the ubiquitous blog

What the world needs now is a Robin Hood Tax, lets face it, it wouldn’t hurt the bankers to give a wee bit back.

The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on banks, hedge funds and other finance institutions that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.

It can start as low as 0.005 per cent – and average 0.05 per cent . But when levied on the billions of pounds sloshing round the global finance system every day through transactions such as foreign exchange, derivatives trading and share deals, it can raise hundreds of billions of pounds every year.

And while international agreement is best, it can start right now, right here in the UK.

That can help stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and aid the fight against global poverty and climate change.

For more see here…

Listening to the Today programme radio this morning I couldn’t understand how John Humphrys could decide that the Climatic Research Unit at UEA had some how mislead us all on the basis of a reports he hadn’t even read. What ever happened to objective, fact based, reporting? The news agenda seems to hijacked by small lobby groups, it used to be Greenpeace on the loony left, but they have been replaced by the loony right climate deniers, nether group bothered with the science or with all of the facts. The facts and the science are somehow lost along the way, it doesn’t help that Humphrys, by his own admission doesn’t understand the scientific issues, and can’t count (later in the programme he was insisting that 1968 was over 50 years ago). Professor Tom Burke, did try his best to show the story up for the a storm in a tea which it really is, but was constantly interrupted by Humphrys, who was determined to show the depth of his ignorance. He also seemed to be insisting that one small group of climate modellers, were central to the whole of the climatic change research, which is also a massive exaggeration. Some members of the group may have egos big enough to think they are the centre of the universe, but the fact is this group only plays a small part in trying to predict the future impacts of climatic change. Their work is based on a far larger body of evidences which shows clearly that the global climate is changing and that the current change is largely driven by human activity. That is the thing we need to understand and focus on.

Listening to The World at One, Martha Kearney was asking if there where any “climate sceptics” on the review panel which looked at the work published by CRU. This is worrying as it show that BBC News readers can tell the difference between science and politics. The word Science is from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”, it includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, statistical analysis, and replication. To be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The word “Politics” comes from the Greek word politika, it is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions, this is based opinion (facts are not . Politics can be informed by science, but science should not be driven by politics, that just leads to bad sciences.

Active travel is a great idea as it achieves so many policy objectives: it is clean, it is green, it reduces congestion in towns and cities, it is healthy (active people, such as regular cyclists, live longer). In addition, people who use active ways of travel to get to work are more productive,and it is relatively cheap and therefore has great potential to save money (the future savings in health cost alone make worthwhile). So, with a general election looming, I thought I would make a few suggestions, which the political parties might like to adopt for their Manifestos with regard to active travel.

First off, what is active travel? Well, at its simplest it is making short journeys by active means, such as walking or cycling. So how do we encourage active travel, here is a proposal from an unexpected source:

• Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes
• Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities
• Go beyond minimum design standards
• Collect data on walking and biking trips
• Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling
• Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
• Improve non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects

Now these might sound like the sort of policies you would get from a liberal neo-socialist European country, but just look at the spellings, this was cut and pasted from the official blog of the US Secretary of Transportation. If the Americans can do it, why can’t we?

Here are a few more suggestions:

Strict liability, this is common in most western European countries, in fact the UK is one of only five countries which does not have a law of strict liability, the other four are: Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania. The principle is simple, the person who is in charge of the heavier vehicle should be presumed liable in a crash. For example, if a lorry was in a collision with a car, the lorry driver would have to take the greater responsibility. So where the driver/rider of a motor vehicle is involved in a crash with a cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist would be presumed liable. This is not always popular with motorists, there are people who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions, but this is why we need to enshrine strict liability in law. The other objection which is often given by motorists is that this would lead to cyclists and pedestrians deliberately running into motor vehicles in order to claim compensation. This seems unlikely, but where the motorist could prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault, i.e., if the motor vehicle was stationary and a cyclist ran into the back of it, then the motorist would not be liable (as is currently the case for crashes between motorists).

Reduce speed limits in built up areas from 30 mph to 20 mph, not just around schools, but throughout all built up areas. This would make the streets safer for everyone, as around two-thirds of crashes in which people are killed or injured occur on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph. According to RoSPA the probability of serious injury to a person wearing a seat belt in a front seat at an impact speed of 30 mph is three times greater than at 20mph. At 40 mph it is over five times greater. Impacts at higher speeds are more severe than at lower speeds, and so lead to more serious injuries. At 35 mph a driver is twice as likely to kill someone as they are at 30mph.

It is sobering to realise that:

• Hit by a car at 20 mph, 3% of pedestrians will be killed – 97% will survive
• Hit by a car at 30 mph, 20% of pedestrians will be killed – 80% will survive
• Hit by a car at 35 mph, 50% of pedestrians will be killed – 50% will survive
• Hit by a car at 40 mph, 90% of pedestrians will be killed – 10% will survive.

Added to this, drivers who speed are more likely to be involved in collisions, and they are also more likely to commit other driving violations, such as red-light running and driving too close to the vehicle in front. A DfT 2007 Speed Survey showed that on 30 mph roads, 49% of car drivers exceed 30 mph and 19% exceed 35 mph. Tougher enforcement of the existing traffic laws would also help, currently the police are reluctant to prosecute drivers exceeding the 30 mph speed limit, unless they are travelling in excess of 40 mph. This is a major reason for people not feeling safe when walking or cycling in areas with busy roads.

Cycle training. All school children should have cycle training to at least National Standard Level 2 (Basic on road skills) and preferably to Level 3 (Advanced roads skills). In addition, training needs to be made available to adults, there is a “lost generation” of adults who have received no cycle training and who don’t understand that the correct place to ride is on the road rather than the pavement, and that the rules of the road apply to them too.

