I was astonished to see page 5 of tonight's thelondonpaper which featured a story that apparently quoted Seb Coe's reaction to SFA, FAW and IFA disagreement with the idea of a 'Team GB' to represent the UK (could someone explain the difference between GB and UK to the Olympic organisers in the UK at some point?!).
Coe's response: "F*** 'em"
Not happy with taking taxpayer's money from the Celtic fringe for an event in one of Europe's richest cities, taking lottery money from good causes to fund an over expensive nationalist jamboree in which we should all wear blue, red and white, Coe is equally happy to trample on a hundred and thirty years of football just to book his place in history.
I am glad that it's not just the FAW, but the Welsh Assembly Government's Heritage Minister that have ruled out support of a UK team if it in anyway endangers the future of the Welsh international football team (see p.65).
...and if that's the attitude of the Olympic organisers then I won't be supporting the whole costly venture, and will instead be reminding people of the billion pound cost of the Olympics every single time someone mentions child poverty, the NHS and education.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Irish Government Backs Savers
While Gordon dithers, and while the Conservatives play at being in charge, the Irish government have confirmed a plan to secure all savers' deposits.
In exactly the same way as the Canadian Conservatives are set to win an election by taking tough decisions and facing the electorate, the Irish have taken a decision that looks set to keep confidence in their banking system while others topple around them.
It's amazing the difference a bit of guts makes, eh?
In exactly the same way as the Canadian Conservatives are set to win an election by taking tough decisions and facing the electorate, the Irish have taken a decision that looks set to keep confidence in their banking system while others topple around them.
It's amazing the difference a bit of guts makes, eh?
ITV Job Cuts Announced
Just days after being given the effective go-ahead by Ofcom to cut their programming, ITV have announced cuts to nearly half their jobs, cutting 430 from their 1,075 staff.
At ITV Wales, one in seven jobs are to go - with 17 going from the 130 staff.
As warned last week, these cuts will inevitably impact on broadcast journalism in Wales, and especially on political coverage.
The National Union of Journalists have not ruled out industrial action, and I'm sure that Plaid will be fighting their corner - not just for their jobs, but for the coverage of current affairs in Wales.
At ITV Wales, one in seven jobs are to go - with 17 going from the 130 staff.
As warned last week, these cuts will inevitably impact on broadcast journalism in Wales, and especially on political coverage.
The National Union of Journalists have not ruled out industrial action, and I'm sure that Plaid will be fighting their corner - not just for their jobs, but for the coverage of current affairs in Wales.
New education figures released
Figures released today by Statistics Wales show an increase in the number of 16-18 year olds taking advantage of the Education Maintenance Allowance and a 2% increase in the number of 15 year olds reaching the Level 2 threshold (effectively a pass in a pre-16 qualification).
The EMA figures showed a 2% increase in the number of applicants for the past year, up to 33,290, with 94% being approved. Nearly half of the applicants were from 16 year olds
82% of the applications were from teenagers from families with a household income of less than £20,810pa and received the full £30pw EMA.
There was an increase of 10%, to 12,020 students, of a retention bonus for students continuing their studies.
Provisional examination results for Wales show a small increase in results for students who were 15 at the start of the year, with 56% achieving five or more grade A*-Cs or their vocational equivalent, up from 54.2% last year, and now the highest since the records began, with 40.8% gaining a C or above in the 'core' subjects of English or Welsh L1, maths and science.
94.0% of those who were 17 at the start of the year achieved the equivalent of 2 A-levels (in whatever form), effectively the same result as last year.
The EMA figures showed a 2% increase in the number of applicants for the past year, up to 33,290, with 94% being approved. Nearly half of the applicants were from 16 year olds
82% of the applications were from teenagers from families with a household income of less than £20,810pa and received the full £30pw EMA.
There was an increase of 10%, to 12,020 students, of a retention bonus for students continuing their studies.
Provisional examination results for Wales show a small increase in results for students who were 15 at the start of the year, with 56% achieving five or more grade A*-Cs or their vocational equivalent, up from 54.2% last year, and now the highest since the records began, with 40.8% gaining a C or above in the 'core' subjects of English or Welsh L1, maths and science.
94.0% of those who were 17 at the start of the year achieved the equivalent of 2 A-levels (in whatever form), effectively the same result as last year.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The day our banking system collapsed?
In the background, I'm listening to the debate in the US about their $700 billion bank bail-out.
My news inbox has details of the Bradford & Bingley nationalisation; Fortis, who only last year were throwing cash around to buy ABN Amro, has needed to be bailed out by governments of three different countries; Germany's Hypo Real Estate was saved by a consortium of German organisations, including the Deutsche Bundesbank.
Iceland's third biggest bank, Glitnir, has been taken over by the national government, while America's Wachovia have been bought out by Citigroup.
Will today be remembered as the day our banking system collapsed, or the day in which government intervention on a massive scale finally turned it round?
My news inbox has details of the Bradford & Bingley nationalisation; Fortis, who only last year were throwing cash around to buy ABN Amro, has needed to be bailed out by governments of three different countries; Germany's Hypo Real Estate was saved by a consortium of German organisations, including the Deutsche Bundesbank.
Iceland's third biggest bank, Glitnir, has been taken over by the national government, while America's Wachovia have been bought out by Citigroup.
Will today be remembered as the day our banking system collapsed, or the day in which government intervention on a massive scale finally turned it round?
A Conservative Majority?
No, I'm not talking about the Conservative conference here!
I'm actually talking about the Canadian general election, who go to the polls in a little over a fortnight.
One of the interesting talking points is whether Stephen Harper's Conservative party will be able to ensure a majority government, in contrast to what might be a coalition Liberal/NDP government, as suggested by NDP leader Jack Layton .
Last week's polls by IPSOS suggested that the Conservatives will be closer to reaching the magic '155' than in the previous parliament, partly because the anti-Conservative vote will be split in so many different directions between the four opposition parties.
IPSOS polls suggest 153 seats for the Conservatives (up 26 on the last parliament), with the Liberals going down to 86 (down 12) under new leader Stephane Dion, fighting his first election in charge of the Grits, with losses of 7 for the Bloc Quebecois (down from 48 to 41) and a drop of 3 for the NDP (from 30 to 27). 1 independent is predicted to hold onto their seat.
On a national polling level, the IPSOS poll gives the Conservatives 39%, with the Liberals sliding to 23%, NDP 18%, Greens on 11% and the Bloc on 8% nationally and 32% in Quebec itself, 8 points ahead of the Conservatives, their nearest challengers.
Note the difference between the Liberal, NDP and Green polling and their respective seat predictions.
In Atlantic Canada, where I lived for a time, the Liberals are well out in the lead, with 40% over the four provinces and the NDP and Conservatives level on 26% each.
I'm actually talking about the Canadian general election, who go to the polls in a little over a fortnight.
One of the interesting talking points is whether Stephen Harper's Conservative party will be able to ensure a majority government, in contrast to what might be a coalition Liberal/NDP government, as suggested by NDP leader Jack Layton .
Last week's polls by IPSOS suggested that the Conservatives will be closer to reaching the magic '155' than in the previous parliament, partly because the anti-Conservative vote will be split in so many different directions between the four opposition parties.
IPSOS polls suggest 153 seats for the Conservatives (up 26 on the last parliament), with the Liberals going down to 86 (down 12) under new leader Stephane Dion, fighting his first election in charge of the Grits, with losses of 7 for the Bloc Quebecois (down from 48 to 41) and a drop of 3 for the NDP (from 30 to 27). 1 independent is predicted to hold onto their seat.
On a national polling level, the IPSOS poll gives the Conservatives 39%, with the Liberals sliding to 23%, NDP 18%, Greens on 11% and the Bloc on 8% nationally and 32% in Quebec itself, 8 points ahead of the Conservatives, their nearest challengers.
Note the difference between the Liberal, NDP and Green polling and their respective seat predictions.
In Atlantic Canada, where I lived for a time, the Liberals are well out in the lead, with 40% over the four provinces and the NDP and Conservatives level on 26% each.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Politics
The idea of a Welsh Sovereign Wealth Fund was raised by Adam Price on Wednesday in the Western Mail, based on the possible windfall that Wales could receive from the discovery and licensing of gas in the South Wales coalfields.
Adam estimates that anything up to £15bn could be available underneath our feet.
However, instead of being joined in our call for a fund that would assist future generations in Welsh, support domestic industry, and, who knows, helping an independent Wales stand on its own two feet economically, opponents such as Lib Dem Peter Black have instead tried to use the situation to claim some kind of cleavage between Plaid members.
The Assembly response was, in my opinion, quite correct - the Assembly doesn't have the powers to currently create a fund of this nature. It also would have been overtly political to make such a claim for powers above and beyond those that will be included in the coming referendum.
But, and it's a claim that Peter himself makes when outsiders comment on Lib Dem politics, he fails to understand how Plaid work.
In our case, almost every Plaid initiative since the 1920s has been fought for, tooth and nail - we propose an idea, we are informed that said idea is 'unworkable', we continue to find supporting evidence for the proposal and, eventually, through weight of evidence and persuasion we find that, actually, the idea is very much achievable, and that all that was missing was political will.
