CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"
We don't have to dream of a country where protected bike lanes and other quality bike infrastructure have dramatically improved life for people in poverty. We can visit it.
It's called Denmark, and it's arguably the most egalitarian country in the world.
Data published online for the first time suggests that bicycle transportation has been part of that triumph. Not the biggest part, but a very real one.
"
I'm sure bike lanes have helped, but I'd imagine it's primarily a progressive taxation and welfare system that has made Denmark more egalitarian.
Denmark has made many wise choices. Not too much war (which is astonishingly expensive) and land value taxation (which is both fair and impossible to dodge) amongst them.
That's small, democratic countries for you.
Maybe progressive taxation now but post war for forty years taxation was very high. I am in favour of this as a way to build a small country. But nary a mention was made of it. Also right wing party won most votes in 2014 euro elections. So denmark fine as an example of a small country but not SAlmond shangrila
Much though I admire many things about Denmark, the word egalitarian doesn't really extend to its immigration policy in general. The People's Party, for example, saying
"Denmark is not an immigrant-country and never has been. Thus we will not accept transformation to a multiethnic society."
this is the party who won the greatest number of European seats in the 2014 elections - an unfortunately similar story (IMO) to the UK...
@gembo
'Salmond shangrila'
Let it go, man! It's over. We can admire small countries without any fear of glory being reflected on the Dear Leader.
@algo
If I learned one thing this year it is that immigration is incredibly important to working people. Those of us who haven't had to compete with cheap foreign labour or had our jobs off-shored may find this hard to take on board and some people have certainly exploited the issue for racist reasons but we can't ignore it.
"but we cannot ignore it"
Except that 'we' (as people less affected than some others) have - for many and various reasons. Certainly the Labour Party has been doing so for a while - as evidenced by GB's 'bigotgate' moment.
The result - apart from a whole sub-set (some might say 'underclass') of people who are (often) simultaneously affect and disaffected - resulting in 'legitimacy' for UKIP.
One irony is that that party seems to attract Nimbies - largely unaffected adversely by 'immigration' but it is making electoral advances by offering impossible solutions to those actually directly affected.
There is also the side-effect meme that British/English/white working class people are 'too lazy' and 'would rather live on benefits'.
So the prejudices rotate.
"Those of us who haven't had to compete with cheap foreign labour or had our jobs offshored may find this hard to grasp and some people have certainly exploited the issue for racist reasons but we cannot ignore it."
good points.
there is certainly data that the areas least affected by immigration are most opposed to it. this seems relevant in debates about access to council housing, queues to see GPs etc
whether it also holds out in terms of job outsourcing/offshoring/ and changes in the economy from production to service sector, i don't know.
Interestingly enough , I always felt that car driver's attitudes to cyclists gave lie to the fondly imagined belief that Scotland has widely different social beliefs to England. As far as I can see the hierarchical, competitive mindset is just as prevelant in Scotland, and Scotland's roads, as the rest of the UK.
"Let it go, man! "
Gembo will be a Labour partisan until his dying breath, I suspect. Most other folk know it's not about one leader, or one party...
"As far as I can see the hierarchical, competitive mindset is just as prevelant in Scotland, and Scotland's roads, as the rest of the UK."
Overlapping mindsets, not just a single monolithic one.
So, "progressive" left leaning educated parent who cares about "all the right things" can also be an aggressive driver who "hates cyclists". Hypocrisy? Perhaps. Cognitive dissonance? Almost certainly.
If I learned one thing this year it is that immigration is incredibly important to working people. Those of us who haven't had to compete with cheap foreign labour or had our jobs off-shored may find this hard to take on board
As someone who has been offshored twice I think this is an excuse for narrow mindedness, not on your part but those who feel they're entitled to a living with out having to worry about being "out competed" or being effected by the market forces that bring them cheap clothes, cheap cars, cheap Sky TV etc.
@steveo
Losing your job twice must have been horrible, so I'm sorry to hear that. I'm a hired gun in a fractured work environment, so I don't even know if roles I might have done have been moved off-shore.
That said, I see civilisation as the process of us learning not to comptete with each other except by choice. So people wishing to have a living without unwanted competition are expressing a desire for a civilized life in my book. When MPs and chief execs are off-shored maybe I'll believe that cut-throat competition is good for the rest of us.
expressing a desire for a civilized life in my book.
Ah ha, I'd believe that if they also respected the rights of people abroad to earn a decent wage by not shopping in places like Primark or any of the big supermarkets.
But by your logic politicians are the epitome of civilisation, they've created a niche where by the work they do can't be moved abroad in any meaningful manner, more layers can be created above or beside them but the populous will always demand a local representative they can lynch if need be. Politicians only compete by choice, they're golden parachutes mean that they'll never lose, really. Ditto for excecs.
The only reason most of us can afford the lifestyles we do is because we're treading on the backs of others, mostly in countries with appalling pay and conditions. When that swings the other way people don't like it.
@IWRATS:
"If I learned one thing this year it is that immigration is incredibly important to working people. Those of us who haven't had to compete with cheap foreign labour or had our jobs off-shored may find this hard to take on board and some people have certainly exploited the issue for racist reasons but we can't ignore it."
indeed there are issues to address - I don't mean to ignore the genuine difficulties that some people fear on account of immigration. In the case of Denmark I find some of their policies inhumane purely from a family point of view, such as the 24 rule and its associated stipulations. For a country that encouraged immigration to fill a labour gap to then essentially decide they are full, is making life difficult I think.
In my opinion jobs being sent abroad as that is more economically viable is a manifestation of an unpleasant economic reliance on neoliberalism more than it is about immigration.
@algo
Indeed, it's a complex issue and I can't claim to have more than the foggiest notion what to do about it. But we do need to talk about it or we'll be leaving that conversation to the racists amongst us.
Like you, I've been an immigrant, and I'd be peeved if the Tories under UKIP pressure decided that Madame IWRATS was no longer welcome in Scotland.
Like you, I think I recognise neoliberal growthism as the core problem.
"Neoliberal" seems to be a catch-all term that is used in the way people used to use "fascist".
""Neoliberal" seems to be a catch-all term that is used in the way people used to use "fascist"."
Indeed - and with different 'interpretations'. However whereas once there was a 'proper' war on fascism, any 'threat' from neoliberalism is harder to define/'combat'.
This is just a random find via Google -
"
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Was surprised by this - "the word is rarely heard in the United States"
Presumably there is a different term(?)
The rich have got richer, but the poor have also got richer. I would count that as a win.
The Spirit Level is fatally flawed.
I can do links too. ;-)
The Spirit Level a great book, well worth a read.
"The Price of Inequality" also good, Captial in the 21 century" also worth a look would have been nice if it had been written straight in to english a french translation which could flow a tad better.
I did also have criticism also when read it a few years back not quite sure if would go as far as to say fatally flawed relativism, can pick the book, can pick the criticisms, 209 reviews -), will need to have a glance at my amazon’s reviews, read across the spectrum also have Tyler Cowen and Ayn Rand on my kindle.
Wow, that's quite a tennis match of claims and counter claims.
Found the counter-counter-claim =)
I might watch this later
| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
"Peter Saunders analysis includes much poorer countries"
In my view relative wealth matters as its relative wealth that can compete for influence not absolute wealth. Being the poorest person regardless of absolute wealth may have effect of reducing basic rights. Relatively poorer people typically have less influence, to an extent irrespective of absolute wealth.
It is the peeking order that can influence rights far beyond what may be considered economic rights property etc, being relatively well of in a country may buy more basic rights than being absolutely better off but relatively less well of in another country etc.
Relatively poor people can not afford lawyers, donations buy minister etc, bribes, or offer favours that the relatively better of can.
So even basic rights that don’t appear of economic nature can be influenced by being relatively poor if get punched buy someone much richer may be better to take on chin so to speak as may get outspend in any litigation. If someone richer crashed in your car they can outspend on defence get in scientists “hired gun” witnesses.
People concede all the time to people on a rational basis not based on rights or wrongs, when I got a bill from virgin media that seemed unfair I paid it. As they could outspend me, and the Experian credit system which has the effect of judge and jury in credit terms is paid for by them. Experian will lower rating on what amounts to the larger richer being. So even if correct and do not pay virgin media it is not their credit rating that will suffer it is the poor person so the rational thing to do is pay up in some instance.
Although credit rating is relatively benign of course just an example.
As well as happiness well-being social anxiety and what may be considered more frivolous considerations.
I meant to add this to my previous post looks like I am trawling a bit as I added a separate post in error. -)
update
A good book on getting people out of poverty is "Poor Economics by Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee.
Why poor people squander money on short term gratification in developing countries rather than invest in future which seems futile and how these incentives can be changed etc If i remember correctly read years ago. ( same principles apply in the west to an extent)
Ed1:
Excellent points and nothing that I can fundamentally disagree with.
Going back to the point I made further up the thread, if these are the types of issue that modern, rich, free-market countries are having to face rather than the basic needs of avoiding starvation at the next drought then I think it's fair to say that we're doing rather well. Getting other poorer countries to our stage of development is the aim.
"Getting other poorer countries to our stage of development is the aim."
That's a different 'can of worms!
If "development" means 'standard of living', that's going to be hard.
Most families in the world having a car?
If "development" means 'quality of life', then perhaps parts of the west have already gone 'too far' - in the sense that the 'striving' for 'better' might be being counterproductive for people/families/societies.
Again, if we are debating whether we have too many cars, or whether we should be installing segregated bike lanes, then I think we are doing pretty well.
@Stickman, you're right, I'd rather play tennis.
| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
"Innovation in, lycra out: what Copenhagen can teach us about cycling"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13593#post-168436
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts