Longrider

Jackie Ashley complains – among other things – about the state of blogging.

Again, I am speaking impressionistically, not scientifically: but has not the rise of the internet coincided with a rise of the men’s magazine culture? Blogworld is the future, and it will not be resisted; but at this stage in its development, it seems dominated by rightwing male individualists and libertarians.

Yes? And? So?*

Sigh… Again – and I am speaking impressionistically, not scientifically, you understand; this may be because, unlike hacks working in the conventional media, we reflect the real world, inhabited by people who go out to work in real jobs, earn a real wage and have a huge chunk of it snaffled by Brown’s Mafia, which is then pissed up the wall – and we are sick of it, just as we are sick of them poking about in our lifestyles; telling us how to live our lives. The rise of libertarian bloggers is, perhaps, a reasonable backlash. Of course, like Mr E, I would love to see more female libertarian bloggers.

If you really must read Ashley’s dire dirge that simply churns over the old poor-hard-done-by wimmin argument, then by all means do – but bear in mind that her measure of excellence involves learning the limbo. And, of course, it’s all from an impressionistic perspective, so expect no facts and just a snifter of hypocrisy.

Contrary to Jackie Ashley’s accusations, I make judgements about our deplorable politicians based on their performance, not their gender. The Labour front bench is a microcosm of equality in action as far as I am concerned – they are all unintelligent, brain-dead, personality-challenged, illiberal, self-serving, avaricious, controlling, nannying, incompetent, supercilious bastards - every one of them.

———————————————————

*Actually, Ashley’s statement in its entirety is apparently factually inaccurate (surprise). Mens’ magazine sales of the type she derides have been declining since about the same time that blogging started to rise. I am unaware of any correlation and would not be foolish enough to try to draw one. I am not, after all, a Guardian hack.

I’ve never much liked Ken Livingstone – even when I was a paid up member of the Labour party. He is a supercilious, self-serving little creep who will snuggle up to some of the most obnoxious company if he deems it worth his political while to do so. His latest shenanigans tends to confirm my negative opinion of this unpleasant little man.

Despite the evidence that it is a good thing, he has vetoed the use of motorcycles in bus lanes for London. I’ll let the BMF explain (quoted from Rider Magazine – no online version, sorry):

The BMF has accused London Mayor Ken Livingston’s office of putting motorcyclists’ lives at risk by failing to authorise the use of London’s bus lanes by motorcycles. The BMF will now be making a formal complaint against the Mayor who is also Chairman of Transport for London (TfL)

A little bit of background to the whole thing; motorcycles in bus lanes has something of a precedent down here in Bristol. It has been about a decade since the scheme was trialled – despite vigorous opposition from cycling groups who argued at the time that allowing other vehicles to use these lanes would place cyclists at risk. The trial was a success and cyclists were not mown down willy-nilly by nasty speeding motorcyclists, and over a ten year period the two groups have coexisted alongside buses rather well. As a member of both groups (although I am temporarily without a bicycle), I am more than happy with the arrangement; it is good for vulnerable road users who are now in a lane away from most other traffic and it is good for pedestrians who can now see bikes that would otherwise be shielded from them when they try to cross a clogged road. Winners all round, in fact.

So, what is happening with the TfL report; what does it conclude?

The report (the findings of which have not been disputed) shows that accidents were nearly halved over a three-year period on two trial routes where motorcycles were allowed into bus lanes. In fact it found that when motorcycles were allowed access to bus lanes, it proved safer for all users including pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers and motorcyclists, with a 42 per cent fall in the overall rate of collisions

So… surely the Mayor would welcome this, no? No, indeed, it seems…

Commenting on reports that Mayoral staff have now ordered a re-write of the report to avoid a green back-lash from the cycle lobby, the BMF says that this is like living in a dictatorship where everything is manipulated to suit the state.

So let’s get this straight; the Mayor orders a report. The report findings do not suit his political prejudices so he orders a “rewrite”. Jesus, I thought this man was an obnoxious little shit, but this is like some banana republic, like, say, oh, I don’t know… Venezuela, perhaps…

It may be worth noting that other mayoral candidates support the use of bus lanes for motorcycles and are not going to be persuaded by the vociferous (and wrong) cycle lobby. Boris, for example:

I want to encourage people to get out of their cars and use other forms of transport but we must make it easier for them to do so. I want to get London moving and this is one of a raft of initiatives that I will take.

Kevin Ash also comments on this abuse of power by the tin-pot dictator in the town hall.

I don’t live in London and rarely ride there, so have no vote come May. However, if you do – motorcyclist or not – do you want to vote for a man who suppresses reports that provide the “wrong” answer? Really?

I’ll leave the final word to Jeff Stone – again, quoted from Rider magazine:

These findings match what we know from elsewhere and I find it bizarre that an expensive report set up to establish the facts has confirmed what we have been saying - but has been suppressed because it doesn’t suit. This smacks of political interference from the highest level.

Indeed.

