03-Feb-12
Having dedicated their entire programme to the catalogue of misdeeds at AWEMA, last night's Dragon's Eye rather failed to live up to all its advertised expectations.
The only new element in an already well trodden tale of financial irregularities and alleged nepotism was the clash of wills between presenter Felicity Evans and charity chairman Rita Austin. The exchange made for good television but there was no killer punch and the show felt distinctly padded out at times
Guest appearances by Darren Millar, Peter Black and a slightly confused Andrew RT Davies - who all complained about official obfuscation - merely confirmed that whilst press and politicians that can smell fresh meat they patently lack the basic ability to corner their prey.
There are probably some who would cite the scale of coverage given to problems at AWEMA as an example of the trial by media condemned by witnesses to the Levenson inquiry. They might be right, but with each day that the matter is greeted with official silence, the Welsh Government itself is starting to look as if it is not just unperceptive to scrutiny but immune to it.
That can't be a good thing from anyone's perspective.
The only new element in an already well trodden tale of financial irregularities and alleged nepotism was the clash of wills between presenter Felicity Evans and charity chairman Rita Austin. The exchange made for good television but there was no killer punch and the show felt distinctly padded out at times
Guest appearances by Darren Millar, Peter Black and a slightly confused Andrew RT Davies - who all complained about official obfuscation - merely confirmed that whilst press and politicians that can smell fresh meat they patently lack the basic ability to corner their prey.
There are probably some who would cite the scale of coverage given to problems at AWEMA as an example of the trial by media condemned by witnesses to the Levenson inquiry. They might be right, but with each day that the matter is greeted with official silence, the Welsh Government itself is starting to look as if it is not just unperceptive to scrutiny but immune to it.
That can't be a good thing from anyone's perspective.
Filed under: Comment
At 11.00am on Tuesday 5th of July activists attended and disrupted a Group 4 (G4S) consultation in Cardiff. G4S are bidding to run a service called COMPASS ( Commercial and Operational Managers Procuring Asylum Support Services). This is a project aimed at finding an outsourced provider for housing asylum-seekers, as well as associated services and [...]
At around 3.00pm the UKBA decided to raid, in broad daylight, a beauty salon on Clifton St. Despite there being children and customers inside the UKBA shut the doors of the shop and closed the shutters. No Borders activists were present and quickly got support and a banner to highlight the reality that this is [...]
On Friday 13th May the Congolese community came together for a lively demonstration against the potential re-election of President Joseph Kabila, a man surrounded by corruption and with his vice-president facing charges of war crimes in the Hague. The demonstration marched from City Hall, along Queen St through the city centre accompanied by songs and [...]
At least 62 people died in the Mediterranean after weeks of attempting to sail to Italy. The ship carrying 72 African migrants contacted a refugee group in Rome by satellite phone and asked them to call the authorities. The Italian coast-guard contacted several ships in the area described as well as alerting Maltese authorities. The [...]
Women Seeking Sanctuary Advocacy Group (WSSAG) Wales is a growing self help group run by and for asylum seeking and refugee women in South Wales. "We offer moral, emotional, social and practical support to one another. WSSAG is a platform where we all share our experiences, difficulties, as a problem shared is a problem halved. [...]
On Thursday 28th of April there will be a Frontex* charter flight from Brussels to Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Our fellow activists in Belgium tell us that it will be taking 60 people, 15 from Belgium and another 45 from the UK, Holland, Ireland and Sweden. On the flight will be the [...]
In a desperate attempt to highlight and put pressure on the UK Governments border regime, several Iranian asylum seekers have been on hunger strike, some of them have sewed their lips shut. They have camped outside the Home Office in Croydon and the headquarters of Amnesty Int in London. They face deportation to Iran and [...]
UKBA immigration officers were seen carrying out random identity checks on members of the public on Queen Street, Cardiff, on Tuesday 19th April at about 9am. Three officers, two dressed as Police Officers with body armour and handcuffs, but with ‘UK Border Agency' identified on the rear of their armour appeared to only be stopping [...]
'Driven to desperate measures'- UK migration system claims another life [ 25-Oct-10 8:06pm ]
[ T ]
[ G ]
[ N ]
[ L ]
On Tuesday 12th October on BA flight 77 the policies of the UK and the Europe Union claimed another life. Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan with a family in the UK, was killed on a flight from Heathrow . Whilst the Home Office initially claimed that Jimmy ‘fell ill' and ‘passed away' in hospital, eye-witnesses tell [...]
On Saturday 16th October we'll be having a benefit gig at Six Feet Under nightclub in Newport, tickets will soon be available on their website and in local record shops. The Oppressed are the world's foremost anti-fascist skinhead band; formed in Cardiff in 1981 they have been speaking out against racism in a scene where [...]
As part of the European Week of Action against the Deportation Machine; No Borders South Wales dropped some banners in the city of Cardiff. The UKBA in Cardiff has recently been at the heart of an investigation into racism in the Border Agency as a whole. We remind them that deportations and detention [...]
Along with other groups who have been calling for the end of detention for children through two campaigns "Outcry! - End Child Detention" and "End Child Detention Now" No Borders South Wales also feels it is long overdue to put an end to such a practice. The damaging effects on physical and mental health were clearly outlined [...]
A House of Lords report demonstrates frequent abuse of Asylum Seekers by Private Security Companies such as G4S employed by UK Border Agency. The report found serious injuries suffered by detainees who had been handcuffed or physically restrained and follows an investigation into allegations of abuse involving private firms employed by the Government to forcibly remove [...]
The following article written by one of our group first appeared on Waleshome.org last week, where it has already the 2nd highest number of comments. We reproduce it here in it's unedited original form. MIGRATION is one of the most contentious issues of modern times. Add the "im-" prefix and it's practically a swear word in [...]
Yarl's Wood Hunger Strike reaches fifth week. Demonstration in Swansea this Saturday [ 10-Mar-10 8:33pm ]
[ T ]
[ G ]
[ N ]
[ L ]
The hunger strike at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre has reached a fifth week. Solidarity demonstrations have taken place, outside the IRC itself, at Holloway Prison and around the country, now a legal challenge is being mounted. The hunger strike tactic has also spread to Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre. There will be a protest in support of [...]
Mashal Jabari has been released, the emergency campaign spearheaded by the Welsh Refugee Council has managed to release a 14-year-old Afghan orphan from detention. Staff at the Cardiff office of the UK Border Agency had insisted that he was 18 and held him in adult detention ahead of deportation next week. He was released from Campsfield [...]
The Welsh Refugee Council is calling on the UK Border Agency to release Mashal Jabari, 14 years of age, from Campsfield detention prison, and to suspend removal directions until a full assessment of his age can be made. It is very unusual for the Welsh Refugee Council to comment on individual cases, which adds extra [...]
On Thursday we'll be showing the premiere of a documentary film about the situation for migrants in Calais made by one of our group: Passengers is the personal account of a few people stuck in a place they don't want to be, a collection of interviews with people seeking sanctuary. It's No Borders South Wales [...]
(video will appear when uploaded) As part of the oral session of the internal inquiry into the UK Border Agency, former UKBA employee Louise Perrett appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons today and gave evidence of her experience of working in the agency's Cardiff office. The committee questioned Perrett on the [...]
As I have been the subject of considerable speculation this week I would like to clarify my position by referring readers to this article in today's Western Mail which includes a statement by the Council;
and two brief articles from the South Wales Evening Post;
As this is the subject of court proceedings I cannot comment further.
Previous post on this matter here
Comments on this post will be strictly moderated.
I've seen a fewreferences recently to the fact that the National Assembly has a legalobligation to put sustainability at the heart of its work. Indeed, it seems to be the only legislaturein the world which has such an obligation, and the inference is that it'stherefore something to treasure and take pride in. I'm not so sure.
I don't disagreewith the idea that putting sustainability at the heart of our government's workis a good thing. Nor am I arguing for amoment that the government should change this policy. On the contrary, it's something on which I'mdelighted to see Walestaking a lead. But it's the legalobligation part which concerns me.
Had the governmentand Assembly freely chosen to make sustainability central to its work, I'd havebeen entirely supportive. Indeed, I'deven have been prepared to lobby and campaign for such a decision to be taken.
But the legalobligation is contained in the legislation setting up the Assembly, and assuch, it underlines the subordinate nature of our legislature. Its central guiding principle has not beendefined by the Assembly itself, nor by the elected government of Wales, but by the UK Parliament which has placedan obligation on Waleswhich it has not been prepared to place on itself or on the UK Government.
I'm happy to take adegree of pride in the principle itself; but not in its provenance. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that anygovernment should have its central guiding principle handed down to it byanother government, and with no ability to change it. I'd be much prouder if the Assembly hadadopted the principle for itself - or even been handed the power to change itand then decided not to.
02-Feb-12
I'm not a fan ofthe British Honours system. The awardingof honours, often related to a long-defunct empire, to 'ordinary' people actsas a veneer for an archaic system of power and patronage.
I'm not a fan ofFred Goodwin either. He was one of thegreedy bankers whose poor decision-making caused the collapse of someinstitutions, made the financial crisis worse, and caused misery for millions.
Add the twotogether, and I'm hardly likely to shed a tear for him over the removal ofhis knighthood. There are, though, someaspects of what happened which leave me with an uneasy feeling.
The first is thepretence that the decision was made by the monarch on the recommendation ofsome independent committee of senior civil servants who assessed his case andfound it to be so severe that he, and he alone, should be unknighted (or perhapsdeknighted?). If there was ever apolitical decision, this was it. Politics was of the essence here, with the need to respond to theoutrage whipped up by the tabloid media. The idea that this decision was made in an entirely unbiased way by civilservants is simply not credible.
The second is thearbitrariness of the decision. Thereseems to be no sense of careful weighing of the pros and cons, consideringprecedent, or looking at other, equally - if not more - undeserving cases. Even rich and greedy individuals are surelyentitled to some sort of due process which doesn't single them out on anarbitrary basis in response to the baying of the mob.
The third is thefeeling that he's been scapegoated; sacrificed on the altar of public opinionto atone for the sins not only of himself but of others too. It's as if the Establishment somehow believethat by throwing one of their own to the wolves, the wolves will be sated andwill not come after the rest of them.
And the worstaspect of all is that I have a horrible suspicion that the Establishment will be right to think that, they'll get away withthe sacrifice, and the cosy little system will then carry on as if nothing hadhappened.
Althoughsome would have us regard the denizens of Cardiff Bay & Cathays Park asfaultless compared to their Westminster counterparts when it comes to expenses (nottoo challenging a notion) today's WesternMail tends to raise a few doubts.
Plaid AMLindsay Whittle has managed to uncover claims by Welsh Government officialswhich involve a few arcane purchases to say the least.
Amongthe list of 'essentials' are five pairs of walking boots bought over the internet from Cotswold Outdoorlast May at a cost of £630, with another pair costing £125 two months later. AnOrdnance Survey map was also bought from Menai Ski Outdoor for £6.99 accordingto the paper.
MrWhittle is quoted as saying that "members of the public will be intrigued andsurprised by some of the claims".
Let'shope that members of the finance committee are similarly bemused and start asking questions.
I'm not a fan ofthe British Honours system. The awardingof honours, often related to a long-defunct empire, to 'ordinary' people actsas a veneer for an archaic system of power and patronage.
I'm not a fan ofFred Goodwin either. He was one of thegreedy bankers whose poor decision-making caused the collapse of someinstitutions, made the financial crisis worse, and caused misery for millions.
