off.

Ferdinand

Sources:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
http://www.ukpolitical.info/ConvLab.htm
by ferdinand
7 Sep 2015, 6:05pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Join the Big Pathwatch
Replies: 25
Views: 3227

Re: Join the Big Pathwatch

The angle with the ramblers would be disabled access.

I haven't asked them about the Big Pathwatch, but they say this:

In particular the Ramblers supports the British Standard 5709:2006 on Gaps, Gates and Stiles which requires the least restrictive option for all potential users, including people with disabilities or limited mobility, where a path crosses a boundary and specifies high-quality standards where barriers are justified. We support the replacement of all stiles with more accessible alternatives, except where stiles themselves are heritage structures, in which case they can be supplemented by an adjacent more accessible alternative. - See more at: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... SE1qk.dpuf


If a path follows BS5709 diligently, it is *much* easier for bikes.

Here:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... ccess.aspx

They have this advice, which is slanted the other way - explaining how difficult it is:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/walki ... users.aspx

I think it is a good initiative and well-worth supporting but that they have missed a few tricks.

Too late to change it this time, however, since it is proforma based.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
7 Sep 2015, 5:47pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Trails for Wales
Replies: 9
Views: 2781

Re: Trails for Wales

Flinders wrote:
ferdinand wrote:CTC seem to be supporting an online click-spam email campaign on this one.

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action? ... n.id=41461

As a member of CTC I think that is a terrible idea.

Such emails and responses will be grouped together and devalued or ignored. I'd urge anyone wanting to respond to this to do it themselves so that individual comments have their full and deserved weight.

Come on CTC. You are better than this.

Ferdinand


I gather that MPs and other people who get this sort of thing just don't give it as much weight as an individual letter. IMHO it's always best to write personally to anyone if you want anything. I don't even bother to respond to business requests that are clearly bulk mailings, so I can see why they don't give them as much weight.


Sometimes they filter it as spam and just delete it.

People who use that kind of site are often those who aren't interested in thinking about their opinions. If individuals can't get off their backsides enough to spend 4 minutes writing a personal email then imo their opinions deserve the weight equivalent to the time they have spent.

I first tangled with this in about 2008 when Greenpeace were trying to spam MEPs into submission, and I asked a few of the MEPs what they thought about it. The emails were just being filtered and "filed".

The other issue is that some of these organisations are simply boneheaded. There was a case on (I think) the Third Runway at Heathrow when 38 Degrees were sending 10s of thousands of emails complaining to politicians who agreed with their opposition to it.

If you look, MPs have commented in the Commons about 38 Degrees putting out lurid misinformation about eg mental health services and frightening patients of those services. Not thoughtful people.
by ferdinand
6 Sep 2015, 6:30pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Trails for Wales
Replies: 9
Views: 2781

Re: Trails for Wales

CTC seem to be supporting an online click-spam email campaign on this one.

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action? ... n.id=41461

As a member of CTC I think that is a terrible idea.

Such emails and responses will be grouped together and devalued or ignored. I'd urge anyone wanting to respond to this to do it themselves so that individual comments have their full and deserved weight.

Come on CTC. You are better than this.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
6 Sep 2015, 2:57pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party
Replies: 787
Views: 23025

Re: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party

Psamathe wrote:
ferdinand wrote:
I don't think I've heard a peep from the Tories, apart from a little blog noise.

I'd say their strategy is the Napoleonic one:

‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’


It's a matter of opinion whether you think Labour are doing that or not, but I think that is the Tory view. They managed to keep quiet about their private poll results being different from the public ones for 6 months during the election, so they seem to be well disciplined at present.

I'm sure they've got a rolodex of compromising quotes somewhere, though.

Ferdinand

In the last week (or so) both Cameron and Osborne have made statements (reported in mainstream news) that Corbyn's policies would be a disaster for the UK. Can't find the reports now as my RSS Reader reset the other day and old stored articles were lost. But e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-threat-to-our-national-security-says-george-osborne-10479327.html

Ian


Thanks for that, Ian. I'd say that that reinforces my point.

Nominations were announced on 15 June. Week 1.
Voting Started 16 August approx. Week 10.
Voting finishes 10 September. Week 13.

That we heard almost nothing until week 12 of a 13 week campaign,
by which point the large majority of people will have voted, and then it was quite tame statements, suggests to me that the Tories have been keeping quiet and now think JC has won. If they were going to attack him in the campaign, they would have done it sooner imo.

The Lab conference will be fascinating, because whoever the Leader and Deputy are will only hear the result two weeks in advance. That's not long to organise a Shadow Cabinet.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
6 Sep 2015, 2:46am
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party
Replies: 787
Views: 23025

Re: Refreshed and Energised Labour Party

Psamathe wrote:
TonyR wrote:
reohn2 wrote:There's a lot of daylight between now and the next election,this bunch know a threat when they see it.


So why are loads of Tories signing up so they can help vote him in?

But then why are Cameron and Osborne telling us what a disaster Corbyn will be? If they really think he will damage Labour, why have they joined the "anyone but Corbyn" argument?

I wonder if in the early days of the Labour leadership campaign they through "great, a far left candidate" and thought back to their continual overuse of the "Red Ed" nickname and wanted Corbyn to indirectly help them. But as the campaign has progressed they now think he might actually present a greater threat to them than they had appreciated. Just a theory.

Ian


I don't think I've heard a peep from the Tories, apart from a little blog noise.

I'd say their strategy is the Napoleonic one:

‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’


It's a matter of opinion whether you think Labour are doing that or not, but I think that is the Tory view. They managed to keep quiet about their private poll results being different from the public ones for 6 months during the election, so they seem to be well disciplined at present.

I'm sure they've got a rolodex of compromising quotes somewhere, though.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
2 Sep 2015, 1:46pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?
Replies: 274
Views: 52217

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Bicycler wrote:
ferdinand wrote:I'm not claiming that is an authoritative legal opinion, but with what I have above I am happy that I can make the argument to Councils and back it up credibly.

It's certainly of some use, though do note the difference between your wording "a right to use" and that of the disabled ramblers "allowed to use". The 1970 Act prevents any laws from prohibiting the use of invalid carriages on footpaths (etc.), ie. it allows them to be used. Though it can be said that we have a right to do any lawful activity the word 'right' as used in highway law regarding obstructions etc. refers to a right of way, which is more than just an absence of prohibition. I'd be wary about drawing conclusions that the Act guarantees a right of passage which the barriers prevent. It may well be that in light of later legislation the construction of barriers is in a particular case illegal and discriminatory but I'd make your case with careful reference to that later legislation rather than relying solely on the 1970 Act.

Hope that helps :)


Noted. Thanks.

The risk would be that a front line bod who has given in to the case might start resisting later if the initial request has been overegged.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
2 Sep 2015, 10:08am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?
Replies: 274
Views: 52217

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

An exchange of correspondence with the CTC this morning - Cherry Allan (Campaigns and Policy Information Coordinator):

Cherry

Can I also ask you for help. I am trying to obtain a comment from a legal eagle on whether people on Mobiliy Scooters have a right to use footpaths and bridleways, under the “Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970” Section 20 as amended by the Highways Act 1980.

That is the contention of the Disabled Ramblers Association (http://disabledramblers.co.uk/access-issues/), who have had some success using the argument.

Regards


We don’t have an internal lawyer, but I’ve asked our Campaigns Director, Roger Geffen to check on the law and his (and my) understanding is that the legislation is clear-cut and is as the Disabled Ramblers interpret it.

Cherry Allan
Campaigns and Policy Information Coordinator


I'm not claiming that is an authoritative legal opinion, but with what I have above I am happy that I can make the argument to Councils and back it up credibly.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
2 Sep 2015, 9:29am
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Colour printer
Replies: 12
Views: 2113

Re: Colour printer

I'm a fan of colour lasers, which have the advantages of speed and moisture fastness, and may be cheaper in the long run.

I bought an Epson colour laser for ~£400 or so back in 2005 (Epson Aculaser c900 iirc), and I have only just got rid. Colour quality was professional level despite the "personal printer" price (then). I published greetings cards with it. I ran it using monochrome only as the default option. At the time a deal gave me a photoinkjet free, but that only lasted a few years and decent photo paper was 40p-50p a sheet in quantity, compared to 2p for paper for the laser.

On toners - yes, expensive, (£250 for a set to do 6,000 pages or so) but third party refills worked acceptably.

One option that I have just taken is to buy a higher end colour laser printer with little use secondhand. In my case the price was the value of the ink left in the toners, so the printer was effectively free - risk of buying a pup notwithstanding. But that is a beast of a machine about 3 categories higher (OKI C9655) as often found in print shops - A3 duplex and paper weight up to 300gsm. I paid £500 for a 9 month old machine, compared to a new price of around £2.5k.

Perhaps that would be an idea if you find a secondhand workgroup colour laser printer?

One tip: lasers can often run far heavier card than they will tell you. My Epson was specced for ~120gsm, but would run 200gsm quite happily.

