I have to admit I was a bit anxious at one point yesterday afternoon. Mid-afternoon, it became apparent that Herman van Rompuy, the meek Belgian Prime Minister would be selected by the heads of the 27 members of the European Union to be the first head of the European Council. This appears to have been a decision taken primarily by the leaders of France and Germany, in concert with each other. Just two days ago, Angela Merkel said in a press conference that she and President Sarkozy would be making the decision together. I guess that shows you where the power lies in Europe…

Britain’s official candidate for the role, backed by Gordon Brown was of course Tony Blair. Divisive at the best of times, Blair was never exactly a shoe-in. I’m a supporter of Blair, and I think he was a good Prime Minister and would have contributed something to the European project, giving the bloc a higher profile in the world. But I can understand how some leaders of Europe would have found it difficult to work with someone like Tony Blair with such charisma and weight. They would have been overshadowed by him. Of course, it was well known at the time of the Iraq war that the majority of European opinion was against the intervention, and I’m sure that didn’t help Blair’s chances (despite the fact that Sarkozy himself is an interventionist and wasn’t in office at the time of Iraq).

The Tories stuck their nose in by jetting around some of Europe’s capitals lobbying against the selection of Tony Blair as Council President. In my opinion, that’s highly unpatriotic and unforgivable. And now they will have to deal with a Council President who is far more federalist than Blair would have been.

Several names swirled around yesterday of potential candidates for the second job on offer, that of European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (EHRFASP – what a mouth full). Until the very last minute, there were no obvious British candidates for the post. Most attention was paid to former Italian foreign minister Massimo D’Alema and a few other unknown politicians from the continent. This was also disheartening for me – the thought of another Italian in one of Europe’s highest jobs just a few years after Romano Prodi left the Commission, and the fact that Mr. D’Alema really hasn’t done much lately and isn’t well known, even in Brussels. Towards the end of the afternoon however, a wild-card in the form of Baroness Ashton, the current European Trade Commissioner, emerged.

Cathy Ashton replaced Peter Mandelson as Trade Commissioner when he returned to Westminster politics in much fanfare. Trade Commissioner is a very senior role and Baroness Ashton has received praise for her performance, namely from Commission President Barroso, despite concerns that she was too low profile when she first got the job. Similar concerns are being heard now that she has been selected to become the first office holder of this European “foreign minister” position, a role created by the recently-ratified Lisbon Treaty. I can understand why people are worried that she’s too understated, but they shouldn’t worry too much. She’s done a good job as Trade Commissioner, and that role has given her some experience in negotiation and international affairs. She will have a diplomatic corps of several thousand working to her, out of embassies around the world. No doubt she will have some top-quality advisers in Brussels and member states will provide advice and support also.

Last night’s progress is good in several ways. Primarily, we can stop naval-gazing and get on with pushing forward and tackling issues that are pressing to Europe and the world. The Lisbon Treaty is now done and dusted, a victory for the progressives in Europe. No more negotiation or referenda, or speculation that Europe will have a flash President Blair. That’s good for Europe. Secondly, the fact that a British Labour woman is now the most powerful female in Europe, and in the top three most powerful positions in the EU, is good for Britain. It’s rare for a Brit to hold one of these high offices of Europe; they more often go to smaller states. But for the UK to be more central to Europe, and for British people to feel more engaged, it’s only logical that we should push for more of our citizens to take these big jobs. Cathy Ashton isn’t, as she said an “ego on legs”, she doesn’t make much out of the fact that she’s a woman; she lives in Hertfordshire and for all intents and purposes is quite normal and accessible for British people.

I don’t think it will be long before High Representative Ashton starts to ruffle feathers back in Westminster. She has her own mandate separate from the UK as a nation state, and it will be strange for UK ministers to see a British citizen striding the world stage as an important diplomat. Not only that, but if Labour were to lose the election next year (and by the way I still think there’s a chance we can win!) Ashton would in a heartbeat become the most powerful Labour figure. That would likely worry some in the Labour Party who have their own leadership ambitions. Baroness Ashton has five years to impress the British public, and after putting up with Cameron’s boys for a term, a Labour female prime minister might be just what the nation wants.

Walking around London the last couple of days, I’ve seen the following headline on those Evening Standard boards that are dotted around the city:

“BA to charge for choosing a seat”.

Okay, firstly you need to understand where the Standard slots into the array of newspapers available in the United Kingdom. Politically speaking, it’s typically right-of-centre, and has been fairly unfriendly to the Labour government since not long after we came back into power in 1997. It’s quite similar to the Daily Mail in that it takes a fairly angry, indignant attitude towards the way society is “going”. So one could read from this headline that the Evening Standard’s editors don’t think the idea of British Airways charging people to select a seat is a very good one.

I don’t always agree with what they have to say, and I haven’t bought the Standard for a good few years (although they do have a good Friday magazine, and jobs sections!), but on this case I agree. British Airways has been under financial duress for a long time; in fact it’s almost miraculous that they’re still flying considering the hits they’ve taken: SARS, 9/11, economic downturn, worries about the ecological impact of flying, competition from the train (for European and domestic travel) etc. Major airlines have disappeared over the last few years, and it’s good that the British flag carrier is still in operation, and was the fifth largest carrier in the world in 2008.

