Shameless And Cynical?

The fine line between which areas are appropriate or not with which to criticise a politician is sometimes difficult to ascertain. For example are the family members of politicians off limits to criticism? It could be considered that politician family's privacy should largely be respected. Michael Portillo put this point rather forcefully earlier this week to Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine over her vindictive criticism of Ed "two kitchens" Miliband.

But in contrast what happens when said "happy family" is used as electioneering material such as by Cecil Parkinson and Chris Huhne only then for us to later find out what a sham it all was? Does criticism then become justified?

Very obviously the bereavements suffered by both Gordon Brown and David Cameron over the loss of a child should be completely off limits. Yet while both men would understandably at times wish to be open about such a loss, there is always the difficulty of determining if such openness is being done for political reasons.

And this brings me onto Farage. I always remember that leading up to the 2010 election, Farage gave an interview to Camilla Long of the Sunday Times. What stuck in my mind was not that clearly the article in question had an agenda to undermine Farage but that it did so by openingly mocking the fact that he reportedly had testicular cancer in his youth.

In terms of the depths that the media can sometimes plummet to we can compare this to the media treatment of the great Victorian statesman, Gladstone. He was at times vitriolically disliked - Queen Victoria famously commented that "[Gladstone] speaks to me as if I were a public meeting". Yet despite the remorseless abuse from such satirical publications as Punch rarely, if ever, was Gladstone's disability mocked - that he lost fingers on one hand due to a shooting accident.

Interestingly where Farage is concerned we move on five years from 2010, where we see today in the Telegraph it has extracts from Farage's new book, where very 'candidly' he talks about his health:

Mr Farage, now 50, says the plane crash, combined with the effects of another car accident in his twenties, “has left me with a body 20 years older”.

It's worth noting that the car accident in question was the consequence of being too drunk and walking out in front of a moving vehicle. However:

The National Health Service “almost killed me”, Nigel Farage says today as he reveals that his body is now so frail that he could be registered disabled.

It is indeed curious that while UKIP still haven't publicly put forward any coherent polices in the lead up to a general election, despite a promise to have a manifesto published by their Spring Conference in Margate, Farage has managed to have another 'leader's book' published - essentially an updated version of 'Fighting Bull'. Maybe it's a coincidence but it conveniently ensures that the spotlight is largely on him running up to an election.

So we have to consider that with 'timing' being everything in politics whether the release of his new book, titled 'Purple Revolution' is candid or simply just shameless and cynical. A line seems to have been crossed over whether Farage and his health difficulties are now being exploited as an attempt at electoral gain. The title alone suggests an attempt to own the rise of UKIP and the eurosceptic movement.

It's also interesting that Farage has agreed to have the book be serialised for money in the Telegraph - a paper which is usually hostile to UKIP and nominally a Conservative supporting paper.

With this in mind it is indeed interesting that Farage has a great to say about his poor health, including revealing that his body is now so frail that he could be registered disabled. This rather contradicts his message at UKIP's Spring Conference at Margate recently:

There has been a lot of speculation about where have I been, why have not been on the television all the time. This has been led to my opponents to spread some speculation about my health that I am seriously ill and that is why I have not been seen.

I hate to disappoint my opponents but can I make it clear that rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” 

So not only is the timing curious but someone it appears is making things up as he goes along. Farage then continues:

An MRI scan followed at the private London Bridge Hospital, and I was referred to Mr Bhupal Chitnavis, a top-dollar consultant neurosurgeon. He said he was shocked by the damage to my neck and that, if I wanted, he would sign me off as being partially disabled for the rest of my life. I certainly did not want one of those blue badges — it would be conceding defeat — but it was a shocking moment.

Now there's no doubt Farage suffered injuries as a result of the plane crash:

Where the issue lies is his casual link deployed between being a Blue Badge holder and being registered partially or fully disabled.

Leaving aside the sentiment that apparently being a blue badge holder means conceding defeat - no doubt that 2.58 million blue badge holders would contest otherwise and would probably take offense at the term "those blue badges", being registered disabled is different and is a misleading term.

Under the Equality Act it has such a varied broad definition, that it could apply to anything, including those perceived to be disabled and those associated with a disabled person (e.g. a parent or partner). The principle of the Equality Act is that discrimination on grounds of disability happens in all sorts of ways to all sorts of people.

The real test in our view of being genuinely disabled is whether you qualify for a Blue Badge and or DLA/PIP benefits. Here the criteria is far more strict; as an example if you have a permanent or substantial disability which means you can’t walk or find walking very difficult you are still required to take further assessments before a blue badge is issued.

As is obvious by the above photograph with Farage walking away from a plane crash and his current twitter status - "back on the campaign trail" - he would have absolutely no chance of being eligible for a blue badge.

We only conclude then that what we have is a rather shameless and cynical appeal for the sympathy vote.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

There's no question that an "out" campaign in any referendum faces a significant challenge when it is against a very powerful EU movement which has the means and money to outgun us. There is also no doubt that unfair tactics will be used in abundance. In addition we mustn't forget that the "in" campaign in terms of argument and narrative only has to draw (to maintain the status quo) while the "out" campaign has to make the case for winning.

In many ways therefore we are disadvantaged - we are fighting against formidable odds yet as I have noted previously we do have advantages on our side. However with a referendum it's actually our own side, perhaps surprisingly, which is more likely to contribute to our potential defeat.