Adam has already identified the necessary amendments that could be made to allow the Assembly to have these powers - the question is which of the unionist parties will tell us longest and loudest that we shouldn't have these powers to assist future generations of the part of the UK with the lowest GVA?
Perhaps they'll make the same arguments about Scotland as well?
Adam estimates that anything up to £15bn could be available underneath our feet.
However, instead of being joined in our call for a fund that would assist future generations in Welsh, support domestic industry, and, who knows, helping an independent Wales stand on its own two feet economically, opponents such as Lib Dem Peter Black have instead tried to use the situation to claim some kind of cleavage between Plaid members.
The Assembly response was, in my opinion, quite correct - the Assembly doesn't have the powers to currently create a fund of this nature. It also would have been overtly political to make such a claim for powers above and beyond those that will be included in the coming referendum.
But, and it's a claim that Peter himself makes when outsiders comment on Lib Dem politics, he fails to understand how Plaid work.
In our case, almost every Plaid initiative since the 1920s has been fought for, tooth and nail - we propose an idea, we are informed that said idea is 'unworkable', we continue to find supporting evidence for the proposal and, eventually, through weight of evidence and persuasion we find that, actually, the idea is very much achievable, and that all that was missing was political will.
Adam has already identified the necessary amendments that could be made to allow the Assembly to have these powers - the question is which of the unionist parties will tell us longest and loudest that we shouldn't have these powers to assist future generations of the part of the UK with the lowest GVA?
Perhaps they'll make the same arguments about Scotland as well?
Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Concept
There's been a lot of talk recently about a Welsh Sovereign Wealth Fund, following the discovery of gas in the coal streams in the South Wales coalfield area.
So what is a 'Sovereign Wealth Fund'?
Well, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, they are usually government-owned investment funds, structured either as a fund or a reserve investment corporation.
Oxford Economics notes that there are several different, sometimes overlapping, reasons:
macroeonomic stabilisation - SWF's can smoothe fluctuations in economies dependant on commodities that are exposed to sharp moves in world commodity prices
seeking higher returns - non-commodity based economies with significant reserves higher than needed for normal usage who can try to maximise returns
future generations - to create a pool of wealth for future generations long after the natural resources have been depleted
domestic industries - some SWF's have been used to restructure and encourage domestic industries.
According to IFSL, the world's largest SWF is in Abu Dhabi, whose Abu Dhabi Investment Council has assets of $875bn.
Perhaps the most famous, though, is Norway's 'Government Pension Fund - Global' which has a value of $380bn .
The country's petroleum revenues are the main source of the fund, along with net financial transactions from petroleum activities and returns from the Fund's investments. The fund pays for Norway's budget deficit.
The Finance Ministry is responsible for the fund, with Norges Bank having operational responsibility for investing in financial assets outside Norway, using Finance Ministry guidelines.
This is likely to be the model that a Welsh SWF would follow, with support for future generations and domestic industry assistance likely to feature high on any agenda of this sort.
More controversially, the formation of the China Investment Corporation, which bought 9.9% of Morgan Stanley last year, has led to accusations of state-ownership of companies, as SWF's of this nature, where the state play a more active role, have potentially far greater reach in terms of liquidity (i.e. they can call upon government reserves) than normal market-driven companies - hence American/free-market concern about buy-outs/bail-outs from CIC or the Russian Stabilisation Fund.
There are at least 52 different funds currently in existence, the largest twenty being worth more than 3 trillion dollars. However, the size of the global market for SWF's pales into insignificance with more standard funds such as pension funds or mutual funds, which, according to IFSL are worth nearly 9 times as much on a world basis.
So what is a 'Sovereign Wealth Fund'?
Well, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, they are usually government-owned investment funds, structured either as a fund or a reserve investment corporation.
Oxford Economics notes that there are several different, sometimes overlapping, reasons:
macroeonomic stabilisation - SWF's can smoothe fluctuations in economies dependant on commodities that are exposed to sharp moves in world commodity prices
seeking higher returns - non-commodity based economies with significant reserves higher than needed for normal usage who can try to maximise returns
future generations - to create a pool of wealth for future generations long after the natural resources have been depleted
domestic industries - some SWF's have been used to restructure and encourage domestic industries.
According to IFSL, the world's largest SWF is in Abu Dhabi, whose Abu Dhabi Investment Council has assets of $875bn.
Perhaps the most famous, though, is Norway's 'Government Pension Fund - Global' which has a value of $380bn .
The country's petroleum revenues are the main source of the fund, along with net financial transactions from petroleum activities and returns from the Fund's investments. The fund pays for Norway's budget deficit.
