Could SNP have best manifestos for cycling? « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Could SNP have best manifestos for cycling?

(37 posts)

Started 10 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from chdot

No tags yet.

12 Next »

chdot
Admin

"

When I compare where we are now to 12 months ago they have really changed. I can understand everyone being cynical and be like “yeah we have heard it all before” and we have, but we are on the edge of proper numbers and allocated funds, long-term commitment and targets. And we are really close. And as soon as one of the major parties gets on board then we can beat the others over the head with it.

We know it has to be meaningful. Even the pro cycle MPs are mired in a political environment. When the road narrows, the cycle lane disappears so it could be a vote loser. But culture change is always slow and it’s always painful.

What are the chances of success?

I think we’ll do it. In the last six months we’ve been to everyone at a ministerial level to the Department for Transport and the Department for Health, all of them right down to local level – we have loads of people who are ready to go. The DfT said they have the money. All it needs is the political leader to say ‘do it’ and all those people will spring into action, but right now no one feels empowered to make a significant change.

"

From an interview with Chris Boardman in December BikeBiz (p16)

http://www.bikebiz.com/product/index/download/id/41

Of course he has been dealing (understandably) with English Depts/officials/MPs, but his optimism is encouraging.

Scottish Governments have been ahead of UK ones on things like the smoking ban and drink driving limits.

It's possible that the 2015 SNP manifesto could be the best on cycling - not least because they won't actually be the UK Government (probably not even as part of a formal coalition).

As Health and Transport are devolved, they might not even be mentioned in Westminster manifesto.

It's possible that the 2016 SNP manifesto could be the best on cycling.

Just seems SO unlikely. Presumably the Greens will propose the most on ActiveTravel etc., so the SNP's could/should be second best - but that is far from certain.

They really don't 'get' the benefit of investing (more) Transport and Health money to help create a 'fairer and healthier Scotland'.

Posted 10 years ago #
neddie
Member

The Greens always seem disappointing on active travel. I'm sure they agree with it, they just don't seem to actively promote it.

Their leaflets/flyers never mention active travel, they seem more concerned with housing/benefits issues.

Posted 10 years ago #
Dave
Member

The SNP are a joke on transport. Spending £3bn on a vanity dualling project is about the limit of their imagination.

Every year is another fight to get a slashed budget for active travel reversed, or at least mitigated somehow. They've never had the balls to declare how much they are spending in a distinct budget line.

The SNP are too exhausting for me, and for my vote.

Posted 10 years ago #
I were right about that saddle
Member

Could SNP have best manifestos for cycling?

No, because Alex Salmond.

Posted 10 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

Dave - which £3bn vanity dualling project? A9 or A96? Not to your taste? how about the Aberdeen Western Peripheral route - a snip at £0.7bn. Fancy something more maritime? There's always the £1.4bn Forth Extra Crossing. Or would the A8 upgrade be more your thing - a nice £0.5bn PFI project (just joking - its funded through the SNP's entirely different NPD model).

A snip at £8,600,000,000.

Posted 10 years ago #
I were right about that saddle
Member

@Morningsider

I did write up the 2030 vision thread as an article for the National including those throbbing examples, but they seem not to be interested.

Cycling gets nobody's vote at the moment and no party is going to make itself look odd by talking about it.

Posted 10 years ago #
crowriver
Member

"Cycling gets nobody's vote at the moment and no party is going to make itself look odd by talking about it."

Not true for the Greens of course. But even my own party does not necessarily shout about active travel in its election campaigning. Simply there are not many votes in it, and also like most parties, there are campaigners/politicians with different priorities...

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

but it is true fir the greens. exactly what green politicians have said to me - they may be cyclists, but they don't want to be 'identified' as cyclists.

Posted 10 years ago #
I were right about that saddle
Member

Yup. Easy to forget on here how actively disliked we are out there.