Earlier this week I had a very fine lunch with passionate anti-EU campaigners White Wednesday and Jason Kent - who is a local Oxfordshire UKIP member and general election agent. Among the many issues discussed there was one which expressed a sense of frustration that the "out" side is less than unified in coming together to adopt a winning strategy to leave. It's a frustration I fully share.

An intriguing problem is that the "out" side has long consisted of strong-willed individuals. But while the individuality and diversity of the "out" camp in many ways should be celebrated - a trait which is the antithesis of the borg-like EU - it's that very trait which often means we are usually nothing more than an 'unorganised rabble' unable to unify behind a coherent positive message or campaign; each with their own egos, own agendas and petty squabbles. Thus when we face a very formidable enemy such diversity will count against us.

The very informative 1975 referendum book by Butler and Kitzinger documents a little nugget which neatly and vividly illustrates this 'herding cats' problem back in 1975:

The main elements in the National Referendum Campaign (the anti-marketeers) were the Common Market Safeguards Campaign and Get Britain Out (GBO)...

There was considerable hostility between these two bodies; following the failure of either the Anti-Common Market League or Safeguards to fulfill an alleged promise to contribute to the cost of a bookstall at Blackpool for the Conservative Conference in 1973.

[GBO's] Christopher Frere-Smith and Richard Body had withdrawn from Safeguards...and Ron Leighton was recruited as full-time Director bringing with him all his Safeguards experience and contacts...

The 1975 referendum campaign could claim to have excuses for such failings though; they had no experience to draw upon and they had little time to prepare. In contrast we have no such excuses yet in many ways we seem determined to repeat many of the same mistakes that were made in 1975.

The crucial aspect of any campaign is to appeal to the waverers - the 'soft middle' - which is mostly decidedly undecided. Thus any "out" campaign which tries to appeal to the likes of Nick Clegg is a waste of time as indeed it would be to the readers of this blog and others. A situation we could consider was aptly summed up by the actress Julia Roberts who played a prostitute in the film Pretty Woman:

I appreciate the whole seduction thing you've got going on here, but let me give you a tip: I'm a sure thing.

Yet we get the sense that the eurosceptic movement in general cannot move outside a comfort zone - failing to try to appeal to those who are not a 'sure thing'. Instead they continually try to seduce those who have already made up their minds.

And this is where Flexcit comes in; by removing the uncertainty of exit, by negating the status quo effect and by circumventing big business self-interest who believe that the EU and the Single Market are the same thing we have a genuine chance of appealing to the soft important middle and winning a referendum.

But sadly we still see that the diversity of the eurosceptic movement means that many arguments have not changed in many years - it is a reflection of the lack of ability to move on; in stark contrast to the EU which has done so with subsequent treaties. Lisbon being the obvious latest one.

Thus it leaves us with old tired canards such as how many laws are made by the EU. This has been an obsession within the eurosceptic movement for as long as it has been about. Does it really matter if 64.6% of laws are made in the EU? And if so is that better than 64.5% or 55.8%. Is 9.8% acceptable? More importantly does it appeal to the public. Since the banking collapse in 2008 and the likes of Starbucks aggressively avoiding tax, the public mood could be said to be in favour of more regulation.

All a 'Westminster village' type campaign to try to determine the percentage of EU laws amounts to, quite bluntly, is a penis measuring competition within the eurosceptic movement as to who can come up with the most 'accurate' figure. Naturally this then leads to arguments within the movement over the exact figure inhibiting us from turning our fire onto the opposition. No wonder that Europhile campaigners are willing to engage in such a discussion; it helps divide us.

Yet not only does an uncoordinated rabble make for a incoherent message but its inherent weakness means it essentially vacates the territory leaving it vulnerable to be infiltrated by someone else with less than honest intentions.

When a referendum campaign starts, there has to be an official bid to the Electoral Commission to represent the "out" campaign where a very substantial amount of funding will be available. We saw the process of this with Scotland; Better Together whose official Campaign Director was Blair McDougall and Yes Scotland whose chief executive was Blair Jenkins.

It's here the weakness of the diversity of the "out" campaign can be exploited by the pro-EU establishment which can install and control the opposition general. Already we can see indications of this happening with Business for Britain and in particular Matthew Elliott.

BfB gives a "voice" to Roger Bootle who stitched up the IEA prize, and a platform to other supporters such as Alan Halsall, Neville Baxter and Robert Hiscox to name but three who have supported the recently publicly outed pro-EU think tank Open Europe.

More than a few in the eurosceptic movement are unimpressed with Elliott's ill-disguised ambitions to further his own career, as a potential MP, on the back of a referendum campaign, nor are they impressed with his sycophantic nature towards Tory politicians...obviously with his career in mind.

With Cameron exerting undue influence over Elliott, his abysmal record with NOtoAV where he had to be bailed out by senior members of the Tory party such was the nature of the poor campaign, nothing should worry the eurosceptics more than for Elliott to win the bid for the official "out".

By 'deliberately' losing the referendum he can be assured of Tory gratitude with rewards to match. If Elliott takes control in an EU referendum we would have lost before we started.

Thus elements of the eurosceptic movement has to grow up, accept the Boolean nature of a referendum and start preparing for a dirty fight if we are to win.

