MOVE ALONG NOW - NOTHING TO SEE HERE

I just dont post enough to keep this blog maintained full-time, so I've decided to shut-up shop.

This doesnt mean that I need to be added to the roll of honour though, because Im still going to be blogging occasionally over at PoliticalReboot where the aim is more analytical and balanced.

I hope you continue to follow me and their other excellent writers here.

It was sparks from Labour's General Election campaign that started the fires in Parliament Square

As the dust from pulverised breeze blocks settles over Parliament Square and a battered Rolls Royce Phantom IV is carried like a wounded gladiator into the depths to be restored, questions are beginning to be asked about yesterday's protests.

"Who is to blame? How can they be punished?" will be the cry from the newspapers when they run out of photographs and personal accounts of the protests.

Well no doubt it will amuse many to see the blame placed, for a large party, with the Labour Party. But it is there that it does reside.

The grafitti sprayed onto the Treasury and the Supreme Court tells the story. "F*ck the Rich", "Make the rich pay", "Fuck your Big Society". When protesters attacked the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, they did so with chants of "Tory Scum" (ignorant it seems of the party-politically neutral status our Royal Family has). These are not just expressions of anarchist anger, but campaign slogans, left over from the general election. It was Labour's desperate and destructive desire to cling to power that led to one of the dirtiest fought election campaigns in years. This election was the first in nearly 100 years where a result had to be overturned due to incendiary campaign literature of a Labour party MP. That does not mean it was the most incendiary in nearly 100 years, but it is evidential of the depths that Labour was prepared to go to mobilise its wavering base.

Any Conservative on a campaign trail knows that they will be subject to angry and aggressive outbursts from radical Trotskyists. But everyone I know says that in this last election it was much worse.

This abuse stemmed directly from the centre of the Labour Party. Labour's election adverts whipped the public into an angry fury. The "Nightmare on Your Street" broadcast was the most emotive (note that it is still available for viewing on the Labour Party website). Labour fought their election on the basis of "the many against the few", telling the electorate that Tories were there to look after their millionaire friends. Hansard's record may now be seen on graffiti in our capital: "playing fields of Eton" and "Bullingdon Club" daubed in pink paint on centuries old buildings. Senior Labour members were quite happy to use the #ToryScum tag on their tweets at the last election. What did they think would happen?

We are now reaping the aftermath of Gordon Brown's desperate election strategy, where their policies could not match those of the Conservative Party and so their angry lies were forced to fill a gap. And Ed Miliband's quip at PMQ's this week about the Bullingdon Club shows that his New Direction is as weak as the last. (It is quite amazing how yesterday he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by explaining how he would be very unlikely to overturn this controversial bill!)

Now Labour clearly 'condemns any violence' but it is they who are responsible for creating the atmosphere in which any expensive car may be attacked in central London, they are responsible for turning anger and violence ('passion' in Labour speak) into the campaign tool we saw yesterday.

The Met's Mounted Branch - did they charge?

Earlier this week I visited the protests against student fees and the EMA cuts on Whitehall to see what was going on and get the full picture for myself. Reports on the protest two weeks before outside CCHQ which turned violent had been varied and sometimes contradictory, so this time I wanted to make up my own mind.

At lunchtime, I walked across Westminster Bridge and watched the protests from Parliament Square - safely behind police lines may I

add. I even too a photograph of the mounted police that were waiting there, advising that they should be sent in to break up the protest which was rapidly turning violent with smashing of bus-stops and the destruction of a police van.

At that point, the police appeared to be acting in an exemplary fashion. They were friendly and chatty to the crowd, they were allowing protestors free passage out of the demo and were generally in control.

Later that day, I defended the police against accusations of 'kettling' and commended them for their actions. It seemed so much better than their failings at both last year's G20 riots and the CCHQ protests.

I have since, on viewing further evidence, reconsidered my position and wish to fully retract my remarks. While what I saw was good policing, there can be no doubt that after I left the actions of the police became un-necessarily violent. The best evidence of this comes from a video posted on youtube and brought to my attention by @eddyanderson.

