Special interest groups devoted to undermining the rights of motorists have received millions in grants from the UK government. These organizations promote raising taxes on drivers, increasing the number of speed cameras and boosting subsidies for inefficient modes of transportation. A report issued earlier this month by The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) used freedom of information requests and government reports to calculate the amount of public money that lobbying groups receive.
“The TPA report goes a long way towards explaining why the debates on the issues of road transport and climate policy are so one-sided,” said Paul Biggs, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers (ABD). “Democracy is being bypassed in order to further agendas that wouldn’t survive objective scrutiny or a proper democratic process. The use of taxpayers’ money to fund political viewpoints that they may seriously not agree with is a national scandal that needs to be urgently addressed.”
The Campaign for Better Transport, also known as Transport 2000, strongly advocates the use of speed bumps, the lowering of speed limits to 20 MPH, narrowing of roads, speed cameras, permanent road closures and many other policies designed to make driving less attractive. The group was recently quoted in the Daily Mail newspaper supporting a government proposal to impose a £350 (US $580) annual tax on drivers who park at work.
For its work supporting government proposals, the group received £417,210 (US $691,405) in public funds in 2007. In addition to the public money, another twenty percent of the group’s funds come from bus and train companies, according to a 2006 Daily Telegraph article.
Environmental groups like Living Streets, Friends of the Earth and The Green Alliance took £440,000 (US $727,000) in public funds. Brake is the most prominent of professional speed camera advocacy groups in the UK. The organization received £70,991 (US $117,373) in government grants and £285,718 (US $472,495) from corporate donors. Brake refuses to identify these donors.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance believes using public money to support such groups has a chilling effect on free speech.
“This kind of spending massively distorts the British political debate,” the TPA report stated. “When public policy and debate is driven by campaigns that represent the priorities of politicians and bureaucrats instead of the public, the views of ordinary people are increasingly pushed to the sidelines. Taxpayer funded lobbying and campaigning needs to end.”
A copy of the TPA report is available in a 750k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Taxpayer Funded Lobbying and Political Campaigning (The Taxpayers Alliance, 8/1/2009)
Makes perfect sense to me. After the “little people” are taken off the roads they will be left for use by the elites and the political class, the way it should be. I wonder how soon this will come to the US? Probably after the current administration detangles itself from the auto makers.
Yes, the US isn’t far behind, especially with the party that is running the show in DC. Your papers please!
The use of taxpayers’ money to fund political viewpoints that they may seriously not agree with is a national scandal that needs to be urgently addressed.
Yeah, they’ll get right on that straightaway. Make it a priority. Not.
This is already well established in the US.
During the Bush administration money was allocated to the NHTSA to lobby for per mile, GPS based road use fees. The government recently gave lobbying money to the ethanol industry.
Regan started the US on this path with the money he started using the government to lobby against drug use. By the way, Regan also sent us down the “czar” road with the first official drug czar.
People get the government they deserve, and when the American people are so stupid that they cry “Keep the government out of my Medicare” then they don’t deserve much.
And if I ever have to give my “papers” to anyone it will be because off the Department of Homeland Security. The wonderful Bush agency that has allowed us to all be molested by private contractor ex-McDonald’s employees every time we fly.
There are two parties, one is far from perfect but the other is a freak show supported by the very wealthy and poor white trash waiting for the rapture. If the later party has its way we may get the apocalypse, but to the dismay of many there will be no rapture.
no_slushbox: There are two parties, one is far from perfect but the other is a freak show supported by the very wealthy and poor white trash waiting for the rapture.
A common misconception.
The Republican party is more likely to be supported by small business owners who have actually worked for their money, or the “working” rich who didn’t inherit it (think The Millionaire Next Door).
Democrats rely more heavily on trust-fund babies for donations.
Both parties rely heavily on the very wealthy to field candidates and win elections. Check the party registration of the very rich in New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Hint – it isn’t likely to be Republican.
Many corporations give heavily to both parties, to make sure that they have “allies” regardless of which party is in power.