The Finance Ministry is responsible for the fund, with Norges Bank having operational responsibility for investing in financial assets outside Norway, using Finance Ministry guidelines.
This is likely to be the model that a Welsh SWF would follow, with support for future generations and domestic industry assistance likely to feature high on any agenda of this sort.
More controversially, the formation of the China Investment Corporation, which bought 9.9% of Morgan Stanley last year, has led to accusations of state-ownership of companies, as SWF's of this nature, where the state play a more active role, have potentially far greater reach in terms of liquidity (i.e. they can call upon government reserves) than normal market-driven companies - hence American/free-market concern about buy-outs/bail-outs from CIC or the Russian Stabilisation Fund.
There are at least 52 different funds currently in existence, the largest twenty being worth more than 3 trillion dollars. However, the size of the global market for SWF's pales into insignificance with more standard funds such as pension funds or mutual funds, which, according to IFSL are worth nearly 9 times as much on a world basis.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Young European Exchange
In his Golwg column this week, Adam Price calls for a widening of the Erasmus programme - the higher education exchange that has seen more than 1.5 million people (and I'm one of them) gain the experience of living and studying/working in a different country.
Adam wants all young people, not just students (and in Wales it's usually just those following a language degree who take the opportunity) to have the advantage of spending a year in a foreign country, learning about another culture and, hopefully, learn something of the language as well.
In an economy in which knowledge and understanding of other people's languages and customs is increasingly important, this would be a way in which young people can enrich themselves as individuals as well as both the host culture which they visit and that of Wales when they return.
Adam wants all young people, not just students (and in Wales it's usually just those following a language degree who take the opportunity) to have the advantage of spending a year in a foreign country, learning about another culture and, hopefully, learn something of the language as well.
In an economy in which knowledge and understanding of other people's languages and customs is increasingly important, this would be a way in which young people can enrich themselves as individuals as well as both the host culture which they visit and that of Wales when they return.
Sometimes it's the small things that count
I went to the bank at lunchtime today, in the Strand, in Central London, and they had a bilingual English/Welsh paying-in slip.
I'm sure it was an accident, just like the Royal Mail sending Welsh leaflets to protesters in Edinburgh, but maybe, just maybe, it was a recognition of the importance of Welsh to businesses based in London.
Or, you know, maybe not.
I'm sure it was an accident, just like the Royal Mail sending Welsh leaflets to protesters in Edinburgh, but maybe, just maybe, it was a recognition of the importance of Welsh to businesses based in London.
Or, you know, maybe not.
Concern over Ofcom Consultation on Public Service Broadcasting
Ofcom have today published their second consultation on Public Service Broadcasting, whose suggestions will undoubtedly lead to concern in Wales.
The consultation says that 91% of respondents to the first consultation found it important that both ITV and BBC continue to produce news coverage. There is a clear need in Wales for a plurality of views, in both English and Welsh, to ensure that there is competition in the media industry.
In 2009, ITV Wales will be reducing its new content from 5 hours 20 mins to 4 hours per week, losing the mid-morning bulletins and weekend lunchtime news. The minimum non-news content will be reduced from 3 hours to 1.5 hours, including 47 minutes of current affairs, with these programmes being screened at prime time. Similar restrictions are being introduced by UTV in Northern Ireland and STV in Scotland.
As noted by Leanne Wood, this reduction will lead to less awareness of Welsh issues and, very probably, fewer jobs in the Welsh media sector. She has started a Facebook group to fight this.
The changes are blamed as the result of pressures on the industry, including a downturn in advertising revenue and greater competition from digital television.
In the longer term, Ofcom are proposing a three-model proposal which would include an English language Public Service Broadcaster for Wales alone, as opposed to Wales and the West of England (as at present).
If these plans were to come to fruition, then I'm sure I would welcome it - especially after the digital switch-over (as a youngster with an antenna facing the Mendips, I was better acquainted with the news from Yeovil and Swindon than Cardiff and Swansea!) when it would be received throughout Wales - but only if it's given the opportunity to produce real Welsh television.
Intriguingly, the consultation also suggests that 'a competitive model would allow for the entry of new Welsh PSB providers."
I'll have to spend a little more time going through the documentation to work out exactly what that is supposed to mean!
The consultation says that 91% of respondents to the first consultation found it important that both ITV and BBC continue to produce news coverage. There is a clear need in Wales for a plurality of views, in both English and Welsh, to ensure that there is competition in the media industry.
In 2009, ITV Wales will be reducing its new content from 5 hours 20 mins to 4 hours per week, losing the mid-morning bulletins and weekend lunchtime news. The minimum non-news content will be reduced from 3 hours to 1.5 hours, including 47 minutes of current affairs, with these programmes being screened at prime time. Similar restrictions are being introduced by UTV in Northern Ireland and STV in Scotland.
As noted by Leanne Wood, this reduction will lead to less awareness of Welsh issues and, very probably, fewer jobs in the Welsh media sector. She has started a Facebook group to fight this.
The changes are blamed as the result of pressures on the industry, including a downturn in advertising revenue and greater competition from digital television.
In the longer term, Ofcom are proposing a three-model proposal which would include an English language Public Service Broadcaster for Wales alone, as opposed to Wales and the West of England (as at present).
If these plans were to come to fruition, then I'm sure I would welcome it - especially after the digital switch-over (as a youngster with an antenna facing the Mendips, I was better acquainted with the news from Yeovil and Swindon than Cardiff and Swansea!) when it would be received throughout Wales - but only if it's given the opportunity to produce real Welsh television.
Intriguingly, the consultation also suggests that 'a competitive model would allow for the entry of new Welsh PSB providers."
I'll have to spend a little more time going through the documentation to work out exactly what that is supposed to mean!
Identity Cards
I've just listened to Jacqui Smith's statement on identity cards for non-EU students and marriage visa holders.
To be honest, given the government's record on identity data loss in the past year or so, it seems difficult to believe that they are going ahead with this.
But not just that they're going ahead with the plan, but the step-by-step process through which they're introducing id cards.
As human rights organisation, Liberty, point out: "Picking on foreigners first is divisive politics; as costly to our race relations as our purses".
Like my party, I am, and always have been, against identity cards on principle. I don't believe that it is the role of government to snoop on their population - it is the role of government to ensure that support is available for those who cannot adequately support themselves. This falls well outside government's remit and its right to interfere in our daily lives.
How long before we get fined or jailed for refusing to identify ourselves to a policeman?
Welcome to Labour's Big Brother society.
To be honest, given the government's record on identity data loss in the past year or so, it seems difficult to believe that they are going ahead with this.
But not just that they're going ahead with the plan, but the step-by-step process through which they're introducing id cards.
As human rights organisation, Liberty, point out: "Picking on foreigners first is divisive politics; as costly to our race relations as our purses".
Like my party, I am, and always have been, against identity cards on principle. I don't believe that it is the role of government to snoop on their population - it is the role of government to ensure that support is available for those who cannot adequately support themselves. This falls well outside government's remit and its right to interfere in our daily lives.
How long before we get fined or jailed for refusing to identify ourselves to a policeman?
Welcome to Labour's Big Brother society.
And the award for the highest council tax in Wales...
...goes to Conservative controlled Monmouthshire, where, according to the Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics, the average council tax per dwelling is £1,184.
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A Welsh Oath of Allegiance?
As part of the opening question in today's Welsh Assembly plenary session, Leanne Wood raised the question of the Oath of Allegiance to the monarchy.
She drew attention to a current EDM at Westminster calling on the government to allow MP's to swear loyalty to their constituents and the nation rather than the monarch.
It seems only fair to me that, in our modern democratic culture, those who believe that their loyalty lies with their constituents should be allowed to pledge their oath to those people rather than to a member of the royal family.
A different oath is already available in Northern Ireland.
During discussion on the Government of Wales Act 2006, Plaid MP Elfyn Llwyd called for a secular oath that would allow Assembly Members to swear allegiance to the people of Wales. Labour in Westminster, however, refused to allow AMs that option.
She drew attention to a current EDM at Westminster calling on the government to allow MP's to swear loyalty to their constituents and the nation rather than the monarch.
It seems only fair to me that, in our modern democratic culture, those who believe that their loyalty lies with their constituents should be allowed to pledge their oath to those people rather than to a member of the royal family.
A different oath is already available in Northern Ireland.
During discussion on the Government of Wales Act 2006, Plaid MP Elfyn Llwyd called for a secular oath that would allow Assembly Members to swear allegiance to the people of Wales. Labour in Westminster, however, refused to allow AMs that option.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Yesterday it was childcare, today it's laptops...
Gordon Brown signed up to yet another part of the Plaid Cymru 2007 manifesto today with his announcement on providing children with free computer hardware and software to assist their learning and ensure there is no 'digital divide' between the haves and have-nots.
This follows on from London Labour's stealing of our clothes on housing (England) and childcare (Wales - see p.22, col.2).
I wonder what next? Perhaps it could be taking devolution to its logical conclusion...Well, if it's good enough for Northern Ireland....
This follows on from London Labour's stealing of our clothes on housing (England) and childcare (Wales - see p.22, col.2).
I wonder what next? Perhaps it could be taking devolution to its logical conclusion...Well, if it's good enough for Northern Ireland....
Plaid Heritage Minister Rules Out Support for UK Football Team
Now firmly in place as Heritage Minister, Plaid AM for Arfon, Alun Ffred Jones, has declared that he will not be supporting calls for a UK football team and put at risk a history of more than a hundred years of Wales an independent football team.
A declaration that will go down well in Welsh football circles, I'm sure - especially ahead of tonight's Swansea v Cardiff match.
A declaration that will go down well in Welsh football circles, I'm sure - especially ahead of tonight's Swansea v Cardiff match.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Fighting Objective One Job Closures in Porthmadog
Plaid MP for Caernarfon, Hywel Williams, today met with officials from HMRC to argue the case for keeping open the HMRC offices in North-West Wales.
Much of the discussion was regarding the future position of the Welsh language centre at Ty Moelwyn in Porthmadog, which now looks likely to be retained despite the 'efficiency savings' being made by HMRC that are closing tax offices through much of rural Wales.
Hywel argued the case for further development of the Welsh language services at the centre, noting the current trends for the ability to use Welsh amongst younger people - who will be paying their taxes for a long time yet, and for it to remain based in Gwynedd rather than see the jobs transferred to Cardiff or Wrexham.
Sadly, on the issue of Objective One (or convergence funding) jobs, Labour's left hand doesn't know what the right is doing - using European money to fund new jobs in less well-off areas but stripping them of the skilled and professional jobs that already exist.
Much of the discussion was regarding the future position of the Welsh language centre at Ty Moelwyn in Porthmadog, which now looks likely to be retained despite the 'efficiency savings' being made by HMRC that are closing tax offices through much of rural Wales.
Hywel argued the case for further development of the Welsh language services at the centre, noting the current trends for the ability to use Welsh amongst younger people - who will be paying their taxes for a long time yet, and for it to remain based in Gwynedd rather than see the jobs transferred to Cardiff or Wrexham.
Sadly, on the issue of Objective One (or convergence funding) jobs, Labour's left hand doesn't know what the right is doing - using European money to fund new jobs in less well-off areas but stripping them of the skilled and professional jobs that already exist.
Brown's Nursery Rhymes
Gordon Brown made the 'eye-catching promise' over the weekend that children would be given free nursery places from the age of two onwards.
But from the social policy side, it's hardly a radical proposal - the One Wales Government is already committed to free part-time nursery places for 2 year olds in greatest need as part of our commitment to reducing child poverty, so yet another example of Brown filching a policy from a more progressive government.
The difference is that while we consider this an important aim as part of the One Wales agreement, Brown is unwilling to commit to a time or a figure for supporting this plan in England - and with it the financial spin off that results from the Barnett Formula, money that would come in handy not just for us to introduce our plans for nursery places, but also to provide support for the Foundation Phase of education introduced this year.
There's a worry at the back of my mind, though.
As we've seen from Budget after Budget, what Brown gives in one hand, he takes with the other, and having been reading James Purnell's welfare to work plans, you can only wonder how much time would elapse between free nursery places for two year olds in England and a new, radical idea from the Department from Work and Pensions to 'convince' their parents to head back to work, now that they don't have to look after their children.
Makes you think, doesn't it? And with this government's record, you wouldn't rule it out either, would you?
Well...if we thought for a minute they'd still be there to put these plans into action.
But from the social policy side, it's hardly a radical proposal - the One Wales Government is already committed to free part-time nursery places for 2 year olds in greatest need as part of our commitment to reducing child poverty, so yet another example of Brown filching a policy from a more progressive government.
The difference is that while we consider this an important aim as part of the One Wales agreement, Brown is unwilling to commit to a time or a figure for supporting this plan in England - and with it the financial spin off that results from the Barnett Formula, money that would come in handy not just for us to introduce our plans for nursery places, but also to provide support for the Foundation Phase of education introduced this year.
There's a worry at the back of my mind, though.
As we've seen from Budget after Budget, what Brown gives in one hand, he takes with the other, and having been reading James Purnell's welfare to work plans, you can only wonder how much time would elapse between free nursery places for two year olds in England and a new, radical idea from the Department from Work and Pensions to 'convince' their parents to head back to work, now that they don't have to look after their children.
Makes you think, doesn't it? And with this government's record, you wouldn't rule it out either, would you?
Well...if we thought for a minute they'd still be there to put these plans into action.
It's all about the context
In a previous life, I taught language and communications undergraduates about critical reading, explaining to them that, in deciphering the author's intentions and purpose, you don't just read what they write, or even how they write it, but pay attention to the unwritten assumptions that underpin their text and underscore their ideology.
That came back to mind this weekend as I read three different pamphlets/reports, set in three different contexts: Wales, Britain and Wales in Europe.