There is no excuse for this mounted police charge into the crowd. No, it is not on the scale of the Miner's Strikes or the Peterloo Massacre but it is still grossly disproportionate to what the police officers faced.

The Met's police chief yesterday stated clearly that there was no cavalry charge. If he does not call what this video shows a 'cavalry charge' he is merely playing with semantics - to any reasonable observer, this is a charge by the Met's Mounted Branch.

It has also been made clear that kettling was used later in the afternoon to control the protesters- this is a dangerous tactic and I am generally against its use, although I accept that in extreme circumstances it may be necessary.

In the meantime, we need a full explanation from the Met on why the mounted police were used in such a way at the protest. It would also be useful to look through any guidance notes for protest control that are used by the Mounted Branch - I currently cannot find any.

As cuts bite hard, riots and protests will become all the more common on the streets. It seems that when it gets difficult for the police to handle protests effectively, they 'stamp down'. We must not let them.

Some thoughtful words on civil liberties...

Twitter seems to have aimed a great deal of abuse today at Tom Harris MP on the basis of a tweet where he decreed that "Any minister who puts civil liberties ahead of security should be in student politics, not government". Fair enough. The man's had his say, now Libertarians all, get on with your lives.
Now, I disagree with Tom, though I respect his opinion, and was having a debate elsewhere recently where similar arguments applied. It's an age old debate and anyone who says that they are "correct" on the matter while others are "wrong" should probably be ignored out of hand.
Recently in my professional life I had the good fortune to read some words on this debate which stuck and which I feel like sharing. They may be familiar to some, but possibly not to those younger libertarians who stalk the halls of Twitter looking to be outraged.
These comments are taken from a famous judgement by Lord Hoffmann in the 2004 House of Lords case brought against the government, where it was argued that s.23 (right to detain foreign nationals without charge indefinately) of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act contraveened the citizen's human rights. While the Law Lords found that it was against the European Convention of Human Rights, it was only Lord Hoffmann who argued against s.23 in its entirity. He wrote:

"The power which the Home Secretary seeks to uphold is a power to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Nothing could be more antithetical to the instincts and traditions of the people of the United Kingdom.

...

There have been times of great national emergency in which habeus corpus has been suspended and powers to detain on suspicion conferred on the government. It happened during the Napoleonic Wars and during both World Wars in the twentieth century. These powers were conferred with great misgiving and, in the sober light of retrospect after the emergency has passed, were often found to have been cruelly and unnecessarily exercised. But the necessity of draconian powers in moments of national crisis is recognised in our constitutional history. Article 15 of the Convention, when it speaks of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation", accurately states the conditions in which such legislation has previously been thought necessary.

...

The question is whether the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists similarly threatens the life of the British nation.

...

Of course government has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional freedoms.

...

Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda.

...

The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the trus measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

This is a very difficult argument to unpick, though do feel free.

The Birmingham Bonfire

With regard to its canal network, Birmingham is often compared to the great city of Venice. But today it reminds me more of Florence. Florence in February 1497. A radical cleric, Savonarola, organised a great pyre onto which some of the most beautiful works of art produced in the early Renaissance were thrown.It has become infamous as one of the greatest barbaric acts in the history of art, The Bonfire of the Vanities. Accounts recall Botticelli, weeping, as he walked towards the blaze with his own works in his arms. We know nothing of what was burnt that day, but our picture of the art of the Quattrocento will forever be tinted with sadness.

You may begin to see where I am going with this...

Yesterday, Nicholas Serota warned in The Guardian of the damage that Jeremy Hunt's cuts would do to the visual arts in this country. He wrote of "blitzkrieg on the arts". When people like Tracey Emin talk about politics, most people ignore her. When Nicolas Serota speaks up, you pay attention. The same was true today when the head of the National Theatre, Sir Nicholas Hytner warned of the closure of numerous smaller playhouses if cuts in the sector went ahead. One man's bonfire ....