The Telegraph's Race To The Bottom

For those unversed in motorsport, or more specifically Formula One, Spanish driver Alonso - one of its best drivers of the current generation - is at the centre of speculation concerning a head injury as a result of a high speed crash.

The Spaniard crashed his McLaren into the wall during pre-season testing at the Circuit de Catalunya on 22 February and reportedly was concussed. As a result he was airlifted to hospital where he spent three nights and has now been advised not to start the season opening in Melbourne. Clearly and rightly it is being treated seriously and McLaren's lack of openness regarding the situation suggests there maybe more to it than is being made public.

Certainly as any F1 fan acutely appreciates in recent years head injuries are not to be treated lightly; as evident on recent occasions with Michael Schumacher and Jules Bianchi last season. Such details are not for the Telegraph who via Judith Wood, under the section of F1 News informs us that Alonso is a lucky man because:,

...the Spaniard was so badly concussed he initially lost his memory and believed he was a boy again. Most striking was that his 13-year-old-self told doctors that his ambition was to be a Formula 1 driver. Twenty years on, he is living his (admittedly dangerous) dream. How many of us can say that?

I dimly recall that at 13 I wanted to be a nun. Weirdly, my husband entertained the idea of becoming a pillar hermit, à la Simeon Stylites – before and not after he married me, since you ask. We both drifted into journalism, about which I’m very pleased in particular, because it has meant I have been able to meet Donny Osmond.

There is much to be said for following your heart. But if you are happiest sailing or cooking or raising children, realising those ambitions might not be how you earn a living. What all 13-year-olds have in common is a sense of passion and endless possibility – and it’s holding on tight to those that counts, whether you drive a McLaren-Honda or take Holy Orders.

And there we have it, a head injury reduced down to the level of tittle tattle. We shouldn't be surprised, this is from the same journalist (I use the term loosely) who has a recent article about what happens to dogs when a couple breaks up.

No wonder that increasingly if we want proper news, and not just with sport, we have to go elsewhere.

BBC License Tax Bullies

It is well documented that the state broadcaster known as the BBC has an institutional left wing bias, or more accurately perhaps we should describe it as has having a Guardian-based (London centric) bias - which is not necessarily the same thing.

More objectionable, from this blog's point of view, is BBC bias regarding membership of the EU - this becomes acutely apparent with its EU coverage. Leaving aside the techniques it used in the early '70s of removing "anti-marketeer" broadcasters at the behest of the then Tory Heath government, subsequent and various internal reports have detailed the fundamental lack of BBC impartiality.

The BBC's own internal reports acknowledges albeit very reluctantly the problem of EU coverage - this is evident in the infamous Wilson report for example. The BBC's "we've listened but we'll do nothing" response to the Wilson Report is very familiar to any of us who have complained - as taxpayers our impotency is laid bare by BBC's stock answers which amount to little.

The Wilson report is not the only accusation of BBC pro-EU bias - further independent analysis of BBC coverage of EU matters has delivered more damning evidence:

Consistent airtime imbalance between advocacy and presentation of the Europhile perspective and the Eurosceptic case in an overall ratio of 2:1.

Consistent presentational bias (in the limited time allocated) through treating Eurosceptic opinion as extreme rather than as an alternative policy approach ñ reflecting and supported by public opinion ñ to membership of the EU.

Poor journalistic standards, including inaccurate reporting of statistics and sources. For example, the BBC Programme Complaints Unit has acknowledged that figures on Irish inward investment were used misleadingly.

The wrong use of these figures influenced the coverage of the second Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice in October 2002.

Of course it's not helpful trying to persuade us that the BBC is impartial when it receives millions from the EU itself; funding which it tries to hide. Those of us who have fought for many years know the BBC pro-EU bias, and certainly I experienced it directly as a Parliamentary candidate in the 2010 election on a number of occasions.

Further suspicion of its significant lack of impartiality comes when we consider that the BBC, being a state broadcaster, was immune from EU single market competition rules in 2002:

Finally, part 5 gives Ofcom tough competition powers to act concurrently with the Office of Fair Trading. Ofcom will be able to use general competition powers, but we are also retaining, very importantly, sector-specific competition rules for broadcasting—a vital part of protecting markets that do not deliver key policy objectives purely by leaving them to competition alone. Ofcom will have flexibility to use sector-specific powers, but it will not use them where it would be more appropriate for it to use general competition powers.

Of course we would argue that the BBC can be as bias as it like except for the simple fact that its funding in the main comes from threats to send UK citizens to jail on failure to pay its television tax. Thus it has an inherent principle that it should be bound to be impartial. Failure to do so makes it morally right to withdrawal our funding.

It then clearly fails, and with this in mind it's odd then to observe that a nation which comprehensively rejected a poll tax under Margaret Thatcher is largely willing to accept what is a poll tax on a widely used item which provides information. A poll tax which is regressive and so affecting the poorest the greatest.

Aside from being regressive it is a television poll tax which enables the BBC to essentially be immune from market forces - no-one has to take responsibility for institutional and systematic failings.

In addition to the lack of accountability, it also means that the BBC has the power to try to bully those who do not conform when it comes to paying the television tax. YouTube has a plethora of examples of bullying when it comes to collecting the television tax.

