Superfast fiber broadband is beginning to arrive

A man sat by a cabinet full of wires near my house for quite a while recently.  Now I have access to superfast broadband.  Only I have to pay for it to activate it.

When superfast broadband comes to your area you don't actually get it unless you upgrade and pay more to your provider for it - as they have to pay for access to it on your behalf. 

Talktalk want an extra £10 a month for 'medium superfast broadband' or £15 a month for 'super-superfast broadband'.  As I can manage okay at the minute I'll do without for now but I'm grateful to have the option.  The vast majority of Cumbrian residents should have it by the end of 2015.  You can check availability in you area here.

Education - Ofsted

Most who know me know that the reason I got involved in politics is education, and in particular Michael Gove.

Having participated in and quietly contributed to consultations on education policy over the years I saw first hand how all consultation ended in 2010 and only too clearly understood the implications of that.

With an unusually deep background in the economics of education and the underlying associated issues of professional freedom, I could clearly see that the vast majority of Mr Gove's initiatives were without and foundation and were destined to catastrophic and vastly expensive failure. 

The one bright light seemed to be that he stated he was determined to improve the way Ofsted functioned to allow schools greater professional freedom.  So I watched the inquiry which took place over the winter of 2010/11 to discover how to achieve this closely. I took to the discussion forums to try to explore possible ways forward and was horrified to find that I was subject to systematic and extreme abuse, the systematic deletion of my posts, partial moderation and, when these tactics failed to deter me from posting, to being banned from posting and threatened with legal action if I wrote about what was going on.

Meanwhile inspector after inspector visited the enquiry stating clearly that Ofsted could not be improved.

Satisfactory became the new unsatisfactory, inspections became more brutal and ministers used Ofsted as a tool for pursuing their own pet policies.  Schools still had no rights whatsoever to challenge decisions in any circumstances (except to Ofsted and Mr Gove) so no matter how ignorant and inappropriate the inspection outcome schools are left with Hobson's choice of accepting it or objecting, brining more negative attention on the school and getting nowhere for it.

I gave up my plans to write a PhD in maths education and pursued instead the objective of creating free forums.  This was an objective which was achieved on some platforms by the beginning of 2012.  Coaxing people into posting in public and giving them the time they needed to develop their thinking and fluency on policy issues has taken longer.

Meanwhile I also researched policy surrounding Ofsted, making a substantial breakthrough when I started to look at best practice in regulation policy and methodology outside education.  I discovered that there were established codes of best practice in regulation to which Ofsted could be obligated using the same legal framework already in place for the vast majority of regulated UK organisations.

This was the resulting policy (note the references are at the end of the document after the other policy motions):
http://www.northwestlibdems.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Motions-Provisional-2012au.pdf

The motion got 100% support and is now widely understood and accepted and supported within the Liberal Democrats: http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/cockermouth-campaigner-takes-ofsted-battle-to-conference-1.1010331?referrerPath=2.903

I've worked hard to get it adopted by other parties and by unions, but so far have been unable to move beyond getting the support of individuals without those groups.

I'm publishing this because I am horrified by what's going on in Cumbria with Ofsted now.  This could have been avoided if I'd managed to get sufficient wide based support to take on Mr Gove.

I'm easy to find if anyone wants to help.

Rebecca Hanson
12 Kirkgate, Cockermouth.  On LinkedIn.com and Facebook.

In Praise of our Foodbank

I was delighted to hear the Trussell Trust calling for a public enquiry into the reasons behind the surge in the use of food banks. 

In this report Kelly Taylor talks about the humiliation of visiting a foodbank but then reflect on the reality that prior to the Foodbank existing she stole for food and ended up in prison.  When your life is falling apart, rapidly plugging a gaping hole like being able to feed yourself and your family helps you deal with the many other issues you have to face.  Where people are adjusting to reduced circumstances food parcels which are accompanied by personal advice on how to make that adjustment effectively can stop a crisis escalating.  It is clear that Foodbanks are providing a substantial benefit to both the people affected and to society which was not previously available and that much of the work they do falls into this category.  It is also clear this work will continue to be of great importance to society in the future as global population growth and the consequential competition for resources will prevent the kinds of rising levels of affluence we saw in parts of the 20^th century. 