Huw Lewis is considered the face of Labour's Brit-Nat wing in the Assembly, but his newly co-authored 'Changing the way Wales works' (along with Vaughan Gething of Wales TUC) belies that reputation. Across its 30 pages, there are just 3 references to the UK government, of which just one relates to policy innovations at Westminster. Comparisons are drawn with Ireland, Germany and Austria - other countries, not just devolved administrations. Whether a deliberate play for Plaid support for his supposed Labour leadership bid, Huw frames his debate in almost unconditional and exclusively nationalist terms.
That is as opposed to the recently published pamphlet 'A More United Kingdom' from Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne. In contrast to to the Huw Lewis pamphlet, Byrne's work is almost inedible from a Welsh perspective.
The aim is to discuss means in which immigrants can be better integrated into British society, but Byrne gives the impression that, under the surface, exists a homogenous society with which migrants can integrate. His perspective is exclusively anglocentric, insultingly quoting Vron Ware that 'British is easier [than English] – it’s clearly a bit more plural as it includes the Celtic fringe: Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It seems to accommodate the regional difference'.
Thank you for describing my culture as a 'regional difference'.
From there, Byrne goes on to suggest a British day of celebration, drawing upon his heavily anglicised focus/discussion groups to suggest events and occasions that resonate through English history but which would only sharpen the distinctions with Wales and Scotland.
He then makes a political clarion call 'in favour of the Union' - that our great imperial history would never have been achieved as individual units, that 'we' would not have such a place on the world stage if we were separate and that given the integration of our different ethnic groups, independence could not possibly work.
Aside from the weakness of all of these arguments (I have yet to hear, for example, Byrne claiming that Estonia should re-merge with Russia because of the Russian population there!), it's clear that his defence of the Union is aimed solely at Scotland, Wales barely deserving a mention.
One of Byrne's most regularly repeated arguments is the need to 'learn the language' in order to integrate. That's English, for those of you not following, or who steadfastly refuse to recognise that there is more than one language on these isles of ours. I'm not demeaning the argument that learning English is a huge advantage, if not near necessity, for migrants looking to work in many sectors, but a token recognition that this situation differs in different parts of his United Kingdom would go a long way.
All this, of course, about migration, integration and citizenship whilst ignoring the reality that many migrants are transitory economic migrants from the EU (I've worked in other parts of the EU myself!) for whom these are not issues at all.
In short, Byrne's context is one in which a quarter of the world is still pink and they hum 'Rule Britannia' as they drop anchor, grateful to reach our hallowed shores.
Again, this is in contrast to the Bevan Foundation's research on 'Flexicurity' (again more on the contents elsewhere), which looks at the former Objective One areas in Wales against the background of the European Union, contextualising the Welsh economic position into the wider European sphere that seems largely ignored, or at least sidelined, by both Lewis and Gething and by Byrne. By clearly delineating a 'Wales in Europe' context, the report has greater 'body' - the purpose and aims are clearly set out, as are the circumstances into which the report is borne. In plain terms, it just makes more sense to show how wider influences impact on Wales.
The unwritten assumptions and context of a report give a huge clue as to the aims of an author - left-wing or right-wing, unionist or nationalist, libertarian or authoritarian. In the case of these three reports/pieces of research, their focus and references are key to understanding the messages being conveyed, whether you agree with them or not.
That came back to mind this weekend as I read three different pamphlets/reports, set in three different contexts: Wales, Britain and Wales in Europe.
Huw Lewis is considered the face of Labour's Brit-Nat wing in the Assembly, but his newly co-authored 'Changing the way Wales works' (along with Vaughan Gething of Wales TUC) belies that reputation. Across its 30 pages, there are just 3 references to the UK government, of which just one relates to policy innovations at Westminster. Comparisons are drawn with Ireland, Germany and Austria - other countries, not just devolved administrations. Whether a deliberate play for Plaid support for his supposed Labour leadership bid, Huw frames his debate in almost unconditional and exclusively nationalist terms.
That is as opposed to the recently published pamphlet 'A More United Kingdom' from Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne. In contrast to to the Huw Lewis pamphlet, Byrne's work is almost inedible from a Welsh perspective.
The aim is to discuss means in which immigrants can be better integrated into British society, but Byrne gives the impression that, under the surface, exists a homogenous society with which migrants can integrate. His perspective is exclusively anglocentric, insultingly quoting Vron Ware that 'British is easier [than English] – it’s clearly a bit more plural as it includes the Celtic fringe: Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It seems to accommodate the regional difference'.
Thank you for describing my culture as a 'regional difference'.