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

Even if the SNP promise, and indeed allocate, loads of cash for cycling/walking infrastructure, will it be spent on that? After all, a promise in a manifesto is nothing compared to a promise made to Parliament and recorded in the Official Report - yet this is what is now happening to such a promise. [RTs welcome!]

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Easy to forget on here how actively disliked we are out there"

BUT it's not about 'us' - or the 'not us' who already ride bikes.

It's about everyone else - a lot of whom (according to 'surveys') want to cycle, OR AT LEAST want to feel it's 'safe' for them or their children. AND the 'everyone' who is fed up waiting at the side of the road trying to cross - or waiting for a bus stuck in a queue of vehicles with no passengers.

Not sure how many votes there were in banning smoking in pubs - lot of opposition from individuals and 'vested interests'. Don't suppose there are many votes in reducing drink driving limits (though a certain amount of manufactured opposition by people apparently 'speaking on behalf of' poor motorists who might be confused/penalised after crossing the border!

There might actually be votes in minimum pricing for alcohol, but some commercial interests are doing their best to stop it.

We live in a country run by a government that talks about fairness and inequality and poverty and health etc. etc. and yet FAILS to 'understand' the benefits of cycling (and walking) on individuals' health, benefits to 'society' AND that investment in it is highly cost effective.

Are there votes in "land reform"? Hard to say, but apart from a tiny number of campaigners and a few large landowners does anyone care - in an electoral sense?

'I'll vote for the party that does something about land ownership' - really??

This is not about 'us' or 'cycling' or even (probably very misguided) fears about 'voters don't like cyclists'.

It's about the most popular party in Scotland - which is quite likely to be in power for at least another five years - 'understanding' that the things 'we' happen to like/care about might actually be 'sensible' and perhaps even popular if the Gov just got on with it and didn't (bother to) make a big deal about it.

The reason for starting this thread was to highlight that Chris Boardman thinks things are about to change down south (he might well be wrong).

It would be unfortunate if he is right and political parties in Scotland had nothing similar (or better) to offer.

Posted 10 years ago #
neddie
Member

I don't think the Scottish Govt is 'ahead' of anything. They are followers, not leaders.

The Irish got there first on the smoking ban. The rest of the EU was ahead on the drink drive limits...

Posted 10 years ago #
minus six
Member

We live in a country run by a government that talks about fairness and inequality and poverty and health etc. etc. and yet FAILS to 'understand' the benefits of cycling

Perhaps they cynically understand (and choose to reflect) the mean-spirited narrow-minded parochial attitude that pervades the country.

Pockets of liberation sure, but in an ocean of mediocrity.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"The Irish got there first on the smoking ban. The rest of the EU was ahead on the drink drive limits..."

True, but the SNP 'likes to be ahead of Engerland'.

It COULD be on this, but doesn't want to be.

Posted 10 years ago #
Kim
Member

"Cycling gets nobody's vote at the moment and no party is going to make itself look odd by talking about it."

Odd how for the last three years we consistently saying that PoP was the biggest demonstration they had see outside of Holyrood. Also an increasing number of MSPs are reporting that cycling issues are dominating their in-boxes...

Active travel is a great idea as it achieves so many policy objectives, so here are a few Manifesto suggestions, humm, maybe time to revisit and update that post again...

Posted 10 years ago #
amir
Member

Yep, and it's about saving money (on health +) and making people happier. It would be nice if politicians would actually try to persuade people (like the the referendum) - they lack the pelotas.

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

I forget, who has been running Edinburgh and making the progress (not enough, of course) on cycling?

Maybe it's not a party political issue as much as vote winning issue. I suspect if the Greens or SNP want to take Labour seats in middle-class cycling areas of Edinburgh they'll run a very localised campaign that talks up their commitment to cycling and active travel and related issues locally. But the national manifestoes will say hee haw. Would it be too cynical to suggest that they're each as cynical as the other and that votes trumps principles or beliefs every time?

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Would it be too cynical to suggest that they're each as cynical as the other and that votes trumps principles or beliefs every time?"

