CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
While Spokes may be reticent about recommending how cyclists direct their vote, I don't have such qualms... perhaps because I'm too cynical to think that it makes any great difference!
Anyway, whether you follow my advice or not (which is to vote for Lib-dem and Green and try to deny the SNP any more than the sizeable return they will get either way) I've written up a short report on the Spokes Hustings.
There hasn't been a massive amount of chat on this (or I missed it).
Good points all. I agree with most of your assessments. Cameron Rose comes across as having given thought to things, resulting in an interesting mix of policies, but as you say any notion of 'leadership' was missing. You have to wonder what his own party makes of him.
The SNP guy actually says he is a cyclist and apparently used to cycle to work every day when he worked at the Parliament. You wouldn't have guessed that from his performance. If he gets in, I think we could do worse than to meet and discuss with him, despite his dismal performance on the panel.
I was not at all sure what to make of Lesley Hinds; her populist bonhomie actually made her feel like the most 'professional' politician of the crowd (and I don't mean that in a good way). Your analysis is bang on the money - where is the connection between her own attitudes and policy?
"which is to vote for Lib-dem and Green and try to deny the SNP any more than the sizeable return they will get either way"
Clearly it remains to be seen how much voters in Edinburgh (the few that turn out) will vote according to 'national' politics - i.e. vote SNP because they 'like Alex' or don't vote LibDem because of Nick Clegg/Westminster coalition.
I think there will be many attempts at tactical voting.
Normally people will put a 1 against the candidate/party they want to win, but after that whether they put 2 etc. against any other candidates is personal choice.
A lot of people will put 1-3 or 1-4 against the people they would most like to see elected - most Edinburgh wards have 3 seats, some have 4.
Some people will favour their chosen party over all others in (the few) wards where their party has 2 candidates. Others will give their 2nd vote to another party.
IF the key intention is to stop a particular candidate/party getting a seat, obviously you wouldn't even give them a 4 - but it might be the case that you 'should' vote for the people most likely to get elected even if not in 'your' party!
Complicated...
Last night the SNP's Election Broadcast suggest that you put 1, 2 and 3 against their candidates so that they could have the slogan "SNP 123".
There can't be many (any?) seats with 3 candidates in one party.
Vote don't vote - your choice.
The reality in Edinburgh is that no party can have an overall majority - none has put up 30 candidates.
So coalition(s) formal and informal are inevitable. It's very unlikely that the combined number of SNP and LibDem seats will be enough for another 4 years of the current coalition. Even if the LibDem vote holds enough to get the number of seats to add to a (likely) larger number of SNP seats for a majority I can't see them working together again.
'Big' question is will Labour get more seats than SNP - it'll be close - who would they could partner with.
Labour and Greens have voted together (as opposition parties) quite often in the current council. It's likely that there will be more Green seats than the current 3, but there is no realist chance of L+G=30.
Labour has been talking about 'using talents from other parties' if they get the most seats and try to form a minority administration, but...
Interesting times!
Of course there is some evidence that Councillors don't have much control - money and dictats from Holyrood, with officials making key decisions (or ignoring Council - elected councillors - decisions).
Lesley Hinds is putting out some pro-motorist, anti-cyclist messages. For example:
"LABOUR today promised to ban major traffic projects in the city for two years after the completion of the tram scheme, if it wins control at the council elections in May.
Councillor Lesley Hinds, the party’s transport spokeswoman in Edinburgh, said the move would give stability after the current widespread disruption.
Day-to-day repairs and maintenance would continue, but once the trams are up and running – due to be summer 2014 – all new projects would be put on hold, including the planned review of the one-way systems around Haymarket and the West End, revealed by the News earlier this month.
Motoring groups welcomed the plans, but transport campaigners said it could mean the city forgoing funding which was on offer to improve transport infrastructure.
Announcing the policy, Cllr Hinds said: “There will be a moratorium on new major traffic schemes and road alterations for two years, other than smartening up the city centre for pedestrians after the tram works.
“That two-year pause will give a chance for Edinburgh citizens and councillors to get back in the driving seat, setting policy for the way forward after a problematic few years.”
Cllr Hinds said the review of the one-way systems, part of a bid to make the city more friendly for cyclists and pedestrians, would be stalled."
On this evidence, voting Labour will actually harm prospects for a more cycle-friendly Edinburgh.
Really interesting commentary from Dave; the only point I disagree with being his severe downer on Labour. Their manifesto includes the 5% funding, and to increase that year by year. Andrew Burns, who is now Labour leader, was transport convener a few years ago, and was one of the most pro-cycling transport conveners we've seen. Not quite as bold as Gordon Mackenzie has been, but politically it was more difficult then as cycling had not yet reached its current level of popularity.