Evangelical Christians are hardly poor white trash, and most of them aren’t sitting around waiting for the rapture. And liberal Christians have their own share of kooky ideas and pie-in-the-sky dreamers, too. And I’ve met atheists who are complete idiots.
Incidentally, it might help to do some research regarding how little President Obama has changed regarding Bush-era security measures. You might also check his vote for FISA when he was in the Senate.
Special interest groups devoted to undermining the rights of motorists have received millions in grants from the UK government.
Loaded language if I ever read it. Let’s play around a bit:
Special interest groups devoted to undermining the rights of pedestrians have received millions in grants from the UK government.
Special interest groups devoted to undermining the rights of women have received millions in grants from the UK government.
Special interest groups devoted to undermining the rights of Neo-nazis have received millions in grants from the UK government.
See the problem? You have to be careful who you call a “special interest group” because everyone, in one way or another, is a member of a special interest group. That’s how society works.
Second: how is this undemocratic? The government was elected, and ostensibly the population is aware that this is happening. Just because car enthusiasts don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s undemocratic: most people aren’t car enthusiasts, so if they support is, this is by definition democratic.
People have a tendency to think they’re part of the “silent majority” or that their own opinion is inherently correct. It’s a notion that we need to challenge in ourselves, lest we fall into knee-jerk populism.
There’s nothing wrong with bringing these kinds of things to light, but perhaps we can turn the jingoism dial down a bit.
psharjinian: Second: how is this undemocratic? The government was elected, and ostensibly the population is aware that this is happening. Just because car enthusiasts don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s undemocratic: most people aren’t car enthusiasts, so if they support is, this is by definition democratic.
How about because it is promoting a bunch of ineffective, dumb ideas that won’t do anything to improve safety or ameliorate pollution, and are really about making driving more inconvenient because some people don’t like it?
Cars are a fact of life. Have been for well over a century. People use them because of their advantages. In Great Britain, of all places, one cannot say that people don’t have alternatives. Given the size of the country, and the population distribution within the country, mass transit is a viable alternative in many cases, and it is available. People still want to have the option of using a car.
When groups have to institute artificial measures like narrowing roads or charging people merely for driving to work in an attempt to discourage car use, that should tell how desperate they are. Perhaps they should require drivers to shave their heads, or forbid women from dating or having sex with any male who drives to work (oops – one shouldn’t give these groups any ideas). They couldn’t hope to lobby for these measures without government funds.
Incidentally, the majority of people may not be car enthusiasts, but they still like having the option of using a car.
The sad part is that lots of us favor improvements to mass transit…and have no problems with making it available to people. But I certainly wouldn’t be caught dead lobbying in favor of it side-by-side with these groups.
In the long run, they aren’t doing people seeking rational solutions any favors.
geeber:
Of course Obama isn’t going to do anything about the Bush administration security measures. Americans are incredibly cowardly and no good politician is going to allow himself to be attacked from the right on security, especially a politician that carries the burden of being black, and in the eyes of poor uneducated people, a muslim not born in the US.
I never claimed there was a big difference with regard to security, it helps to actually read the comments.
People that want to keep the government out of Medicare are idiots, nobody should refrain from calling them that. People that complain about the government being involved in a government program, because they think their old age healthcare just falls out of the sky, are a shame to democracy.
I know it’s hard to believe, but the vast majority of people in large cities are self made. And a lot of the red-staters inherited their businesses from daddy. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of rural small businesses were inherited, not self made.
Which party gets a larger share of its donations from inherited money would take a lot of research, I challenge you to present anything credible showing it’s the Democrats. The last two Republican presidents have been trust fund kids, while the last two Democratic presidents have been self made men who didn’t even have dads that stayed around.
The biggest generators of wealth in the country, people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, lean left, and have made the vast majority of their wealth.
But, as I originally said, both parties are seriously flawed, just not equally flawed. Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul have the only honest voting records in congress, and they’ve actually co-sponsored some good legislation.
psarhjinian:
If the elected representatives thought that a certain law should be enacted they would vote for it, they wouldn’t give money to lobbyists to lobby for the law. That is democracy.