However we need to know whether our systems of ordinary state provision, and in particular our benefits system, is now inadequate (and if so precisely where its inadequacies lie) so that we can address those weak points efficiently and effectively.   At present most feedback comes through individual cases which are reported to MPs and Councillors who then try to analyse the implications of the cases they have heard during policy debates at their political conferences.  This process of feedback is also essential and I would strongly advise anyone who knows of a case which need to be understood for policy reform to support the individual or individuals affected in meeting their MP or councillor and if they would like to they are also warmly invited to contact me.  However a detailed report from the circumstances of the people Foodbanks are supporting would greatly improve the quality of the debate.  This is why I sincerely hope this analysis recommended by the Trussell Trust goes ahead.

In the meantime I would strongly recommend everyone supports the organisation we have.  More food donations are urgently needed and more volunteers are also needed to help the hundred who drive vans and staff the warehouse and the five distributions centres in Cockermouth, Workington, Whitehaven, Maryport and Wigton.  Between April and August this year they gave out food to 1789 people in crisis (about 120/week) and West Cumbria is a much better place because they did that.  The team are an inspirational bunch of volunteers who are very welcoming to people who can only offer a little time or only offer time for a short period.  If you’re in either category I strongly recommend getting involved not only because you’d be able to do a great deal of good but also because it will help you better understand West Cumbria.

Broadband in the Cockermouth Area

While I was out canvassing in the villages of Cockermouth South in May I spoke at length with many villagers about the problems they are having with internet access.
I consider internet access to be of vital importance for both our economy (as so many of us in Cumbria work from home) and for our quality of life.  As a fellow of the RSA I write about and explore the importance of mass online discussion in enlightening society and improving the quality of democracy.

I’ve been startled by the level of complexity and chaos that I’ve found.  In this blog I’m going to try to describe what’s going on.  I may not have got it right and I’d be very grateful if others could add comments to help improve what I’ve written.

Two Routes for Broadband

The two routes for acquiring broadband are Connecting Cumbria (funded by BDUK and ERDF) and the RCBF (The Rural Communities Broadband Fund).  It is estimated that Connecting Cumbria will ensure 'superfast' (which is defined as being 24Mb/s or greater) broadband reaches 93% of properties in Cumbria by 2015.  Communities not receiving 24Mb/s can devise their own schemes and apply for RCBF funding.  

Connecting Cumbria

This scheme has been highly controversial as virtually all funding has gone straight to BT to help them upgrade their exchange equipment – something which they would have had to have done anyway (but would have had to do more slowly).  Another major problem with the scheme has been that BT have, in many cases, failed to release information regarding which houses will be in the 93% and which will not. There has also been criticism of the quality of the broadband some homes which are covered by the scheme will receive as alternative proposals planned to provide speeds in excess of 500Mb/s.

On a more positive note, 93% coverage is a very substantial undertaking in a very rural county.  Let’s look at the numbers.

According to Wikipedia 496,200 people live in Cumbria.  Of these 318,271 (64%) live in the 20 biggest towns and villages in Cumbria.  Distington is the smallest of these top 20 with just under 4000 people (Cleator Moor has 7000).  So let’s assume people who live in these places are covered.  That leaves 178,000 people in the smaller villages, hamlets and isolated dwelling of Cumbria.  Of these remaining people about 143,000 (80%) should be covered by Connecting Cumbria.  Clearly this figure must include most of our villages.   

On the other hand that still leaves about 35,000 people without broadband and far more with reason to doubt whether the quality of the broadband they look set to receive will meet current, yet alone emerging needs. 

Rural communities Broadband Fund Schemes

In theory funding is available to help communities to set up their own schemes.   In practice this has been highly problematic due to not only to the uncertainty regarding what Connecting Cumbria will provide but also due to the complex red tape and the legal exposure those seeking to develop schemes have had to face.  Some progress has now been made as Cumbria County council have agreed to act as the accountable body for projects including Eden Valley Digital, Great Asby and Northern Fells.    The Northern Fells group are probably our best source of advice being located nearby (four of the seven parishes involved are in northern and eastern Allerdale).  I hear the BARN (B4NW) project is also making good progress in South Cumbria.

So what’s happening and what should be happening here in West Cumbria?  Your views are invited here, through public or private message on my Facebook page or by contacting my directly (even snailmail to 12 Kirkgate is welcome).

Rebecca Hanson.

Further information is available on the web via the following press releases:

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2013/July/04_07_2013-144713.asp
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2013/June/14_06_2013-092146.asp
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2013/May/20_05_2013-091852.asp
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2013/March/26_03_2013-153554.asp
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2013/February/07_02_2013-142942.asp

Throughout this article my calculations assume we have the same average number of people per household in isolated dwelling as we have in urban areas.

Lessons learned from the consultation regarding the geological repository. Suggested recommendations.

This consultation is specified here.  Responses are required by 10th June 2013.

I am keen to stimulate debate and am therefore openly publishing my initial suggestions regarding recommendations on this site.  Your comments are welcome.  If you wish to correspond with my privately please find me through my Linkedin or Facebook profiles or through Twitter @cyberrhetoric.

Rebecca Hanson MA(Cantab.), MEd, FRSA

Draft Response:

In 2007 the consultation regarding geological disposal of higher level radioactive waste succeeded because it was open and evidence based.  In 2013 I believe it failed for the reasons listed below.  While much can be done to make it more likely that a process of consultation will succeed, we should always remember that should evidence arise which indicates that the proposed way forward is not the best route or is unsafe in ways which have not been considered, any credible consultation should recognise this and should be designed to fail if it cannot effectively respond to the concerns raised.

Firstly the evidence base was not sufficiently wide and was not kept up to date.   Several major countries had focused on developing reactors to process their waste.  Their progress and the potential of this technology was not properly understood by the consultation.  The Cumbria community contains many who can generate world class conversations on this topic.  They should have been finding that the insights their conversations generated were already available as part of the evidence base for the debate but instead they found that the scope of the consultation had excluded all other technologies since 2007.   Regarding geological disposal, the videos being used which summarised what is happening in other countries were the same in 2013 as they were in 2007.  In 2007 they were convincing.  The fact that no further information had been added at a time of great technological development left them looking like propaganda six years later.

Recommendation 1: that the research base to be widened to include all methods of disposal and that the publicly presented research base be regularly updated.

Secondly the methods of consultation, which were set up to be transparent in 2007, predated mainstream social media and were therefore not transparent in 2013.

All major decisions are now analysed and challenged by the ‘Facebook chatterers’.  In many cases this is a very positive thing.  It enables the intellectual content of decisions to be more freely crowd sourced and it can create fuller transparency and deeper engagement as it allows the scrutinising public to ask all the questions they want to ask before making a decision.  However it is only a positive thing if the organisation making the decision engages with social media intelligently and if those running the consultation are empowered to assimilate and change the course of action based on relevant and genuine crowd sourced information received. 

It seemed that in this consultation the official consultation and the social media consultation were like big ships that passed in the night, aware of each other on their radar but not communicating or building a clear visual picture of what the other was.   It also seemed that the ‘consulting team’ were not really a consulting team at all.  They were a team there to convince people of a conclusion decided long ago by others.  Social media makes such behaviours deeply toxic.   Oppositional evidence such as that presented by Stuart Hayzeldine is introduced and discussed at length.  There are contributors (and I was one of them) who will try to balance the evidence but I and others found that we couldn’t.  The evidence simply wasn’t available or if it was it wasn’t in a form where I could access and analyse it sufficiently rapidly.

Recommendation 2. That a team be set up to work together to engage with social media.   They need to include people who fluent in engaging with social media by evidence basing comments, never attacking individuals, never responding to personal attacks and so on (more here).  They need to have fluent, evidence based answers to points which are raised by critics such as Stuart Haszeldine which they should present every time his points are made.   But, most importantly, they must have the capacity to influence things if they find evidence which justifies alternative ways forward.

Thirdly, it seems ludicrous that only sites in Cumbria were being considered.  This led to a situation where many Cumbrians felt that a Cumbrian solution was being forced on them.  It also made it virtually impossible to have any objectivity regarding the compensation package to be offered.

Recommendation 3. That sites be considered outside of Cumbria

Fourthly, it needs to be recognised that there has been a breakdown of trust and a failure to learn lessons from the past.  While the adoption of recommendations 1, 2 and 3 will help to restore trust, this consultation process has exposed cases where decisions have been made at and implemented at Sellafield in cases where individuals knew that these decisions would not deliver the results claimed. 

Recommendation 4. That cases of past failures such as the MOX fuel plant be openly investigated.