CTC political campaigning

[bluemootwo]

That's not a very convincing report. An all party group in Parliament (no power, no executive responsibility) makes some fantasy suggestion that in 35 years from now a quarter of all journeys should be by bike. Separately a draft government (power, responsibility) plan aims for a doubling of journeys by bike. A more realistic target I think. So CTC asks a couple of academics to quantify the different economic impact of a government plan compared to a fantasy. Guess what? The fantasy delivers more economic impact! (Despite the negative effect of those reduced trips to out of town shopping centres and reduced fuel duty income by the way). And why wouldn't it? If we rode unicorns the return on investment might be even better!

[Tacascarow]

Sorry, but joining in a protest march politically aligned with opposition political themes is hardly savvy politics. It's a great way to become bound into the "awkward squad". Lip service is the best you can hope for from government.

More savvy would be to disassociate from the unfocused protest lobby, and open a smart conversation about how to be part of the solution.

For example - public spending in non-protected areas must be cut. Transport is a non protected area. So how can cycling reduce the costs to the public purse of transport? Well - each bike journey is a journey not carried out in a car or bus or train or metro. The rider buys their own bike, and does no appreciable damage to the road. Contrast public transport where the public purse pays most of the cost of the vehicles, and the infrastructure must be built and maintained mostly from the public purse.

So it is absolutely in the Chancellor's best interests, and the tax payer's, to have as many journeys carried out by bike as possible.

And what is the return on investment in cycling we can report when we get into the Minister's room? Has CTC commissioned an organisation like Charles Beagrie (respected by government) to calculate the investment multiplier of urban cycling? Has such a review been positively and directly presented to government in the context of a supportive and positive contribution to managing the deficit? I hope so.

Or is it better to blow whistles and wave flags and call out names aligned with protest movements? Which path leads to better outcomes for cycling?

It's a mass march involving organisations & charities from across the spectrum. Some closely allied to the same core beliefs we have as cyclists.
I think one or two here think political means allegiance to a particular political doctrine that they don't believe in. I don't see it that way.
Politics is everyday life to some.
I have a disability & try to help others who are being used by this current government as scape goats.
They have no choice, politics has given them that role & they either accept the position of victim or fight it.
Politics doesn't stop at the ballot box. Politics started through the protest movement.
Protest formed parliament, protest took power from royalty, protest gave the working class & women the vote, protest freed slaves.
If we want better cycling infrastructure & safer roads we need to make ourselves heard.
A collective voice is louder than one & groups like friends of the earth & Greenpeace might seem a little to 'left wing' for some but IMHO they talk a lot more sense than most & taking a walk with them on Sunday wont do any harm & might do some good.

[Vorpal]

Sorry, but joining in a protest march politically aligned with opposition political themes is hardly savvy politics. It's a great way to become bound into the "awkward squad". Lip service is the best you can hope for from government.

Do we have more than lip service, now?

Sometimes local campaigners have an impact, but IMO, that down to their immediate environments, finding allies in local government, and/or living in areas where there are much higher proportions of cyclists than in the rest of the country.

From central government, though, I have never seen evidence of anything other than lip service.

I have, on the other read the transcripts of what has been presented in parliament with regards to the benefits of cycling. If the Members of Parliament listened, ar even gave cyclists as much credit as the taxi drivers associations or the freight industry groups, we'd certainly get more than lip service.

There's plenty of viewtopic.php?f=6&t=93593&p=860988
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=93647&p=860290
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=83295&p=746056

So, what will get us more than lip service?

[bluemootwo]

Tacascarow - Your personal experiences influence your approach to political change. You identify as disabled and I guess do so in part because you think this is a status that makes you different from a societal norm thus allowing you to be marginalised, even blamed, for a societal ill ('scapegoated'). The only choice, you say, is to fight, to protest. Understandable, if that is your perception of how things are.