A government agency throwing money to lobbyists to lobby for changes to the law because the agency does not have the power to change the law on its own is horribly undemocratic.
Being a pedestrian, a woman, or even a neo-nazi does not incur costs and fees like being a motorist does. Motorists pay these fees under the assumption the money fixes the roads or oils the machines somehow. Politicians redirect these funds into connected outfits who laugh all the way to the bank.
When the UK starts taxing someone for being in a special interest group and then handing those taxes over to another SIG who’s purpose is to undermine them we call that wrong.
Hunters in the US deal with funds taken from them for legitimate purposes of park maintenance, habitat preservation, and other well meaning services being sent over to anti-hunting and gun control groups seeking to undermine hunters at every turn. It’s legal because not enough people object and don’t know any better.
The ballot box is supposed to temper this but in massive states like the UK it no longer matters who you vote for. Unless you’re the lead dog the view never changes.
That’s why I support Ron Paul, and love the Eldorado Biarritz.
How about because it is promoting a bunch of ineffective, dumb ideas that won’t do anything to improve safety or ameliorate pollution, and are really about making driving more inconvenient because some people don’t like it?
People vote for dumb stuff all the time. If your intending to take away the right for stupid people to vote, or for somehow preventing the passage of stupid laws, then I’d like to know how you’re proposing it.
This is how modern social democracy works: you elect people, they do stuff, you get to hold a referendum on how good a job they did representing your interests. If you don’t like what they did, but the majority of people either don’t care or do like it, tough noogies, it’s your job to campaign harder for what you want.
As soon as we start thinking that we’re automatically smarter or better or “more right” than everyone else, we get into serious trouble. Your arguments are valid in terms of debate and I’d encourage you to make your representative aware of them, but demonizing those who oppose you as somehow less worthy of having an opinion because they’re “special interests” is not healthy.
Yes, it isn’t always fair, equitable or, in the cosmic sense, right. The other options, though (pure democracy, anarchism, totalitarianism) have proven time and again to be so much worse.
I think we need to be clear, here. I’m not arguing for either position here because I don’t really care that much about traffic law in the UK, I’m arguing against the tone of the posting. In this case, I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s a small group of people enforcing what they want on a larger group just because we’re arbitrarily deciding the size of the groups in question.
Most Britons might support this. Who can say?
no_slushbox:
“During the Bush administration money was allocated to the NHTSA to lobby for per mile, GPS based road use fees. The government recently gave lobbying money to the ethanol industry.”
NHTSA is a government organization, not a private special interest group. Oops.
“Regan started the US on this path with the money he started using the government to lobby against drug use. By the way, Regan also sent us down the “czar” road with the first official drug czar.”
Far cry from what we have today and the drug Czar does not usurp the powers of the DEA. And since illicit drugs are illegal (look up “controlled” substances) this is not lobbying, it’s enforcing the law. If you like illegal drugs you are free to lobby for their legalization.
“And if I ever have to give my “papers” to anyone it will be because off the Department of Homeland Security. The wonderful Bush agency that has allowed us to all be molested by private contractor ex-McDonald’s employees every time we fly.”
You can thank Democrat Tom Daschle for that. As Minority leader in the Senate he insisted that we had to “federalize” formerly private airport security or they wouldn’t be “good” and “professional” enough (real reason, to get them into a government labor union – donors!). Conservatives warned against doing that and many warned against forming yet another government agency (DHS). By the way, Homeland Security is not in the business of asking anybody for their papers (despite what moveon.org might be telling you). Not that that wouldn’t be a good idea down in the boarder states, but “no enforcement” Bush would have none of that.
“There are two parties, one is far from perfect but the other is a freak show supported by the very wealthy and poor white trash waiting for the rapture. If the later party has its way we may get the apocalypse, but to the dismay of many there will be no rapture.”
Well, I was wondering where all the old time bigots had gone. You need to get out more.
“Americans are incredibly cowardly…”
Wow. Just. Wow.
This sort of thing, being done by elected officials (whether in the US, the UK or anywhere else where “democracy” is supposed to be the basis of the government) is nothing more than taxation without representation.
