Category: Politics

The government on Twitter

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Central Office of Information run a rather good website called the News Distribution Service, formerly the Government News Network. Below the fold are the RSS and Twitter feeds in three groups – aggregate, departmental and regional.

Unfortunately, no-one knows about it as the COI doesn’t do much to promote it despite being “the Government’s centre of excellence for marketing and communications”. It consists of news updates for all the big bits of government – departments, agencies and regions – that you could want. It’s a good way of keeping an eye on what they’re all up to an finding the occasional hidden gem of a press release. They’ve had RSS feeds for ages and now they’re on Twitter (thanks to yours truly).

xD.

Continue reading “The government on Twitter” →

The nine nations of North America by Joel Garreau

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The thesis of Garreau’s 1981 book, The nine nations of North America, is deceptively simple. Not only, he argues, are the borders between the states of the USA and between that country and Mexico & Canada are artificial constructions – they clearly are – but that they are irrelevant. There are commonly recognised regions with the USA, but they don’t work either. Consider, within the Mid-west, the differences between Missouri and Michigan! This all became increasingly obvious to Garreau, a journalist, and colleagues of his as they travelled around North America. If they wanted to work out what actions in what localities would effect which people in which places, they needed a different set of tools to explain how the USA works.

This gives rise to the titular nine nations. They are the Foundry, New England, Quebec, Dixie, MexAmerica, Ecotopia, the Empty Quarter, the Islands and the Breadbasket. They each have a capital (Detroit, Boston, Denver, Quebec, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami and Kansas City respectively). Some are historic regions – New England, Quebec, Dixie – others are characterised by their ethnic makeup – the Islands and MexAmerica – but, in Garreau’s book, they are all cogently described by looking at where different social, economic and geographic factors cause dividing lines with greater relevance to the quotidiarian than the accidental lines of history. The book goes through each ‘nation’ and looks at its extent, its borders and so on.

There is a problem with the term ‘nation’ as, if we accept Benedict Anderson’s definition of nations as imagined communities then these entities so not qualify as, not being widely recognised, people cannot, for the most part, imagine themselves to be members. There are exceptions. Quebec is a clear, full exception; MexAmerica and the Islands might be partial exceptions.

I don’t think Garreau had it quite right in ’81. There was still considerable variation within his nine nations; consider, for instance, Appalachia, which crosses two and possibly three of the nine. I would argue that its cultural and economic histories and situation make a good argument for it to ‘exist’ in some way; the existence of the Appalachian Regional Commission would suggest that I have at least some weight to my argument.

However, that very example shows the strength of Garreau’s argument. If Appalachia exists in any meaningful sense, it crosses state lines. From there, it is not far to crossing country borders. As anyone who has travelled across Texas will know, the Lone Star State is a varied place; that is not to say that people there do not identify both as Texans and Americans, but that, in terms of reality, someone from Texarkana might have more in common with a Sooner than someone from El Paso.

This idea has all sorts of implications.

First, identity, interest and reality are really, really complicated. Secondly, effective public policy needs to look at crossing international boundaries. Thirdly, given that in some cases, particularly MexAmerica and the Islands, the Anglo (Garreau’s term, not mine) policy establishment will need to be, ahem, a little more reasonable towards non-Anglo, and particularly those who don’t speak ‘Anglo’ as a first language, people.

The book was published in 81 and refers back over Garreau’s experiences in the previous decade. Things have changed greatly since then; the mentions of the possibilities of computers seem quaint now, the worsening economics of the Foundry have continued and the Hispanic population of the US has grown significantly. Nevertheless, the general thrust of the book holds true; polity, nation and economy do not necessarily overlap.

An interesting question would be how much this applies to Europe (is Saar-Lor-Lux more relevant than Benelux? Does Jutland make more sense tied to Northern Germany than Scandinavia? How well does Northern Italy sit with the rest of the Republic?) and the UK; England exists, in some sense, as a nation. Does it exist as a polity or an oiconome?

I do recommend the book.

xD.

Unionstogether: why we matter

Posted on by David Landon Cole

David Cameron wants the UK to withdraw from the social chapter.

David Cameron wants to scrap the legal guarantee that gives us four weeks paid holiday.

David Cameron wants to scrap the right to be consulted about changes at work.

