- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
L1090636.JPGWest London Tory candidate accused of hypocrisy over Cycleway 9 opposition
A West London Conservative candidate at Thursday’s general election has been accused of hypocrisy over her opposition to Cycleway 9, which will run through the Brentford & Isleworth constituency she is standing in – with local cycling campaigners pointing out that the project was initiated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.
Seena Shah is standing for election in Brentford & Isleworth constituency won for Labour in 2010 by Ruth Cadbury with a majority of just 465 votes.
Cadbury, since 2010 co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group and who represented Labour at last week’s Active Travel Hustings at the Brompton Bicycle factory in nearby Greenford, was re-elected in 2017 with a majority of more than 12,000.
In a column last week for the Chiswick Herald, Shah accused Cadbury of being responsible for getting Cycleway 9, which will run from Olympia to Brentford, approved – even though the plans were drawn up by Transport for London (TfL) and the relevant local authorities, with the Labour-controlled Hounslow Council approving the section of the route running through the Brentford & Isleworth constituency.
The stretch running through Chiswick High Road has proved particularly contentious, led by Conservative councillors representing wards in the area, the most affluent in the borough, leading opposition to the scheme which was finally approved after revisions were put to a second consultation.
Shah wrote: “I believe that Brentford and Isleworth has regressed under a Labour MP, a Labour Mayor and Labour council.
“Under Ruth Cadbury, Chiswick has seen the Cycleway 9 cycle path approved along our busiest road, putting pedestrians at risk and jeopardising our already struggling retail economy by removing pavement space, as well as parking and loading bays.”
Initial construction will start at the north end of Kew Bridge this Thursday, polling day, and Shah also expressed concerns that works will go ahead at a time when Hammersmith Bridge remains closed, claiming that there would be a “consequential increase in traffic at residential and main roads throughout Chiswick.”
She added: “If elected, I pledge to call for an immediate delay and review of Cycleway 9 and ensure a temporary bridge is put up to replace Hammersmith Bridge, a project that would cost £5 million and only take three months to complete.”
Shah also pledged her continued support for the UK to leave the European Union, saying that “52 per cent of the United Kingdom voted to Leave. Whether you personally like it or not, that is a democratic majority and we are a democratic country. It is the job of any democratic government to deliver on the will of the people.”
The initial consultation to Cycleway 9 in the individual wards within the Borough of Hounslow, by comparison, had between 59 and 63 per cent of responses in favour and between 20 and 38 per cent opposed, by comparison.
Michael Robinson, co-ordinator at Hounslow Cycling Campaign, told road.cc: “It doesn’t look like Seena Shah gets the irony of complaining about Labour politicians for Cycleway 9 given the scheme was funded and planned when the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson was Mayor of London.
“Cycleway 9 is a good example of cross party consensus at the mayoral level as it was initiated by the previous Conservative Mayor and progressed by the current Labour Mayor,” he continued.
“The government’s Committee on Climate Change is clear that safe cycling infrastructure is an important part of the transition to a low carbon economy.
“It is very disappointing that Seena Shah is attempting to politicise a non-polluting mode of transport,” he added.
“We hope this is because she is being misinformed by local councillors rather than it reflecting her own views,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
68 comments
None of the buggers are worthy of the outpouring of adoration on display here.
They are not Messiahs. One for sure is a very naughty boy, and all of them seem more interested in pursuing their political wet dreams whilst trying to persuade us that it will cost us, personally, nothing or even put cash in our pockets. Not going to happen.
I'm not a fan of Swinson or Corbyn. But either of them as PM (more likely to be the latter if it came to that) would be a least worst situation in comparison with Johnson as PM. He and his colleagues are the worst rabble of thieves, rogues, liars and charlatans this country has had as a government since, well I'm not really sure how long, maybe Edward II. If the Tories win, the UK will be poorer, weaker and smaller. The union will not last. The NHS will be sold to US corporations.
This topic is hilarious and shows a masterstroke of Tory strategy.