We Americans had a bit of an issue with this some 230 years ago and did something about it.
We modern Americans may well be having a 2nd revolution right now – at least the beginning stages of it, according to Gerald Celente.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente11.1.html
Folks who make comments that “if you don’t like things turning out the way they do fight harder to make them go your way” don’t know the half of what’s coming down the pike. Arguments anything like similar to “well, we’ve been voted in – deal with it” are disingenious at best, especially given that a lot of people are waking up and realizing they’ve made a mistake in voting the way they did and want to soon change things. Besides which, the Soviets and Comecon countries always boasted that their Communist party was voted into office by 99.9% of the electorate.
Government Motors and Crapster will be history once these imbeciles all get turned out of office.
“IMPEACH D.C.”
As for Americans all being cowards, well we’ll just see who’s cowardly – the left or the right – when the drek hits the air recirculating device, probably as early as this autumn or next year.
Personally, I prefer the Constitution to the right or the left, thanks very much.
no_slushbox: Of course Obama isn’t going to do anything about the Bush administration security measures.
What happened to “hope and change?” The President ran on a platform criticizing these measures. Many of his followers were motivated to vote for him precisely because of the hope that he would reverse them, or repeal them.
Wasn’t his initial reply to those who oppose him on other issues, “I won.”?
He could have forced major changes on these issues if he had wanted to. He won by a convincing majority, and his party controls both chambers of Congress.
Maybe he is not changing them because they either make sense, or, now that he is the inhabitant of the Oval Office, he likes the power that they give to him.
no_slushbox: Americans are incredibly cowardly and no good politician is going to allow himself to be attacked from the right on security, especially a politician that carries the burden of being black, and in the eyes of poor white trash evangicals, a muslim.
Not all evangelicals are poor white trash – the ones I know are solidly middle class, and I know lots of them. And they don’t believe that President Obama is a Muslim, although many of them wonder just what is being preached in that church he attended for a large portion of his adult life.
Stereotyping people is unattractive, regardless from which side of the political spectrum it originates.
no_slushbox: I never claimed there was a big difference there, it helps to actually read the comments.
Sorry, can’t buy that, not with this quote:
There are two parties, one is far from perfect but the other is a freak show supported by the very wealthy and poor white trash waiting for the rapture. If the later party has its way we may get the apocalypse, but to the dismay of many there will be no rapture.
That sounds like a pretty sharp distinction to me, and I see precious little criticism of Democrats in your posts (true third-party adherents don’t really like either party at this point).
I do read your comments.
no_slushbox: I know it’s hard to believe, but the vast majority of people in large cities are self made.
Proof, please.
no_slushbox: And a lot of the red-staters inherited their businesses from daddy. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of rural small businesses were inherited, not self made.
Again, proof please. And please note that even if a small business is inherited, it takes plenty of hard work and plain old sweat to keep it viable.
Small businesses aren’t like GM, where they can be run poorly for 30+ years by a long succession of butt-kissers before they go bankrupt.
Incidentally, the subjects of The Millionaire Next Door earned their own money. They didn’t inherit it.
no_slushbox: Which party gets a larger share of its donations from inherited money would take a lot of research, I challenge you to present anything credible showing it’s the Democrats.
Here is research from that well-known right-wing rag, The Washington Post:
[Among all donors] 64% of donations under $200 go to Republicans. 92% of donations over $1 million go to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000 …
I don’t know how it is in your neck of the woods, but around here, people who can afford to donate $100,000 or more to a political party aren’t middle class by any standard defintion.
There is also research showing that the really rich (meaning, not small business owners or professionals) favor Democrats.
And both parties rely heavily on certain wealthy donors to finance their campaigns and operations. The fiction that rich people aren’t supporting Democratic campaigns, and not heavily involved in party decision making, may comfort the faithful, but it hardly comports with reality.
no_slushbox: The last two Republican presidents have been trust fund kids, while the last two Democratic presidents have been self made men who didn’t even have dads that stayed around.
The president isn’t the same as the party, and Clinton and Obama would still be in Arkansas and Illinois, respectively, if a lot of rich people hadn’t given money to the Democrats to help get them elected.
no_slushbox: The biggest generators of wealth in the country, people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, lean left, and have made the vast majority of their wealth.