David Cameron wants to scrap our entitlement to parental leave – denying the legal right for parents to spend time with their newborn babies in the critical first few weeks

Sign the petition at unionstogether.org.uk/yourrights.

xD.

Barclays and parliamentary privilege

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Lord Oakeshott, a LibDem peer, has used parliamentary privilege to say what everyone knew: the seven Barclays memos about tax avoidance schemes are available on Wikileaks. Those are the memos that Barclays had removed by an injunction – aka gagging order – at half past two in the morning on the seventeenth of March.

From today’s Lords (link here; it may stop working tomorrow morning when Hansard is posted):

Lord Oakeshott: […] Documents leaked to the Liberal Democrats, which appear to detail systematic tax avoidance on a grand scale by Barclays, were injuncted last week. The Sunday Times and the Guardian had already made them front-page news and these documents are widely available on the internet from sites such as Twitter, wikileaks.org, docstoc.com and gabbr.com. Yet the Guardian had to remove them from its website and cannot tell its readers where to find them. These documents describe deals worth billions of pounds set up by the bank in order to make money out of depriving the UK and foreign exchequers of revenue. Barclays would not last for one minute without the British taxpayer standing behind it, yet it is holding out one hand for taxpayers’ money while it picks taxpayers’ pockets with tax avoidance activities on the other. […]

I think congratulations are in order to Lord Oakeshott. Aside from that, it does suggest that any other banks who have unfortunate leaks are going to have to think twice about injunctions in the small hours if parliamentary privilege is going to be used to tell people where those memos can be found. I am not sure of my ground, but I think I’m right in saying that the actual text of the memoranda is still covered by the injunction; it is only the fact that “these documents are widely available on the internet from sites such as Twitter, wikileaks.org, docstoc.com and gabbr.com” which may be repeated.

xD.

George Monbiot gives whinging lefties a bad name

Posted on by David Landon Cole

In an open letter in yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot attacks Hazel Blears for being, well, Hazel Blears. I have no objection to whinging lefties. Indeed, I often whinge and (definitional objections notwithstanding) have been called a leftie. Monbiot gives us a bad name. Not only that, he makes what he wants to achieve and what I think I want to achieve less likely.

Last week you used an article in the Guardian to attack my “cynical and corrosive commentary”. You asserted your political courage, maintaining that “you don’t get very far in politics without guts, and certainly not as far as the cabinet table”. By contrast, you suggested, I contribute “to the very cynicism and disengagement from politics” that I make my living writing about. You accused me of making claims without supporting evidence and of “wielding great influence without accountability”. “We need more people standing for office and serving their communities,” you wrote, “more people debating, engaging and voting; not more people waving placards on the sidelines.”
Quite so. But being the placard-waving sort, I have a cynical and corrosive tendency to mistrust the claims ministers make about themselves. Like you, I believe opinions should be based on evidence. So I have decided to test your statements against the record.
Courage in politics is measured by the consistent application of principles.

Ah, using a metric with an emotion. Interesting line of attack…

The website TheyWorkForYou.com records votes on key issues since 2001. It reveals that you voted “very strongly for the Iraq war”, “very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war” and “very strongly for replacing Trident” (“very strongly” means an unbroken record). You have voted in favour of detaining terror suspects without charge for 42 days, in favour of identity cards and in favour of a long series of bills curtailing the freedom to protest. There’s certainly consistency here, though it is not clear what principles you are defending.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Blears’ stance, they would be in support of the Iraq war, concluding British deployment there before having a post mortem, in support of Trident and in support of a particular view of the security situation in the UK. Just because you don’t share the principles doesn’t mean they’re not principles.

Other threads are harder to follow. In 2003, for instance, you voted against a fully elected House of Lords and in favour of a chamber of appointed peers. In 2007, you voted for a fully elected House of Lords.

Here is the first problem with Monbiot’s argument. People’s opinions can, legitimately, change over time. In 2003 and 2007, Blears also voted to scrap the Lords entirely  and, presumably, was convinced in the intervening period that, if a unicameral system was not an option, a fifty-fifty split was the best option.