Culture is important. There is no doubt about that, and we must not be distracted by New Labour arguments that the arts are simply good economically, for tourism, or as tools of social change, in youth projects. The arts are simply the mark of a civilised society. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: the arts are unnecessary, like friendship, like philosophy ...

"It has no survival value. Rather is gives value to survival."

John Maynard Keynes, the creator and first chairman of the Arts Council realised this. He did not found the Art's Council on an economic basis or for reasons of health or social inclusion but rather that the war that had just been fought was for civilisation. And what was that without the arts.

The attitide of this Coalition government and of one man in particular worries me. Jeremy Hunt is a very ambitious man. He was clearly disapointed when the Coalition cabinet was formed and he was left with the Culture brief. Rumour had it that he had been angeling for the Chief secretary to the Treasury position which went to David Laws, and now Danny Alexander. One can just imagine Hunt fuming in his office about how such upstarts could have been given his position. Therefore when news was leaked that Hunt sought to review departmental spending with a view to cut far more than most departments, up to 50%, I saw it as a move to try and create a position of Prime Minister's Pet. "Oh look David, I cut the most."

Of course this is a ludicrous thing to do. The DCMS's budget is tiny, and compared to others, relatively streamlined. As Serota quotes Nick Clegg saying in his piece:

"The idea that you can cut a £180 bn deficit by slicing money out of the budget of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is frankly absurd".

I see no reason why he should have changed his view. The solution to art's funding triumphed before the election was philanthropy. Yet just yesterday, the FT reported on how the Arts and Business report proved that this could not make all the loss and that few steps had been taken towards this Big Society approach by the DCMS.

In years to come then, historians may end up seeing this Conservative conference as a Bonfire of the (New Labour) Vanities, saying farewell to a universal benefits system and to the advantages of tying ourselves in with EU legislation. Art historians will see it in a similar way, with Conservatives quaffing champagne in Birmingham, while their minions lay kindling in Parliament Square. Artists are already visually commentating on the arts cuts, as demonstrated by the powerful piece heading this post by Corneila Parker. She depicts The Angel of the North, with it's wing cut.

At least Savonorola destroyed the arts doing what he believed was right by God and Man. Hunt seems to think that cuts are an acceptable way to progress his career. (He is now the favourite to succeed Cameron as party leader).

Will Coalition cuts kill cyclists? Hardly.

Hattip to @CarltonReid this morning for posting up this story from the Telegraph: "Cycling Proficiency test faces axe". He went on to make the comment that "Gov ends "war on motorists" by starting one with cyclists? Normal for Tories by LibDems should hang their heads in shame".

Now LibDem bashing aside, where is it "Normal for Tories" to declare war on cyclists? Did he miss the "Boris bikes" by any chance? Did he miss the whole "Vote Blue, Go Green" thing? Does he not realise that the current Tory Prime Minister is an avid cyclist? If there is any evidence that Tories hate cyclists, please bring it forward now.

Now to address the more serious concern of Cycling Proficiency Test, now known as Bikeability and its potential cut. Firstly - the DfT has not yet said that Bikeability will be cut as part of the broader attack on quangos. The Telegraph headline is hardly even worthy of the Guardian. It spends most of the article asking cycling groups what they think of the 'proposed' cut, before finally quoting from a DfT spokesperson who says "The Cabinet Office is reviewing all arms length bodies and an announcement will be made in due course". They really are trying to eke out the column inches this summer, arent they?

So should Bikeability be cut? That's not an easy one - 200,000 kids a year have what is essentially a bike lesson. They enjoy it (although I must say that the comments on the "kids" message board lack a ring of truth). But is that enough? I learnt to cycle without a cycling lesson, and most people learn how to cycle effectively from a family member. It can often be a painful experience at first, and skills such as how to cycle in traffic or how to care for your bike are learnt in the same way. Those I know who took a Cycling Proficiency Test say that it never improved their cycling skills.

If we want to get cyclists onto the road, schemes like the 'Boris Bikes' will lead the way. If we want to make cyclists safer on the road, schemes like the Met's Exchanging Places scheme will do it.

But a war on cyclists by Tories? Oh come on!