The biggest generators of wealth and employment are small businesses, and their owners tend to vote Republican.
“People that want to keep the government out of Medicare are idiots, nobody should refrain from calling them that.”
Great example of how character assassination poisons debating issues.
I’m guessing you haven’t spent any time talking with administrators or hospital executives to understand exactly the bath they’re taking in Medicare reimbursements.
I’m also guessing you don’t really care about what they think… unless of course said hospital is the one closest to where you live and has to cut clinical staff or shut down straightaway.
psharjinian: People vote for dumb stuff all the time. If your intending to take away the right for stupid people to vote, or for somehow preventing the passage of stupid laws, then I’d like to know how you’re proposing it.
People can vote for dumb stuff. This is true. What I object to is the government giving money to a group that it, in turn, will use it to push or promote its agenda.
psharjinian: This is how modern social democracy works: you elect people, they do stuff, you get to hold a referendum on how good a job they did representing your interests. If you don’t like what they did, but the majority of people either don’t care or do like it, tough noogies, it’s your job to campaign harder for what you want.
But that’s different from giving groups government money to lobby in favor of their initiatives or pet causes.
psharjinian: As soon as we start thinking that we’re automatically smarter or better or “more right” than everyone else, we get into serious trouble. Your arguments are valid in terms of debate and I’d encourage you to make your representative aware of them, but demonizing those who oppose you as somehow less worthy of having an opinion because they’re “special interests” is not healthy.
The issue really isn’t whether they are right or not; the issue is whether they should be getting taxpayer money to do this.
For example, I oppose ANY government – state, local or federal – giving money to the National Motorists’ Association (NMA) in this country for lobbying purposes, even though I agree with them on many issues. The NMA can lobby for its causes on its own.
psharjinian: I think we need to be clear, here. I’m not arguing for either position here because I don’t really care that much about traffic law in the UK, I’m arguing against the tone of the posting. In this case, I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s a small group of people enforcing what they want on a larger group just because we’re arbitrarily deciding the size of the groups in question.
I believe that the issue is that groups are using taxpayer money to lobby for measures that most people oppose, and said groups wouldn’t make much headway without receiving those government funds.
If the ideas were really that popular, I would think that these groups would have no trouble raising money on their own from voluntary contributions.
In this country, for example, the National Rifle Association (NRA), abortion-rights groups and various environmental groups have no trouble raising money through private donations or memberships.
psharjinian: Most Britons might support this. Who can say?
If the majority of Britons supported the groups’ ultimate goal – dramatically reducing car use – then these groups wouldn’t need to use taxpayer money to advocate measures like making roads narrower or taxing people who drive to work (especially given that an employer-provided parking space is likely a perk that costs the employer money, and therefore has reduced the driver’s salary).
People would be turning in their cars on their own.
Usually what I’ve seen is that people support curbing OTHER PEOPLE’S car use. They still want to drive. Much like many abortion foes have availed themselves to abortion services, or many gun-control advocates carry guns, or employ full-time bodyguards who do (Rosie O’Donnell, for example). They want to regulate OTHER PEOPLE’S behaviors, not their own.
How in the hell are we gonna kill all the teenagers with a speed limit of 20mph. Jeez, way to think ahead UK! hehe
psharjinian: ” See the problem? You have to be careful who you call a “special interest group” because everyone, in one way or another, is a member of a special interest group. That’s how society works.”
Which is kind of why no one should get government grants, isn’t it; as that distorts public debate, hence violates free speech. But since this is a motorist site, can it really be expected to pay as much attention to the trampling of the rights of neo Nazis as to those of drivers?
jkross22 :
“People that want to keep the government out of Medicare are idiots, nobody should refrain from calling them that.”
Great example of how character assassination poisons debating issues.
jkross, I think the comment was pointing out that Medicare is a governmental program, so it would be impossible to keep the government out of it. It was not a comment about the efficiencies of the program.
Can’t wait for Jezza to get a hold of this one!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/