I'm not saying necessarily to vote Labour, I'm just saying Dave's view of that party's likely performance on cycling was IMO mistaken due to his view of Cllr Hinds's presentation [the fact that she personally is scared to cycle is representative of a big chunk of the population and she seemed to me to appreciate the need to make conditions feel much more welcoming].
Personally my first preference vote would be Green if they were standing in my ward (in West Lothian).
I go along with Dave in his positive review of the Lib Dems and Greens, and disappointment with SNP. Basically I think cycling could do pretty well if the council ends up with any combination of Lab, LibDem and Green in power.
Finally, in practical terms, I think chdot is right that either Labour or SNP could end up the biggest party, and Dave is wrong to say it will definitely be SNP. Obviously SNP has had a big boost nationally, but so far in Edinburgh Labour has run much the stronger campaign, e.g a manifesto widely consulted on (at public meetings and online) and published early. When I last searched the web a week or so ago for Edinburgh websites of all the main parties, I easily found all except Edinburgh SNP. [If it does turn up please somebody say!! as if it exists it needs added to the spokes election news posting]
@crowriver At the hustings (and in some of the written reports I have seen) Lesley Hinds made a point of exempting both pedestrian and pro-cyclist schemes from that moratorium.
@srd @crowriver Agree with SRD
DdF, just to mention that the Edinburgh Green Party manifesto has been released:
@SRD, @DdF, and what about "the planned review of the one-way systems around Haymarket and the West End"? I suppose I'm arguing that if roads projects are put on hold, then any opportunity to improve those roads for active travel is also put on hold.
Must admit, I've never considered any parties cycling agenda when considering who to vote for, somehow doesn't seem important.
Maybe kinda weird given how long I spend on a bike each day. Hey ho.
"including the planned review of the one-way systems around Haymarket and the West End"
Except that that is presumably directly related to the trams!(?)
I wasn't impressed with her 'I've only just taken over Transport so I don't know all issues routine' at the Hustings.
According to the ENews -
"Cllr Hinds said the review of the one-way systems, part of a bid to make the city more friendly for cyclists and pedestrians, would be stalled."
I'm sure she didn't say that it would stall the work that would make "the city more friendly for cyclists and pedestrians", but it clearly demonstrates she doesn't understand the reasons behind various changes.
If she really said the review will be stalled then that would be a 'mistake'.
In the middle of the tramworks it might be reasonable to say nothing new will be delivered until the trams are running and the traffic consequences are know.
It's also populist and probably popular - she is a politician.
But any suggestion (which that article clearly implies) that more consideration would be given to cars/drivers rather than pedestrians/cyclists would be very unwelcome.
Think 'we' need some clarification.
"in practical terms, I think chdot is right that either Labour or SNP could end up the biggest party, and Dave is wrong to say it will definitely be SNP"
I agree with that!
How much voters 'think Holyrood' rather than 'last 5 years of CEC coalition' remains to be seen!
A few months ago the SNP were considering fielding enough candidates to (in theory) get an overall majority. But after considering the likely result of having two candidates in too many wards - and the likely consequences of the preference vote system - they changed their minds.
As DdF says "so far in Edinburgh Labour has run much the stronger campaign". But elections aren't (merely) about effort or merit!
Glad to have stirred up some dissent!
My money (should I be betting any) is firmly on the SNP who can still do almost no wrong. Clearly the circles some of you move in / your own slant is different, and that's interesting.
As a general rule my policy at all previous elections has been to oppose the incumbents regardless of party and that would conventionally mean a vote for Labour here. To be honest, I would be comfortable with a Lib/Lab coalition supposing that Cllr Mackenzie retained responsibility for transport as the alternative is so uninspiring.
But an arbitrary couple of years of retrograde motion on cycling? No thanks! What the hell are they going to spend 5% of the budget on if they can't improve junctions and streets?
However, it seems to me unlikely that in any configuration Gordon Mackenzie will keep his job, as whatever the allegience of the new council they will want to draw a line under the tram fiasco (perhaps rightly). To be honest I went into the hustings inclined against him but thought he delivered convincingly enough to prove me wrong.
What the hell are they going to spend 5% of the budget on if they can't improve junctions and streets?
Oh, if the roads are out of bounds then I expect they'll look at off-road, shared use, 'awareness' campaigns, cycle training in schools. Which all have the benefit of being 'good' for pedestrians (the group Hinds seems to be most supportive of in public), council works dept. and the education dept, where many a loyal Labour supporter can be found.
So two years of iffy shared use and cycle training, then? Maybe more cash for places like Bike Station (which may not be a bad thing). The roads will continue to be 'status quo'.
If Labour have to share power with the Greens then cycling might get a better deal. Can't say that the SNP or Lib Dems inspire confidence: once Mackenzie goes at Transport, cycling may no longer be such an active priority for the LDs...