Nothing can demonstrate this culture better than the BBC's notorious and sinister 'Big Brother' type propaganda; "We know where you live". Oddly this particular BBC advert for its license fee, which was withdrawn after protests, has proved to be harder to find on the internet than we would reasonably assume for a relatively recent campaign,

And it is for these reasons I no longer pay my license fee and I haven't for around five years. Using a PlayStation 3 (PS3) or now a PS4 to view television programmes on demand removes me from the need to legally have a license. In addition I have withdrawn TVL's implied right of access to my property and that so far seems to have done the job in terms of being harassed. I rarely receive reminder notices nor have I ever had a "visit".

Yet just this week a young single mum, who has three children and lives not far from me, has been on my doorstop in tears. I have known her for over 10 years. Financially restricted she doesn't pay her tv license.  Yet while she was briefly visiting her neighbours, a TVL Visting Officer (VO) entered her property having been let in by her 11 year eldest child. There where no adults in the property at the time. As a consequence TVL are trying now to use evidence gained as a result against her.

This completely contrary to the guidelines which are perfectly clear:

Entry To Premises.

7.0 When there is admitted or suspected evasion, or where the interviewee claims that there is no television, the VO should ask permission to enter the premises in order to confirm this.

Premises must never be entered when the only person present is a child/minor.

We would view that entering a property with only minors present would not only be a legal problem but also one which a VO would consider puts them in a position of vulnerability regarding accusations of inappropriate behaviour. How revealing that didn't occur to him in his enthusiasm to fulfill a target.

The requirement to pay for a TV license comes under the Communications Act 2003 and Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended). A licence is not needed simply for holding a television set itself, but merely makes it an offence to watch or record television programmes as they are being broadcast including on other platforms such as; satellite and cable channels, mobile phones and the internet.

So how ironical that it's not the bullying nature of the license fee collectors that will undermine the BBC...but technology, which is embraced by the BBC itself.

The Decline Of The Westminster System: The Fusion Of Powers

 

As we edge closer to the general election in May, it is rather inevitable that the polling would show a trend in decline regarding UKIP's support, which has been consistently argued by EUReferendum:

Talk of a major Ukip "revolution" at the general election looks to have been seriously overblown, says Politics.co.uk, a view based on new constituency polling released by Lord Ashcroft.

The data show that Ukip is not on course to win any of its key target seats currently held by the Conservatives. Most worrying for the party, we are told, in the poll of Boston and Skegness - where Ukip won its largest majority in last year's council elections – it has been pushed back into second place.

There are a myriad of reasons for a decline in UKIP's poll rating. As has been well documented here and elsewhere, such as Complete Bastard, is that UKIP's problems have in the main been self inflicted. There is a fundamental lack of coherence, a geographical divide in message - depending on Labour areas or Tory ones, no fully worked out policies, and u-turns in under 24 hours at the whim of the party's leader.

So-called policies which do manage to remain intact, on its website, are almost identical to the ones contained within the 2010 manifesto which Farage infamously dismissed as drivel.

Thus, with the decline in UKIP support, we can note with wry amusement that UKIP will be having their Spring Conference in Margate - where apparently we will see the launch of UKIP's manifesto. For those who may have not visited Margate recently, it would be described by estate agents euphemistically as 'tired'. Many of its attractions, like the Winter Gardens, are in need of urgent repair.

However we also consider that the UKIP has an inherent problem, which is not entirely its fault, and that is the failings of the "Westminster System" and First Past The Post. 'Winning' the Euro elections is one thing, but with the business end of a Parliament coming to its end, and a looming election, the electorate have real choices to make. Ultimately they have to make a decision on who they would like as Prime Minister. UKIP is going to face a squeeze in an electoral process that is a Presidential System by proxy.

As Tory Michael Heseltine noted on BBC's Question Time last night (04:30 mins in):

"There's only one choice Cameron and Tories and economic recovery or Miliband and Balls the people who caused the economic problems in the first place."

The Westminster System is no longer about electing MPs but electing Prime Ministers by proxy. Further confirmation comes with the forthcoming leaders' debates which we have criticised here.

Interestingly we can also look back to the 19th Century to make our case with Chartism. Chartism: A New History by Malcolm Chase is a fascinating account of a British mass movement for democratic rights in the 19th Century.

Chartism was one of the very rare moments in British history where it is legitimate to speculate how close the country came to revolution. And what is interesting is Chase's attention to detail which allows the story to come alive for those in the 21st Century. One intriguing passage was this regarding the presentation of the first petition:

The Petition was finally presented to the House of Commons on Friday 14 June 1839. Few Chartists had expected it to make a difference to parliamentary attitudes and in this respect 14 June did not disappoint. No indication was given whether MPs would formally debate it, and when Attwood and Fielden...rolled the giant [petition] into the Commons chamber it was greeted with laughter.

And Chase then describes the attempts to present the massive second petition in 1842:

[It was arranged] to bring 'the Chartist leviathan petition' direct to the Commons chamber while it was in session. But...Parliament's officials had realised the physical problem this posed. The Petition became jammed tight in the Members' Entrance. Attempts were made to dismantle...part of the door frame; but eventually the Petition had to be disassembled and taken into pieces into the Commons. Heaped up on the floor of the chamber, it dwarfed the clerks' table on which, technically, it was supposed to be placed.

One senses here the familiar futility of lobbying a system that would not listen. But those with a keen eye will notice that the Chartists' leviathan petitions, in 1839 and 1842, were delivered to Parliament. Not to Government, not to Number 10, but to Parliament - to representatives.

In stark contrast we now see petitions presented to the Prime Minister (government), and with the rise of e-petitions such process is now made official:

Alone this little detail illustrates that the people now, perhaps unconsciously, have appreciated how the power has been consolidated and fused between the government and Parliament. Bypass the monkeys - the middle men - and go straight for the organ grinder. And it's with great irony, that Chartists tried to petition representatives when they had no vote and now in the age of universal suffrage we no longer bother.

Thus if we want an effective 'people's army' and a 'revolution' we need to fundamentally change our failed parliamentary system. Demand #3 of the Harrogate Agenda is as good as place to start as any:

3. Separation of powers:
The executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;

That Was Quick

Unfortunately on Sunday, our car was hit, and significantly damaged, in a car park while parked for about half an hour. It's more an inconvenience than anything else to get it fixed and unsurprisingly no note etc was left on the windscreen as to details regarding the driver who damaged our car. This always somewhat annoys me but I accept it happens.

However four days later (today) my mobile has been inundated with copious calls from an 0843 number which when answered begins with a recorded message that announced they had details of an accident I’d been involved in the last couple of days, and they would apparently like to help me gain compensation. The details seem rather specific to be merely a random call, especially as my mobile is registered with TPS.

We're insured with RSA, who via their website apparently take privacy seriously, and so they should as it has to fulfill EU related data protection requirements. Given that RSA are the only ones who have been officially informed of said incident perhaps they'd like to explain how such details have made their way to an "ambulance chasing" firm.

Football Thuggery

Whatever you do, don't take an inflatable football into Forest Green Rovers' ground otherwise you can expect "the Treatment" from the stewards...

Stewards at Forest Green ejected a Grimsby Town fan from the ground before kick off - apparently for playing with an inflatable football. 

Several people - including at least six stewards were seen to physically eject the man from the ground, and one appeared to have him in a headlock.

London

Mrs TBF and I have just returned from spending a nice relaxing few days in London, not only celebrating our anniversary, but a chance to be away from work - and in this blog's case politics.

Thus with this in mind, I'm keen to leave aside temporarily the political problems of the "Westminster bubble", and begin with what can be described in an unusually English upbeat observation that London as a city to explore and visit is, in my view, one of the finest in the world...albeit with some understandable failings.

I have visited London on so many occasions since my childhood and have frequented not only most of the usual tourist parts, but sporting venues, conferences and other copious personal related ventures. Yet it constantly amazes me that no matter how many times I visit, there are always great areas and places that I have never been to or even heard of.

One of the reasons, and the most obvious, is that London is rather large, not as much as some other world cities admittedly but its size is significantly disproportionate to the size of a relatively small island. But alone this cannot describe London's appeal. Los Angeles is also a large sprawling city yet it is the worst in my experience I have ever visited - in short it's a dump.

Many tourist city guides tend to recommend visitors stay in relatively safe 'tourist areas' - with a dash of common sense - and in contrast warn of the dangers of completely separate "never visit after dark" areas. LA manages to combine the two along just one street (Hollywood Boulevard) ...epitomised by the Hollywood film Pretty Woman, where the film attempted to glamorise the best bits of LA by having Julia Roberts play a prostitute. So size is clearly not everything.

Another advantage with London is that it simply has a lot of history; peppered as it is with thousands of historic properties, as well as four World Heritage Sites (Greenwich, Tower, Kew and Westminster) adding in scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks. What other major world city has such a comprehensive and informative blue plaque scheme allowing casual visitors to connecting buildings with the past?

This is the city I have long known, yet despite being largely familiar with London it was interesting that on this occasion it was the first time we visited the capital properly while utilizing a wheelchair. Navigating a city with the limitations that a wheelchair poses reveals a different aspect of a city, its culture and all the nuances which emerge. Not all of it initially obvious.

In our post in June last year criticism was made of wheelchair access regarding Brussels and in particular - and rather ironically - EU buildings. In contrast it can be safely argued that wheelchair access on London's public pavements is largely spot on in comparison.

Gently sloped dropped kerbs with tactile paving are abound. It's worth noting that tactile paving not only helps those who have sight disability to find the edge of the kerb but also acts as "foot traction" for those pushing trying to tame a 'runaway' wheelchair on a slope in wet weather which could otherwise lead to slipping and falling over.

And blimey isn't London 'hilly'- perhaps memories play tricks but it isn't as flat I had always thought it was. I guess it should be obvious that being on a flood plain, and much of it being built around the Thames, that areas of London unsurprisingly slopes significantly towards the river, but it doesn't truly become apparent until you have to push a wheelchair away from the river - essentially uphill.

Whenever I have previously visited London I have opted to use the Tube to travel around London. For obvious reasons on this occasion due to better accessibility we stuck to London taxis. I'd forgotten how good they were.

Each taxi came with its own ramp, the drivers were unfailing polite and helpful and they put themselves out to the most extraordinary inconvenience to drop us off to make Mrs TBF's life a little easier, to the extend of holding up a road of busy traffic. Another 'interesting' feature of them, as Bill Bryson noted, is they cannot drive more than 200 feet in a straight line before charging down another obscure street you never knew existed.

Another attraction of London, and a major tourist one is its pubs. Old London pubs can be a particular nuisance if you are tall, as most of the toilets are 'downstairs' which requires not only navigating restricted stair access but low ceilings when in the facilities.

Invariably also these same pubs have steps outside the front door which provide a further obstacle for wheelchair bound customers. Yet many pubs were helpful with ramps and lifting. However it's with some irony that the more modern pubs which had removed steps for a slope for the front door didn't carry on that thinking for the rest of the pub.

A classic example was the Slug and Lettuce in Leicester Square, despite no steps into the premises, all of its 'wheelchair access available seating' was of the tall chair variety, pictured below:

And that helps a disabled person how? We suspect it's not malicious just a lack of thought- undoubtedly they've figured out, along with many other 'concept' pubs, that tall chairs and standing increases the alcohol consumption.

Public buildings, in contrast tend to be better and go out of their way to help even if for very obvious reasons medieval ones like cathedrals and castles do not lend themselves fully to those who don't have complete mobility. Here Westminster Abbey was no exception.

Of all the major London attractions I've always been reluctant to visit the Abbey in the past due to its ongoing standing prohibitive cost, despite being someone who greatly admires and extensively enjoys visiting medieval buildings. The Abbey, even by London standards, is expensive. It is sad that this is the case for anyone interested in British history, architecture and as an active place of worship. The expensive entrance price doesn't allow photography inside even without a flash.

However for a wheelchair user, along with a carer, the entrance was free - mainly due to large parts of the building being inaccessible. Thus, after many years, I was able to take in, and appreciate, the internal architectural delights of the Abbey (in the absence of the somewhat overpriced entrance fee I gave a voluntary donation).

The volunteers within the Abbey though couldn't have been more helpful, even with little details like providing, without prompting, a hands free version of the audio guide to those whose hands are tied up with pushing wheelchairs.

So what to make of Westminster Abbey itself? Oddly despite its religious heritage, and more recently the wedding of William and Kate, the Abbey really feels more like a memorial to Britain’s more famous figures than a place of worship.

What is noticeable from the outset is the incredible number of memorials, plaques and statues to famous rulers, artists, and poets that has been packed into the building. In this sense no other Abbey or Cathedral in England is like it and as consequence the religious imagery is much less noticeable here.

Given the overwhelming tributes within the building to leaders of establishment - Prime Ministers, Kings etc - it leaves us puzzled why the tribute is not reciprocated in the form of formal contributions to its upkeep:

What is less well known is that Westminster Abbey receives no regular funding from the Crown, the Church of England or the government.Neither a cathedral nor a parish church, Westminster Abbey was established as a ‘Royal Peculiar’ in 1560 by Queen Elizabeth I. The Abbey is outside the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Church of England and the Government. In short, this means we must seek our own financial support.

So instead an overpriced ticket paid for by the hoi polloi it is. The Abbey, among many others, serves as the final resting place of Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin, and Laurence Olivier, and also features memorials to William Shakespeare, Admiral Horatio Nelson, Jane Austen, and Oscar Romero (who are all buried elsewhere - Jane Austin for example in Winchester). 

My personal view having wandered around is this desire within an Abbey to have so many plaques, especially in Poets' Corner, largely of non-religious nature contrary to its function becomes borderline tacky and I would include, slightly controversially, the grave of the Unknown Warrior pictured above. More a tourist existence than a dignified tribute.

An interesting architectural feature, and again rather unique and largely unseen on television coverage of royal occasions, is use of iron stabilisation bar supports around the central part of the Abbey to prop up the pillars which disappointingly suggests a fundamental instability of the original Gothic structure.

Anyway I'm glad I've seen it and equally pleased it didn't cost Mrs TBF and I £40 to enter.

Moving on from Westminster Abbey, just along the road, we had a quick look at New Scotland Yard. Not surprisingly for a fortified Police Station the place was adorned with CCTV, fences and intimidating looking Policeman guarding every entrance. They probably guarded the front entrance as well but it was hard to tell where the front entrance was. Unwelcoming NSY was, and as I've noted before much can be garnered from a building about an institution's culture.

But still there was always the iconic revolving triangle sign to observe:

Which now appears right in the middle of a public pavement; outside the confines of NSY, on its own, which at the time I visited was patrolled by a PCSO:

So the iconic sign is in a public space with plastic plod to look after it, but the rest of the building is not easily accessible by members of the public and is guarded by proper plod. It's not quite how it looks on television. We should know our place.

Ultimately though London, despite its quirks, is pretty kind to those who are wheelchair bound, including the British public who were very helpful.

Mrs TBF and I rounded off a pleasant few days by going to see Shaun the Sheep The Movie - this review is pretty much right. What a delightful, funny and 'British' film it is.

Essentially it is a 90 minute silent stop motion film made for under 10's which is an impressive feat in itself. It's obviously been made with loving care and to keep the adults amused it sneaks in plenty of references to films such as Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redemption, Silence of the Lambs and Chopper.

After it had finished we caught a cab only to hear Farage on the radio regarding a little local difficulty in Rotherham.

And so back to the real world with a bump...

Parish Notice

I had intended to have part 2 up of the EU and Telecoms piece up this evening (Tuesday), however time is short this week and I would like to do the so far unfinished piece justice rather than rush it, not least because I have recently come across documentation that shows Norway has more say within its EEA agreement then the UK does over telecommunications; notably its Electronic Communications Act and also its Personal Data Act.

What becomes very obvious when researching the impact of the copious regulations on our country is the ridiculous myriad of EU and international competences which have seemingly no end and it can become quickly rather bewildering trying to follow and make sense of it all. But make sense of it and try to win a referendum we must.

We also note that the more we investigate Norway's EEA arrangements, the more it becomes apparent that not only does it have a much better deal than us within the Single Market (albeit not perfect) but it exposes further the deception or even ignorance of our own politicians regarding this issue.

And with that in mind, and this maybe harsh, I do rather resent that it's taking a small number of bloggers who are attempting to address these issues...unpaid...in their own time, in preparation for a possible referendum than a party which has significant funding via its now 23 MEPs yet literally pisses it up against the wall. This is all we get for our money.

We can win a referendum - we have many advantages over 1975 but we're in danger of needlessly repeating many of the mistakes.

But that said, time is currently short because Mrs TBF and I will be in London for the next few days celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary. In a few days we will return to normal service on this blog.

The EU And Telecoms (Part 1)

With this piece, in part 1, we turn our sights on the EU's complex role in member state telecommunications regulation, with emphasis on the UK. The above graph gives some indication of the intricate nature of telecommunications regulation within the EU and the partial subservient relationship for a member state such as the UK.

As can be seen above (click to enlarge) the UK's main regulator Ofcom has direct relationships with EU bodies which bypass UK ones, as well as having interaction domestically. The EU and UK regulatory structures increasingly are indistinguishable from each another.

Yet also the bewildering emergence and relentless progress of technology means we will also see that EU has only become a partial player in what is increasingly a global regulatory industry. This becomes evident when we consider that even within Europe itself where many functions are regulated beyond the EU.

An earlier example can be seen acutely with the establishment of the mobile phone standard GSM in the 1980s. GSM, with very little if at all EEC/EU involvement, was an illustration of European nation state co-operation and subsequently the GSM standard became a global success story.

The GSM agreement was reflected in the long standing establishment of non-EU bodies include the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the European Conference on Posts and Telecommunications (CEPT).

Despite the existence of non-EU bodies it is with no surprise, due to the inherent cross-border nature of telecommunications, that the EU saw the sector as an opportunity to use the growth of telecoms to try to facilitate 'ever closer Union' further.

Pre-Maastricht the EEC had attempted to use the Terminal Equipment Directive (88/301/EEC) - issued under Article 90 of the Treaty of Rome - to force the liberalisation of telecoms including the satellite and mobile markets. Despite Member States objecting on the basis it was outside the EEC's own competences (satellite communications for example have military implications) the ECJ after 30 months of legal wrangling upheld the Directive.

Naturally the solution for the EEC (EU) to such legal wrangling was to make communications a competence via a Treaty. Thus not long after, we see the clear intentions of the EU's ambitions when in the Maastricht Treaty (Article 129 D) it for the first time gave the EU competence in the field of telecommunications (my emphasis):

The Maastricht Treaty gave the EU the task of establishing and developing trans-European networks (TENs) in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy, in order to help develop the internal market, reinforce economic and social cohesion, link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union, and bring EU territory within closer reach of neighbouring states.

Even in the early 1990s telecommunications, which for obvious reasons was becoming a globalised industry, increasingly relied on global bodies to set global standards for convenience. The EU though envisaged the sector more as a mechanism and means to facilitate its own political union - despite the example of GSM and mobile technology where nation states had led and the EU had merely followed.

Typically then we saw in the early 1990s the EU arguing in favour of more telecommunications liberalisation with a view to completion of the internal market with an EU wide regulator. Emboldened by new powers in Maastricht led to the EU Commission launching a strong push to adopt a common strategy for the creation of a European information society driven by a European information infrastructure. In 1993, the Council of Ministers (EU) agreed to fully liberalise voice telephony services by 1 January 1998:

[The EU Commission] it is asking the Council to decide  on a number of principles contained in the Commission communication, in particular:

   -  the complete liberalization of services;
   -  a transitional period ending in 1998
   -  a precise schedule  in two main stages with a consolidation
      phase (1993-1995)  and a phase of gradual opening up to
      competition  (1996-1998);
   -  the role of infrastructures.

Following  its discussion,  the Council  instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue work on this dossier with  maximum efficiency,  in order to enable the Telecommunications Council convened for 16 June to arrive at an agreement.

In addition the European Council meeting of December 1993, in its Presidency Conclusions considered a European Commission policy paper - European Commission White Paper, Growth, Competitiveness, Employment - The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century, 1993 which argued:

The Community needs an adequate frame-work for the developing of new market opportunities. In Europe some sectors are traditionally the exclusive preserve of non-market services or public utilities, in particular when it comes to the fulfillment of public needs. Reforms aiming at separating the different functions of public authorities with regard to the supply of such services as producer, purchaser and regulator, in sectors such as health care, telecommunications, etc. should enable the needs of users to be better served at less cost for public finances and with market creation potential .

The Presidency Conclusion on behalf of Member States accepted the EU Commission White Paper noting:

A more decentralized economy, given the growing importance of the local level; the economy needs to be geared to the possibilities offered by the new technologies...

...the trend towards a decentralized economy, which has been made possible by new information technologies, must be encouraged....The European Council asks the
Commission to examine ways of achieving this objective.

Thus the European Council requested a report be prepared for its 1994 Corfu meeting by a group of prominent persons on the specific measures to be taken into consideration by the Community and the Member States for the infrastructures in the sphere of information.

Such a group 'of prominent persons' became known as the 'High Level Group on the Information Society' - organized by the Commission and chaired by the then Commissioner for the Internal Market and Industrial Affairs (soon to become the Commissioner for Industrial Affairs, Information and Telecommunications Technologies), Martin Bangemann - a former leader of the German Free Democratic Party (FDP).

By 1994 the High Level Group on the Information Society produced a report for the 1994 European Summit; "Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council" a report which became widely known as the Bangemann Report and was adopted by the European Council, Corfu, June 1994.

The report urged the European Union "to put its faith in market mechanisms as the motive power to carry [Europe] into the information age. This meant that actions must be taken at the European level and by Member States to strike down entrenched positions which put Europe at a competitive disadvantage."

The report proposed "fostering an entrepreneurial mentality to enable the emergence of new dynamic sectors of the economy; [a means of developing] a common regulatory approach to bring forth a competitive, Europe-wide, market for information services."

It then noted:

In addition to its specific recommendations, the group proposes an action plan of concrete initiatives based on a partnership between the private and public sectors to carry Europe forward into the information society.

The Bangemann Report was to have a very significant and lasting influence on the framing of subsequent EU policies for Information and Telecommunications Technologies (ICT) research and communication services. For many years following its publication the report was repeatedly cited as a kind of "Bible" by Commission documents and officials on a very wide spectrum of industrial and social policy initiatives. For example it was explicitly invoked as a framework for an important 1994 document setting out a new strategy for the audio- visual sector in the EU single market context and another paper in 1994 titled 'Europe's way to the Information Society: An Action Plan'.

Yet despite its significance within EU circles the Bangemann report was out of date almost as soon as it was written. It had largely ignored the emergence of the internet and what it did acknowledge was to highlight its basic lack of understanding and knowledge. Consequently it expressed a level of discomfort - page 27 (my emphasis):

Internet is based on a world-wide network of networks that is not centrally planned. In fact nobody owns Internet. There are now some 20 million users in more than 100 countries. The network offers electronic mail, discussion forums, information exchange and much more. Internet is so big, and growing so fast, that it cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it has flaws notably serious security problems. Rather than remaining merely clients, we in Europe should consider following the evolution of Internet closely, playing a more active role in the development of interlinkages.

In the meantime, while largely failing to anticipate or understand the internet, the liberalisation process in other telecommunications sectors was being extended post 1994, for example in satellite communications.

By 1995 via the American based GPS had became a system that had broken out of realms of science fiction and used as an everyday tool for navigation by private vehicles, ships and aircraft. The EU in response planned to install a rival system called Galileo where it recognised "the value of a space programme, of which Galileo is a part, in completing the process of European integration".

In contrast to the liberalisation process, and interestingly, the intention to adopt similar criteria to public broadcasting services (PBS) came with a great deal of reluctance - the EU itself noting that "the relationship of European Union policy and Public Broadcasting Services could be summarized as a historic dilemma without a clear answer. The balance between a strong European competition policy and public broadcasting survival has still to be found. Perhaps the text cited below explains the Gordian knot faced by European Union":

“We need balanced solutions able at the same time to respect two important points. The first is the basic function of Public Broadcasting Services in the most of EU Member States. This fact has been recognised recently in Amsterdam Treaty with the Public Broadcasting Protocol. The second is that European integration is based on free market and equal competition. The future of the dual European TV system depends on how we can be able to combine these two apparently incompatible principles” (The digital age: European Audiovisual Policy. Report from the high level group on audiovisual Policy, 1998).

In essence the EU faced a dilemma; how to make compatible its own competition rules with public state funding of PBS. Article 87 forbids the state aid, which distorts or threatens to distort competition, insofar as it affects trade between Member States but with broadcasting an exception was made which notably meant that PBS could remain publicly funded to ensure the promotion of the "democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism".

This role of public service broadcasting in promoting cultural diversity was recognised in 2005 by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

The reluctance of the EU was undoubtedly due to its appreciation that member states' PBS networks would be more sympathetic to its integration project under the guise of the 'cultural need' criteria. This becomes especially evident when we consider the BBC receives a substantial amount of money from the EU and possibly related (or not) has long been criticised for pro-EU bias.

Public broadcasting aside, generally from 1994 onwards, in the context of developing the 'information society', general liberalisation of telecommunications structures was presented as the way to develop multimedia - cable television networks were 'liberalised' in 1996, with mobile communications following on 1st January 1998.

Bangemann's report thus was hugely influential, and despite failing to anticipate properly or appreciate the approaching dominance of the internet, its vision of telecommunications liberalisation would influence the EU Commission's thinking regarding the internet.

The EU's determination to 'liberalise' markets resulted in a growth of "regulator watching", which followed closely the experiences of the privatisation drive in Member States particularly the UK. "Regulator watching", or a regulatory state, provided a convenient opportunity in extending EU governance across member states via a regulatory body.

By separating out the service provision by companies from sector oversight privatisation, and the creation of markets, allowed conditions to exist for the adoption of common rules by an independent regulatory body and the conditions of access to the market for new operators to be harmonised. All of which naturally increased the call for 'more Europe' under one EU regulator.

And in part 2 of the EU's effect on the telecoms industry we will see how it attempted to facilitate the emergence of an EU regulatory body.