You have served without public complaint in a government which has introduced the minimum wage but blocked employment rights for temporary and agency workers; which talked of fiscal prudence but deregulated the financial markets; which passed the Climate Change Act but approved the construction of a third runway at Heathrow; which spoke of an ethical foreign policy but launched an illegal war in which perhaps a million people have died. Either your principles, by some remarkable twists of fate, happen to have pre-empted every contradictory decision this government has taken, or you don’t possess any.

I will be the first to admit that the Labour government has made some grievous errors. However, there are two fundamental problems with the arguments Monbiot puts in those paragraphs. Firstly, although I and Monbiot might disagree, there is no necessary contradiction between minimum wage & temporary agency workers’ rights or between fiscal prudence & financial deregulation1. Monbiot forgets that the government gestalt considered the war on Iraq not only a good idea but a moral imperative. There is hence no contradiction. The situation with the third runway is more tenuous, but not fatally so if you assume that the carbon emissions are maintained.

You remained silent while the government endorsed the kidnap and the torture of innocent people; blocked a ceasefire in Lebanon and backed a dictator in Uzbekistan who boils his prisoners to death. You voiced no public concern while it instructed the Serious Fraud Office to drop the corruption case against BAE, announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war, signed a one-sided extradition treaty with the United States and left our citizens to languish in Guantánamo Bay. You remained loyal while it oversaw the stealthy privatisation of our public services and the collapse of Britain’s social housing programme, closed hundreds of post offices and shifted taxation from the rich to the poor. What exactly do you stand for Hazel, except election?

The only consistent political principle I can deduce from these positions is slavish obedience to your masters. TheyWorkForYou sums up your political record thus: “Never rebels against their party in this parliament.” Yours, Hazel, is the courage of the sycophant, the courage to say yes.

And your article is a ‘tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury / signifying nothing2‘. Voting against the government means leaving the government in the system we have in place at the moment. It is entirely possible that Blears has opposed particular decisions but has been in agreement with the bulk of them and therefore felt it worthwhile to stay within government. This could be called the Short defence or, if you’re not being cynical, pragmatism. After all, The Guardian runs adverts from travel companies and yet Monbiot takes, albeit indirectly, the thirty pieces of carbon.

Let me remind you just how far your political “guts” have carried you. You are temporarily protected by the fact that the United Kingdom, unlike other states, has not yet incorporated the Nuremberg principles into national law. If a future government does so, you and all those who remained in the cabinet on 20 March 2003 will be at risk of prosecution for what the Nuremberg tribunal called “the supreme international crime”. This is defined as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. Robin Cook, a man of genuine political courage, put his conscience ahead of his career and resigned. What did you do?

Will you be issuing a writ against Clare Short? I would add that the legality of the war is contested, not that presence of legality affects its being a good or bad idea.

It seems to me that someone of your principles would fit comfortably into almost any government. All regimes require people like you, who seem to be prepared to obey orders without question. Unwavering obedience guarantees success in any administration. It also guarantees collaboration in every atrocity in which a government might engage. The greatest thing we have to fear in politics is the cowardice of politicians.

Actually, I’d have said it was either “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”3 or the cumulative effect of a lack of political education and the mendacity of the tabloids leading to poor decision-making because of the over-importance of certain totemic issues and the lack of appreciation of the complexity of government.

You demanded evidence that consultations and citizens’ juries have been rigged. You’ve got it. In 2007, the high court ruled that the government’s first consultation on nuclear power was “seriously flawed” and “unlawful”. It also ruled that the government must commission an opinion poll. The poll the government launched was reviewed by the Market Research Standards Board. It found that “information was inaccurately or misleadingly presented, or was imbalanced, which gave rise to a material risk of respondents being led towards a particular answer”.
As freedom of information requests made by Greenpeace reveal, the consultation over the third runway at Heathrow used faked noise and pollution figures. It was repeatedly pre-empted by ministers announcing that the runway would be built. Nor did the government leave anything to chance when it wanted to set up giant health centres, or polyclinics, run by GPs. As Dr Tony Stanton of the Londonwide Local Medical Committees has pointed out, “a week before a £1m consultation on polyclinics and hospitals by NHS London closed, London’s 31 primary care trusts were issued with instructions on setting up polyclinic pilots and GP-led health centres”. Consultations elsewhere claimed that there was no need to discuss whether or not new health centres were required, as the principle had already been established through “extensive national level consultation exercises”. But no such exercises had taken place; just a handful of citizens’ juries engaging a total of a thousand selected people and steered by government ministers. Those who weren’t chosen had no say.

