12 Comments January 28th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
David Cameron has been caught jumping a red light at a pedestrian crossing whilst cycling. Dizzy uses this a way into a diatribe against all cyclists. Whilst he has some point, he goes way too far with it all. Jonathan Sheppard also comments on this story, but in a less aggressive manner. But I agree most with Samuel Coates.
As a cyclist, I jump red lights occasionally. But only when it is absolutely clear and I know that no traffic or pedestrians will come across my path. If there are pedestrians waiting to cross, I stop. If they are already clear of my path, I will continue. This is simple common sense, and the only way that cyclists can use the roads in an efficient manner. However, pedestrians also need to be aware of cyclists, and treat them as they would a car, rather than ignoring the approach a cyclist at a crossing when the red light is showing to them.
I also, even, use pavements! Every day, in fact. Because the way I cycle to work, it is not possible for me not to without putting myself in great danger on a specific roundabout. There are also cycle lanes that use the pavement - which makes no sense. Either bikes should be allowed to be ridden on pavements, or cycle lanes should not be put there - because that endangers pedestrians when cyclists are using them because pedestrians always walk in the cycle lane bit, and it endangers cyclists as it is always hazardous to try and rejoin the road from such a cycle lane. Not to mention the fact that is is utterly hypocritical.
The problem is less cyclists and more idiot motorists and the complete failure to provide enough cycle lanes. Barely a day goes by when a car, bus, van or lorry does not cut me up or try and force me off the road, either on purpose or through sheer incompetence. The buses are, in fact, the worst. One bus very nearly drove me off the road twice in the space of two minutes.
What needs to be done is for motorists to actually understand the cyclists have the same rights to sue the road as they do. That means not pushing in front of me or pushing me off the road. Especially since you will not lose any time behind a cyclist during rush hour. Also, cycle lanes should be provided on all main roads. Most of the cycle lanes that are available for me to use on my way to work are either in the wrong place or literally just a couple of meters long. What’s the point of them? Bugger all. Cycle lanes should all lead somewhere. And motorists should actually realise that they are not allowed to stop or park in them.
Cyclists also need to take care of themselves. I have lights and wear a hi-vis jacket whilst cycling. You can’t miss me. Yet idiot motorists always seem to. And they get what they deserve - a mouthful of abuse and usually a hand gesture as well. What they deserve.
UPDATE: Mike Rouse adds his thoughts on the matter.
Add a comment January 28th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Add a comment January 27th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Since everyone else seems to be doing it, I thought I’d start a weekly roundup of good blog posts that I have found during the week, since daily ones are way too much work and I don’t have the time to do it anyway. It will be posted every Sunday, with a couple of posts for each day which I found either interesting or felt were very good.
Monday:
- Mike Ion asks whether we should make voting compulsory. Of course we shouldn’t. Not voting is a choice as well - and besides, making people vote is hardly compatible with the idea of democracy!
- Iain Dale asks why three Scots - and no English people - are invited to discuss English votes and whether the English are discriminated against within the Union. It erally does fall into the category of truth being stranger than fiction…
Tuesday:
- Anthony Barnett at OurKingdom has an incredibly patronising attack on Shane Greer’s opposition to fixed term parliaments. That’s not the way to win friends and influence people, but just to polarise the debate.
- Norfolk Blogger calls Labour Minister Ivan Thomas a “stupid prat” for attempting to throw mud at Nick Clegg. The fact that he is a stupid parat is contestable, but whether he was wrong about Clegg’s proposals is less clear-cut.
Wednesday:
- Freemania gives us an account of the day in the life of the stock market. Very amusing and certainly illuminating!
- Paul Linford says that Conservatives are systematically trying to portray Gordon Brown as “strange”, and must not be allowed to get away with it. But, Paul, aren’t all politicians strange anyway? Is it the fact or the speaking about it that you object to?
Thursday:
- Mr Eugenides is disgusted by the very idea of paying people to lose weight, and points out the precise pattern by which government pretend to be “doing something” about it. Of course it won’t work, no matter how much money they throw at it!
- A. Tory writes a letter to his readers, asking them to look at photos of Gordon Brown. No, this isn’t a new form of torture, but evidence that Gordon Brown is actually spinning his own appearance - or getting very self-conscious about his grey hairs.
Friday:
Saturday:
- Tim Worstall points out yet another mistake to the Grauniad subs. But we should really be used to them making such mistakes by now! Maybe someone should take up the task of going through the paper each day with a red pen and then posting it back to them?
- Prodicus asks the hacks of the dead-tree press to keep up with times. Well, some people will never emerge from the Dark Ages, let alone understand modern technology!
Sunday:
- Chris Dillow has a few ideas for a liberal left manifesto. Some of it is good, some of it isn’t.
- The Adam Smith Institute absolutely destroys common error number 18, that “positive discrimination is needed to make good to minorities the effects of past exploitation or discrimination.”
- Graachi wonders why a UN university no longer seems to want to remain a fantasy. Probably just because they can.
1 Comment January 27th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Mike Rouse, who is carrying out polling on the Conservative Future elections [which you can sign up to take part in here], has the results of the first poll, held just prior to the Bristol hustings which are taking place tonight.
There were 43 panelists in the first poll. They came from as far as Keele, Newcastle, and Manchester and as wide as Cardiff and Hampshire. Turnout was not as London-centric as I thought it would be. The actual number of panelists that finished their questions in time was 38, a turnout of 88.3%.
And the results for Chairman support is surprisingly one-sided, with one candidate in particular getting a huge level of support. However, whether this is a genuine reflection of his support or not remains to be seen - and it will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the run up to the election.
The level of support for National Chairman is as follows:
- Richardson, Matthew = 18.9%
- Rock, Michael = 73.0%
- Williams, Daryl = 8.1%
The rest of the results can be seen at Mike’s blog and here.
How much will these results effect the candidates, if at all? Maybe there will be some feedback after the Bristol hustings tonight, and maybe some change in the next poll result, which you can sign up to take part in here.
Since so many - like me - are unable to attend the Bristol hustings, maybe someone [like Mike?] Will live-blog the event or provide a summary of what has been said afterwards.
UPDATE: Mike also has an open yet anonymous poll which anyone can fill out without needing to register for the rest of the polling here.
UPDATE 2: Via John Moorcraft, there is a review of the hustings at CF Diary and photos at Nick Webb’s blog. No mention of Mike’s poll, though…
Add a comment January 27th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Who stood in the election to become the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party last year?
- Harriet Harman [the eventual winner]
- Peter Hain
- Alan Johnson
- Hilary Benn
- Hazel Blears
- Jon Cruddas
Two of these have already been in big problems over donations to their campaigns - Harriet Harman accepting £5,000 from a proxy donor, and Peter Hain failing to declare £103,000 to the Electoral Commission, culminating in him having to quit his job over it.
And now yet another of the candidates is being accused of having donation problems over his campaign - Alan Johnson.
A student, Waseem Siddiqui, said he was asked by his brother, a local Labour party official, to write a cheque for £3,334 towards Johnson’s failed bid to become deputy leader.
Johnson admitted last night that the gift was one of four donations he had received that have not yet appeared on the register of the official watchdog, the Electoral Commission. (The Times)
It does seem like the deputy leadership campaign has been marked more by donation scandals after it’s completion than by the result itself, since now half of the candidates have been accused of scandal or corruption - especially since Harriet Harman will be interviewed by police over her illegal proxy donation.
It does seem however, that the Guardian has forgotten all about Harman’s donation problems, since they start their article on Alan Johnson’s problems today with:
A second candidate for the Labour deputy leadership faces questions over donations to his campaign. [emphasis added]
And then go on only to mention Hain as the other person with donation issues.
Maybe the best thing for the rest of the deputy leader candidates would be for them to frantically double-check all of their donations, just in case they have amde a mistake as badly as the other three we have seen so far…
Sources: The Times, BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian
Add a comment January 26th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
I see your peanut butter, James, and raise you a banana. Seriously, this guy uses a banana to claim that the theory evolution is bunkum:
Even after watching it several times, I’m still not certain whether or not he’s being serious… though he probably is.
Add a comment January 26th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
To be honest, this probably says more about the quality of the staff than anything else…
Some staff in Greggs and Eat outlets in central London, when questioned by the Daily Telegraph, did not know what a calorie was, let alone how many were contained in one of their sandwiches. (The Telegraph)
So sandwiches have more calories than a Big Mac. Guess what I had for lunch, then.
Add a comment January 25th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Another instalment of my We The People column over at Wardman Wire. I’m delaying what had been intended to be the first posts for this column yet again because this story caught my eye, and I felt in the mood to write about it. So here it is:
The Story
The Proportional Representation voting system has been rejected by ministers because it wouldn’t boost turnout:
“A review of PR voting in Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and European elections said voters were confused.
The report said PR had resulted in more parties being represented in the devolved administrations but also had a tendency to produce coalition governments.
If PR was introduced in Westminster elections, constituencies could be represented by more than one MP, said the review.
But there is no guarantee PR would increase turnout in a general election or make Parliament more diverse, the report says.
It also warns that it could cause complications between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.” (BBC)
What Is PR?
Very basically, PR is a voting system by which seats in the legislature is supposed to be very closely matched to votes. In a pure PR system, a party who gets 35% of the votes also gets 35% of the seats. Of this, this isn’t always possible in real life, where there are often minimum vote percentage requirements for a seat - examples of this is the 4% minimum in Sweden and the 1.5% limit in Israel - hence votes don’t always equal seats.
The idea behind PR is to equally distribute seats according to votes, to make the legislature a ‘true reflection’ of the voter’s intentions. But what it also does is almost certainly mean that there isn’t a majority.
A Bad Thing For The UK
PR would be a bad thing for the UK. It simply would not work within our political system. To replace the plurality [first-past-the-post] system we use with proportional representation would be a disaster. We need to have a party with a majority in parliament for our government to work. We have a parliamentary system, and thus the government is inextricably linked to parliament. It is from parliament that it gains it’s legitimacy and power.
The ‘Westminster model’ political system requires effective government. If there is no majority held by one party in parliament, the government cannot govern. The very oppositional nature of our political system that goes with it ensures that. Coalitions do not work - Britain has never had a coalition government outside of wartime, even when the opportunity has arisen…
Read the rest here.
2 Comments January 25th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
£s for lbs?!
Obese and overweight adults in England could be paid to lose weight under plans being considered by the Government. The new strategy to tackle poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles includes the suggestion that people should receive financial rewards or shopping vouchers for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.
The £372 million strategy reiterates a target set last year to cut the proportion of overweight and obese children by 2020 to levels in 2000. (The Times)
Just ridiculous.
1 Comment January 25th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Consider the evidence: first they publish Janet Street Porter’s absurd diatribe against blogs, in which she asks us all to “Blog Off”. And now they’ve redesigned their website - and cut all the links to articles. As Matt Wardman writes:
I really, REALLY, REALLY hope I’m wrong, but it looks as though the redesign of the Indy
About 20 links I’ve put in in the last 7 days no longer work.
If they have done that without redirecting, they will probably be dropped from the roundup.
Please could others blog about this - it is serious.
Links to columns appear to still work.
So why have they done this? It seems absurd to delete all the links to pages that have ever been made by anyone anywhere across the internet. Surely the whole point of having a web presence is so that people can link to you? Why else would anyone bother?! And, surely, any web developer worth his pay cheque would be able to maintain the original links as active? The only conclusions that can realistically be drawn is that either the Independent hates blogs or are idiots. Or both.
The thing is, the Indy’s new website isn’t even pretty. In fact it’s down-right ugly. It is cluttered, confusing, and what the hell is with that mustard yellow colour scheme?!
The Independent: Blog haters.