We have one of the most right-wing, deceptive and manipulative (above and beyond the usual) Conservative parties in decades. We have fake news generation. We have abuse of the BBC in Kuenssberg's acting as a forwarding agent for Tory propaganda from "anonymous No.10 sources". We have had abuse of prorogation forcing the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. We've had evading of scrutiny and interviews at all levels, from prime ministerial to hustings. We've had persistent gaslighting on the subject of Brexit, with Get Brexit Done being the most obvious total lie, but there have been many others during this arduous process. We've had attempts to screw the NHS through allowing US pharmaceutical interests to dictate drug prices. We've had the DWP and Universal Credit. We've had the Conservative Party attempting to erase half the country in claiming to represent "The Will Of The People", and attempting to wreck all of the country in their attempts to survive in the wake of a referendum they should never have called and which substantial parts of the current party manipulated. That's notwithstanding that this is road.cc, and if you're interested in safe, active travel with a minimum of disease and injury caused by death cages, and you're here supporting the Conservative party...
And what is this thread about?
"Corbyn may have lied when he said that everyone in the Labour party accused of anti-semitism was expelled or suspended immediately."
"Corbyn may have lied when he said he watches the Queen's speech."
Oh shock horror. Even if you can demonstrate that both of those are deliberate lies - and good luck on the first - so what? Does this somehow erase the dire nature of the alternative choice in the Conservatives? And given that this is a binary choice, don't bother accusing me of whataboutery.
On the topic of anti-semitism: I tune out of it. I just sigh and move on when I see it in the news.
Why?
Because it's vested interests at work. Corbyn supports the Palestinians, or at the very least, supports a two-state solution in which Israel stops illegally seizing land and building settlements on it. Public figures supporting Israel, and those with an interest in maintaining a strategic ally in the Middle East, don't like that kind of thing very much. So spurious allegations of institutional anti-semitism come out, with a healthy dose of the usual conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism to boot.
But check all of the articles on this subject. How many _concrete examples_ can you find? How many of them can you find that are actually linked to Corbyn himself? Even if you can find such examples, can you find enough to disprove the statement that the prevalence of anti-semitism in Labour is lower than in the general population? How many of the primary sources aren't lobby and pressure groups?
But the truth doesn't matter, does it? All that matters is that unsubstantiated lies are repeated often enough to gain traction, and any contradictory evidence is suppressed. When an accusation of anti-Semitism against Labour is made, the press give it top billing. When a group contradicts those allegations, or when the allegations concern the Tory party (both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism), it's either not reported at all or reported at a much lower level of prominence, and even then, the existence of two positions on the subject allows people to choose which they want to believe.
I have a hard time believing Labour has any more of a problem with anti-Semitism than any other organization. I have a very easy time believing that many media outlets look out for the Conservatives because their owners are wealthy (Sun, Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail), because they are still beholden to advertisers with corporate interests (Guardian, infamously, and others), or in the case of the BBC, because their board is compromised by politicization changes instituted by David Cameron, and that Corbyn's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict and his political positioning trouble some people enough that they will desperately smear him.
(inb4 burt complains about my wall :^) )
If the tories win this election it will be Brexit all over again, with liars and cheats and big money trumping democracy.
79914136_1040684962934948_6182367880835760128_n.jpg
I don’t anyone can take a reasonably dispassionate look at Labour’s antisemitism problem and conclude that 1. there really is zero tolerance 2. they have been on the level about their efforts to curtail it. It’s one of the few areas that frustrates me hugely about Corbyn’s leadership. That said I hope to see a Labour government in place shortly, as I think they - as a political project - have much, much more to offer the country than the Tories.
Christ Burt - you are a right political pain in the arse
Ever thought of becoming one of them?
How can I become one when according to you, I'm already one?
I said you were a political pain in the arse.
By becoming one, I meant a politician! Not all politicians are a pain in the arse. Not everyone is a political pain in the arse. You are! Try to differentiate.
Try to be clearer.