So your problem is with citizens’ juries? I can see that, to be honest. Unfortunately, the corrosive effect of the media (tabloids rather than broadsheets) gives people a biased set of facts, making it hard to do surveys; equally, surveys can be rather self-selecting as people with a bone to pick will be represented disproportionately.

Fixes like this might give you some clues about why more people are not taking part in politics. I believe there is a vast public appetite for re-engagement, but your government, aware of the electoral consequences, has shut us out. It has reneged on its promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform. It has blocked a referendum on the European treaty, ditched the regional assemblies, used Scottish MPs to swing English votes, sustained an unelected House of Lords, eliminated almost all the differences between itself and the opposition. You create an impenetrable political monoculture, then moan that people don’t engage in politics.

There is a problem with our polity. It’s caused by a mix of factors. Politicians of all sides are riding on the tiger’s back in that attacking the system will end up reducing their ability to change it and, I’m afraid, Paul Flynn is not going to change things by himself. By over-simplifying the problems and making it pretty abundantly clear that whatever people from the government say will be met by unwarranted skepticism, articles like Monbiot’s open letter make reform harder.

It is precisely because I can picture something better that I have become such a cynical old git. William Hazlitt remarked that: “Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be.” You, Hazel, have helped to reduce our political choices to a single question: whether to laugh through our tears or weep through our laughter.

I’ll put you down as a ‘don’t know’, shall I?

Edit 1623: Tom Harris and Hopi Sen weigh in.

xD.

1 – PFI would have been a better line of attack
2 – Hamlet V v
3 – Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

The succession to the British monarchy

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Seeing as everyone’s talking about the monarchy in general and Prince Harry in particular, it’s worth pointing out that history only gives William slightly better than even odds of ascending the throne and acquiring all sorts of other fun titles.

Queen Anne succeeded William III (who sort of succeeded himself, as he’d previously been coregnant with Mary II); however, Anne’s father, James II had previously been King. The next monarch was George I; he was the closest Protestant relation to Anne. Not, though, particularly close; counting Catholics, he was fifty-first in line to the throne. George II was actually George I’s son. George II’s son, Frederick, predeceased him, and his grandson, George III ascended the throne. George III was succeeded by his son, George IV. George IV passed the throne to his brother, William IV, who in turn passed it onto his niece, Victoria. Victoria was succeeded by her son, Edward VII, who was succeeded by his son, George V. George V was succeeded by his son, George VI, and then his son, Edward VIII, who promptly abdicated in favour of George VI. On his death, the throne passed to his daughter, Elizabeth II.

In other words, since the Acts of Union of 1707 that created Great Britain, the heir apparent has become monarch only six out of eleven occasions. Of course, things are rather less turbulent at court (and, for the most part, less important) than in the past. However, this is as much accident of history and Elizabeth II’s longevity as anything else. If, say, we had a series of general elections where there was no clear winner, the monarch, having perhaps to successively choose between the party with most seats and the party with most votes, could become really quite important. I would hope that people are considering this already; I would prefer to have a definite arrangement rather than leaving it to whim and caprice. Now, even if Prince Harry doesn’t become king, he may go for a role as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, as Prince Andrew does at the moment. It may be a little hard for him to go to Israel, Pakistan or the Arabian world given his taste in fancy dress and nicknames.

xD.

Continue reading “The succession to the British monarchy” →

Why we should take non-Brits from Guantanamo

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Iain Dale asks why we should accept people who aren’t connected with Britain from Guantánamo Bay. These are my reasons why we should.

Firstly, it is in our strategic interest for two reasons. I will look at the morality and legality later, but it is enough to say that many states and people, friendly, neutral and hostile, regard both Guantánamo as immoral and the UK as very close to the United States. By acting to expedite the closing of Guantánamo, we are acting to right a perceived wrong. It also improves our standing within the EU and NATO if we can demonstrate an ability to act as an effective link or broker between the western and eastern sides of the Atlantic. I would add that there might well be (although I do not know this for a fact) people who would be repatriated to, say, Bosnia-Herzegovina. While I do not wish to impugn Bosnia-Herzegovina and am using it just as an example, I do not believe that it, or many other states, have the state-capacity to effectively monitor these people. If we look slightly more widely around the Balkans, the apparent ease with which people evaded the ICTY, I believe the point is proven. In the long-term, taking in detainees here is more secure than leaving them in limbo or Ruritania.

Secondly, it is expeditious. Whether Mr Dale likes it or not, President-Elect Obama has made it clear that Guantanamo is to be closed. As I mentioned, we are seen as close to the US in foreign policy terms. One of the big problems with Guantánamo was the lack of clarity as to what was going to happen to people held there. We now have a resolution; however, we will have to accept people who do not have an immediate connection to the US for a few reasons. One is that some states will not accept people who have a prior or stronger connection to them. We can exert more moral pressure on them to accept people from Guantánamo if we show how much we are doing; in any case, it will not work for everyone. There are some states that it would be wrong to ‘export’ these people to; they are those states that would torture them. They would go from a frying pan to a rather hotter fire and many of the problems we face because of Guantánamo would be reinforced.

Thirdly, it is morally right. Guantánamo was an abrogation of rights, poorly implemented and conceived, that took away some of our moral high ground and constitutes a serious threat to habeas corpus in the USA. Its closure rectifies at least some of those issues. Moreover, the USA is our friend and ally; if it seeks our support on this, given that the costs are minimal and the benefits great, I would have hoped it would have been a no-brainer.

If I may refer to the title of Iain’s post – “Guantánamo is a problem made in America” – I would contend that the problem may have been made there, but that does not relieve of us our obligations to justice and due process, or to our ally, or the effects its existence and the method of its closure may have on us.

In short, it is both morally right and in our strategic interest.

xD.

The BNP’s epic fail

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’m not going to go over it in fine detail, although I recommend the posts and comments at Pickled Politics, Liberal Conspiracy and these two at the Wardman Wire. The second one deals with legal implications for blogs; look, listen and take heed. I commented on the subject at PP, and it pretty much sums up my opinions on ‘knuckledraggergate’:

OK, we don’t like the BNP. They are pernicious. I still think it’s wrong to publish the list. It should be possible to be a member of an organisation without having that advertised to the world. If nothing else, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly, there should be an assumption of privacy of data unless there is compelling reason to the contrary; why should my membership of the RSPB be published?

Secondly, if the proof of concept of damaging an organisation by releasing its internal details to a waiting media and internet is shown, more people will want to do it. Leaking my membership of the RSPB is unlikely to be a problem, it’s not hard to see how an association with a trades union or the ANL could cause problems for some people if published.

Thirdly, this has damaged the BNP, which is a good thing. We can retain the moral high ground; there is no need – even if it is interesting – to rub their noses in it.

There’s more on the story courtesy of the BBC; it originally came from Lancaster UAF.

Normal blogging service will resume shortly.

xD.

PS Truly, an epic fail.

A brief note on Afghanistan

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The UK’s commander in Helmand, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, has said that we shouldn’t expect a decisive military victory in Afghanistan; I wholeheartedly agree. He should have added that there was never going to be a military victory in Afghanistan.

Setting up the Afghan government was never going to be enough, either. The international community needs to rally round and provide development support to build the institutions that will allow Afghanistan to run itself. A successful part of that has been the establishment of the Afghan National Army, which (I believe) now takes part in more than two-thirds of missions conducted under the ISAF or OEF banners. More work does need to be done, for instance, on the Afghan National Police. It is worth mentioning OMLTs (Operational Mentor Liaison Teams, or Omelettes), which remain attached to an Afghan unit after it has been set up and trained to provide ongoing training and advice.

NATO went into Afghanistan under an Article V1 commitment to prevent further attacks, on the US in particular, launched from Afghan territory by al Qaeda with the complicity of the then-government. The conflict was and is increasingly characterised by asymmetry; while there have been some ‘pitched battles’, insurgents are increasingly avoiding such conflicts. Instead, they are going after development work precisely because it is that work which wins hearts and minds and helps to develop the structures that Afghanistan needs. A good instance is the delivery of a hydroelectric power turbine to produce electricity for on the order of two million people. It took five thousand troops to safeguard its passage precisely because the Taleban were so determined to stop it arriving.