Probably not, but I'm not sure if you're saying 'we like ActiveTravel, but the voters don't (except in a few odd pockets) so we're not going to say/do anything'(?)

It's only 'us' that 'care' about 'active travel'. Actually mostly just the cycling bit - and as 'we' already do it, not even sure about the "care"!

Doing more for cyclists (including spending money) seems to be politically acceptable in London, (today - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cycling-quietways-will-open-next-may-says-mayor-9914728.html), so WHY are Scottish politicians (including Edinburgh ones) still so timid?

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

I'd assume that Green politicians actually believe all that green stuff so their reticence, their concern about being seen to be cyclists, reflects their willingness to compromise their essential beliefs to win votes. So they become cynical. I suppose if they become more electorally successful, they'll become more cynical and they'll start to attract the sort of sociopath who sees it as a good political career move.

I suspect SNP politicians, on the other hand, are supremely cynical from the outset and to the core. They don't really believe most of what they say (apart from independence - they really believe that and don't really care what they need to say or who they need to get into bed with to achieve that). Jim Murphy cynical.

If you imagine the balance of London as being like Marchmont and Sciennes then the willingness of politicians to talk positively about cycling makes sense. Cycling has tipped over to the point where it is advantageous to be supportive regardless of your basic political position.

But in a world of 60% car ownership and 1% cycling the voting and budgeting arithmetic seems self-explanatory.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Ah, you were mostly having a dig at the Greens.

I think they should be more 'visible' on cycling - BUT Alison Johnstone is co-chair of all party cycling group at Holyrood.

Not sure about your London/Marchmont axis.

In London cycling is a way of 'saving transport money' - more people on bikes, less pressure on buses/tube - not that they aren't spending a LOT on rail!

Government in Scotland is able to look at (potential) transport/health/other savings - as well as all the soft/(politically) aspirational stuff. Somehow the civil servants (and politicians) aren't able (or perhaps just not willing) to look at the sums and "construct a narrative" (as they say these days).

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman)
05/12/2014 10:41
I've just realized that I can't hold myself responsible for what people who don't listen think. It's liberating

"

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

The Greens are still fresh enough to be disappointing.

The Scottish Government could construct a narrative if they wanted to. They constructed a visionary active travel narrative for 2030 because it suited them to look interested in some point in some long distant future. They don't construct a short term funding and actually doing something narrative because the alternative building bridges and dualling carriageways narrative suits them better.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

This could have been written by 'us' (but I presume it wasn't)

In latest Private Eye -

"

R O A D R A G E
Jams tomorrow
CHANCELLOR George Osborne's announcement of £15bn of trunk-road schemes is the latest outcome of Whitehall's short-sighted obsession with making Britons more dependent on cars.

The spending spree rests on the govemment's transport forecasts, but these reflect political intent, not natural inevitability, because peoples behaviour is heavily influenced by government policies on transport and planning.

A little-noticed Commons disclosure to Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert last month revealed that the government expects trips per person by car drivers to rise rapidly in Great Britain, from 448 a year on average next year to 465 in 2020 and 507 in 2040. To achieve enough growth in car traffic to appease the road and oil lobbies, the government expects trips per person by every other type of transport to fall.

That would be laughable if the forecasts were meant to acknowledge recent trends. As people gravitate towards living in higher-density urban areas, the obvious model for transport forecasters is London, where bus, rail and cycle journeys are rising. Instead, the govemment expects a 26 percent fall in GB bus trips per person by 2040. Cuts to bus subsidies have paved the way, reducing or axing services outside London and pushing fares up faster than inflation.

A fall in rail trips per person is also forecast (despite Crossrail, HS2 and electrification, etc); and rail fares have also risen as subsidy has dropped, while Osborne has engineered the opposite for motorists. As diesel and petrol prices have fallen to a four-year low, public finances have taken a hit from reduced VAT revenue and
Osbomes refusal to increase fuel duty.

Were "active travel" to rise, one beneficiary would be the NHS; but the government predicts a 6 percent drop in walking trips per person by 2040 and a 7 percent drop in cycling. Communications technology is already simplifying car sharing by matching liftseekers with drivers. and that could become a mainstream option in the future - but the government expects trips per person by car passengers (as opposed to drivers) to drop by 9 percent by 2040.

Britain realized in the 1990s that building more roads wouldn't solve congestion or other problems caused by growing traffic. Osborne's £15bn tank-roads package merely scratches the surface of what the network will need if it is to cope with the predicted 13 percent increase in trips per person by drivers, with or without passengers, plus the impact of population growth.

Worse, the expanded trunk roads will feed more traffic on to secondary roads, which already need £12bn worth of repairs. Expanding urban streets and highways to tackle future traffic jams is impossible unless were prepared to demolish buildings, strip out cycle lanes and force pedestrians back into subways. So the outcome of Whitehall's policies, predicated on a 13 percent growth in car joumeys, is that English traffic congestion (measured as seconds lost per mile) is officially forecast to rise by
69 percent in London from 2010 to 2035, 70 percent in large cities and 103 percent in meal areas.

'Hedgehog'

"

Posted 10 years ago #
I were right about that saddle
Member

So if I understand correctly the hive-mind conclusion is that everyone on here should join the Scottish Greens and campaign as hard as possible for them in the 2016 general election?

They're the only party that wouldn't automatically cringe in the face of the car lobby once in power. Is that it?

Posted 10 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

@IWRATS All of the remotely bike friendly stuff the Scottish Government seems to have done (CAPS target for instance) seems to have happened when the SNP were a minority administration that needed the Greens to prop them up. That can't be a coincidence. They've been backpedalling, if you'll pardon the pun, ever since

OTOH Sarah Boyack did ringfence cycling, walking and safer streets money when she was Transport Minister under Labour. Without that, there's some LAs wouldn't spend anything on cycling at all, even with Sustrans match funding

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

The idea that they didn't want to be seen as cyclists suggests a propensity to cringe in the face of motorists never mind an organised lobby.

@sally Did that ring fencing survive the concordat between the minority SNP government and Cosla?

Posted 10 years ago #
I were right about that saddle
Member

@Instography

What then is the best way to proceed?

Posted 10 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

@insto - as far as I know it has so far, but others are better informed than me on these matters

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

@insto Yes, it is the CWSS fund which is still ring-fenced for "walking, cycling, safer streets". It is allocated to councils annually on a per capita basis. The Scotgov 'recommends' to councils that a minimum % (from memory around 40%) of this should go to cycling projects.

When SNP came to power they tried hard to scrap the fund, but the Greens made it a condition of budget support that it was retained. However, the SNP did cut its amount gradually year by year until 14/15 (i.e. election coming into sight!) when it had quite a jump, although still not to the level the previous Lab/Lib administration had been allocating.

Yes, it was Sarah Boyack who introduced the fund when she was transport minister many years ago, and it is pretty remarkable it has survived, though with a lot of lobbying at certain points, such as the above case when SNP first came to power.

It is a vital fund, since without it a lot of councils would invest zero in cycling - around a third of councils put nothing of their own capital into cycling, relying solely on CWSS money (+ any match funding they can get from Sustrans).

There's more in the Spokes bulletins annual surveys, the 'Late 2014' issue and similar from earlier year issues.

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

Don't know. I'm generally pessimistic. I think the trouble is that I think we're waiting for one of two things. Either a tragedy with the impact of the London bombings that forces a fundamental rethink of how we organise transport in our cities or a crusader, willing to withstand the criticism of motorists and the Evening News type of press, to force through the sort of changes that have been seen in London or New York. The first you wouldn't wish for and odds of the second seems remote.

Either way it needs to be fundamentally undemocratic. If you ask people to vote for it, it'll go the way of the congestion charge.

Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Could SNP have best manifestos for cycling?

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links