The Guardian reports that the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator wants a special deal for access to the City, “in order to avoid financial instability”. They’re your guardians of financial stability, those publicly insured gamblers in the city. One is reminded of 2008, when the excuse for shifting the burden of banks’ gambling losses from holders of bank bonds to taxpayers was fear of “financial contagion”, which I think was code for hedge funds going bust and taking the billionaire class down a peg. The bailout burden on taxpayers together with procrustean public spending constraints of course spurred a different kind of contagion, in the form of slow wage and employment growth and the decimation of public services – which central banks have feebly attempted to counter through quantitative easing which, while perhaps necessary given that the better options had been ruled out, was among other things another gift to those banks. So it would be a disappointment but no surprise if, while the world and especially the broad British public pay dearly for Brexit, the City of London were cut a special deal.
Regional economic integration is something usually associated with international trade blocs – the European Union, ASEAN, and so forth. But two of the most important cases aren’t international – they are happening within India and China. Both countries are more populous than any international “region” (excluding of course regional groupings which include either India or China), and both have had very poorly integrated national markets, for reasons to do both with internal transport infrastructure, and the protection of sub-national markets by various means.
Global economic integration – quick, and institutionally shallow – is the hare; regional integration is the tortoise.
Opposition to the UK government’s cuts, since 2010, in all public services – deep cuts in police, transport, hospitals, schools, fire, universities, disability benefits, mental health services, care for the elderly, legal aid for the poor, nursery schools, the army, green technology … everything – has gone under that banner of “anti-austerity”. And every time I hear the slogan, I despair.
(Mostly of local interest in a small part of north London)
Until September, there will be no through traffic on Wightman Road.
Many of those who live on Wightman, or on the Ladder roads which normally act as rat-runs between Wightman and Green Lanes, are very happy with the reduction in traffic:
It’s because of a bridge repair, but it raises this question: should it be a temporary measure on just one road, or should Haringey take it as an opportunity to begin seriously to cut through traffic and pollution by private motor vehicles, and a shift to more foot, bicycle and bus travel?
Good cycling infrastructure is extremely important for increasing cycling and for reducing the use of cars in our towns and cities. On main roads, that means protected (segregated) cycle lanes; on side roads it means filtered permeability – pedestrians and cycles go through, cars and trucks don’t. There’s plenty of evidence for the importance of such infrastructure.
But when the UK cycling organization road.cc runs the headline “Cycle infrastructure responsible for 85% of cycling increase“, I have to object. This is the message of Infrastructure, Infrastructure and Infrastructure gone mad. If you read just that headline, you’ll be left with the impression that nothing much matters other than infrastructure. Even if you read the whole article, you won’t know why that interpretation is dead wrong.
Two months ago, Harry Brighouse posted his marvelous Teaching’s not exactly brain surgery, is it? on the Crooked Timber blog. It’s a good thing Brighouse did so right then, because he was playing off of the exalted status we accord brain surgeons, which as we know one American brain surgeon has in the weeks since single-handedly left in tatters. And though we know that, it’s always worth seeing the Guardian’s Marina Hyde pile on in her inimitable style.