From there, Byrne goes on to suggest a British day of celebration, drawing upon his heavily anglicised focus/discussion groups to suggest events and occasions that resonate through English history but which would only sharpen the distinctions with Wales and Scotland.
He then makes a political clarion call 'in favour of the Union' - that our great imperial history would never have been achieved as individual units, that 'we' would not have such a place on the world stage if we were separate and that given the integration of our different ethnic groups, independence could not possibly work.
Aside from the weakness of all of these arguments (I have yet to hear, for example, Byrne claiming that Estonia should re-merge with Russia because of the Russian population there!), it's clear that his defence of the Union is aimed solely at Scotland, Wales barely deserving a mention.
One of Byrne's most regularly repeated arguments is the need to 'learn the language' in order to integrate. That's English, for those of you not following, or who steadfastly refuse to recognise that there is more than one language on these isles of ours. I'm not demeaning the argument that learning English is a huge advantage, if not near necessity, for migrants looking to work in many sectors, but a token recognition that this situation differs in different parts of his United Kingdom would go a long way.
All this, of course, about migration, integration and citizenship whilst ignoring the reality that many migrants are transitory economic migrants from the EU (I've worked in other parts of the EU myself!) for whom these are not issues at all.
In short, Byrne's context is one in which a quarter of the world is still pink and they hum 'Rule Britannia' as they drop anchor, grateful to reach our hallowed shores.
Again, this is in contrast to the Bevan Foundation's research on 'Flexicurity' (again more on the contents elsewhere), which looks at the former Objective One areas in Wales against the background of the European Union, contextualising the Welsh economic position into the wider European sphere that seems largely ignored, or at least sidelined, by both Lewis and Gething and by Byrne. By clearly delineating a 'Wales in Europe' context, the report has greater 'body' - the purpose and aims are clearly set out, as are the circumstances into which the report is borne. In plain terms, it just makes more sense to show how wider influences impact on Wales.
The unwritten assumptions and context of a report give a huge clue as to the aims of an author - left-wing or right-wing, unionist or nationalist, libertarian or authoritarian. In the case of these three reports/pieces of research, their focus and references are key to understanding the messages being conveyed, whether you agree with them or not.
New sub-editor needed for Metro
...preferably one who understands statistics.
This morning I was greeted with the bizarre heading (p.2, col.5) telling me that there is 'Little Support for Welsh Devolution', followed by the headline findings of a survey by Aberystwyth's Institute of Welsh Politics that 39% of people surveyed wanted a 'parliament', 31% liked the Assembly the way it is, 15% wanted to go back to colonial rule and 10% favoured independence.
Aside from the maths (the WM reveals that 5% are don't know/refused to respond), I see that as 4/5ths of the Welsh population being in favour of devolution of power on some scale (on a 2,500 survey which is quite large for these things - a little under 1 in 1000 people in Wales).
With its PA news and lack of editorial comment or investigative journalism, Metro can often be simplistic, but 80% in favour seems a pretty hefty majority to me. Whether that means support for a further devolution of powers is a different thing altogether.
Turning to the survey itself, one problem that I often have with the methodology is with the discrete element of the questioning - would you say that you are in favour of independence or a parliament? Are these mutually incompatible? Can you not be in favour of both, especially if you perceive this as a process, not an event (c Ron Davies).
Either way, that's 49% in favour of more powers, 31% in favour of the status quo (but will that transmit itself as a yes or no vote in a referendum?) and 15% against the whole thing (I'll take that as a 'no' then!)
This morning I was greeted with the bizarre heading (p.2, col.5) telling me that there is 'Little Support for Welsh Devolution', followed by the headline findings of a survey by Aberystwyth's Institute of Welsh Politics that 39% of people surveyed wanted a 'parliament', 31% liked the Assembly the way it is, 15% wanted to go back to colonial rule and 10% favoured independence.
Aside from the maths (the WM reveals that 5% are don't know/refused to respond), I see that as 4/5ths of the Welsh population being in favour of devolution of power on some scale (on a 2,500 survey which is quite large for these things - a little under 1 in 1000 people in Wales).
With its PA news and lack of editorial comment or investigative journalism, Metro can often be simplistic, but 80% in favour seems a pretty hefty majority to me. Whether that means support for a further devolution of powers is a different thing altogether.
Turning to the survey itself, one problem that I often have with the methodology is with the discrete element of the questioning - would you say that you are in favour of independence or a parliament? Are these mutually incompatible? Can you not be in favour of both, especially if you perceive this as a process, not an event (c Ron Davies).
Either way, that's 49% in favour of more powers, 31% in favour of the status quo (but will that transmit itself as a yes or no vote in a referendum?) and 15% against the whole thing (I'll take that as a 'no' then!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)