————————————————————

Update: There is a response from TfL on Kevin Ash’s article that is worth pointing out:

When an early draft of this report was put together we found that there were significant methodological issues as well as irregularities in the way data had been collected. This meant the validity of these early results was questionable. Further investigation of the data has now been carried out and the report is due to be published shortly. The Mayor will need to examine the full contents of the report and the trial results before taking a decision.

Frankly, I’ll be taking this with a huge pinch of salt. Firstly, if they got the methodology wrong, they are admitting to incompetence (as opposed to duplicity), a fairly standard NuLab trick of late. Secondly, the evidence remains overwhelming (a decade’s worth of it in Bristol). No matter what the methodology for data collection – bikes and bus lanes work.

Spyblog and Mr E have pretty much said what needs to be said about the spawn of the original concept of the Regulatory and Reform Act 2006, otherwise known under the moniker “abolition of parliament”; that is, the facility built into the bill that would enable any minister or ministers to pretty much make law on the hoof without recourse to parliament. That this is reprehensible and a provision of power to the executive that it should never have, is obvious.

However, a commenter at Spyblog draws my attention to Jack Straw’s statement to the house. In it, when outlining the contents of the bill, he says:

The draft Bill is in five parts.

Yet one has only to look at page 8 of the contents of the bill to realise that there are six parts – and it is part six that contains the sting in the tail. Nowhere does Straw mention the provisions of part six in his statement to the house.

There are two possibilities here. Either Straw made a genuine error of omission or it was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate so that lazy MPs not bothering to read the bill themselves, effectively vote away what little powers they have after surrendering the rest to Brussels.

Now, my humanitarian instincts would always be inclined to the former explanation. However, over a decade of experience with this particularly unpleasant administration draws me inexorably to the latter conclusion. It is a conclusion that I will remain with until I see verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Some of the comments on Spyblog suggest that this is a pretty standard codicil to a bill – however, the wording is too loose by half. One is hopeful that the committe scruitinising it does the decent thing and strangles it at birth.

—————————————————————————————-

Update: Justin offers some analysis of this:

The second view, which I’m more inclined to take at this moment in time, is that these things are like backdoors in computer systems. I think they’re a tacit admission by the government that they’ve been experts at passing spectacularly bad laws over the last 11 years. And so, they’ve learned the trick of the self-amending law. If something goes wrong, they can sneak in the back and tinker with the law until it’s running a little more smoothly. It does away with all the hassle of having to admit that they’ve cocked up.

I wonder if all of this isn’t anything more sinister than New Labour knowing they’re, well, a bit crap, and are fed up with it being pointed out all the time.

Y’know, I think he may be right.

Blogging has been light this week. Real life has intervened. Back to normal next week.

Despite its relative lack of nuance, every so often I re-take the political compass test to see how I stand. It rarely varies. As is usual, I’m slightly right of centre libertarian. No surprise there. And, just as a reminder from this mornings discussion, it does provide some objective evidence that libertarians are not of the far right… In this case, further to the left, in fact, than Gordon Brown.

Via Tim W and Tim at the Conservative Party Reptile, I am now (unfortunately) aware of Richard Murphy. I wish I wasn’t, but, I am. Tim (CPR) accuses Murphy of being lazy when defining people with whom he disagrees and cites this:

He moved out of the political mainstream and into the Neo-Con, libertarian hinterlands.

Ah, yes, another of the recent misrepresentations I’ve observed of the libertarian philosophy. I can’t help wondering sometimes if these people realise just how stupid such statements make them appear to the casual reader – not to mention, petty, spiteful and narrow minded.

However, let’s look at that inane comment of Murphy’s, shall we? And, while we are at it, let’s remind ourselves of one of the nastiest politicians of recent history; the truly egregious David Blunkett. This is a man who, despite being a public servant, thinks that it is his place to tell us how to live our lives, who wishes to catalogue us like common criminals and decide for us what our identities are. This man is an extreme authoritarian. So, too, are the Neo Cons, so derided by Richard Murphy. This simple example highlights the absurdity of labelling ones opponents as “left” or “right” – as Blunkett is a man of the left. This left/right axis, however, is merely an economic scale. The other axis is the authoritarian/libertarian scale. Libertarians, those who follow the philosophy of Locke, Mill and Paine have nothing specifically to say on economics. That many are of the right economically is simply that they follow the same laissez faire approach to economics as they do with personal liberty. They believe in a lack of coercion. Kay Tie sums it up well:

The life of a libertarian is mixed. One can have common ground with anyone on the political spectrum but one is destined also to disagree with everyone.

I know the feeling…

One cannot assume that you will find them on the extreme right – and, the NeoCons, being statists are as much an anathema to them as is David Blunkett. For myself, I am neither of the left nor the right. While I tend to have a laissez faire approach to economics, this is for no other reason than that I take such an attitude to just about everything else in my life – it is my natural style. That said, I dislike large corporations as much as I dislike the state – each is in the pocket of the other to the detriment of the common man. To suggest that as a libertarian, I am of the far right is not only ill-informed, it is patently absurd, demonstrates a lack of willingness to think beyond stereotypes and as such, is crass in the extreme.

DK points this out (albeit in a more condensed manner).