I just think that for an organisation, that isn't the most useful position to take or attitude to hold. CTC as an organisation can do things a marginalised individual can not do. It can get a seat around a table in Whitehall. It has a budget for gathering quantitative and qualitative evidence. It can take on responsibilities, as a charity, for delivering government policy in the big society initiative - policy it has influenced and helped shape. Therefore CTC needs to behave as a respected and responsible organisation that can be trusted do that sort of work, and not behave in the manner of a marginalised and disempowered individual.

[bluemootwo]

Absolutely, Vorpal. We need much more than lip service and a much smarter way of working with power, rather than fighting against it, is needed. First thing that is needed is an understanding that the Lords and the Commons is not the government! When you write to your MP or to a member of the House of Lords, or to an all party group, you are not writing to government.

CTC and its members have to know the difference between influencing government as the executive, and lobbying parliament as the legislature. Totally different tactics are required.

[Tacascarow]

Tacascarow - Your personal experiences influence your approach to political change. You identify as disabled and I guess do so in part because you think this is a status that makes you different from a societal norm thus allowing you to be marginalised, even blamed, for a societal ill ('scapegoated'). The only choice, you say, is to fight, to protest. Understandable, if that is your perception of how things are.

I just think that for an organisation, that isn't the most useful position to take or attitude to hold. CTC as an organisation can do things a marginalised individual can not do. It can get a seat around a table in Whitehall. It has a budget for gathering quantitative and qualitative evidence. It can take on responsibilities, as a charity, for delivering government policy in the big society initiative - policy it has influenced and helped shape. Therefore CTC needs to behave as a respected and responsible organisation that can be trusted do that sort of work, and not behave in the manner of a marginalised and disempowered individual.

Perception it isn't. The disabled have always been marginalised to a greater or lesser extent in all societies. I could bore you with many hundred examples of how this current administration uses the disabled but it's going off topic.
I merely used it as an example of how politics affects people & their everyday lives, a group that haven't chosen that route, no one wants to be disabled.
You seem comfortable with CTC sitting at a table in Whitehall but not walking in the street with Greenpeace?
1. They aren't exclusive & 2. I think it says more about those that object than the actual issues involved.
This Government have broken more promises than any previous, but at the same time have bowed down under pressure more than any other also.
If ever there was a time to protest it's now & there is no better form of protest than mass protest.

[beardy]

but at the same time have bowed down under pressure more than any other also.

They seem to be susceptible to pressure from the media but pretty immune to pressure from grass roots level without the media.

[Vorpal]

Absolutely, Vorpal. We need much more than lip service and a much smarter way of working with power, rather than fighting against it, is needed. First thing that is needed is an understanding that the Lords and the Commons is not the government! When you write to your MP or to a member of the House of Lords, or to an all party group, you are not writing to government.

CTC and its members have to know the difference between influencing government as the executive, and lobbying parliament as the legislature. Totally different tactics are required.

Multiple tactics are already employed. Meetings with the Secretary of State for Transport? http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/ctc-calls-fo ... ing-action

What specific things can we do differently? You suggested economic analysis.

... Has CTC commissioned an organisation like Charles Beagrie (respected by government) to calculate the investment multiplier of urban cycling? Has such a review been positively and directly presented to government in the context of a supportive and positive contribution to managing the deficit? I hope so.
...

What does Charles Beagrie have to do with either economics or cycling, and why would the government respect them on something outside their areas of speciality?

There are many, many economic analyses that show the benefits of cycling.

ECF lists a number of references... http://www.ecf.com/advocary/bicycle-economics/ and here's a presentation that summarizes the benfits form a number of countries (including the UK) http://www.tphlink.com/uploads/1/1/4/0/ ... _final.pdf
And then there's the health economic assessment tool (HEAT) developed by the World Health Organization http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topic ... nd-walking
(I hope they are a respected organisation)
There is
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38063/1/Britis ... conomy.pdf
and
http://ontheplatform.org.uk/article/ped ... cs-cycling
and
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/defaul ... t_v2.3.pdf
and
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/defaul ... ong%29.pdf

So why should the CTC spend more money for another study? And how does it qualify as 'new tactics'

[gaz]

That's not a very convincing report. ...