I shall next time. My apologies
I started counting the lies Boris told in this interview, and I lost count, but I think the biggest was saying that Corbyn wants to abolish MI5. That's just one interview, where he knew people would easily be able to prove him wrong if he lied, but he lied anyway, time after time.
https://www.facebook.com/TheDailyPolitik/videos/587902921963316/?t=476
I'm just glad that the report on Russian interference in UK politics completely exonerated the Tories.
It's buried in the tory manifesto that they're planning to limit the power of the courts. In other words the fat liar and his loathsome cohorts want to grab more power.
UK deserves all it gets if it votes this gang into power.
I actually think some of it is because the existence of Israel means the Jews are no longer such an intrinsic challenge to the ethno-nationalist right. Some of the hard-right have come to terms with Jewish people, at least as long as they are all the way over there in Israel. See Tommy Robinson's visit to that country, striking poses with IDF soldiers. See Trump's close support for Netanyahu (even while he also associates with the likes of Bannon and declares actual Nazis to be 'fine people').
This seems to be part of the reason for the split in the Trumpian alt-right, between those who are supporters of Israel and those who are _so_ anti-Semitic that they still dislike Jews more than they do Arabs or Muslims. When Trump's son got booed at a book-signing by Trump's own voters, that was apparently a major part of what was going on.
Again, it rankles slightly that the associations with full-on Nazis by those on the right are allowed to pass without comment, while Corbyn being too close to some anti-Semitic Muslims or Arabs is constantly talked about. Even some Israelis themselves seem happy to encourage the global far-right as long as their number one target is Muslims.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/06/inside-the-hate-f...
There have been anti-Semitic comments by people in Labour. Corbyn has gotten things wrong more than once (the most glaring example being that appalling mural - which was, mind you, removed by a Labour mayor...ironically the one who later got done for electoral fraud).
It's the media double-standard that exasperates me.
When all those Tory councillors were suspended for making horrendously explicit racist comments on social media, and then quietly re-instated a short while later, I don't think it was even mentioned on LBC or in the Mail. At the same time, both those sources gave 24/7 attention to every example of anyone in Labour saying anything that could be considered possibly anti-Semitic.
This is why, incidentally, I think the concept of 'whataboutery' is a disingenuous and dishonest one. It's a term invented precisely to try and explain away such hypocrisy. Any evidence of bad behaviour by your team can be batted away by calling it 'whataboutery'. That term is the all-purpose get-out-of-jail free card for hypocrites.
The whole prorogation argument is a bit weak.
Prior to the supreme court case it was not considered a legal matter.
No. Johnson lied about his reasons for proroguing Parliament. He said it was to prepare for a Queen's Speech and legislative programme, but it wasn't. It was in fact for the improper purpose of stymying Parliament. The court decided that.
It does sometimes seem that facts have been lost in maelstrom of argument and propaganda, but they still exist.
Read my comment again.
Before the supreme court case prorogation was not considered a matter for the courts.
Now it is.
This is brand new constitutional law.
There has never been a ruling on what constitutes an appropriate period of time to prepare for a new session of parliament before.
There was existing law demonstrating that Royal Prerogative powers were subject to court rulings. Prorogation is a prerogative power which had merely not previously been challenged in court; it was not exempted from challenge. The ruling clearly states the reasoning behind the judgement.
The judgement did not say anything about "appropriate periods of time to prepare for a new session of Parliament", it was about reasons for prorogation.
As for "brand new constitutional law" it clarifies the absolute powers of oversight Parliament has over the government, which is really very Dicey.
The prorogation of parliament to prepare for a new parliamentary session is established practice.
The need to prorogue parliament before a new session was therefore not the principle being challenged.
It was the length of the prorogation that was the issue, was the length of prorogation reasonable or did it represent an attempt to stymie parliament?
The Supreme Court decided it was the latter.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision the High Court had ruled that prorogation was not a legal matter and was therefore not subject to legal challenge.
"The main issue we [had] to decide is whether the decision of the Prime Minister to seek the prorogation of Parliament is justiciable (is capable of challenge) in Her Majesty’s courts or whether it is an exclusively political matter.”