Add the twotogether, and I'm hardly likely to shed a tear for him over the removal ofhis knighthood. There are, though, someaspects of what happened which leave me with an uneasy feeling.
The first is thepretence that the decision was made by the monarch on the recommendation ofsome independent committee of senior civil servants who assessed his case andfound it to be so severe that he, and he alone, should be unknighted (or perhapsdeknighted?). If there was ever apolitical decision, this was it. Politics was of the essence here, with the need to respond to theoutrage whipped up by the tabloid media. The idea that this decision was made in an entirely unbiased way by civilservants is simply not credible.
The second is thearbitrariness of the decision. Thereseems to be no sense of careful weighing of the pros and cons, consideringprecedent, or looking at other, equally - if not more - undeserving cases. Even rich and greedy individuals are surelyentitled to some sort of due process which doesn't single them out on anarbitrary basis in response to the baying of the mob.
The third is thefeeling that he's been scapegoated; sacrificed on the altar of public opinionto atone for the sins not only of himself but of others too. It's as if the Establishment somehow believethat by throwing one of their own to the wolves, the wolves will be sated andwill not come after the rest of them.
And the worstaspect of all is that I have a horrible suspicion that the Establishment will be right to think that, they'll get away withthe sacrifice, and the cosy little system will then carry on as if nothing hadhappened.
Yesterday's postabout the EU and structural funding actually goes to the heart of one of theissues which I've always found hardest in terms of political philosophy. It also relates to one of the issues whichPlaid Cymru has found difficult for decades, and never really got to gripswith, as the recent report of the party's review identified.
What exactly isdecentralised socialism? It's not thatthere aren't definitions around, of course there are. It's more that, in some ways, the two concepts(decentralism and socialism) don't always mesh together very well. And the reason that I've found it difficultis that I consider myself to be both a socialist and a decentralist, and whilstit's comparatively easy to support both positions in theory, it can bedifficult when it comes to specifics.
As a result, to anextent, those of us who advocate decentralist socialism have got away with itfor years without really having to put the flesh on the bones. Plaid's review has recommended doing somework on that - I look forward to seeing it, but suspect that it will be easierto recommend than to achieve.
I remember PhilWilliams once saying that decentralised socialism is an oxymoron - socialism requiresby its nature a strong central authority to ensure redistribution andfairness. It doesn't stop at Europeanlevel either; how are we to achieve global fairness in access to the earth'sresources without strong global institutions?
That need for astrong central redistributive policy is really the reason for supporting thecontinuation of EU structural funding. Itdoesn't make the EU a socialist organisation; far from it. But it's hard to see how a fully decentralistmodel works to enable fairness without such supranational structures. And that creates a dichotomy.
The question thrownat myself and others over the years - how can you argue for both devolution andthe EU; you're just swapping one remote central government for an even moreremote one - is far from being an unfair one. The answer depends less on what the institutions are than on what powerswe cede to each of them.
The problem is thatto get where I want to go, I wouldn't really start from where we are, but ifchange isn't going to be sudden and revolutionary, then it is going to be slowand evolutionary, based on where we are now.
In practice,support for devolution to and within a Wales which enjoys full membershipof the EU is something of a compromise, and I recognise that. But it's a compromise which representsprogress from where we are now.
01-Feb-12
Yesterday's reportabout Jack Straw's little faux-pas echoes the report from last Friday about Wales'contributions to, and receipts from, the EU. Last week's headline suggests that Walespays more into EU structural funds than it gets back and is thus getting a baddeal; Straw's case yesterday was that the UK is getting a bad deal.
Superficially, JackStraw has a point. If the UK did not contribute to the EU's structuralfunds, the UK would havemore money to spend on regional assistance within the UK. I can't argue with that; but it isn't thatsimple.
The firstcomplication is that the fact that the UK Government 'could' do something doesn'tmean that it 'would' do something. 'Regional'assistance policy has been inconsistent at best within the UK over the decades,and I think we can be forgiven for suspecting that the UK Government mightsimply trouser the cash and use it to fund tax cuts, or wars, or whatever. There's absolutely no guarantee that we'd seeany of it, which is the basis of much of the argument against what Straw said.
That raises anotherissue, though. Is the fact that we mighttrust one government - the EU - more than another - the UK - really thebest way to decide where regional policy should be made? I don't think it can be or should be. It isn't radically different from theargument put forward by some anti-devolutionists - they trust the UK government morethan the Welsh one and therefore want power to remain there. If we're consistent, we should surelyseparate the issue of where policy is made from the substance of that policy. We need a better reason than distrust of London to want the decisions to be made in Brussels.
Nor is it goodenough to decide whether participation in the EU structural funds is worthwhileon the basis of a simple comparison of how much we put in and how much we getback. On that basis, only the poorestcountries would want to contribute - but there'd be nothing left for them to withdraw. And that's ultimately the whole point of theEU structural funds - the most well-off put in more and the least well-off getmore back.
It's fundamentallya question of whether we support redistribution or not - looking at it in termsof what we get is a much narrower viewpoint. We tend to forget sometimes that the UKis one of the wealthiest countries in the UK;it is inevitable that the UKwill therefore be a big net contributor.
The problem for Wales is thatwe're a poor region within a wealthy state. We only get Convergence Funding (like Objective One funding before it)because of some creative work drawing a line across Wales in order to invent aregion which didn't exist before, and which exists for no other purpose than toqualify for the funding.
That shows thecomplexity of the issue of redistributive policies - drawing the right lines inthe right places (and not necessarily following accepted regional or nationalboundaries) can make a huge difference to the perception of wealth and povertywithout making any difference whatsoever to the actual wealth or poverty of thepeople affected.
There was one otherpoint raised by the Open Europe report which has received little attention. That is the extent to which the whole processis managed efficiently and effectively, and whether the same amount of fundingcould deliver more effect on the periphery with less bureaucracy at the centre. I think that they have a point there; I justdon't agree that dismantling the whole policy is the best way of resolving it.
We read that Welsh Liberal Democrats fearlocal education authorities may try to blame school governorsfor falling standards.
"There will be a tendency for local authorities to adoptthis practice in many more instances because of the pressure they're under toimprove educational attainment in Wales", says LiberalDemocrat education spokesman Aled Roberts.
He's a bit late with his warnings though.
Chris Holley, leader of Lib Dem-controlled Swansea Council, announcedto the media back in December 2010 that he had triedto sack the governing body of Daniel James School - which the LEA hassince closed down - some 18 months earlier.
Hetold the local paper, "Eighteen months ago I asked the director ofeducation to sack the governing body".
"Theschool wasn't improving. It wasn't giving the quality of education you wouldexpect and that the authority demands through the Welsh Assembly and Estyn, andthat is that all our children have the same standard of education", he said.
PerhapsAled only read the Welsh language version of the original article.
After nearly eight months of forcing members of the public, including children, to sign an unlawful undertaking, introduced as an 'operational decision' by officers, it looks like they've finally realised their mistake. It was, as if you need reminding, to agree to abide by a non-existent council policy against filming/recording meetings before being allowed into the public gallery. I was also forced to sign one before I was released from police custody last June - there was nothing 'legal' about it nor was it a matter for the police.
All we need now is for a public apology to all who were forced to sign, the doors to be opened and the guarded 'escort' to the public gallery to be ditched - we'll see whether that happens at next week's full council meeting.
A recent Freedom of Information request was made by a member of the public, the day after the last full council meeting. You will note their use of the word 'goodwill', unfortunately we cannot rely on the goodwill of the Council to be open, fair and democratic, so I'll leave that one up to you.
Anyway, here's the response (my emphasis);
Dear *****,
I refer to your request for information, which was received on 12 January, 2012 and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked the following questions in relation to the public signing an undertaking before being allowed into some or all council meetings:
1. a copy of the current version(s), and which meetings it (or they) are used at
2. an indication of the established and dated procedure for, and logging of, storage and/or secure disposal, under Data Protection Act requirements, of these undertakings after events
3. regarding these undertakings, your internal email and/or memo records that reasonably fully describe the perceived necessity for them, legal basis for them, drafts produced, previous versions used (with their dates of use), and all procedures for their administrative roll-out.
The Council has in fact discontinued the protocol of asking members of the public to sign an undertaking not to film or record meetings of the Council or its committees.
However, the Council has yet to decide on whether to permit filming and has established a task and finish Group of members of the Policy & Resources Scrutiny Committee to consider the issue of filming/audio recording as well as webcasting of meetings. In the meantime, the Council relies on the public's goodwill to comply with the request not to film or record the proceedings of meetings.
Copies of the signed undertakings that were previously asked for prior to attendance at meetings have been destroyed securely.
In view of the above, please confirm whether you still require a response to questions 1 and 3.
Yours sincerely
FoI Officer, Carmarthenshire County Council
All we need now is for a public apology to all who were forced to sign, the doors to be opened and the guarded 'escort' to the public gallery to be ditched - we'll see whether that happens at next week's full council meeting.
A recent Freedom of Information request was made by a member of the public, the day after the last full council meeting. You will note their use of the word 'goodwill', unfortunately we cannot rely on the goodwill of the Council to be open, fair and democratic, so I'll leave that one up to you.
Anyway, here's the response (my emphasis);
Dear *****,
I refer to your request for information, which was received on 12 January, 2012 and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked the following questions in relation to the public signing an undertaking before being allowed into some or all council meetings:
1. a copy of the current version(s), and which meetings it (or they) are used at
2. an indication of the established and dated procedure for, and logging of, storage and/or secure disposal, under Data Protection Act requirements, of these undertakings after events
3. regarding these undertakings, your internal email and/or memo records that reasonably fully describe the perceived necessity for them, legal basis for them, drafts produced, previous versions used (with their dates of use), and all procedures for their administrative roll-out.
The Council has in fact discontinued the protocol of asking members of the public to sign an undertaking not to film or record meetings of the Council or its committees.
However, the Council has yet to decide on whether to permit filming and has established a task and finish Group of members of the Policy & Resources Scrutiny Committee to consider the issue of filming/audio recording as well as webcasting of meetings. In the meantime, the Council relies on the public's goodwill to comply with the request not to film or record the proceedings of meetings.
Copies of the signed undertakings that were previously asked for prior to attendance at meetings have been destroyed securely.
In view of the above, please confirm whether you still require a response to questions 1 and 3.
Yours sincerely
FoI Officer, Carmarthenshire County Council
These are trying times for the Welsh Government as a succession of reports cast a critical light on their record of economic achievement.
On Monday, research commissioned by BBC Wales talked of an imbalance in performance between east and west Wales. Most commentators agreed with the findings and whilst non-one actually laid this problem directly at the door of ministers, the implication was there nonetheless.
Today saw the publication of a study by Cardiff Business School which claims Wales in lagging behind most other UK sectors in attracting inward investment. In many respects it doesn't really say much more than what previous investigations have found, i.e. Wales has too many support 'agencies', no real branding capable of attracting overseas investment and a lack of focus from the Welsh Government when it comes to delivery.
The views are similar to evidence given to the Welsh Affairs committee who have also given themselves the task of looking into why economic development is under-performing. They have been told by witnesses that Wales is still attempting to apply old ideas in its attempting to attract new business. A low cost salary base is no longer the big competitive advantage that it was. Meanwhile, they say, talk of a creating a "knowledge economy" remains meaningless without adequate infrastructure and the requisite private sector partnerships.
Critics either side of the Cardiff Bay bubble wall maintain that a big part of the problem is how the legacy of Rodders' Ryder Cup obsession and IWJ's whimsies has fragmented effort towards setting & achieving policy goals. Another view is that matters are complicated by Edwina Hart surrounding herself with external advisers whose skill-sets are more adept to operating in corporation boardrooms rather than the shop-floor of an SME.
The result, say the single solution lobby, is a smorgasbord of enterprise zones and "quickie" investment packages like the Welsh Economic Growth Fund when the offering should be more substantial and sustainable. What they really mean is bring back the Welsh Development Agency.
Speaking on BBC Wales this morning, former economy minster Andrew Davies dismissed a similar assertion by fellow studio guest Prof Brian Morgan that the whole downward trend in inward investment could be traced back to the demise of the WDA.
"Nostalgia is not what it used to be", Davies said to the interviewer. It got a laugh but that was all.
On Monday, research commissioned by BBC Wales talked of an imbalance in performance between east and west Wales. Most commentators agreed with the findings and whilst non-one actually laid this problem directly at the door of ministers, the implication was there nonetheless.
Today saw the publication of a study by Cardiff Business School which claims Wales in lagging behind most other UK sectors in attracting inward investment. In many respects it doesn't really say much more than what previous investigations have found, i.e. Wales has too many support 'agencies', no real branding capable of attracting overseas investment and a lack of focus from the Welsh Government when it comes to delivery.
The views are similar to evidence given to the Welsh Affairs committee who have also given themselves the task of looking into why economic development is under-performing. They have been told by witnesses that Wales is still attempting to apply old ideas in its attempting to attract new business. A low cost salary base is no longer the big competitive advantage that it was. Meanwhile, they say, talk of a creating a "knowledge economy" remains meaningless without adequate infrastructure and the requisite private sector partnerships.
Critics either side of the Cardiff Bay bubble wall maintain that a big part of the problem is how the legacy of Rodders' Ryder Cup obsession and IWJ's whimsies has fragmented effort towards setting & achieving policy goals. Another view is that matters are complicated by Edwina Hart surrounding herself with external advisers whose skill-sets are more adept to operating in corporation boardrooms rather than the shop-floor of an SME.
The result, say the single solution lobby, is a smorgasbord of enterprise zones and "quickie" investment packages like the Welsh Economic Growth Fund when the offering should be more substantial and sustainable. What they really mean is bring back the Welsh Development Agency.
Speaking on BBC Wales this morning, former economy minster Andrew Davies dismissed a similar assertion by fellow studio guest Prof Brian Morgan that the whole downward trend in inward investment could be traced back to the demise of the WDA.
"Nostalgia is not what it used to be", Davies said to the interviewer. It got a laugh but that was all.
31-Jan-12
Thelocal political response to the occupation of an empty hotel building inSwansea's city centre by community activists has so far been muted in theextreme. Give it time though.
Clearlythe action by the Cwtch contingent and all the attendant publicity it hasprovoked does not fit in nicely with the image peddled by the council's happy smileyspinners. The usual official sources at Calamity Hall had no comment to make onthe matter. The political groups just hope it will also go away.
The reaction is understandable given the composition of the occupiers - agrandmother, a political activist, an organic gardener, civil servant and anA-level student. It all seems to defy the usual stereotypes; although we should add though that at least one of their number spent some time in an Israeli jail last year after falling out with the local authorities.
It looks that like it will take something special to move thingson. So can we expect a blimp-like orange faced figure in braces to appearoutside sometime soon to remonstrate with the activists?
There are signs ofsome muddled thinking in this report today. The report notes that the number of English students applying to studyin Waleshas dropped, and the usual suspects proceed to provide the customary quotes.
The Conservatives'Education spokesperson wins the prize for squeezing the most clichéd phrases (andthe most hyphenated ones too) into the shortest space ('headline-grabbing', 'wafer-thin','half-baked' and 'wake-up call', all crammed into two sentences). Stripped of rhetoric however, her point seemsto be that the policy is wrong because it's going to cost more than planned.
In fairness to theGovernment, they have admitted previously that the costings for the policy werebased on estimates. Indeed, they had tobe estimates. No-one could have known inadvance what the level of applications was going to be; apart from any otherfactor, this was the first year with the new higher fees level - no-one reallyknew what the effect of that would be on applications.
We shouldn'tcastigate governments for proceeding on the basis of estimates rather than hardfigures, which seems to be part of the Tories' pitch. All governments do it; very little wouldhappen if they did not. If the estimatecould and should have been closer to the out-turn, then there is a potentialcriticism of incompetence, which is rather a different matter. But from my reading of the figures, it seemsto me that the government took a reasonable and reasoned view in arriving atits numbers.
The question iswhat happens next. The Tories' positionseems to be that the policy should be abandoned because it costs more thanplanned. That sounds rather like a wayof trying to sink it on practical grounds rather than arguing with theprinciple, which is what they really dislike but are afraid to say.
Clearly, it will bechallenging for the government to find what looks like significant extra fundingfor the policy, but having taken the bold decision to go down this route, itwould be an enormous shame if they decided to change tack at this stage, quiteapart from the impact on the financial planning of students.
One thing whichdoes deserve more attention, though, is the comparison between Wales and Scotland when it comes to thenumbers of students choosing to stay here to study. There are many factors involved in this, butthe difference is nevertheless stark.
One of the advantagesof the previous policy, before it was abandoned by the One Wales Government,was that there were signs of an increase in the number of 'stay-in-Wales'students. Encouraging that trend wouldn'tsolve the financial problems, but it would help to direct the expenditure intoWelsh universities. There's scope forsome tweaking of policy, but it doesn't need to be abandoned.
I have heard that the Plaid Cymru opposition in Carmarthenshire Council have planned to present a Vote of No Confidence in the Leader Cllr Meryl Gravell at the next meeting of full Council on the 8th February.
The question is, will she resign as Leader before she is pushed?
Of course, previous attempts to dislodge Meryl from the top job were thwarted when the constitution was suddenly tweaked to require seven signatures for such a motion rather than the usual two, despite protestations that this was highly undemocratic. Those recent attempts at a No Confidence vote, (see previous posts) were proposed by the two members of the People First Group - but this time, proposed by Plaid, with thirty Members, (and if it goes ahead), the outcome is by no means certain. With Meryl's recent unguarded comments still ringing in everyone's ears as well as the 'pulled' press release from a couple of weeks ago, (to give just two examples), the long reign may now be over.
It look to me like Plaid have abandoned any ambitions of forming a coalition with Meryl's Independents, should such an outcome look likely after the May election, and they have finally had enough.
There is already speculation, on the grapevine, as to who will be the most suitably loyal replacement, currently the odds are in favour of Cllr Steven James being selected.
Whatever happens, it looks like next Wednesday's meeting, for a variety of reasons, will be a very interesting one.
The question is, will she resign as Leader before she is pushed?
Of course, previous attempts to dislodge Meryl from the top job were thwarted when the constitution was suddenly tweaked to require seven signatures for such a motion rather than the usual two, despite protestations that this was highly undemocratic. Those recent attempts at a No Confidence vote, (see previous posts) were proposed by the two members of the People First Group - but this time, proposed by Plaid, with thirty Members, (and if it goes ahead), the outcome is by no means certain. With Meryl's recent unguarded comments still ringing in everyone's ears as well as the 'pulled' press release from a couple of weeks ago, (to give just two examples), the long reign may now be over.
It look to me like Plaid have abandoned any ambitions of forming a coalition with Meryl's Independents, should such an outcome look likely after the May election, and they have finally had enough.
There is already speculation, on the grapevine, as to who will be the most suitably loyal replacement, currently the odds are in favour of Cllr Steven James being selected.
Whatever happens, it looks like next Wednesday's meeting, for a variety of reasons, will be a very interesting one.
30-Jan-12
Yesterday's Sunday Herald ran another scare story, this time about the EU not allowing an independent Scotland to set a low rate of corporation tax.
Salmond in 'fantasy land' over tax plans, says former adviser
Alex Salmond's vision of an independent Scotland attracting global investors with ultra-low corporation tax has been dismissed as "a fantasy" by one of his former economic advisers. Professor John Kay, who served on the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers during the last Parliament, said the idea was a "non-starter" because the rest of the EU would block it.
He said it was inconceivable that other EU states, who want to end Ireland's 12.5% rate and who are now moving towards common tax rates, would allow Scotland to copy Ireland's example.
"No-one is going to allow Scotland to have a low corporation tax. That's just a fantasy," he said. "If Scotland's an independent country, the EU will not allow it. It's a non-starter. What has happened on corporation tax is Ireland has this low rate and everyone around the EU is determined that that should never happen again.
"So Scotland would have to negotiate EU membership - it wouldn't be difficult, everyone's going to have Scotland as a member - but you can be absolutely sure that one of the conditions is that you don't have a 12.5% corporation tax rate. Since a fuss has been made in Scotland about doing that, it would be inevitable that you would get the determination on the part of the Europeans that you do not have it."
It might well be true that certain countries in the EU don't like Ireland's rate of corporate tax, but the idea that they would be forced to change it is one of the myths about the EU that seems to have sprung up in recent years. Ireland's rate of 12.5% is by no means the lowest rate in the EU. No comparison is completely accurate because there is a whole range of other taxes on business (for example non-domestic rates and employers' NI contributions in the UK) but here are the lowest ... and highest:
Hungary ... 10.0%
Cyprus ... 10.0%
Bulgaria ... 10.0%
Ireland ... 12.5%Italy ... 31.4%
Germany ... 15.8% federal + 14.4% - 17.5% regional = 30.2% - 33.3%
France ... 33.3%
Belgium ... 34.0%
Malta ... 35.0%
This table shows why the idea of "common tax rates" in the EU is highly unlikely. The average corporate tax rate in the EU is somewhere between 20 and 25%. So if the low tax countries are to be forced to increase their rates to get them closer to the average, then the high tax countries will similarly be required to lower them. But among the very highest taxing countries are France, Germany and Italy ... three of the EU giants. Does anyone think that they'll be persuaded to lower their rates just so that there can be an EU average?
A more likely scenario would be for EU member states to agree minimum rates of tax. The lowest standard rate of VAT that any EU member state can charge is 15%, although there can be lower rates (or a zero rate) applied to certain types of goods and services. So it might well be possible to in future set a minimum rate of corporate tax too. But if so, it would have to apply to every member, not just one particular member.
-
It's also interesting to note that there are two EU member states that have different rates of corporate taxation for different geographical regions. The German model has a roughly half-and-half split between a fixed rate of federal corporate tax and a variable component according to the region. And the four Basque provinces are free to set their own rate of corporate tax, which at 28% is currently 2% below that of Spain. So there is no reason for the UK as it currently exists not to allow Northern Ireland, Scotland and indeed Wales to be able to set our own rates of corporation tax in order to act as a counterbalance to the increasing inequality in wealth between the south east corner of England and everywhere else in the UK.
Well, no reason apart from the intransigence of successive governments at Westminster, that is, who obviously don't seem to regard this over-centralization as a problem.
There have been twomain arguments advanced by those who support the payment of massive bonuses tobankers. The first is that such bonusesrepresent payment for results, and the second is that the banks are in competitionwith each other for their top management and therefore have to pay competitive packages.
Those arguments are,however, based on two assumptions. Thoseassumptions are self-evidently true to those making them; but I'm not convincedthat they stand up to more objective scrutiny. The first assumption is that the actions of the individuals concernedmake such a significant difference to the performance of the organisation as awhole that it is essential to retain them, and the second is that there is avanishingly small pool of talented people who can undertake such roles.
The question aboutthe extent to which the performance of an organisation is affected by theperformance of an individual is far from straightforward. It's probably true that poor decisions by individualscan wreck an organisation - and the banking industry has seen the effects ofthat probably more than any other sector. It's far less obvious that the actions of top management can make an organisationsucceed.
That doesn't stopthem claiming the credit for success when it happens - but there's often a hugeamount of luck. They just happen to be in the right place at the right time. And if things go wrong, there's usuallysomeone else to blame. So when thingsare going badly it's down to the problems of the Eurozone; when they are goingwell it's due to the brilliance of the top bankers. (And it's hard for politicians to criticisebankers for pulling this trick when they do it so often themselves.)
Competentmanagement teams at banks will generally do better than incompetent ones, but Isuspect that a huge proportion of the factors which affect overall success willalways be outside their control. If that'strue, then the pool of people who could manage a bank competently is muchlarger than we are led to believe. Andif that pool is much larger, then the need to compete by paying huge salariesis correspondingly reduced.
To look at thingsanother way, do we really believe that we couldn't find competent people to runour banks at salaries very much lower than those being paid currently? After all, it's not so very long ago that thebanks were indeed run by people whose salaries, in both absolute andcomparative terms, were very much lower than today. And the banks were, I recall, rather more successfultoo.
Another awkward story for the government, andwhich is fast growing legs, is the departure of Cabinet Office official Eirian WalshAtkins after posting a Twitter message saying she hoped a groupfighting for better regulation of the lobbying industry "would die".
The SundayTimes reported yesterday that Ms Walsh Atkins resigned as head ofconstitutional policy at the Cabinet Office on Friday. She now faces aninternal investigation into possible breaches of the civil service code ofconduct.
The offending tweet she posted on December22, said: "I wish Unlock Democracy [the campaign group] would die. I amprepared to help it along."


When asked by the paper to explain her commentabout Unlock Democracy, she replied: "I don't like them," and hung up.
The problem, andas is also reported today in the Independentand DailyMail, is that the same official held regular meetings with an industry group seeking to influence the government's proposed statutory register oflobbyists, which she was responsible for preparing.
Accordingto records, she met with UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC), a lobby industrybody promoting self-regulation, on at least four occasions since September2010. At the same time, transparency campaigners have been denied access.
The shabby episode puts a serious questionmark against the impartiality of advice presumably employed in informing lastweek's government's non-proposals regarding a statutory register.
Ms Walsh Atkins' Twitter account has since been deactivated.
29-Jan-12
How realistic is the government's pledge to end child poverty by 2020? The strategy is hugely ambitious and progress has stalled.
JRF suggests the following
This note draws on the findings of seven reports about how to take forward different aspects of a child poverty strategy; examines the impact of current policy; and suggests what is needed to ensure the target is met.
The seven related reports are:
- Can work eradicate child poverty? by Dave Simmonds and Paul Bivand
- Childcare and child poverty by Jane Waldfogel and Alison Garnham
- Ending severe child poverty by Jason Strelitz
- Addressing in-work poverty by Peter Kenway
- Tackling child poverty when parents cannot work by Martin Evans and Lewis Williams
- The effects of discrimination on families in the fight to end child poverty by Matt Davies
- Parental qualifications and child poverty in 2020 by Andy Dickerson and Jo Lindley
Key Points
- Over the last few years a significant reduction in child poverty has been achieved, backed by significant resources. However, further progress depends on a big shift that raises the level of resources invested and widens the scope of anti-poverty measures.
- The strategy requires over two million more children to be taken out of poverty, four times the progress since 1997. No single policy can achieve this. Only if worklessness is reduced and benefits raised and working parents' earnings improved does the strategy stand a chance of success.
- Improvement of in-work incomes is particularly needed - there has been little progress on reducing in-work poverty and existing policy tools seem inadequate.
- The child poverty strategy will need to help parents into jobs but also consider factors affecting their earnings opportunities, including:
- the adequacy of childcare
- job flexibility for parents
- the level of parental skills; and
- how these are used by employers to create quality employment.
- Ending child poverty will depend not just on provision but on the behaviour of individuals, employers and public bodies, including:
- decisions taken by families about working patterns, including whether both members of a couple work, as well as the number of working hours;
- whether employers offer parents good quality jobs, with hours that meet their wants and constraints; and
- whether government agencies provide support that genuinely responds to individuals' needs.
- Families, employers and government need to work together to combat child poverty:
- This partnership needs to deliver improved routes into work, so that parents can work in a way that complements their family lives.
- It needs to repair the damaging mistrust between families and the state, and create a benefits and tax credits system that reliably helps families to escape poverty.
- Finally, basic benefits need to provide an adequate foundation for improvement in families' lives, enabling them to avoid hardship and debt.
Taxpayer-owned bank RBS is paying its chief executive Stephen Hester a bonus worth nearly £1 million for his work in 2011.RBS shares fell by 48% last year, this man is to receive the 3.6 million shares at the expense of the taxpayer he is already being paid £1.2 million.
Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna gives his take on the bonus"Ministers have spoken of the need for greater shareholder activism but despite the government being the largest shareholder in RBS, have failed to rein in excess."The deputy prime minister, prime minister and others have tried to suggest that the bonus framework was set by the last Labour government which is simply untrue. RBS has been very clear that the remuneration committee of the board of the bank had discretion in this case."Because his bonus is being paid in shares, Mr Hester could end up receiving well over £1 million."RBS missed its lending target in the third quarter of last year and net lending to businesses by the country's banks fell in nine out of the last 12 months."
Westminster is not happy - well Westminster guess what neither are we !
A Lib Dem minister asked the banker to waive the payout. Labour put pressure on Cameron to intervene.
Mr Hester received a bonus of £2million last year but this was paid in shares, the value of which has halved since the bonus issue, which in effect means his bonus was around £1 million last year if cashed in now.But that's not a bad little earner any way, and shares can go up as well as down. Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna gives his take on the bonus"Ministers have spoken of the need for greater shareholder activism but despite the government being the largest shareholder in RBS, have failed to rein in excess."The deputy prime minister, prime minister and others have tried to suggest that the bonus framework was set by the last Labour government which is simply untrue. RBS has been very clear that the remuneration committee of the board of the bank had discretion in this case."Because his bonus is being paid in shares, Mr Hester could end up receiving well over £1 million."RBS missed its lending target in the third quarter of last year and net lending to businesses by the country's banks fell in nine out of the last 12 months."
Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat,says "There's a question of honour. Even if there's a contractual opportunity for him to have a bonus it doesn't mean he has to accept it.""He should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a bank which is almost completely owned by us the taxpayers."He needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth."
How out of touch is the government - its not contractual so they can intervene, he hasn't hit his targets and he is already having a huge salary.
This issue is about a whole host of things - perception, PR , taxpayers ownership, government governance , payouts for non achievement . This is not in the private sector - this is public ownership so different rules do apply.
So he is threatening to go - well my view on that ,don't threaten - there's the door feel free to walk through it .At that salary I am sure he is easily replaced.
People are worrying how to pay bills , how to feed their family and how to keep warm, we have a huge problem with youth unemployment and jobs. This man and his bonus fade into insignificance when measured against these things.
The squabbling over banking bonuses continues with Iain Duncan Smith telling the Telegraphany attempt by the government to blockpayment to RBS chief executive Stephen Hester wouldtrigger 'chaos' within the finance system.
Clearly IDS had not read the Independentwho write about the "political dynamite" of how Mr Hester is in line for an extra payout of £3.3m which would dwarfhis controversial bonus of £963,000. This would be on top of the £35.54m totalremuneration package he has received since joining RBS in 2008.
Disclosure of these absurdly large amounts has put torybackbenchers in a flap over the weekend with several now openly demanding thatthe Prime Minister and his Chancellor stop blaming the previous administrationfor the excessive amounts involved and start "showing some damned leadership".
Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott has joined in the clamour, tellingthe Observer that "everysingle Lib Dem I know is against Hester getting a penny of bonus" although NickClegg does not appear to be among them. Nor it seems is Chief Secretary to theTreasury Danny Alexander who would only say on the BBC's Sunday Politicswhether the government had given RBS a "strong steer" and, anyway, thebonus was less than half what it had been last year.
Miliband Minor has had little to add on the subject as hewatches the Tories' temporary ascendancy in the polls eroded by a succession offat cat revelations. His own backbenchers however are questioning whether the latestmuted admonitions by Chukka Umunna demonstrate too much of an inclination to burythe Brown legacy when the focus should be nailing an exposed government overits inability to curb executive pay.
Whilst the party politics of the situation develop, we thoughtit might be instructive to identify the individuals who make up the RBS board and apparentlyhave the final say in matters (government steer notwithstanding) - with a particularmention of the four members of the Remuneration Committee : Penny Hughes CBE, Sir Sandy Crombie, AlisonDavis and John McFarlane.
How they were appointed, how they vote and to whothey are finally accountable is something we think is likely to emerge in the comingweeks, as the next tranche of senior staff bonuses is determined.
28-Jan-12
Anarticle in today's Beans on Toast casts a less than flattering spotlight ondecision-making within the Welsh NHS and what is joking referred to as itsgovernance systems.
Managersat Swansea have been pursuing the closure of older district facilitiesand switching services to its two main hospitals. The latest is HillHouse Hospital in what is considered a very desirable development location tothe west of the city. Purely coincidental, of course.
Theprogramme of closures has proved controversial in the past with delays causedby intervention from community health council watchdogs. No such problems thistime around however.
Infact, at a meeting of the local health board, the people who notionally makethe actual decisions, the director of planning told members: We allowed thechairman discretion to approve this plan in advance of this meeting. Weare just ratifying the chairman's actions."
Translation:pick up your pay cheques at the door and piss off until we need you to nodsomething else through.
27-Jan-12
Afair-sized dollop of what ConDem spinners were peddling earlier in the week about cracking down onexecutive pay splashed back on them big-time today following the announcementof a £963,000 bonus for RBS chief executive Stephen Hester.
Labour insist that there is nothing in Mr Hester's employmentterms which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatorybonus. They have wheeled out a number of mouthpieces to say the same thingseveral different way.
Chancellor George Osborne claimed the decision had been taken bythe board who were powerless to change the terms of a contract agreed by thelast Labour government and which "determined" bonus arrangements.
Perhapsit is a simplistic way of looking at things but the government has an 82%controlling stake in RBS. This is a serious majority in anyone's estimation andsuch a shareholding surely gives ministers a final say in how much is paid. Andyet the only active criterion has been an indirect statement by David Cameronthat the figure should be "below the £1million mark".
However, an insight into the dislocated thinking that still prevails from the cabinet down is the statement by tory MP Mark Field who feels MrHester should not be "vilified" as he is responsible for managing£45bn of public money.
Some might say in response that it is Mr Field and his coalition colleagues who hold that particular remit - and that they are doing a spectacularly crap job of it.
It appears thatsome in government circles are starting to feel a little disappointed that mostof the names emerging for the elections to the new posts of PoliceCommissioners are past or present party politicians. Apparently, they had really hoped to see some strongindependent characters coming forward, rather than simply having a traditionalparty battle.
I can understandthat hope - after all, possible politicisation of the police is one of the mainplanks of opposition to their proposals. But I cannot understand why they might have thought for a moment thatthere would ever be a significant number of non-aligned candidates.
Elections are thebusiness of parties; parties are structured and organised precisely for thatpurpose. They are also funded for thatpurpose. And the areas covered by policeforces are large, much larger than the average constituency; the chances of a one-person band ever communicating effectively with a significant proportion of the population are slim.
Why would anyonethink that there would be many independent candidates who would be able to organise an electioncampaign over such a large area on anything like the same basis as a politicalparty? And how would they fund it -unless they are significantly wealthy in the first place? I cannot imagine how anyone involved inpolitics could ever have expected the elections not to be dominated by party politicalcandidates.
As I mentioned last week, there was an 'exempt' report at Monday's Executive Board meeting concerning the National Botanic Garden of Wales. As I said, there appeared to be no good reason for the exemption other than an order by the Welsh Government. The local paper tried to find out what had happened but other than a vague comment from the leader, Cllr Gravell and the promise of an announcement by the Welsh Government 'in the Spring' we were none the wiser. One presumes that Cardiff are pouring more cash into the money-pit. However, there had to be a reason why this was also before the esteemed cabinet in County Hall. Already granting at least £60,000 per year from our coffers, I see from the minutes (incidentally, you also might want to note Item 8), that an extra £15,000 per year will now be added to this figure, Cllr Gravell did not mention this to the local paper. As usual the white elephants are forming a queue for extra strawberries before the budget axe falls next month. I can see the 'webcasting council meetings' call being conveniently kicked into touch.
With the furore over Meryl Gravell's derogatory comments about members of staff still rumbling along, and gaining several hundred hits on You Tube, I am sure it will be a very interesting meeting of full council on the 8th February, Cllr Winston Lemon has already publicly called for her to abdicate the throne, I wonder if anyone else will join him? I wonder if any more amendments to the constitution can be squeezed in beforehand to avoid any embarrassment for our Leader? I don't think those protective goalposts can be moved much more. Perhaps Councillors will be asked to sign an undertaking not to upset applecarts before being allowed in. The Council budget meeting will then be held on the 21st February where the remaining funds will be 'voted' on, in Carmarthenshire's own inimitable way. I trust the Public Gallery will be packed and extra wardens will be deployed, it could be a Peasant Alert Level 9 situation.
On the subject of the dwindling funds, the Welsh language current affairs magazine, Golwg ran an article a couple of weeks ago about the council's excessive contributions to the evangelical bowling alley, alternatively known as a 'church'. There were several contributors including myself, Y Cneifiwr, Cllr Caiach, the Council and of course the Towy Community Church itself. Y Cneifiwr's blog has a summary of some of the facts and figures.
Today's edition of Golwg has an article about my arrest and calls to allow the filming of council meetings. Well done Golwg.
I have also heard today that my filming and spending petitions have now been put on the Agenda for the Senedd Petitions Committee for the 7th February. The straw poll over on Dyfrig Thomas' blog is still going strong, it currently stands 50 in favour and 8 against webcasting meetings. It would be interesting to know whether the 8 who voted against webcasting object to the cost (which is debatable) or the principle.
With the furore over Meryl Gravell's derogatory comments about members of staff still rumbling along, and gaining several hundred hits on You Tube, I am sure it will be a very interesting meeting of full council on the 8th February, Cllr Winston Lemon has already publicly called for her to abdicate the throne, I wonder if anyone else will join him? I wonder if any more amendments to the constitution can be squeezed in beforehand to avoid any embarrassment for our Leader? I don't think those protective goalposts can be moved much more. Perhaps Councillors will be asked to sign an undertaking not to upset applecarts before being allowed in. The Council budget meeting will then be held on the 21st February where the remaining funds will be 'voted' on, in Carmarthenshire's own inimitable way. I trust the Public Gallery will be packed and extra wardens will be deployed, it could be a Peasant Alert Level 9 situation.
On the subject of the dwindling funds, the Welsh language current affairs magazine, Golwg ran an article a couple of weeks ago about the council's excessive contributions to the evangelical bowling alley, alternatively known as a 'church'. There were several contributors including myself, Y Cneifiwr, Cllr Caiach, the Council and of course the Towy Community Church itself. Y Cneifiwr's blog has a summary of some of the facts and figures.
Today's edition of Golwg has an article about my arrest and calls to allow the filming of council meetings. Well done Golwg.
I have also heard today that my filming and spending petitions have now been put on the Agenda for the Senedd Petitions Committee for the 7th February. The straw poll over on Dyfrig Thomas' blog is still going strong, it currently stands 50 in favour and 8 against webcasting meetings. It would be interesting to know whether the 8 who voted against webcasting object to the cost (which is debatable) or the principle.
I've just seen a report that the percentage in favour of independence in Catalunya has surged by more than 8% to 53.6%. The official Baròmetre d'Opinió PolÃtica is published every quarter, and the figures for the previous quarter were 45.4% in favour of independence with 24.7% against. I'll link to the full figures when they're available.
There does seem to be a strange contrast between Catalunya and Scotland. The Scottish government is pressing ahead with a referendum on independence even though the opinion polls currently show that only a minority favour it. But the Catalan government is not pressing for any move towards independence from Spain, even though the polls are consistently showing a large margin in favour of it. Odd, isn't it?
Dragon's Eye notwithstanding, the calls for a police investigation into management dealings at Awema have ramped up a spate of associated accusations that official intervention into the Swansea-based race relations group should have come a lot sooner.
As yet, press releases issued by opposition AMs are highly critical of the "Welsh Government" but have stopped short of making accusations that it was Labour links which forestalled previous attempts to uncover the extent of management & financial problems. They are probably hoping that the Welsh media will make the connections unaided.
If further prompting is needed however then Swansea's Lib Dems will be eager to assist. At least one of their number sees it as an opportunity to regain lost moral high ground following recent serious question marks against their own probity in local public affairs.
What is apparent in the broader context is that the reported events at Awema highlight how the dependence which the Welsh Government places upon a range of agencies and charitable bodies to deliver its diverse agenda is not matched by an adequate system of controls.
The inherent shortcomings claimed to have been involved in this particular organisation can probably be reproduced to varying degrees within dozens of public bodies where 'leadership' is confused with obfuscation and misconduct - e.g. Plas Madoc Communities First.
The charge of cronyism is a familiar one in politics and has gained greater prominence in the public eye in recent times. What is less clearcut for many politicians - and is something that should be the subject of Assembly scrutiny - is the extent to which patronage still plays a part in appointments and endorsements within Wales' so-called third sector.
As yet, press releases issued by opposition AMs are highly critical of the "Welsh Government" but have stopped short of making accusations that it was Labour links which forestalled previous attempts to uncover the extent of management & financial problems. They are probably hoping that the Welsh media will make the connections unaided.
If further prompting is needed however then Swansea's Lib Dems will be eager to assist. At least one of their number sees it as an opportunity to regain lost moral high ground following recent serious question marks against their own probity in local public affairs.
What is apparent in the broader context is that the reported events at Awema highlight how the dependence which the Welsh Government places upon a range of agencies and charitable bodies to deliver its diverse agenda is not matched by an adequate system of controls.
The inherent shortcomings claimed to have been involved in this particular organisation can probably be reproduced to varying degrees within dozens of public bodies where 'leadership' is confused with obfuscation and misconduct - e.g. Plas Madoc Communities First.
The charge of cronyism is a familiar one in politics and has gained greater prominence in the public eye in recent times. What is less clearcut for many politicians - and is something that should be the subject of Assembly scrutiny - is the extent to which patronage still plays a part in appointments and endorsements within Wales' so-called third sector.
Every so often, Swansea's local paperinadvertently reminds its readership that it shares the same owners (andegalitarian values) as the Daily Mail.
Today's example is an editorial lament thatprivate schools have all but disappeared in the city. Describing the problem asa shrinking market, the paper nonetheless comments robustly how "there arestill parents who prefer to pay for a child's education."
Whether local families who cannot evenafford to pay for books are meant to empathise with this viewpoint is unclear.
Update: thanks to Ceillog for spell-checking.
Update: thanks to Ceillog for spell-checking.
26-Jan-12
I've long-knownthat politics is a business in which friendship and loyalty count for little,but I was still surprised at the candour of Peter Hain's description of theevents surrounding the replacement of Ron Davies as Labour's candidate forFirst Secretary.
Hain was completelyconvinced, he tells us, that Rhodri Morgan was the right man for the job; rightfor Walesand right for Labour. However, insteadof supporting Rhodri, he ran Alun Michael's successful campaign. He did this, he says, because AlastairCampbell told him that it was 'what Tony wanted'.
Perhaps Hain expectsRhodri, Labour, and Walesto forgive him, now that he's been so candid - the repentance of a sinner, asit were. I suspect that it will justmake his 'friends' - if he has any left - even more wary about theirbacks. With friends like Hain, theyhardly need political enemies.
Further to my previous post and Freedom of Information request to Cwm Environmental, Carmarthenshire Council's waste disposal company, new information has arisen. I have now requested some more information. A response is due towards the end of February;
Dear Sir,
Please could either Carmarthenshire Council or Cwm Environmental
Ltd respond to the following requests;
1. The accounts for the year to 31/12/2008 show an item under
"other income" of £3,528,000. Please could you explain how this
arose?
2. In the same year the company purchased 20 acres of land at a
price of £650,000, a purchase which according to the County
Council's records had to be funded with a loan of £400,000 from the
authority. Why was the loan necessary in view of the very high
receipts in "other income"?
3. Please detail the resons for the high cost of this land, a
current approxiamate price would be around £1200 per acre, this
land appears to have cost £32,000 per acre.
4. Please confirm the identity of the owner(s) from whom the land
was purchased.
5. You state that Carmarthenshire Council own 100% of this company.
Up until a year or so ago an elected Member of the council had a
place on the Board of Directors and 25% of the vote, a decision was
made to remove this representation. As this company is owned by a
public authority why are the interests of the taxpayer not
represented on the Board of Directors? Please provide detail of how
the taxpayers interests are safeguarded?
Yours faithfully
Jacqui Thompson
Link to WhatDoTheyKnow site here
Dear Sir,
Please could either Carmarthenshire Council or Cwm Environmental
Ltd respond to the following requests;
1. The accounts for the year to 31/12/2008 show an item under
"other income" of £3,528,000. Please could you explain how this
arose?
2. In the same year the company purchased 20 acres of land at a
price of £650,000, a purchase which according to the County
Council's records had to be funded with a loan of £400,000 from the
authority. Why was the loan necessary in view of the very high
receipts in "other income"?
3. Please detail the resons for the high cost of this land, a
current approxiamate price would be around £1200 per acre, this
land appears to have cost £32,000 per acre.
4. Please confirm the identity of the owner(s) from whom the land
was purchased.
5. You state that Carmarthenshire Council own 100% of this company.
Up until a year or so ago an elected Member of the council had a
place on the Board of Directors and 25% of the vote, a decision was
made to remove this representation. As this company is owned by a
public authority why are the interests of the taxpayer not
represented on the Board of Directors? Please provide detail of how
the taxpayers interests are safeguarded?
Yours faithfully
Jacqui Thompson
Link to WhatDoTheyKnow site here
Atelling question came this morning from BBC breakfast news presenter SimonMcCoy to Nick Clegg over his calls to the coalition government to speed up raising tax thresholds to £10,000 a year.
"How can you call for the government todo something? You're deputy Prime Minister. You are the government!" came thequery.
Clegg never quite managed to answerthe question - other than to say it was in the Lib Dem manifesto. But so were commitments not to raise VAT and tuition fees.
25-Jan-12
I quite enjoyedDavid Davies' little outburst yesterday about the likely outcome from the SilkCommission. It's a real problem, isn't it, whenopinion is moving so strongly in one direction that it becomes difficult tofind anyone willing to put the opposing case.
I suspect that hissuggestion - just publish the report now, and scrap the consultation andevidence taking - was born of frustration and intended to be sarcastic. But what would he have people do? Ban most of those supporting further powers from giving evidence so thatthe committee only hears an equal number of fors and againsts? Fund some new groups to argue against to tryand even the numbers out a bit?
In fact, histongue-in-cheek suggestion may well be the best and most sensible one, even ifhe's likely to be the last one to recognise that. On those issues where there is an overwhelmingconsensus, perhaps moving straight to a recommendation and decision really isthe easiest way to proceed. After all, the only reason for holding long drawn-out commissions to consider matters is to appease the vociferous minority who want to stop progress. People rather like David Davies, in fact.
Elin Jones has just been reported by the BBC as saying:
"There is a debate happening now in Wales, England and Scotland now about the future of the UK constitution - I want to see Plaid Cymru engaged fully in the debate in order to lead us to becoming a successful independent nation.
"I'm clearly of the view that two consecutive victories for Plaid Cymru, just as with the SNP in Scotland, could trigger a referendum for independence in Wales."
It is the first time a leading Plaid figure has suggested a referendum could take place within the next decade.
Let's start with the positives. First, it's right to acknowledge that Elin has consistently taken a stand in favour of independence for Wales, that puts her head and shoulders above two of the other leadership candidates. Second, 2020 is certainly an improvement on her previous suggestion that we should aim to be independent before 2036. That is the sort of date that means nothing in practical terms because it is much too far away.
But I don't think she should have put it in the way she now has. It is definitely not necessary for Plaid Cymru to win two consecutive elections before we have the right to call an independence referendum. We just need to look to Scotland to see that. The SNP would have had a referendum on independence before 2011 if there had been a majority in the Scottish Parliament willing to pass a referendum bill in the 2007-2011 term. The only reason it didn't happen was because the SNP (together with the Greens and Margo Macdonald) didn't have a majority, and the three unionist parties would have voted it down.
The same is true in Wales. We will have a referendum on independence when a majority of AMs in the Senedd is prepared to vote for it. Nor will all those that vote for it have to be Plaid Cymru AMs, for there might well come a time when other parties are convinced that independence is in the best interests of Wales. But in practical terms, getting an independence referendum is more likely to happen when we elect a Plaid Cymru government.
I couldn't agree more with the idea of setting out a route map towards independence. We need to do this. Every country needs to have a framework of fundamental structures and institutions in place in order to safeguard the wellbeing, prosperity and security of its people. Wales does have some of these and with the progress of devolution is gaining more, but we are some way from having all of them. Every step we can take now will make the final step to independence that much smaller and therefore that much easier.
But we must also bear in mind that other events might bring us to the point where we are faced with making a decision much sooner. Events such as Scotland becoming independent, a wave of other countries in Europe becoming independent (Catalunya, Euskadi and Flanders, for example) or a reunited Ireland might mean that we have to make a choice between independence or being part of Greater England before we've built the framework of structures and institutions we need. That's not an insuperable problem ... we'll just have to build them after we've become independent instead.
So although we should work out a step-by-step route map and put dates against each step for planning purposes, we should not rule out becoming independent much sooner. The only criticism I have of what Elin has now said is that it seems to rule this out. I'm sure that is not what she intended, but those who are opposed to our independence are going to interpret it that way.
24-Jan-12
National Audit Office -Not Impressed by the Works Progamme [ 24-Jan-12 11:43pm ]
[ T ]
[ G ]
[ N ]
[ L ]
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 24 January 2012
The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced the Work Programme quickly, in just over a year, and this has had benefits, but the speed with which it was launched has also increased risks, according to the National Audit Office. The Department and providers have made assumptions about how many people the Programme will get back into work
but there is a significant risk that they are over-optimistic.
The Programme, which replaces virtually all of the existing 'welfare to work' schemes, has a number of innovative design features that address
weaknesses in previous schemes. Providers are paid primarily for the results they achieve in supporting people into employment so what the provider earns is tied to performance. Providers will receive higher rewards for supporting harder to help claimant groups into work and are
paid partly out of the benefit savings they help to generate. There is more potential for competition between providers.
However, assumptions about the feasibility of the Programme might be over-optimistic. The NAO's analysis suggests that 26 per cent of the largest group of job seekers in the Programme will get jobs, compared to the Department's estimate of 40 per cent. Some contractors in areas
of high unemployment may struggle to meet nationally set targets. It is possible that one or more contractors will get into serious financial difficulty during the term of the contracts. Today's report also points out that no alternatives to the Programme were considered as part of the business case, nor was it piloted to test assumptions.
It has so far cost £63 million to terminate existing welfare to work
contracts, including contracts with ten providers that went on to win contracts for the Programme. Two former contractors have not yet agreed settlements.
The IT project to support the Programme was not fully functional when the Programme was launched. A consequence is that the Department will not be able, until March 2012 at the earliest, to carry out automatic checks to confirm that people who find work have stopped claiming benefits. The Department needs to ensure that improvements to the IT system are delivered on schedule. In the meantime, there is an increased risk of fraud and error going undetected.
Fewer clients than expected are being referred onto the Programme as part of the 'harder-to-help' category. Some have been found to be 'fit for work' and switched into other categories and it is taking the Department longer to process assessments and appeals. As a result, some sub-contractors are frustrated at the speed with which clients have been referred to them.
Here's the link to the Executive Summary and report
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/dwp_work_programme.aspx
The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced the Work Programme quickly, in just over a year, and this has had benefits, but the speed with which it was launched has also increased risks, according to the National Audit Office. The Department and providers have made assumptions about how many people the Programme will get back into work
but there is a significant risk that they are over-optimistic.
The Programme, which replaces virtually all of the existing 'welfare to work' schemes, has a number of innovative design features that address
weaknesses in previous schemes. Providers are paid primarily for the results they achieve in supporting people into employment so what the provider earns is tied to performance. Providers will receive higher rewards for supporting harder to help claimant groups into work and are
paid partly out of the benefit savings they help to generate. There is more potential for competition between providers.
However, assumptions about the feasibility of the Programme might be over-optimistic. The NAO's analysis suggests that 26 per cent of the largest group of job seekers in the Programme will get jobs, compared to the Department's estimate of 40 per cent. Some contractors in areas
of high unemployment may struggle to meet nationally set targets. It is possible that one or more contractors will get into serious financial difficulty during the term of the contracts. Today's report also points out that no alternatives to the Programme were considered as part of the business case, nor was it piloted to test assumptions.
It has so far cost £63 million to terminate existing welfare to work
contracts, including contracts with ten providers that went on to win contracts for the Programme. Two former contractors have not yet agreed settlements.
The IT project to support the Programme was not fully functional when the Programme was launched. A consequence is that the Department will not be able, until March 2012 at the earliest, to carry out automatic checks to confirm that people who find work have stopped claiming benefits. The Department needs to ensure that improvements to the IT system are delivered on schedule. In the meantime, there is an increased risk of fraud and error going undetected.
Fewer clients than expected are being referred onto the Programme as part of the 'harder-to-help' category. Some have been found to be 'fit for work' and switched into other categories and it is taking the Department longer to process assessments and appeals. As a result, some sub-contractors are frustrated at the speed with which clients have been referred to them.
Here's the link to the Executive Summary and report
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/dwp_work_programme.aspx
I must admit to being mystified by the way that the findings of the IPPR survey into English attitudes to devolution have been reported in Wales. The BBC Wales story has this headline:
IPPR report: More English think devolution and Welsh Assembly harmful
And then quoted these figures:
• 31% of people thought the Welsh Assembly had a negative impact on how Britain was governed, compared to 11% in 2007.
• Those who thought devolution to Wales had made no difference fell to 24% from a high of 66% in 2003.
• About a quarter (26%) thought Wales got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly more (28%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.
• Only 7% thought England got its fair share, while 40% thought it got less than it deserved.
These figures are indeed taken from the report, which is fine. The problem is that the BBC's story only mentions Wales, saying nothing about Scotland and Northern Ireland.
If we look at the report itself, we can see that the first two figures sets of figures are almost exactly the same for Scotland's Parliament. Put in the same format, they are:
• 35% of people thought the Scottish Parliament had a negative impact on how Britain was governed, compared to 14% in 2007.
• Those who thought devolution to Scotland had made no difference fell to 20% from a high of 64% in 2003.
The IPPR report doesn't give an equivalent comparison with the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. But it does give a comparison with both Scotland and Northern Ireland for the third set of figures on the share of UK public expenditure:
• Nearly a half (46%) thought Scotland got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly less than a quarter (24%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.
• More than a quarter (28%) thought Northern Ireland got more than its fair share of UK public spending, with slightly less (25%) saying it got "pretty much" its fair share.
So why did the BBC single out devolution to Wales in their story ... without even a mention of the greater discontent that the English feel over both the "harmfulness" of the Scottish Parliament and the perceived "unfairness" in the levels of public spending in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is it just blinkered parochialism, or is there a more sinister agenda at play?
And Wales Online follows in the same vein with an even worse:
Welsh Assembly is damaging Britain, claims survey of English voters
However it does at least mention the figures for Scotland ... but that makes the headline even less excusable.
The collapse ofPeacocks is a tragedy for all those who work there, and a major blow to theWelsh economy, given that Peacocks is one of the few large companies to beheadquartered here. Whatever happens byway of salvage, it seems inevitable that what emerges will be a smaller andleaner company - with a much reduced workforce.
It isn't the onlycompany to be facing difficulties of course; many others have already been hit,and we can be certain that more will be hit in the future. The reaction from opposition politicians (andit really doesn't matter which party or parties are in government and which inopposition) is that somebody must do something.
The somebody isinvariably code for 'the government'; and given the essential similarity ofeconomic policy of the government and the opposition, the something inevitablymeans the use of public money, since the differences in economic policy betweenopposition and government are too small and too long term to make a differenceat the point at which a company has failed.
As an instinctiveinterventionist, I don't see anything wrong, in principle, with the use of publicfunds to rescue private firms and save jobs and livelihoods. It's the practice which concerns me, not theprinciple.
It is a fundamentaltenet of the capitalism whose image the UK parties are all busily trying to burnishthat capital gets rewarded for taking risk, and that capital gets the lion'sshare of the rewards of success. Thequestion is over how much risk they're really taking if public funds are beingused for rescues when a capitalist enterprise fails. It's another example of privatised rewards andsocialised risk. And it often looks asthough the biggest risks of all are borne by those who have little choice butto work for a capitalist enterprise.
The danger in usingpublic money to bail out private companies is that governments are usuallyasked to step in only after the banks have already decided that the risk ofdefault is too great for them to loan the money. I'm not sure on what basis anyone believesthat governments are better placed than banks to predict the success or failureof an enterprise; it seems a highly unlikely proposition to me.
Perhaps rather thanlending or giving money direct to the companies to bail them out, thegovernment might think about lending or giving it to the employees for themto take a growing stake in the companies for which they work. It would not only give them a greater stakein the success of the enterprise, but it would also start to rebalance theeconomy away from a pure capitalist model. After all, Marx said that capitalism contains within itself the seeds ofits own destruction. All we need is themechanism to give effect to that, and the failure of capitalist company aftercapitalist company might even be creating opportunities if we look for them.
The man who savaged Paxman is clearly prepared to show similar assertiveness towards lacklustre Plaid politicians.
Plaid policy adviser Eurfyl ap Gwilymdescribes himself as "very critical" of some candidates, adding that some inthe party had to "pull up theirsocks".
His review findings are that "too manyparty spokespersons appeared to lack both competence and confidence inpresenting our policies".
He quite reasonably goes on to say how"it should be a precondition that they develop a sound understanding oftheir own brief but should also be briefed on the full range of partypolicies".
It is interesting to see that there has beenno undue disagreement with this assessment from within Plaid. Similarly, thelack of adverse comment from other parties might suggest that they recognise someof the symptoms in themselves.
Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see a contemporarypolitical organisation doing what it said it would do in conducting awarts-and-all review. All it needs now is a leader with the presentationalqualities Dr ap Gwilym specifies to put things right.
A return to Poems and Politics - Liverpool by Grahame Davies [ 24-Jan-12 1:50am ]
[ T ]
[ G ]
[ N ]
[ L ]
23-Jan-12
Further to my previous post here, the Unison Carmarthen website now has a video of the Council Leader's performance at the Chooselife event, here's a link; What does Meryl Gravell think about you? In common with other politicians who realise they have dropped a bit of a clanger, Cllr Gravell has now issued a press release. She defends her 'rabble' remark by saying she was referring to a small minority from within the protestors who were abusive to clients and staff of the Centre - if this was the reason for her remark, perhaps she should have made that very clear in her speech; she was not clear, and it appears to be a general reference to the protestors. The next 'insult' of course came from Cllr Gravell herself, her "Mark and I" remarks about council staff (now popularly referred to as the 'Royal We') were not only crass but rather insulting and her 'explanation' in the press release is...er...a little contrived;
"There have also been reports on comments I made congratulating the hardworking staff at Chooselife. I did praise them for their dedication and for the fact that theirs is not a '9 to 5' job. However this was not meant to reflect badly in any way on council staff. Members will know that I lose no opportunity to commend and congratulate our staff within the council"
It appears she has forgotten what she said - luckily we've got the video, here's a reminder of her actual words;
"We have nine thousand employees Mark and I, and if all nine thousand employees worked as hard as Alan, and were as enthusiastic as Alan is, my goodness we would not have a problem at all in the Council, but there we are, we are who we are!"
Remember, this wasn't in the Council Chamber but at a meeting attended by people from all walks of life - can you imagine what is said in the cloistered seclusion of the Chamber? No wonder they don't want anyone filming!
"There have also been reports on comments I made congratulating the hardworking staff at Chooselife. I did praise them for their dedication and for the fact that theirs is not a '9 to 5' job. However this was not meant to reflect badly in any way on council staff. Members will know that I lose no opportunity to commend and congratulate our staff within the council"
It appears she has forgotten what she said - luckily we've got the video, here's a reminder of her actual words;
"We have nine thousand employees Mark and I, and if all nine thousand employees worked as hard as Alan, and were as enthusiastic as Alan is, my goodness we would not have a problem at all in the Council, but there we are, we are who we are!"
Remember, this wasn't in the Council Chamber but at a meeting attended by people from all walks of life - can you imagine what is said in the cloistered seclusion of the Chamber? No wonder they don't want anyone filming!
I must comment on the reception usually given by Carmarthenshire Council to those who petition, peacefully protest or otherwise challenge decisions by presenting their arguments on the steps of County Hall.
Whether it's the closure of a day centre or the closure of a secondary school, they're on their own. If you're very lucky a messenger may be sent out to quickly grab the petition or whatever, only to dart back into the security of the hallowed halls before any awkwards questions are asked. Any request for a senior officer or Executive Board Member (who are responsible for the decisions) to engage with the 'rabble' will always fall on deaf ears.
I was surprised therefore to see that there is an entirely different attitude when the representations are in support of council policy. I am avoiding the argument over the siting of the new Furnace School in Llanelli - that is entirely a matter for those directly involved - my concern is with the council's attitude to those who dare oppose the latest 'masterplan'.
A photo in last week's Evening Post featured a group of children and a school governor presenting a petition on the steps of County Hall, supporting the council's preferred school site - and who else were on the steps, nestled in amongst the throng, beaming with delight? None other than the Director of Education Mr Rob Sully and Executive Board Member for Education Cllr Gwynne Wooldridge!
Whether it's the closure of a day centre or the closure of a secondary school, they're on their own. If you're very lucky a messenger may be sent out to quickly grab the petition or whatever, only to dart back into the security of the hallowed halls before any awkwards questions are asked. Any request for a senior officer or Executive Board Member (who are responsible for the decisions) to engage with the 'rabble' will always fall on deaf ears.
I was surprised therefore to see that there is an entirely different attitude when the representations are in support of council policy. I am avoiding the argument over the siting of the new Furnace School in Llanelli - that is entirely a matter for those directly involved - my concern is with the council's attitude to those who dare oppose the latest 'masterplan'.
A photo in last week's Evening Post featured a group of children and a school governor presenting a petition on the steps of County Hall, supporting the council's preferred school site - and who else were on the steps, nestled in amongst the throng, beaming with delight? None other than the Director of Education Mr Rob Sully and Executive Board Member for Education Cllr Gwynne Wooldridge!
I had another response to my further FoI enquiries to Cwm Environmental ltd, the company owned by Carmarthenshire Council to handle their waste management strategy, see here;http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cwm_environmental_ltd?unfold=1#incoming-245915
it raises a couple of interesting points;
As this company is owned (not just contracted) by the council, should it not be subject to the same FoI legislation as a public body? Apparently not according to the Director. As councils continue to outsource public services to private companies the issue of FoI compliance is becoming a national issue. This company, as I have said, is owned by the council.
I asked further about any 'interests' recorded against the directors (see my earlier post here) - again they seem to have different rules (although, according to the Constitution, Carmarthenshire Council officers' declarations are on a 'voluntary' basis too - but failure to declare should, potentially I assume, carry stiffer penalties - but that's another story), and what is more worrying is the inference that my request was somehow vexatious.
As for the quoted discrepancy regarding the funding to community groups, as I suspected, the explanation is that the £270,000+ per year (rather than £1433 initially quoted) relates to the Landfill Tax administered by GrantScape and Entrust. 6% of this tax, generated by the company, can be donated for the purposes of positive publicity (it's good too, of course for the community groups but 'publicity' is mentioned in the response). The identities of the organisations who were unsuccessful in these charity bids are exempt, I am told, through the Data Protection Act.
it raises a couple of interesting points;
As this company is owned (not just contracted) by the council, should it not be subject to the same FoI legislation as a public body? Apparently not according to the Director. As councils continue to outsource public services to private companies the issue of FoI compliance is becoming a national issue. This company, as I have said, is owned by the council.
I asked further about any 'interests' recorded against the directors (see my earlier post here) - again they seem to have different rules (although, according to the Constitution, Carmarthenshire Council officers' declarations are on a 'voluntary' basis too - but failure to declare should, potentially I assume, carry stiffer penalties - but that's another story), and what is more worrying is the inference that my request was somehow vexatious.
As for the quoted discrepancy regarding the funding to community groups, as I suspected, the explanation is that the £270,000+ per year (rather than £1433 initially quoted) relates to the Landfill Tax administered by GrantScape and Entrust. 6% of this tax, generated by the company, can be donated for the purposes of positive publicity (it's good too, of course for the community groups but 'publicity' is mentioned in the response). The identities of the organisations who were unsuccessful in these charity bids are exempt, I am told, through the Data Protection Act.
The Labour andConservative leaders seem to be vying with each other to see which can offerthe most trenchant critique of the style of modern-day capitalism. It will never lead to any real action,though. Once they've milked this one forall the sound bites they can get, they'll just move on to something else.
And, for all hisbluster, Cameron seems either unwilling or unable even to intervene inremuneration decisions at RBS, despite the Government owning 83% of thecompany. How serious can he really beabout empowering shareholders?
More significantly,an argument about the style of capitalism avoids any discussion about thesubstance. With capitalism suffering anenormous crisis, and the dependence on borrowing and growth shown to beunsustainable, it's not an alternative style that we need, but an alternativemodel.
Sure, as itssupporters regularly trumpet, capitalism has been a huge driver of affluencefrom which we have all benefited. EvenMarx recognised that. But the idea thatit can or will continue indefinitely owes more to faith than fact. And to point to the benefits withoutdiscussing the disbenefits is to arrive at a very unbalanced conclusion.
Capitalism may wellhave driven growth and affluence, but it has also driven rising levels ofinequality, and by externalising costs in pursuit of private profit has lefthuman society as a whole with the costs of the environmental damage caused byrampant growth and exploitation of natural resources.
Criticising fatcats and boardroom pay may attract media attention, but it's a diversion formthe real issue, which is about how we move from a global competitive economicmodel to a local co-operative one. It'sabout fairness in allocation of finite resources rather than power and strength. And it means the sort of changes whichTory-Labour politicians will never propose.
22-Jan-12
Among the endorsements that Dafydd Elis-Thomas has chosen to put on his new website in his bid to become leader of Plaid Cymru is this statement from Gwilym Owen:
Yn ôl rhai mae o'n euog o fod yn anwadal ei genedlaetholdeb a hynny yn fwy na dim am ei fod o'n ymwrthod a'r gair hwnnw "annibynniaeth". Dyna'r gair bellach sydd ar wefusau'r rheiny sy'n credu ei bod hi'n bosib ail adrodd stori'r Alban yng Nghymru. Ond twpdra o'r radd flaenaf ydi hynny wrth gwrs - ac mae Dafydd El yn ddiogn hirben ac yn ddigon onest i gyhoeddi hynny.
Mae gan Blaid Cymru swyddogaeth bwysicach a hynny ydi cydweithio gyda, a sbarduno'r Llywodraeth Lafur i gynnal economi Cymru drwy gyfnod o galedi mawr. Mae gweithredu felly yn anhepgor y dyddiau hyn - ac mae gan y Cenedlaetholwyr ddyletswydd i wynebu'r her honno.
According to some he's guilty of being fickle in his nationalism and, more that anything, this is because of his rejection of the word "independence". That's the word which is now on the lips of those who believe that it's possible to repeat what's happening in Scotland in Wales. But that of course is stupidity of the first degree - and Dafydd El is shrewd and honest enough to say that in public.
Plaid Cymru has a more important role, and that is to co-operate with and spur on the Labour Government to support the Welsh economy through a period of great hardship. Working in this way is indispensable in times like these - and Nationalists have a duty to face that challenge.
There are two things about this endorsement that I'd like to focus on: first independence and second leadership.
Fickle about independence
Let's look first at independence and the idea that the narrative in Scotland is different from that in Wales. I don't think it is, and neither does Dafydd Elis-Thomas.
Before his professed conversion to the cause of independence for Wales, Dafydd certainly didn't think there was that much difference between Scotland and Wales. Of course he never believed in independence for Wales, but perhaps some people reading this won't remember that only a few years ago he was equally against independence for Scotland too. This is what he said in September 2004:
This week the SNP gathers in Inverness. Last week, the former leader of the Welsh nationalists spoke up about the SNP's failure to adjust to devolution, commenting: "There is still a role for them but not as a nationalist party."