Perhaps you'd prefer this one: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... grants.pdf
It takes account of lost tax revenues and still shows economic benefits for investing in cycling.

...An all party group in Parliament (no power, no executive responsibility) makes some fantasy suggestion that in 35 years from now a quarter of all journeys should be by bike. Separately a draft government (power, responsibility) plan aims for a doubling of journeys by bike. A more realistic target I think. ...

You might think that target realistic, the Chief Medical Officer for England would call it unambitious: https://parliamentarycommissiononphysic ... -final.pdf

The Chief Medical Officer for England called for a doubling of walking and an eight-fold increase in cycling. A study by public health economists found that within 20 years this increase would lead to savings of roughly £17 billion (in 2010 prices) for the NHS in England and Wales.

...So CTC asks a couple of academics to quantify the different economic impact of a government plan compared to a fantasy. ...

Fantasy, or the CTC calling on the government to wake up to the proven economic and health benefits of cycling, listen to the Chief Medical Officer and show greater ambition?

[bluemootwo]

The CMO can call for free unicorns for everyone. Doesn't make it a deliverable policy. And all those other reports - imagine how many there are for the SoS for Health or Transport to consider in total. It's a bit scattergun.

And issuing a press release that says the Chancellor has "punctured the Prime Minister's vanity project" is not the way to handle a set back. It's childish.

It suggests the CTC never liked the 'Cycling Revolution' in the first place. Well, maybe so. But if the Prime Minister is talking about cycling at all this is something to appreciate and build on - not to dismiss as a vanity project.

And then to make it personal by saying the Chancellor has 'punctured' his 'friend's' vanity project is just a bit shabby.

What reception do you think Paul Tuohy can expect the next time he gets the chance to speak with a Cabinet member? You do realise that before every such meeting the minister is briefed thoroughly, including a review of the press statements made by the visitor?

[gaz]

... And issuing a press release that says the Chancellor has "punctured the Prime Minister's vanity project" is not the way to handle a set back. ...

The Press Release doesn't say that.

“Today we saw the Prime Minister’s ‘Cycling Revolution’ punctured by his friend, the Chancellor, George Osborne, and we can’t even afford a puncture repair kit.

“This is not, however, about the end to a Prime Minister’s vanity project but a disaster to one of the biggest and most worthwhile projects of all.

If £10 funding per head of the population is asking for an unicorn then £1.39 probably gets us some old nag that's only fit for the knackers yard. I don't feel that Paul Tuohy should be tugging his forelock and saying "thank'ee kind sirs!" for that.

[bluemootwo]

I simply abridged the quote - like the people briefing the minister would.

What does Tuohy think that press release will achieve?

It's not a game, it's important. Too important to treat it with a bad pun ("puncture" ha ha ha...) and a cheap swipe.

[PH]

I simply abridged the quote - like the people briefing the minister would.

Let's hope hey do a better job, you have reversed the meaning from the statement saying it isn't about a vanity project to one saying it is.

[bluemootwo]

Do you think? That's not my reading of it.

CTC, the national cycling charity, responded by declaring that the “Prime Minister’s ‘Cycling Revolution’ has been punctured by Osborne”.

“This is not, however, about the end to a Prime Minister’s vanity project but a disaster to one of the biggest and most worthwhile projects of all. Cycling...etc"

i.e. The worthwhile project is increasing cycling as described in the rest of the paragraph. The prime minister's "Cycling revolution" is a vanity project that has been punctured.

Which seems to me to be the intent of the intemperate statement.

Oh dear - let's hope George Osborne and David Cameron don't read it the same way as I did.

If my reading is wrong, I wonder what the vanity project was that the statement is referring to?

[PH]

My reading is, and I'm pretty sure the intention;
This is not, however, about the end to a Prime Minister’s vanity project

it is - one of the biggest and most worthwhile projects of all