Sister Cycles and Inequality

Sexism.

It's just not an issue that's openly discussed in cycling enough. More generally in sports the issue is ignored: the aspiration to machismo demands that woman are treated as biologically inferior and when women do perform at a high level, they are seen to possess masculine qualities which place them at odds with their own gender. Rebecca Adlington has been talked about as a freak of nature, and just imagine the psychological damage suffered by Caster Semenya.

Professional cycling is, I believe, no better or worse than any other sport when it comes to sexism. There is no female equivalent of the Tour de France, and women are of course not allowed to compete in the men's. In Britain, we show little interest in women's pro cycling. Nicole Cooke won the Giro d'Italia Femminile (the Italian equivalent to the Tour de France and the most high profile women's cycle race) in 2004. Yes, she won the whole race. But in 2004 all anyone in Britain could talk about was 'the human Seabiscuit' and his 6th Tour win! Cooke, a Swansea girl, also triumphed in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, winning a Gold medal in the Women's road race. She was joined by Victoria Pendleton and Rebecca Romero. Ring any bells? Probably not. Bradley Wiggins and (Sir) Chris Hoy took the glory in the national press.

But what about leisure cycling? Why should sexism exist among the more amateur cyclists or those whose main achievement is the daily commute? In today's Guardian, there is an excellent piece by Dawn Foster on the sexism she encounters on her rides. This may take the form of abuse from drivers, verbal ("I hope you put as much effort into the bedroom!") and physical (slapping their backsides as they passed by) . All cyclists receive abuse, but I would disagree with those who suggest that this is just the white-van-man tailor making his insults for his audience. Such abuse is not equivalent to the "Shut the f*ck up you Lycra c*nt" school of abuse that male cyclists suffer. It is much deeper and more ingrained.

But what is worse that troglodytes with driving liscences are the other (male) cyclists. The machismo associated with the professional is increasingly transposing itself onto the amateur. When cyclists hear that female cyclists are much more likely to be killed on the roads, the response is to blame the women for not riding assertively or fast enough, as is done in this Guardian article. Is it not because safety information is targeted to men or that motorists act differently when confronted by a female cyclist? I speak and ride with plenty of female cyclists, and to say they do not ride 'properly' is just wrong.

Most male cyclists have these two images of the two gendered classes of cyclists in their heads:

Amateur cyclists, regardless of ability, love to pretend they are Alberto Contador, Lance Armstrong or Mark Cavendish. For a relatively small sport, say compared to football, a huge amount of money is spent on replica kit. Far, far more cyclists shave their legs than actually need to because it is the ultimate mark of inclusion akin to tattooing. This may all be down to the cyclist's mentality, based on the two mantra "just ride the bike" and "get the miles in". All cyclists admire Tom Simpson who died of exhaustion while climbing the Ventoux while on Tour de France in 1967. The rise of richer cyclists (or MAMILs) aspiring to reach these limits of glory with the cash to pay for their costumes will increasingly shift the professional sexism to the amateur level.

If even the commuter cyclist continues to aspire to such 'glorious' feats, the place of the female amateur cyclist will be squeezed.

We must not allow this to happen. Cycling has long been a sport based on inclusion, not on exclusion. In fact, the bicycle itself has a history of breaking down gender roles. Women in the late 19th century only became free to wear trousers outside of work so that they could cycle. The bicycle was embraced by Soviet Russia - it was Lenin's favourite method of transport. Cycling has the power to break down the divisions of gender, class, race and sexuality. A machine pulled from a skip (like that belonging to Flavio Zappi) can be transformed into a racer, and the "just ride the bike" philosophy informs us that kit, chamois creams and moulded plastics is all irrelevant lumber, certainly at amateur level. Everyone can ride a bike of one sort or another. There is nowhere you cannot ride.

Yet cycling isn't even close to fulfilling this potential.

My argument is then that as the interest in professional cycling has taken off, more and more of that 'professionalism' has been transposed into the leisure and commuter sphere. And that is no good thing for women.

Images: The Guardian, Cycling Weekly