BA has been the national pride for a long time, flying to 150 destinations around the globe, connecting millions of people a year from distant cities to their destinations via London Heathrow & Gatwick, and enabling those living in the UK to travel around the globe without connecting in Paris or Frankfurt. But we must put national pride aside while we consider the future of the airline. Whilst I do believe it is one of the greatest airlines ever – and that feeling of boarding a British Airways plane at the end of a tiring trip, in a foreign land is always rewarding – I find it saddening that the company is effectively turning itself into an expensive version of easyJet or Ryanair, with no apparent added value. Earlier in the summer the company announced that short haul passengers would no longer receive in-flight meals at all. Senior management came under a great deal of flack for suggesting that some middle managers and lower staff should forfeit a month’s salary for the good of the company, when the CEO earns three quarters of a million pounds per year. Now the decision to emulate the low-cost airlines in leaving passengers to fight for seats at the last minute adds to the illusion that British Airways is slowly losing the quality touches that make it great.

And that’s on top of long-standing issues such as poor numbers in reuniting people with their luggage (BA is the worst offender in Europe for losing passengers’ bags) and failures in dispute resolution leading to strikes that cause global disruption to tens of thousands. Added embarrassment came last week when it emerged that Downing Street chose Virgin Atlantic, another great British company, to take the Prime Minister and British delegation to the UN General Assembly and G20 meetings in America. British Airways traditionally carried Prime Ministers on foreign trips by air.

So what to do? I don’t claim to be an expert in the aviation business, but maybe it’s time for the UK to stop fighting to retain a global service airline on the scale of Lufthansa or Air France-KLM, both of whom have solid financial bearings and great service reputations. How can pride drive business decisions? Surely it would be more effective if BA scaled back some of its routes, stopped ordering expensive new aircraft, and focus on the profitable routes it does serve. And use some of those profits to give people an excellent short-haul option in Europe. When I choose to fly a traditional carrier over a low-cost carrier, I expect an assigned seat and something to eat/drink on my flight. Maybe a free newspaper too! I do like and respect easyJet in many ways, but sometimes you want that little extra. And while we’re at it, starting a dedicated business class service from London City Airport (LCY) to New York’s JFK is a bad idea! I know there’s a huge business community in Canary Wharf, which is near to LCY, and I know BA wants to compete with Air France and the other European airlines that connect those business-people to New York via Paris or Amsterdam, but would it not be cheaper to ferry them across the city to Heathrow on a helicopter? Like they do in New York?!

One thing I’m sure of. It would benefit nobody if the company were to receive major state aid. They should be left to the market forces this time. They’ve used their dominant position to bully the rest of the British aviation sector for too long. I personally think it’s the wrong strategy to turn BA into a trumped-up low-cost airline. If the market agrees, and they can no longer survive and prosper, perhaps the government should let Lufthansa/BMI/Virgin Atlantic acquire their assets and create a profitable, efficient, and top quality flag carrier for the 21st century.

This one came as a bit of a shock to be honest. Just after Rupert Murdoch famously acquired the Wall Street Journal in 2007, he hinted at opening that newspaper’s website up for free access. Which made me happy. I love reading newspapers, but I probably on average buy one every week or two (and it’s usually the weekend edition, which I can labour over for two days). On a daily basis though, I will visit a combination of the following for news and insight:

- The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk)

- Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk)

- Financial Times (http://www.ft.com)

- New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com)

As well as a wide range of blogs and magazine websites. I like to stay informed, and it helps me to do my job more effectively and keep an eye on what’s going on in the world. Every one of the above, with a slight exception in the FT (you can read a number of articles for free and then there is a small fee), is 100% free to access. You can read practically every single article you could in the actual paper by using these websites. You can do the same with most mainstream newspapers, including the Independent, Telegraph etc. Most newspapers seem to be embracing this concept, and we’ve even seem some innovative developments, like the NYTimes Skimmer (which is a web 2.0 God-send!):

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

But today Murdoch announced that from next Summer, he’ll be charging for access to (amongst others) the Times, Sun & News of the World. Firstly this smacks of corporate protectionism in an age where open access to information is fast becoming the norm. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on poor results from advertising in the actual newspapers, and looks like, in my opinion, a decision based on insecurity and a lack of understanding of how media consumption will change over the coming years. It’s also a bit naive to think that the average Sun or News of the World reader in the UK will be willing to take out a debit/credit card to access articles. And although I do like the British Times, quality of content has notably gone downhill recently, so I certainly won’t be paying to access that – my payments, if any, will be going toward the FT for top-quality, reporting, which is relatively free of political bias.

According to the Guardian: “Among quality newspapers, Murdoch singled out the Daily Telegraph’s run of stories about MPs’ expenses as an example of news for which consumers would be willing to pay, describing it as a “great scoop”. I disagree. The Telegraph got lucky, and they had the resources to pursue this story way beyond its natural course. But these stories spread like wildfire, and I think more people would have picked up the details from blogs repeating the main points, and from colleagues & friends emailing what they’ve read or heard. I just can’t see a situation where hundreds of thousands of people will pay for access to a newspaper website to read about a single story, when today’s media world is so distributed and open.

A Twitter associate, BevaniteEllie asked the question “Will Murdoch charging for Internet news help the left?”. More broadly, from a political point of view, we should be asking ourselves if people like Rupert Murdoch hold the same power as they once did over politics. Is this knee-jerk reaction yet another sign of the dwindling influence newspapers have? Famously, would-be British prime ministers (and particularly Tony Blair in the mid-90s) sought approval from Rupert Murdoch. A friendly run of stories in the Sun could turn the electoral tide here. That was a long time ago, and the world has changed permanently. Media power is now so diffuse that no single “mogul” can hope to have the same influence over an election as Rupert Murdoch has held for far too long. The successful media companies of the 21st century will be open, dynamic, fast-reacting (whilst hopefully keeping hold of good journalism practices) and rooted in social media; I would much rather live in that world than in the world where an unelected newspaperman can wield such power.

If this latest move from News Corp is a sign that the times are changing, then I welcome it. It’s just a shame that the great newspapers of the 20th century aren’t more able to embrace the changes that we’ve seen since the start of the Internet age.