Best of luck.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
2 Sep 2015, 8:58am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?
Replies: 274
Views: 52217

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Bicycler wrote: Councils will have responsibility to ensure disabled people are considered in the construction of highways and any other routes they provide, though as you note the issue of practicability raises its head.


Agree that practicability and reasonable adaptations need to be considered, and can be used in making a case.

One of the opinions given to me by the EHCR Helpline was that "design of access control structures" needed to be considered under the "reasonable adaptations" test for disability under equality law, given that a footpath / bridleway etc is considered to be a service provided to the public by the Local Authority, even if over third party land.

To illustrate what I understand by reasonable adaptaion according to context: for a ground floor business premises to be adapted for disabled access constructing a ramp may be a "reasonable adaptation" while demolishing and reconstructing an entire frontage might not be. Or providing wider doorways would be reasonable for a ground floor flat in a Victorian terrace, but to do the same for a walk-up flat on the 3rd Storey might not be so.

One of the ones I'm looking at has restrictive barriers on paths specifically advertised as open to all.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
2 Sep 2015, 8:45am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?
Replies: 274
Views: 52217

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

sirmy wrote:Bicycler the definition of a footway in the 1970 is irrelevaent as the Disabled and Chronically Sick Act specifies that the defintion of a footway to be used in conjunction with the act is the one given in the 1980 Highways Act via an ammendment to the act. So while the defintion of a footway may be broader in the 1970 act it would be a mistake to interpret the act in terms of this definition. The intention of this clause was not allow access to all paths accessible on foot to people in invalid carriages but to remove obstacles to the passage of invalid carriages along footways (which would have been illegal under the 1835 HA), next to carriagewas, on streets. To try to extend the term "footway" to include all paths accessible on foot is wrong. Your use of the term carriageway is also incorrect as to include a footway as part of the carriageway would mean it was legal to drive a vehicle along a footway which it isn't (1835 highways act sec 72) which prohibits a “carriage of any description” being used on a footway - hence this part of the 1970 act. They are not both parts of "a vehicular road" but are seperate entities running adjacent or paralelll to each other with very different access rights - you can drive a vehicle on a carriageway you cannot drive (except in certain specific instances) a vehicle on a footway (http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/).

The upshot of this is that the 1970 act only applies to footways (paths alongside roads) and not to the types of paths identified in the original and subsequent postings and would not be applicable in an application to remove these barriers


@Sirmy

Firstly I very much appreciate your challenges here - which help with all our thinking. As iron strikes iron, so one sharpens another etc. Also, for everyone else who has posted.

Having said that :-), and after looking up the Acts of Parliament etc on this one, I'm with bicycler on the interpretation here.

The statement in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as amended by the 1980 Highways Act is:

“footway” means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980


That surely means that the rights of access granted by this Act apply to all three categories of "footway" AND "footpath" AND "bridleway" as defined individually within the 1980 Act, which definitions are quoted a few messages ago.

Also, this Act is cited in the Statutory Guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans issued in 2002 in the context of Access to Rights of Way in the countryside beyond those alongside highways.
http://disabledramblers.co.uk/wp3/wp-co ... -rowip.pdf

Also in Section 60 of that Act seems to me to make the assumption of Access Rights to "local rights of way" for people who have impaired mobility, which includes Bridleways and Footpaths.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ment-plans

This is one tool amongst several to skin the various access cats, and I think we may have taken this particular aspect of the conversation as far as we can.

Ferdinand
by ferdinand
1 Sep 2015, 10:53am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?
Replies: 274
Views: 52217

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

A brief further update.

I now have responses to my FOI requests onm several things, in case anyone is tracking the wording and responses needed.

1 - Catchment areas for schools (relevant for looking at local desire lines and potential cyclist traffic)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... hools_in_a

2 - List of parks and green spaces managed by the local dstrict council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... parks_mana

I wonder if they have missed any.

3 - ASB reports involving motorbikes on footpaths / bridleways to the District Council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... use_of_m_2

Two of the three required clarification to come under the 2 man day threshold, and the third may require a clarification on whether the ASB reports relate to just footpaths/bridleways or if some relate to payments.

The Community Protection team from the DC seem to have more reports than the police, and the two may need reconciling somehow. The total is less than 20 reports a year for an 40sq mile area with a population of about 120k.

Next step is to focus on particular places and routes to see what can be removed. Larger area analysis may be difficult due to woolly stats definitions etc.

I might start with my local park/rec which is completely surrounded by A Barriers exclusing mobility scooters and double buggies unless a long detour is taken, and that via a non-sealed route.

Ferdinand
calladine-park.jpg