Scrap Vehicle Excise Duty, and instead raise the tax revenue by increasing fuel duties and tax on car sales. This would discourage the excessive driving which has become the norm. People choose to drive short distances rather than walking or cycling because driving is relatively cheap. According to the RAC, in real terms it is 24% cheaper to buy a car and 57% cheaper to run a car now than it was 20 years ago! At the same time the cost of public transport has risen significantly. Overall, tax incentives are pushing people towards driving rather than using other forms of transport.

Reduce VAT on bicycles, the car scrappage scheme was used to encourage the sale of new cars (which helped to lift France and Germany out of recession), why shouldn’t there be an extra incentive to encourage people to buy bicycles?

Tax car parking spaces, another change over the last twenty years is the growth of retail parks and shopping malls. These use large car parks and generate significant traffic congestion, while at the same time strangling small High Street retailers. One way to redress the balance would be to tax car parking spaces. This could also be applied to workplace car parking to discourage commuting by car and so reduce congestion. Rebates and grants could be given for providing secure covered cycle parking within 50m of the front entrance to the building. As a planning requirement, all new developments should have to provide secure covered cycle parking within 50m of the main entrance to the building, at a minimum rate of one bicycle space per 500 m² of floor area for commercial offices, and one bicycle space per 900 m² of floor area for retail and most other commercial uses.

Require planners to count pedestrians and cyclists when they carry out traffic surveys, by law. Every traffic planner in the country can tell you how many motor vehicles there are on the roads in their area, but few (if any) can tell you how many cyclist and pedestrians use the same routes. How can you plan for non-motorised traffic if you don’t know how many people are travelling by these means?

Commit a minimum of 5% of the transport budget to be spent on active travel. Currently less than 2% of the total transport budget is spent on active travel, and yet we are all pedestrians at some time in the day. No one can drive absolutely everywhere, no matter how much some people might want to…!

A lifetime driving ban for drivers who kill, without exception. Currently drivers who cause death by dangerous driving are given a five year ban, starting from the date of sentence (this runs concurrently with any prison term). Drivers who kill, but are convicted of lesser offences, often leave court with little more than a fine and six penalty points on their licence. Anyone causing the death of another by means other than driving can normally expect a substantial prison term, so why are we so lenient with drivers?

Lets give people back their travel choices, lets help them to choose active travel, for a longer, healthier, and happier life!

Last year I wrote a post on the need for more cycle parking facilities in Edinburgh, so I am pleased to see the Scottish Government is giving a grant of £208,000 to the cycle charity Sustrans to increase cycle parking at hospitals, universities and colleges. This is a sign of progress and is to be welcomed, however, it is mainly targeting areas which should already be providing cycle parking as standard. But there is a need to go further, secure cycle parking needs to be made available in town centres, shopping centres, retail parks and also where people live (we don’t all have a garage to hand). At least this grant shows some recognition by the Scottish Government that a lack of secure storage for bikes is a common obstacle to encouraging everyday cycling. Hopefully there will be more to come, along with a recognition that there is a need for secure storage at home as well. According to the UK Government’s Home Office, over half of all bicycle thefts take place from an owner’s property. As more than one Edinburgh resident knows, you don’t have to cycle round the world to get your bike stolen from outside your front door. So, two cheers for the Scottish Government and please can we have more …

Many years ago I signed up to a document by the name of Charter 88 which called for a new constitutional settlement which would:

1. Enshrine, by means of a Bill of Rights, such civil liberties as the right to peaceful assembly, to freedom of association, to freedom from discrimination, to freedom from detention without trial, to trial by jury, to privacy and to freedom of expression.
2. Subject executive powers and prerogatives, by whomsoever exercised, to the rule of law.
3. Establish freedom of information and open government.
4. Create a fair electoral system of proportional representation.
5. Reform the upper house to establish a democratic, non-hereditary second chamber.
6. Place the executive under the power of a democratically renewed parliament and all agencies of the state under the rule of law.
7. Ensure the independence of a reformed judiciary.
8. Provide legal remedies for all abuses of power by the state and the officials of central and local government.
9. Guarantee an equitable distribution of power between local, regional and national government.
10. Draw up a written constitution, anchored in the idea of universal citizenship, that incorporates these reforms.

All thing which you would expect to see in a mature democracy. However, over the year there has only been slow progress towards some of these aims, but at the same time there has been an increasing centralisation of power. The first past the post system has led to a situation where for most people their vote makes very little difference unless they live in a “key marginal” constancy. The two big parties spend large sums of money to run expensive poster campaigns in these key marginal. To run these campaigns they rely on large donations from a few individuals and the support of a few senior media editors and owners. Our so called leaders are becoming increasingly remote from we the people.

Maybe it was always so, but there was a time when people were far more engaged with the political process and felt they had so influence on it. In the last century the power of the squirearchy was broken by electoral reform, by giving the vote to the people, the universal franchise, thereby giving them power and their using it. However, that time has long gone there has been a constant drop in the number of people voting in elections and a loss of support for political parties, general signs of a failing democracy. What we desperately need is a change to a fairer electoral system, to a system of proportional representation.

Now suddenly the prime minister wants a referendum on changing the electoral system. OK so his preferred system “alternative vote” is far from ideal and this can be seen as a cynical attempt to hang on to power, but it is a sign of progress. It is a small step in the right direction, but not a substitute for a fully-fledged proportional system. So why are the Tories opposing it? What are they afraid of, that we may start moving towards a true democracy, where the people can actually have a real say? Every constancy should be a key marginal, not parachuting in of candidates with patronage into safe seats. So come on what are you so afraid of? Why the fear of giving the people the freedom to decide? We want a meritocracy, not mediocrity. We need Proportional Representation for the health of our democracy.