"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair


Email me *
How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant
Big boys (& girls)


British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*




Worth a look


Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Junius*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*

---

Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

 
Financing politics

The scandal over the use of ‘loans’ (which don’t have to be declared), instead of donations (which do) has exercised many minds in all the political parties. Journalists have been having a good go at it, too.

When the Labour Party was short of cash and under attack from the Tories for Labour’s reliance on money from trades unions, they had a golden opportunity to strangle the flow of money from rich Tory supporters. For some reason (foresight?), they did not do this. Now, it looks as though the boots have shifted onto the other feet: Labour now gets more cash from rich individuals than do the Conservatives. They’ve both been getting big, secret (legal) loans, too. So neither is going willingly to accept restrictions that’ll staunch this flow but it needs to be done.

Many commentators are saying that, provided everything is above board and that all finance, however provided, should be declared/transparent and what have you, then it’s OK. Others are suggesting, additionally, that there should be some sort of limit on the amount an individual can give. None of this is good enough. Let’s look at these proposals.

Firstly, if one doesn’t put an upper limit on donations, there’s the distinct possibility that someone like Roman Abramovich could buy up a party – he’s already bought Chelsea Football Club by throwing obscene amounts of money at it. He’s got the results, too: Chelsea are top of the English Premier league. Just think of someone having that amount of influence on a political party. Even if donations are capped (£25000 or £50000 have been mentioned), that sort of level would entitle donors/loaners to expect some sort of pay-back.

It’s just not good enough to insist on seeing if a donation/loan is transparent, therefore. Money buys influence; the more money the more the influence. It’s just wrong to have large amounts of money coming from a few wealthy people to finance politics. Look at the horrific situation in the US: since they (virtually) equate free speech with money and vice versa, elections are up for the grabs of the richest. What a disgusting state of affairs!

We have to take the very idea of buying political influence out of the political arena and there’s one basic way to do it: that is to control political finance ruthlessly. I have only part of a proposal: firstly, it is open to anyone to become a member of a political party but the membership fee should be set by legislation. I suggest a maximum of £20. No donations, however small, will be permitted with the membership fee.

The next bit is the most important, though, and I don’t begin to propose a comprehensive solution; state funding may be the only way, perhaps. However, the most important safeguard, whatever the legal funding method, is to make all political contributions illegal. Wouldn’t it be just lovely to make giving money to a political party, other than the annual (low) membership subscription, a criminal offence?
posted by josh at 7:21 pm

 
The plight of the modern cyclist

It isn’t often I can stir myself to get out of my coffin but I suppose I have to: to make way for one of those remarkable Howard twins: John & Michael. (More of John anon). I’ve been keeping the place warm for Michael and I’ve got my garlic, silver bullets, wooden stakes and mallet handy for him.

And having stirred myself, it isn’t often I find myself agreeing with – or even reading – Boris Johnson. He may sometimes be amusing but his version of politics is selfish, elitist in the nastiest possible way and out of place in David Duchovny’s (oops – David Cameron’s) new touchy-feely Conservative Party. Boris Cottonmop has an article in today’s Grauniad about Cycling that rings a bell (ha ha) with me. Here's the link; the article's very short.

And here’s my personal experience of cycling. I’ve been doing it for most of my 175 years of life. I do (did) it to keep fit and to get from place to place quickly and cheaply. Reluctantly I had to give it up about ten years ago, not for health reasons but for life and death reasons: I too had been knocked off more times than I can count. The offenders were motorists as well as pedestrians: many was the time I ran into vehicles coming out of minor side roads in front of me. I became expert at diving over cars as I hit them. And do you think that the police were interested in prosecuting the drivers for dangerous/careless driving? Of course not. The only suggestion they would make was that I should take out a private prosecution to recover the costs of a new wheel. Then there were the people who squeezed me against the kerb.

On one memorable occasion, a woman drove so close to me that she squashed the wheel against the kerb as she knocked me off. She claimed that she was driving carefully, particularly as she had her baby in the seat next to her, blah blah.. Oh yeah? That cost me a new wheel. too.

Then, one day while I was pushing my bike down a one-way street, an oncoming bus-driver deliberately drove straight at me. I was walking right at the left-hand side, as far over as possible without going on to the pavement, as required by the road signs. There was lots of space the other side of the bus. I had to jump for my life.

But it is to pedestrians that I owe my worst moments. One motorist, walking to the door of his parked car, stepped out in front of me and knocked me into the path of overtaking traffic. I came to rest a few feet from a passing car. The police weren’t interested, despite my injuries (‘just’ bad bruising and grazing, fortunately) and damage to my clothing and to the bike.

The final straw was when I was knocked off by a pedestrian who stepped off the pavement without looking (he wasn’t foreign) straight into the side of me. I finished inches from a passing car. He was very apologetic but what would have been his punishment had I finished under that car? Nothing, I’ll bet.

After this, I thought carefully about my life; I didn't (and don’t) want to die or be critically injured. Cycling’s risks are too great. Even in ‘cyclist-friendly’ Oxford, where the humps have cycle through-routes and there are a few dedicated cycle tracks away from traffic, I was several times pushed over deliberately by pedestrians – an early example of ‘happy slapping’, perhaps. Cyclists and pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users. I had always felt that there was common cause between pedestrians and cyclists but it isn’t true. Some pedestrians, like some cyclists, are vicious.

So let’s see Johnson’s solution:

When Cameron's Conservatives come to power it will be a golden age for cyclists and an Elysium of cycle lanes, bike racks, and sharia law for bike thieves.

So, more seriously, what is to be done? Sharia law is too lenient, even for bike thieves, and we might have to put up with the other rubbish that goes with it: inviolable turbans, four wives, irretrievable male–power sexism, more faith schools (ugh!), and compulsory prayers on Fridays. No, it’ll have to be based on my manifesto [see Josh 17 April 2005]: we could start with capital punishment for those who park in cycle lanes and for motorists who dare to drive into cyclist reserves at traffic lights.

I started by suggesting that Cottonmop is too selfish and elitist for today. It’s his lot's endorsement of Thatcherism that has led to the terrible ‘devil-take-the-hindmost’ political philosophy of even the yoghurt/sandal brigade. And if pedestrians hate cyclists and motorists try to kill them both, is it really surprising? Perhaps some of them are hoping that the next cyclist or pedestrian they hit is a Thatcherite Tory like Boris Johnson.
posted by josh at 11:41 am