While the higher echelons of the Taleban are under pressure, local groups are able to maintain opposition. This is largely because they use aggressive means with no regard at all towards loss of life, Afghan or otherwise. It is worth remembering, though, that a couple of years ago the Taleban were talking in terms of defeating the Afghan government in some parts of the country. They have failed. While the situation is not necessarily what I’d describe as ‘good’, the Taleban are being defeated as a coherent force.

As I said at the beginning, there was never going to be a military victory in Afghanistan. What military force can do is allow and support the autonomous developments needed for Afghanistan to run itself and thus prevent further attacks like 9-11.

xD.

1 – Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, aka the Washington Treaty, runs:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Full text of the treaty at Wikisource.

PS – I draw your attention to the disclaimer at the bottom of this page.

Mayor Johnson, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bendy bus

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The 507 (Wikipedia, TfL) and 521 (Wikipedia, TfL) are going to be the first London bus routes to have the bendy bus removed. This is going to make my commute into work longer. Bendy buses have attracted a lot of opprobrium; read on to find out why they’re actually a really good idea.

Graphic of a bendy bus

The 507 and 521 are the last of the Red Arrow routes that were set up in the mid-Sixties to deal with short, high-density, commuter journeys. The idea was twofold; increase bus capacity and, crucially, the speed with which people could board and alight from the bus, thereby increasing route capacity and decreasing journey time. Obviously, it takes more time to use a double-decker; there’s only one exit door and passengers can’t go up and down the stairs at the same time; in any case, people taking short journeys are less likely to go up the stairs, leading to overcrowding downstairs. The solution was to move to a single-decker bus with less seats but more standing room and to allow people to leave by the front door as well.

The 507 and 521 routes haven’t changed in their requirements since the Sixties. Both run between major termini that are close together; in the 507’s case, Waterloo and Victoria and, in the 521’s, Waterloo and London Bridge. More importantly, they go through places where lots of commuters want to go; the 521 goes past Holborn, St Paul’s and Monument (all areas with lots of offices that people who come in by train to Waterloo and London Bridge want to reach) and the 507 goes up Horseferry Road. That’s significant because I board the bus at Horseferry Road but also because the buses, in both directions, practically empty in the morning on the Horseferry Road stops as lots of civil servants go to work in the area; conversely, the buses fill up in the evening peak and empty at the termini.

The bendy buses are ideal for these routes. They can accomodate a lot of people, who can board and alight quickly and in large numbers, travelling over short distances. The ideal would probably be a tram but these are costly to install and there are other priorities, not least the Cross River Tram and, of course, Crossrail. The bendy buses are an ideal solution. The alternative that we are going to have is the double-decker. I like double-deckers, but they’re not appropriate for these routes. I’m sure a lot of people who take traditional double-deckers in the morning rush from major rail stations will be familiar with the long boarding times as everyone clambers on in the one place. You can usually find a seat upstairs (hence the iBus announcement: “Seats are available on the Upper Deck”) as many people are only going a few stops and don’t want to have to fight up and down the stairs. On the 507 and 521 routes, that will be worsened by everyone wanting to leave the bus over two or three stops.

A particular issue for the 521 is the Strand Underpass. It connects the northern end of Waterloo Bridge directly to the top of Kingsway. Originally built for trams, it is not high enough for double-deckers. Presumably, the 521 will have to be diverted round the Aldwych and up Kingsway. These are two busy roads that will become further congested and will delay the 521.

Some of the arguments against the bendy bus are also rubbish. The big one is that there’s lots of fare evasion; I’m sure that’s true on some routes. On the 507 and 521 – the first routes to have bendies removed – just about everyone is using a major rail terminus. They’re probably going to have a Travelcard already – which includes London buses.

Bendy buses aren’t appropriate for every route. The 36, for instance, isn’t ideal for going across Cambridge Circus. That doesn’t mean they’re not appropriate for any route. Unfortunately, bus policy – not necessarily the most fascinating of issues – is being decided by little more than tabloid prejudice.

I’ll see you in the queue.

xD.

Update: Peezedtee weighs in and, in fact, weighed in back in March.