He added that the SNP's only chance of government was to cease to pursue "Scottish independence as if this is the real issue" and transform itself into a "party of government within the devolved set-up."
This was at a time when the SNP were at a low point, rather similar to the position that Plaid Cymru is in now. They had done very badly in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2003, and people were saying that they needed a change of direction in order to become electable.
But thankfully Alex Salmond refused to take Dafydd's advice and in fact laughed off the idea that the SNP should backtrack on the idea of independence.
I was amused by the Scottish press who ran the piece just before our conference and they said, "Dafydd Elis-Thomas doesn't believe in independence anymore."
"Well he never believed in independence anyway."
When asked whether there was any merit in Lord Elis-Thomas's arguments, Mr Salmond said, "Most of the criticism of the SNP actually comes from those who say we have lost sight of the vision of an independent Scotland by getting involved in devolution and getting wrapped up in the day-to-day running of politics.
"We have to do both. Where I disagree with my distinguished colleague is that you have to have a successful national party. You have to have a vision of independence galvanising support and the promise of what independence can deliver linked to a social and economic vision that you want to deliver. The job of the SNP is not to substitute the constitutional debate with the social and economic debate or vice versa but to link the two."
And that of course is the whole point: it is wrong to think that the debate is either to talk about constitutional matters or to talk about social and economic matters. The point is that we can only deal with social and economic matters in Wales to the extent that we can make decisions about these things in Wales. It is a question of whether we are content to let a government in Westminster make these decisions for us or whether we are prepared to take on that responsibility for ourselves.
Alex Salmond realized that the SNP had failed to make an electoral breakthrough because they had lost focus on what they existed for as a political party. But by sticking to their core aims, and by not being afraid to even mention the word independence in the way that Plaid Cymru has avoided it over most of the past decade, the SNP were able to form a minority government in 2007, and then went on to win a spectacular overall victory in 2011.
The lesson is obvious. If a political party is ambivalent about what it is for, it will get nowhere. The public won't tolerate two-faced politicians. But they will listen and respond positively to a party that wants independence for their country if that party is honest and open about it.
After being proved to have been so humiliatingly wrong, it is little wonder that Dafydd has had to change his tune in recent months. If we believe what he said to Martin Shipton, he has now become an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Wales. I was prepared to give him the benefit of any doubt about whether he was telling the truth or whether he was lying through his teeth to try and prolong his political career by a few years.
But now? All I will say is that he has done himself no favours by putting this endorsement from Gwilym Owen on his website. He's simply reopened an issue which it would surely have been wiser for him to let rest. Put simply, he's still trying to have it both ways at the same time. Dafydd clearly wants one group of people to believe one thing about him on the matter of independence for Wales, but wants others to believe something else.
Put more bluntly, he's being two-faced. But what's new about that?
Clueless about leadership
The second thing I want to look at is what Dafydd would do if he were to become leader of Plaid Cymru. For the second part of the endorsement he has put on his website maintains that the "more important" role Plaid Cymru should fulfil is to co-operate with the Labour Government.
But why?
Is the main reason for Plaid Cymru's existence to lend a helping hand to the Labour Party? Is this the limit of Dafydd's ambition for the party? Labour are our political opponents. In order for Plaid Cymru to form the next Welsh Government in 2016 we will need to take seats from Labour in their own heartlands, and we won't do that by positioning ourselves as nothing more than Labour's little helpers. Besides that, Labour don't need our help ... they have enough seats to manage on their own.
So the whole premise of Dafydd's strategy is misplaced. All he appears to want is to put a few more years of life into a political career that's been dead on its feet for a long, long time. Other candidates (well two of them, anyway) have put forward a vision of where they want Plaid Cymru to go under their leadership, how to take Wales forward instead of continuing the slow downhill slide under Labour. The best I can find on Dafydd's new website is this page on what the job of leader is and what he will do. It's just a cut and paste from the Assembly's own rules but with nothing new, nothing special and nothing unique to offer.
Discredited claims by Lib Dem ministers of being amitigating influence on tory excesses in government were finally andeffectively buried by the mealy-mouthedjustification from Nick Clegg as to why he backs Ian Duncan Smith'sproposed cap on benefits.
It must have been very hard for rank andfile Liberal Democrats to watch their leader refusing to reconsider anexemption for child benefit and rejecting suggestions that even the Department of Work & Pensions admits the changes will result in hardship for thousands of families.
Few activists will feel able to argue the same caseon the doorstep with even fewer convinced that expedient talk about "transitionalarrangements" is halfway credible.
The bad news for Clegg is that Paddy Ashdownis among the doubters.
Simon Thomas said this in the Western Mail on Friday:
"If you want a leader who'll always talk about independence, then don't vote for me."
Don't worry, Simon. We won't.
21-Jan-12
The struggle to protect a local family's land on Ynys Mon is a microcosm of the fight for Welsh language communities, that will be the message of a rally opposing a new nuclear power station on the island today (Saturday,...
The howls of outrage from those more interested in having a stick with which to beat the government than they are in either statistics or education are hardly a surprise. The Lib Dems, in particular, have been obsessed for years with the alleged 'funding gap' between schools in Wales and schools in England (although both Plaid and the Tories have been known to join in from time to time as well).
The lack of information this year can hardly have come as a surprise to anyone, however - not if they'd read beyond the headlines last year, at any rate. Because last year's report (available here) clearly stated:
What happens next year?
If England are able to provide education outturn expenditure for 2010-11 on a comparable basis with the new local authority responsibilities removed then the outturn data could be compared.
The position of comparability of budgets for 2011-12 is not yet clear due to further changes in the way education is funded in England but we will be exploring this with the Department for Communities and Local Government.
I would have hoped that the absence of a meaningless high level comparison of the Welsh average and the English average might lead people to start to concentrate on the substance of the education problems in Wales instead. Hoped, but not expected.
The lack of information this year can hardly have come as a surprise to anyone, however - not if they'd read beyond the headlines last year, at any rate. Because last year's report (available here) clearly stated:
What happens next year?
If England are able to provide education outturn expenditure for 2010-11 on a comparable basis with the new local authority responsibilities removed then the outturn data could be compared.
The position of comparability of budgets for 2011-12 is not yet clear due to further changes in the way education is funded in England but we will be exploring this with the Department for Communities and Local Government.
I would have hoped that the absence of a meaningless high level comparison of the Welsh average and the English average might lead people to start to concentrate on the substance of the education problems in Wales instead. Hoped, but not expected.
AfterFoxGate and all the subsequent assurances of a government clean upof Britain's dodgy lobbying industry, ConDem proposals to create astatutory register have been dismissed by campaigners who described theplans as "fundamentally flawed".
Anumber of newspapers speculate that senior Conservative ministers blocked plansfor the reform.
The Independentreports that companies who employ lobbyists directly will not be required toregister their work on a new statutory register of lobbyists. Neitherwill lobbyists need to declare which areas of policy they are hoping toinfluence or say how much they are paid for their work, as minister feel thiswould be "too great an administrative burden".
Theproposals which are out to consultation put a serious question mark against thecredibility of David Cameron's promise to push through a clean up of theindustry in the wake of revelations about dubious links between seniorpoliticians and leading lobbying firms.
Theissue was highlighted recently following a Whitehall standards committee reportthat one of the PM's former advisors has swapped his desk in Downing Street to one in aprestigious public affairs firm without observing the obligatory employmentbreak. Needless to say, no action was taken.
Assuch, few can claim to be gob-smacked that proposals do not make a case for astatutory code of conduct, as demanded by Lib Dem coalition partners and Labouropposition MPs.
Pressurewill mount on Nick Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable as to whether theysupport the views of Mark Harper, the Constitutional Reform minister, who saidhe "did not want the new rules to be overly bureaucratic"
Meanwhile,the Guardian maintains that tradeunions, charities and think-tanks could be forced to sign up to a new statutoryregister. Those who deliberately fail to comply may face up to two yearsin prison.
There seems to be a lot of speculation around why the Tory Conference has been cancelled. I think we should all be grateful, its one less staged boring piece of television to watch.
If political parties want to gather the faithful,massage egos and worship at the feet of leaders,fine, but to impose it on a less than appreciative public is just not on.Hopefully the other parties will want to save money too
So what do you think the real reason is- lack of interest, security costs, not wanting o give Cheryl G an outing, Andrew RT not cutting it .
Or may be just not wanting to chance the reactions that could come from local elections.
20-Jan-12
New research from Aston University has shown the cost of presenteeism to be £15 billion annually - twice the estimated cost of absenteeism, according to the Economic and Social Research Council.A study of 1,600 people found 30% of workers are now going to work ill as they fear if they report sick they may loose their jobs .
The age group most likely to go into work sick are 16 and 24 - 85% said they went into work sick last year and 48% said they were more likely to go into work sick because of the economic downturn.
The income group most likely to go into work sick because of the recession are those on below £20,000 then £21,000 and £30,000
.Presenteeism as its been named go into work sick, and possibly infect others but don't perform as they should because they are ill.
Women were slightly more likely than men to go into work because of the economic recession, with 33% doing so compared to 27% of men.
Sectors in which employees feel most pressure to go into work are retail then manufacturing then education.
A fifth of respondents also said they were exercising less since the start of the economic downturn. Many now not affording gym membershipMarcus Powell, MD of Nuffield Health, commenting on he research said : "Employees going into work sick costs business dearly - up to £15 billion a year."Our research shows the economic downturn has made people more likely to go into work sick often because they fear losing their job.
"This is bad for business. At Nuffield Health we work with more than 1,000 corporate clients to help them maintain a healthy workforce."The corporate world knows that staff well being directly affects their profits.
A report last year by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, also showed that presenteeism worsened stress levels, negatively effect productivity by transfer of illness and the sick being unable to work effectively.
So why don't bosses just send people home - if you are on SSP its very difficult to manage with a cut in wages. If you have full pay , then you don't want to be seen to be a bad employee by being off ill. What a situation to be in.But firms must also ask what impression are they giving to staff to make them feel this way.
Its bad enough being in a recession with out the worry about loosing your job if you really are not well.
The age group most likely to go into work sick are 16 and 24 - 85% said they went into work sick last year and 48% said they were more likely to go into work sick because of the economic downturn.
The income group most likely to go into work sick because of the recession are those on below £20,000 then £21,000 and £30,000
.Presenteeism as its been named go into work sick, and possibly infect others but don't perform as they should because they are ill.
Women were slightly more likely than men to go into work because of the economic recession, with 33% doing so compared to 27% of men.
Sectors in which employees feel most pressure to go into work are retail then manufacturing then education.
A fifth of respondents also said they were exercising less since the start of the economic downturn. Many now not affording gym membershipMarcus Powell, MD of Nuffield Health, commenting on he research said : "Employees going into work sick costs business dearly - up to £15 billion a year."Our research shows the economic downturn has made people more likely to go into work sick often because they fear losing their job.
"This is bad for business. At Nuffield Health we work with more than 1,000 corporate clients to help them maintain a healthy workforce."The corporate world knows that staff well being directly affects their profits.
A report last year by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, also showed that presenteeism worsened stress levels, negatively effect productivity by transfer of illness and the sick being unable to work effectively.
So why don't bosses just send people home - if you are on SSP its very difficult to manage with a cut in wages. If you have full pay , then you don't want to be seen to be a bad employee by being off ill. What a situation to be in.But firms must also ask what impression are they giving to staff to make them feel this way.
Its bad enough being in a recession with out the worry about loosing your job if you really are not well.