Your conflation of Neo-Con and Libertarian demonstrates your ignorance of political theory: a fundamental of libertarian thought is the non-aggression rule, which hardly sits with the expansionist Neo-Con agenda.

DK also highlights that Murphy is unable – or unwilling – to differentiate between tax avoidance and tax evasion. (Clue, Richard, one of them is illegal).  I would suggest that people avoid taking tax advice from this man – he is plainly ignorant of the subject matter he professes to have expertise in.

Murphy’s mean spirited response to DK sums up what I have been observing recently from the self-professed progressive “left” (and, given the above, I use the term loosely). That of spitefulness combined with ignorance and stupidity.

But how wrong you are! The far right are the far right - and if they wish to argue with each others defintions of ‘rightness’, so be it. The world will still ignore them.

Er, no, Richard, he is not wrong. He is factually correct; it is you who is wrong, it is you who has demonstrated ignorance of your subject matter. You may hold whatever opinion suits your personal prejudices, but the facts stand and the fact is, in this instance; you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of bluster will alter that. The political spectrum is not divided between “left” and “right”, it is more subtle than that – it requires an ability to think in multi-dimensions and see the world in shades of grey. The NeoCons are as repugnant to the libertarian as are you.

This, though, takes the biscuit:

PS Please don’t bother to reply - as you know, I find your style so offensive I won’t be repeating this unusual exception of allowing you on here for a change

It is at this point that I realised something about this pompous prig, Murphy. He knows full well that DK is right. That is why he does not want any further discussion on the matter, so he closes it down. Whatever one thinks about DK’s abrasive style, on Richard’s Blog, he was polite, reasonable and correct. This mean-spirited response was uncalled for. And, as is the case with human nature, when one has behaved badly, one tends to justify it by digging in deeper – in this case with a “note to the far right”. Except that people who disagree with him – and I am one – are not necessarily right wing, let alone of the far right. See what he did there? He used the same language that the media use to describe such organisations as the BNP (this, despite the BNP being a socialist organisation). It is intended to demonise.

I note that the Far Right blog community are very upset with me tonight and are visiting this site in droves.

The want to defend their friends in the Tax Payer’s Alliance, about whom I have written.

As usual they’re doing so by offering abuse. You should see some of the stuff I’m deleting!

Well, I don’t know what he is deleting because I haven’t seen it. The only insulting behaviour that I have seen is that of Richard Murphy when responding to a correction offered by a commenter. I suspect that what we are seeing is Murphy deleting those comments that disagree with him. Of course, I cannot back this up with evidence, but the dismissive attitude and priggish response to DK tends to infer that this is what is happening. Murphy is factually wrong. He has been called on it and will truck no dissent. The last time I witnessed this type of behaviour was about thirty years ago in the school playground. Murphy displays a seam of self-righteous pretentiousness that could be mined for a millenium and still provide rich pickings for the enthusiastic prospector.

It seems they’re incredibly upset that I lumped some of them (the libertarians) with the Neo-Cons. The anguish is loud and long! How could I do such a thing?

The answer is simple. I care as little about the difference between these groups as I do about the difference between the Socialist Worker’s Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Put simply, the far Right, the Tax Payer’s Alliance and the far Left are all irrelevant to the needs of the people of this country.

And in so doing, Richard, you confirm to anyone dropping in that you are a stupid, childish, narrow-minded, petty, pompous, priggish arsehole. If you wanted to announce to the world that you are an ill-informed jerk, you couldn’t have done a better job. Well done.

I’ll leave the final comment to Obnoxio the Clown

After reading more of his illogical twaddle, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s a bit of a prig and a weapons-grade bell end.

Succinct. Accurate. Spot on.

Yesterday, I was offered a sandwich for lunch by my client. It was one of those packaged ones, probably purchased from the local Tesco – there being one a few minutes walk away. On biting into it, I was sharply reminded why I don’t buy these things anymore.

There was a time when you could buy a decent sandwich from a local shop – I used to buy them from W H Smith at Temple Meads station when I worked as a signalling manager and they were tasty, juicy things too. Now, however, what you get is two slices of dry bread plonked either side of whatever filling resides inside. In yesterday’s case, cheese salad. The cheese was okay and the salad was nice and crisp as salad should be. But the bread was bone dry to the point of being virtually inedible. I don’t much like mayonnaise, so have always sought sandwiches with butter.

These days, it seems a chore to find even mayo in a sandwich and butter, being a dairy product and presumably swilling in cholesterol, is verboten it seems. The health fascists have decided that butter is not in our best interests. The sandwich makers appear to have fallen in line and simply stopped using it. The consequence of this is sandwiches that are, frankly, dreadful. That’s the trouble with all this health freakery – anything that tastes good is bad for you. The healthy option tastes like cardboard.

There is, of course, a solution. I don’t buy sandwiches, I make my own and I spread a nice chunk of butter on each slice of bread before putting in a decent slab of English Cheddar.

“Nobody,” he said,
As he slid down the banisters,
“Nobody,
My darling,
Could call me
A fussy man -
BUT
I do like a little bit of butter to my bread!”

A A Milne