Judgment
The claim failed. The High Court of England and Wales concluded that prorogation is an exclusively political matter."
In establishing that prorogation is a legal matter the Supreme Court have created a new era of constitutional law.
How big an impact this will have and how big a change this represents is the subject of lively discussion amongst constitutional law aficionados.
A good and pretty balanced piece here:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/30/mike-gordon-the-prorogation-c...
Johnson's prorogation was both longer and of a more comprehensive nature than the traditional one to which you refer. It was nakedly about shutting down parliament for political convenience. Johnson even explicitly said as much.
Splitting hairs over constitutional technicalities evades the obvious point that if you allow PMs to do that you have created a Weimar type Enabling Law that undermines democracy. The Supreme court might have ruled differently from how it did, but if it had done so we'd be in deep trouble.
All you are doing is desperately spinning to try and put a veil over Johnson's opportunism and lack of regard for democracy. Are you really that much of a Johnson fan?
Do you... think that the High Court outranks the Supreme Court?
Can you read?
Yeah, true. Just like the Lib Dems, Liebour, Brexit party etc etc etc. Politicians lie, full stop, no matter which party they stand for.
This is a way of excusing politicians for lying, by claiming 'they are all exactly the same' when plainly that's not true.
Are all hairdressers exactly the same, or have you had good haircuts and bad haircuts? Are all the people you know exactly the same, or are some different to others? Are all broadband providers exactly the same, or have you had good and bad experiences? Were all your teachers at school exactly the same, or were some better than others? I could go on.
Some people do their best to be honest, fair and ethical, and some don't. It's the same with companies and political parties. Of course, it's not always 100% clear-cut black and white.
In a democracy, voters have a responsibility to assess the options and make a choice, not shirk the responsibility by making inaccurate generalisations.
The whole prorogation argument is a bit weak.
Prior to the supreme court case it was not considered a legal matter.
Constitutional law has been created de novo by this case so to criticise Johnson for not complying with a law that didn't exist when he prorogued parliament is a bit harsh.
Also if you think Corbyn has never lied you've clearly not been paying attention to the anti-semitism scandal.
He's lied repeatedly throughout.
Can you provide an example of a Corbyn anti-semitic lie?
(I'm pretty sure he was lying about watching the Queen's speech, though I wouldn't consider it to be a malicious lie)
Edit: Just thought about your prorogation comment. It's true that there wasn't previously a law around prorogation, but equally, before Boris there was no need to have it codified in law as there were some standards of decency and at least a little bit of honesty (occasionally).
Full details here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/05/dossier-shamed-labour-je...
Example of Corbyn lie:
Mr Corbyn’s claim that all individuals subject to complaints have been suspended or expelled is described as “untrue”
That claim is made by the Jewish Labour Movement. A Labour affiliate organisation for almost a century.
Re: Prorogation. John Major prorogued Parliament to prevent publication of a report in to cash for questions so it's not like the process hasn't be misused before.
Unfortunately, the Telegraph wants me to create an account to see that article.
That sounds like a strange thing for him to say whilst they are still dealing with the complaints - have you got his actual quote?
Yeah - that was dodgy, though presumably they didn't bother with taking him to court as the election was imminent or no-one thought of it.
There was no Supreme Court at that time and prorogation was not considered a legal matter So a complaint had no legal avenue even if one had been made.
The Corbyn quote was from his Andrew Neil interview.
Detailed here:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-leaked-document-casts-...
Apologies for paywall link previously, Guardian article on same subject here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/05/seventy-labour-staffers...
Not quite as forceful as the Telegraph article but the important bits are there.
Thanks.
Yep - looks like Corbyn was lying about how Labour was dealing with anti-semitism.
I can understand using warnings if someone inadvertently made anti-semitic comments (I personally wouldn't recognise certain things as being slurs just through ignorance), but if someone is being racist/sexist/anti-semitic then they shouldn't have a career in politics. (I wish that could be applied to the Boris as well).
Pages