What is CUK doing for us?

[mjr]

It was a long time ago, but since then we've had the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Charade claiming to be aiming for similar goals. Depending on time-scales that was a long time ago too (10 years?)

I'm sure you will be delighted that APPGC has sprouted a W for Walking and is holding another inquiry: https://road.cc/content/news/mps-and-pe ... is2-284107

CyclingUK gets a mention in the article, by the (topical) way.

The All Party thingy is still going.

But nobody but nobody is holding them to account.

Hold them to account for what, exactly? The APPGCW and its inquiries are a talking shop, not a government ministry or agency. They should be holding the government to account, but don't, probably because All Parties have failed cycling repeatedly so far.

[thirdcrank]

Hold them to account for what, exactly?

eg For not making your point:

The APPGCW and its inquiries are a talking shop, not a government ministry or agency. They should be holding the government to account, but don't, probably because All Parties have failed cycling repeatedly so far.

I did my own little bit at the time when they announced their inquiry by writing to one of the two co-chairs suggesting a lot of time and effort might be saved by examining the National Cycling Strategy first. I received neither an acknowledgement nor a reply. The CTC OTOH - possibly cUK by then made the other co-chair, one Julian Huppert a trustee, so endorsing his self-promotion. (Without searching, I can't remember the name of the other - Labour - co-chair.)
======================================================
No need for a search: Ian Austin's name is on the front of the report. He's now Baron Austin of Dudley, having been ennobled by Boris Johnson for what I can only term "services to the Tory Party."

[Oldjohnw]

APPGs don’t have powers, they are not part of the Executive so don’t get held to account. If you have written to them your comments will have been noted. They accumulate the evidence and write a report which may influence Government thinking. Or the Government may ignore it.

The current co-chairs are, as normal, one Labour and one Conservative.

[thirdcrank]

APPGs don’t have powers, they are not part of the Executive so don’t get held to account. If you have written to them your comments will have been noted. They accumulate the evidence and write a report which may influence Government thinking. Or the Government may ignore it.

The current co-chairs are, as normal, one Labour and one Conservative.

My main point - and I think I've already further up - is that campaigners have a couple of options. The CTC and its successor chose incorporation - the illusion of a place at the top table. Thanks for the explanation of how these bodies work. (My posts would be even more encyclopaedic if they all included a potted summary of parliamentary procedure.)

And since you mention it, the current chairs seem to be achieving no more than their predecessors - which is why these threads reappear with such regularity

[Oldjohnw]

APPGs don’t have powers, they are not part of the Executive so don’t get held to account. If you have written to them your comments will have been noted. They accumulate the evidence and write a report which may influence Government thinking. Or the Government may ignore it.

The current co-chairs are, as normal, one Labour and one Conservative.

My main point - and I think I've already further up - is that campaigners have a couple of options. The CTC and its successor chose incorporation - the illusion of a place at the top table. Thanks for the explanation of how these bodies work. (My posts would be even more encyclopaedic if they all included a potted summary of parliamentary procedure.)

And since you mention it, the current chairs seem to be achieving no more than their predecessors - which is why these threads reappear with such regularity

I’m not commenting on the efficacy of this parliamentary group. This isn’t a select committee, by the way. APGs are interest groups and whilst they have to register they are much more informal. Having said that, they can sometimes achieve quite a bit in bringing issues hitherto only fairly narrow or narrowly viewed to a wider parliamentary audience. Select committees follow specific ministries rather than interests.

Sometimes they include external bodies or have them as their secretariat.

[thirdcrank]

For anybody wondering what I'm banging on about, here are a couple of nuggets from Julian Huppert's Wiki entry - which I fancy he helps spin

As co-chair of the all party parliamentary cycling group, Huppert helped to produce the landmark report on the future of cycling in Britain, ‘Get Britain Cycling’, in 2013 (My emphasis)

Cycling

Huppert is a cycling safety campaigner and organised[39] and spoke[40] at a parliamentary debate on the subject, as well as passing a motion at the 2013 Liberal Democrat Conference on the subject.[41] His support of the principle of "Proportionate liability" has led to debate in his Cambridge Constituency[42][43] and nationally. Huppert was named one of the most influential people in UK cycling by magazine Bikebiz[44] and was awarded road safety organisation Brake's Road Safety award in March 2013 for his campaign on 20 mph speed limits.[45 (My emphasis)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huppert

We gain nothing by pandering to this type of thing. IMO

[Will]

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/announcement/

Will

[mjr]

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/announcement/

Will

"a group of trusted suppliers" sounds a lot like affiliate marketing deals ahead.

[gom]

Very sad news. I’ve nothing but good memories of all the tours I’ve done, and a very big “thank you” to the leaders.

[mattheus]

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/announcement/

Will

There is potentially a huge opportunity here:

For the 2022 season Cycling UK are exploring options to promote a far broader range of holidays, from a group of trusted suppliers catering for a wide range of cycling capabilities with a variety of durations and destinations, both in the UK and worldwide whilst meeting our environmental aims.

Will they rise to that challenge? Or just look for quick easy wins?

[Barred1]

https://www.cyclingholidays.org/announcement/

Will

"a group of trusted suppliers" sounds a lot like affiliate marketing deals ahead.

I wonder how much CTC/CUK will take as a perecentage from the group of "trusted suppliers"?

[CJ]

I wonder how much CTC/CUK will take as a perecentage from the group of "trusted suppliers" [of holidays]?

Me too. But I bet it will be a tiny fraction of the regular annual dividends returned to CTC by their own wholly owned Holiday Company, that - as a scrutiny of the annual accounts will reveal, easily exceeded the sum total of little kick-backs negotiated by their Marketing Dept, which barely covered the costs of running said department, which did a great big fat NOTHING to market the holidays, all advertising and publicity for which was arranged and paid for by the Company itself! Because holidays involve the unmentionable T-word you know.

What interests me more is how much will now be spent on promoting and campaigning in the area of cycle touring and travel, out of the CTC Holiday Company's estimated £400,000 capital reserves. For this is Tour Leaders' estimate of the amount built up from retained profits over the Company's 20 years of operation, to replace the bond originally placed by CTC, that was required to guarantee the business and will now be a windfall for CTC. I'll not hold my breath.

[Jdsk]

What brought this to a head for me was CUK's management and trustees' uncritical support of an AGM motion to discourage touring cyclists from flying, whilst filling the magazine with articles making out that it's dead easy to go wherever you want in Europe by train. We all know it isn't. The European Cycling Federation knows it isn't. Trains for Cyclists is their headline campaign. But whereas CTC used to be an associate member of ECF, CUK it is not and does not spend a penny of our subscriptions on supporting the really useful work of ECF throughout that continent we love to visit, and has never even mentioned this campaign in Cycle or Cycle-Clips. Why not when getting more bikes, as bikes, onto international trains, is the only way to take the carbon out of European cycle touring? Is it to hide CUK's shame in not being any part of it, or to avoid giving the lie to their rose-tinted view of international bike-rail travel? CUK apparently finds it much easier and far cheaper, to flight-shame it's own supporters.

"Cycling UK rejoins the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) as the two organisations look forward to new era of collaboration on creating a better world for cycling":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/cycling- ... k-together

Jonathan

[Bmblbzzz]

That sounds like good news.