In case you've 50p(?) to spare ... I was asked at short notice yesterday to do a 700/800-word article for the Evening News on the elections from a Spokes perspective, and have just been told that it will appear tomorrow, Thursday 12th. Hopefully unedited.
I take no responsibility if you spend your 50p and it's not there!!
Doubtless it will appear on their online site too, after a suitable delay.
My thoughts on the Spokes Hustings, if anyone is interested.
Oh and democracy only works if people make the effort to vote and then hold their elected representatives to account. If you don't don't vote, don't whine when they do things you don't like, it is your own fault.
@ddf is this another sign of cycling being mainstreamed? or have you done this before?
Promise of a cycle hire scheme in Glasgow:
The white ones did get used last year and only a few ended up in the Kelvin.
Having seen the cycle routes the current administration has put in I'd rather they didn't bother with any more.
Don't fancy the chances of the SNP doing anything, they're too busy trying to get the right to raise more taxes then blow them all on licensing airguns (despite all the evidence to show that it would be a huge waste of time and money!)
Still idly curious to know what their scapegoat will be if they get home rule and can't blame Westminster for everything...
Labour/Conservatives, more of the same, "career politicians" saying as little as possible and doing less as long as it keeps them in a (very well paid) job.
Greens, hmmm dunno, still thinking :-/
I will vote, it would be criminal not to given what that right cost our predecessors to gain, but sometimes I look at the options and really wonder, too many politicians and far too few leaders! :-(
I think the air gun licensing is part of the Calman commission proposal which was set up by Wendy Alexander and had no SNP members.
Home rule is a LibDem proposal.
Patrick Harvie was caught out by Newsnight Scotland last night on the nuclear power issue.
How about Natural Law?
The Calman report advised against it (airgun licensing), however last I checked SNP policy is to bring it in, but that is off topic and a bit of a hobby horse so I should probably treat it like discussing h****ts ;-)(!)
Are you telling me the SNP don't want devolution? Not what the big bloke said last time I saw him...?
Natural Law? No comment!!
"Patrick Harvie was caught out by Newsnight Scotland last night on the nuclear power issue"
Yeah that was an interesting exchange.
I *think* he said that if a new form of nuclear was developed that was 'safe' and 'sustainable', greens would have to consider it.
But he didn't really sound like he thought there was any possibility.
There are quite a few people (like George Monbiot) who (now) seem to believe that nuclear is 'necessary' as a bridge between now and a 'low carbon future'.
Of course local energy generation, conservation, even changes in lifestyle are not as attractive to politicians (and most voters) as 'big solutions'.
So new Forth bridge rather than encouraging much 'Active Travel'.
(Or even discouraging travel - but that's a whole different...)
"Are you telling me the SNP don't want devolution?"
I think you know they want Independence...!!!
BBC says Calman was in favour of the air gun thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8372897.stm
It does quote Jim Murphy so it could all be made up.
I don't think devolution is one of the SNP aims, no, it may be a way point for what they want though.
George Harrison was in favour of Natural Law and he put up the cash for Life of Brian so he must have known a thing or two. Consider the transport benefits of Yogic Flying.
Patrick Harvie was caught out by Newsnight Scotland last night on the nuclear power issue.
Really? How so? (Didn't see it.)
Anyway, I thought these were local council elections, not parliamentary. Different issues, or should be. I suppose it suits the SNP to play national issues, that's what got them into Holyrood. Local politics should be a slightly separate matter; whether it will be is something we'll have to wait and see.
I think Gordon Brewer was looking for a Green policy on thorium reactors but Mr Harvie didn't seem to catch it.
Not to worry, clean fusion reactors for all in 25 years.
Sometimes Newsnight Scotland is hard to find but this is yesterday's:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01g7sx0/Newsnight_Scotland_10_04_2012/
How about Natural Law?
It's worth remembering that it is not so long ago that the SNP were commonly dismissed as fringe nutters and an irrelevance (obviously not by SNP supporters). That perception has certainly changed.
Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance are a possible alternative if somehow the Greens do not seem like a proposition for whatever reason (including no candidate in your ward, eg. quite a few outwith Edinburgh). Though the beauty of the electoral system is that you can vote for several candidates, in order of preference.
"Not to worry, clean fusion reactors for all in 25 years"
No idea if this is technically possible - bit like carbon capture really - or if there is enough research/development/money to make it even vaguely a/the future.
I still remember when 'electricity is going to be so cheap it won't be worth putting light switches into new office blocks'.
I should have been more explicit. For at least the last 45 years we have always been 25 years from a fusion reactor. We still are.
We were doing some carbon research at Longannet but Chris Hune pulled the rug out.
In the '50s it was never about making electricity. It was about making bombs. There is even a persistent rumour that one UK power station actually used more electricity than it produced.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts