Aspiration Nation? Boris Didn't Get The Memo

With all this talk from Cameron today about an 'aspiration nation', you might find this anecdote interesting on how his Tory colleague Boris is doing on that front in London.

The other night, I was dragged out to make up a pool team as a good friend was short (of a player, that is).

I haven't been out with this crowd for around 5 years so it was an interesting experience. I remember talking to one guy knowing that I knew him very well but not being able to remember his name as he had lost an incredible amount of weight. Looking at an almost skeletal face speaking with a voice which doesn't fit it can be very confusing. Ordinarily, I'd compliment him but having put my foot in it a couple of times previously by asking about circumstances which had changed dramatically, I just ignored it and hoped it wasn't a health thing (it wasn't, I later found out, even though he looked like a zombie to me).

One of the previous cringe-worthy moments was when asking a self-employed kitchen and bathroom fitter I hadn't seen since around 2007 how his wife and kids were. They'd since split up and he was with someone else. Not a big mistake, I hear you say, except that he was surprised I hadn't learned it via Facebook or others who know him.

I suppose you had to be there to assess the discomfort.

Anyway, I quickly shifted the conversation to more solid ground. His very successful sole trader business.

"All gone, I work for Royal Mail now", he said.

Now this really was a surprise. I know this guy was good, very good. Not only that, he was always willing to offer 'mate's rates' to people he calls friends which ensured gushing recommendations for further business. He was good at promoting himself and never short of work (a lot of which was in London).

"What happened?", I enquired.
"I had to sell my van", he replied.

I had visions of a divorce which left him on his uppers and scrambling for cash, but it wasn't his ex who caused the problem. Boris did.

"Yeah, it was too old and I was getting £100 penalties every time I drove in to London in it because of the London Emissions Zone (LEZ). There were only 58,000 miles on the clock, too!".

See, the operative word here is "sold". He didn't scrap it, he just sold it to someone who wasn't hamstrung by Boris's legislation. It's still being used somewhere. The environment wasn't saved but a decent business was encumbered by a substantial cost which wasn't economically viable.

Great work, Boris.

My own business has experience of something similar, but fortunately we're big enough to survive it comfortably.

Immediately on placing them on eBay Motors, we were inundated with enquiries and could pick and choose which buyers were offering the most cash. They were all sold in no time at all with just the matter of collection to arrange. 

The last two exited our premises today ... bound for Ukraine. Two others have been taken to Ireland, with the last of the five now somewhere on its way to Zimbabwe! 

It would appear that although the UK has very strict emissions regulations to save the impending environmental catastrophe, they don't seem to be as harsh elsewhere. I'm not too sure how this helps protect the polar bears, myself, unless the countries mentioned are somehow using a different atmosphere to us. Nope, I simply can't work out how re-arranging the planet's vehicular furniture is going to stop global warming. 

Naturally, accompanying the loss of those vehicles is the necessity to buy brand new (or very recent) replacements in order to get the most out of them before they too are declared obsolete by the state, and that, of course, increases our overheads.

End result is that - instead of paying taxes and being productive - the guy in question is working part time at the post office (claiming benefits as a result) and doing the odd job for cash if it's in his area and he can take his tools on the bus.

Now, I'm well aware that this guy has probably not played the situation as well as he could have done. I'm good enough with money that I'm confident I'd be able to source finance for a replacement or conversion under the same circumstances. However, this is a kitchen fitter we're talking here - one who is great with measurements but totally clueless when it comes to finance, especially when being self-employed in a time where bank lending is reported to be scarce.

The root problem, as usual, emanates from Brussels and their threat of fines for London if the city doesn't clean up to fit in with the EU's big, green save-the-planet plans. However, instead of passing these regulations reluctantly, Boris has embraced the idea and named it in his honour as The Mayor's Air Quality Strategy.

In the process, he has imposed massive costs on London taxi drivers for no discernible environmental benefit - in fact, it could be argued that all the new vehicles being manufactured will harm the planet more - and, as we see from the above, also adds costs to even the smallest of businesses. Some of which will obviously find it impossible to overcome.

Not much help on the transport score for the 'aspiration nation' from Boris, is there?

Steve Baker MP Looks Into Charity Sock Puppets

Steve Baker, one of the good guys in parliament as exhibited by his being DK's chosen blog mascot, has been submitting written questions on charities, their funding, and government's policy on the subsequent use of that funding for lobbying.

Here's his submission to Communities and Local Government.

Steven Baker (Wycombe, Conservative) 

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his Department's policy is on the (a) grant to and (b) use by registered charities of funding from his Department for the purposes of advocacy, lobbying or campaigning; and if he will make a statement.

Responding, Brandon Lewis makes a few interesting points (emphases mine).

Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth, Conservative) 

Ministers believe that it is inappropriate for taxpayers' money to subsidise such campaigning activity. 

Grants to external bodies outline how the funds should be spent and typically include a standard condition that the funds provided should not be spent on activities of a political nature. If hon. Members have concerns that grant recipients are acting inappropriately, Ministers would welcome this being brought to our attention. More broadly, since May 2010, my Department has taken steps to: 

Cancel all lobbying contracts held by our Department's public bodies, to stop the practice (common under the last Administration) of government lobbying government; 

Introduce a new “Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity” to tackle the use of lobbyists by local authorities; 

Publish online all departmental and arm’s length body spending over £500 (now moving to £250) to facilitate greater public scrutiny and accountability of the organisations we fund. 

The activities of registered charities are also governed by the Charities Act and guidance issued by the Charity Commission.

It all sounds very promising, doesn't it?

That it is inappropriate for taxpayers' money to subsidise campaigning is pretty obvious, but it's good that politicians are finally realising that fact and - at least on the surface - saying they will do something about it.  It's encouraging too that Lewis claims his department is attempting to "stop the practice of government lobbying government".

Of course, we're all well aware of a case recently where nearly half a million pounds flowed from government coffers to an offshoot of the state to lobby and campaign for just one proposed state policy. The exact definition of 'government lobbying government', if ever one was needed. In fact, so much of our taxes do these kinds of state-funded entities receive that MPs have trouble keeping track of it all.

There is also a high profile charity, to which government has been shovelling cash for over four decades, which does nothing else but "advocacy, lobbying or campaigning".

Baker has so far received responses from three identical questions like the one above. The other two were from the DfT and the DfID. As I understand it, MPs are only allowed a certain number of written questions per day so, if Baker has taken to asking this of all departments, there could be more to come.

The Department of Health's response could be a corker, don't you think?

Prohibition Is Bad, M'kay

Students for Sensible Drug Policy have highlighted a rather excellent online graphic novel on the similar failures shared by the war on drugs and 1920s alcohol prohibition (and, by extension, other future bans on popular products). Highly recommended.

You can read the full thing here. 

UK Government Acts Swiftly To Keep Plain Packaging Of Alcohol Possible

We're told that the UK government has an "open mind" on plain packaging. So open is it that they have taken to running a Cabinet Office representative off to Iceland to make sure it is not placed off the table by the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

To cut a long story short, according to international law expert Alberto Alemanno, Iceland recently refused a cider manufacturer entry to their market on the basis that their packaging was too - to coin a phrase - 'glitzy'.

Iceland heavily restricts the marketing (packaging) opportunities for alcohol products. It does so by limiting the permitted text and visual imagery typically depicted on the label. The rules governing the product selection undertaken by ÁTVR (The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland) provide that packaging and labeling may only contain certain information relating to the product, its production method or its properties, and that the ATVR cannot accept products if the text or visual imagery on the packaging contains inter alia loaded or unrelated information, or suggests that alcohol enhances physical, mental, social or sexual function, or if it offends people’s general sense of propriety, e.g. by referring to violence, religion, pornography, illegal drugs, political views, discrimination, criminal conduct, etc. 

It is on this basis that HOB, an importer of alcoholic beverages to Iceland, saw its products (cider produced and legally marketed in Denmark) denied access to the Icelandic market. HOB’s products are marketed in stylish and attractively decorated 33cl aluminium cans, featuring artful drawings, including colorful illustrations of women’s legs with some apparently naked skin.

Shocking, isn't it? So much so that Iceland banned the packaging, which could have had implications on the way the EU treats the same subject matter elsewhere.

If the cider manufacturer's legal objection had been allowed to stand, the EU would have found it difficult to impose EU-wide packaging restrictions on alcohol, and therefore a precedent would have been set for other products (I think you know to which I might be referring).

In essence, in case E-2/12, HOB-vín ehf. and The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR), the Icelandic court asks the EFTA Court whether the product selection rules used by the alcohol monopoly constitute an obstacle to the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 11 of the EEA, which – as is typically the case in the EEA Agreement – is identical to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, prohibiting measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restrictions.

So, off to Reykjavik Sir Arnold's drone toddled to make absolutely sure this silly liberalism was nipped in the bud. The UK was the only EU member state out of all 27 to make any fuss (page 11). Nice, compliant EU arse-lickers that our once proud nation now seems to be.

The upshot is that, not only was the Cabinet Office agent (I like that terminology, seeing as no-one but a select few would have known he was going there) objecting to the slapping down of laws against pretty packaging, he was also making damn sure that the option of no packaging at all was still allowable to a government very near to you.

Interestingly enough, when the President of the EFTA Court, Prof. Carl Baundenbacher, expressly asked the UK agent, whether his reasoning would also apply to a more restrictive standardized measure such as plain packaging, Mr. Ian Rogers, the barrister acting on behalf of the UK Government, did not hesitate to reply that, 'yes', this was the case.

That's how open a mind our government has on plain packaging. So open is it that they are prepared to kibosh an appeal which could have caused them problems on tobacco packaging, despite it also opening the door for plain packaging of alcohol too, should it - or the EU - so choose to go that route in the future.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Allowing Debate Is Wrong, Says 'Liberal'

Sometimes, comedy gold just leaps out of the ether and makes you wonder if someone is on a wind up.

There's no other way of describing this odd diatribe from a random Twitter guy, generously brought to my attention by Simon Cooke.

My letter to @guardian on their decision to accept lobbying ads form the tobacco industry: 

Dear Sirs 

I have been a keen subscriber to your iPad app for a while now, so I was most perturbed to see an ad for the tobacco lobby in the last few editions of The Guardian on iPad.

Colour me unsurprised at the intro.

The ad purports to be against plain packaging of cigarettes on the basis that it will assist organised crime and lead to further evasion of duty which will cost the UK taxpayer money. It gives no explanation as to how or why this will be the case, of course.

The bloke obviously has his ear to the ground Guardian-wise. Sadly, he seems to have entirely missed anything published anywhere else. Had he done his research, before firing off a self-satisfying pile of bollocks (and sharing it on Twitter), he might have noticed some well qualified people offering exactly the explanations he is too limited - or uninterested - to find for himself.

He might also - if he had taken time get off the right-on hobby horse - been able to see that there is no evidence in favour except that which has been rigged in advance. Y'see, we're all still waiting for a proper explanation of how plain packs is going to help when even the idea's biggest booster say kids barely notice the packets, which is - we are told - the precise reason for all this pointless dick-waggling.

Its true however, that the tobacco lobby is concerned about loss of revenue - their own. Despite assertions to the contrary by the industry, they are opposed to plain packaging because it impacts their ability to differentiate their product and hence affects marketing which in turn affects profits.

See, I love people like this as they do us a massive favour. There the tobacco control industry are trying to pump some fantasy line that plain packs are designed to stop kids from starting to smoke, and then someone like this blunders into a debate - of which he obviously has no clue whatsoever - to reveal the prime justification behind it. Which we kinda knew anyway.

The simple fact is that - however many 'ambassadors' are sent to schmooze MPs - this is solely about arrogant tobacco-haters doing all they can to destroy a legal business. Many of which are red in tooth and claw and really don't give a stuff about health, instead preferring the ideological undergrad bashing of corporations which they should have grown out of by now.

The children have nothing to do with it, nor does it have anything to do with health. Just pure envy, jealousy and prejudice.

The sheer gall of the tobacco industry to suggest that they are concerned about the loss to the UK Exchequer in duty when the products they sell cause illness and death on such a grand scale which the taxpayer pays for via the NHS is eclipsed only by the rank hypocrisy of The Guardian in accepting such an ad.

The tobacco industry will quite obviously be as worried about the loss of duties for the same reasons as the Treasury. If duties aren't being paid, it's because tobacco is being bought from criminals who don't pay it rather than an industry which does. Criminals, as it should not require explaining, who care little for state controls on who they sell it to. Surely even a committed statist should recognise that kind of threat and consider it worrisome. After all, what's the point of state control if it isn't to regulate markets?

As for the cost to the NHS argument, anti-smoking organisation ASH make him entirely wrong.

Tobacco tax more than pays for NHS health costs associated with smoking.

And this well before governments caught on that hanging onto the coat tails of blinkered fruitcakes was a way of levying charges which could free them from the shackles of that inconvenient Laffer Curve.

Perhaps this guy has an agenda we should be looking at. He reads the Guardian, we know that much, but he can't be the comically hackneyed Islington rich boy who hasn't grown out of teenage socialist farty politics, surely?

Oh yes, he can.

Be-wigged defence Counsel, working in the City of London in criminal law

Tweeting from ... wait for it ... a North London location in the shadow of Islington. Seriously, you couldn't make it  up.

There is more here if you're interested, but I think the real justification for his anger is contained in this tweet.

All very confusing considering he is someone who should very much understand the concept of minority rights being respected in a democracy, no matter the bigotry lined up against them.

Link Tank 06/10

Saucy little numbers, for accompaniment with bacon or a light omelette.

The moral case for a truly free press is overdue a hearing

The war on drugs goes after evil daisies

Coercion never works, persuasion does

Shades, dives, and other varieties of British bar

The perks of page 3

Rome introduces compulsory sandwich free zones

Scientists believe drug that makes you feel good could treat depression - genius!

Oktoberfest nears record consumption ... in the first week

Finally a ban that San Francisco hippies don't like

Tobacco control industry employee re-writes laws of economics and reason ... again

Sex-obsessed bats

Power To The People!

You may remember Gerard Hastings from past mentions where he advocates banning alcohol advertising and is part of the systematic rigging of the plain packs consultation.

See, Hastings hates popular businesses and loves the public health driven state. He's a real defender of the proletariat, so he is (well, except when he is resisting state laws on transparency he doesn't like, of course). He just wants to protect you from bad choices, that's all.

His latest book, though, states his position more clearly than ever before. There we were thinking he was just a regular public health bore, when in fact his agenda is far further reaching than that. Here's the synopsis accompanied by some entirely-unrelated random images.

In the hands of the corporate sector, marketing has turned us into spoilt, consumption-obsessed children who are simultaneously wrecking our bodies, psyches and planet. Given the fiduciary duties of the corporation, notions like consumer sovereignty, customer service and relationship building are just corrosive myths that seduce us into quiescence, whilst furnishing big business with unprecedented power.

Corporate Social Responsibility, the ultimate oxymoron, and its country cousin, Cause Related Marketing, are just means of currying favour amongst our political leaders and further extending corporate power.

So it is time to fight back.

As individuals we have enormous internal strength; collectively we have, and can again, change the world ...

... (indeed marketing itself is a function of humankind’s capacity to cooperate to overcome difficulties and way predates its co-option by corporations). From the purpose and resilience Steinbeck’s sharecroppers (‘we’re the people – we go on’), through Eisenhower’s ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ to Arundhati Roy’s timely reminder about the wisdom of indigenous people ‘are not relics of the past, but the guides to our future’, there are lots of reasons for optimism. If these talents and strengths can be combined with serious moves to contain the corporate sector, it is possible to rethink our economic and social priorities. The book ends with a call to do just this.

This compelling and accessible book will be of interest across the social sciences and humanities – and indeed to anyone who has concerns about the current state of consumer society. It will also be particularly useful reading for those marketing students who'd prefer a critical perspective to the standard ritualization of their discipline.

I think we all know where Gerry stands now, don't we? He has painted the tone of his book on Amazon quite clearly, I reckon. 

His previous effort - referencing Naomi Klein and George Monbiot - only received one review, which I'm sure Gerry must have found quite disappointing. Hopefully, he'll get lots and lots of really good ones this time. 

His Amazon page is here, in case you wanted to have a look around.