Sunday, July 05, 2009
A voucher too far
Just when you thought that the old ideological Conservatives had been sacrificed on the altar of Cameronism and electability, the shadow international development secretary pops his head above the parapet with another barking mad scheme.
Andrew Mitchell is proposing to inject free-market thinking into development policy by giving aid vouchers will be given to millions of people in the poorest parts of the world so they can shop around for the best schools and services.
He says that a Conservative government would also spend part of the £9.1bn overseas aid budget on funding for private schools across the developing world, which it believes would achieve better results than state schools and drive up standards overall.
The test of any policy must surely be how it improves the situation it applies to. In this case it is difficult to see how that works. However, as Oxfam points out in many countries there is no choice at all: "in many poor countries there are no services available, full stop. There is a chronic shortage of teachers, nurses, doctors, infrastructure and materials. What is needed is aid money invested in helping poor countries build and maintain free public health and education systems."
Kevin Watkins, director of Unesco's Global Monitoring Report on education, adds: "This is using vulnerable people to advance an ideologically loaded, market-based vision for education, which would exclude millions of kids from school. It completely overlooks the achievements of publicly financed, publicly provided education in countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania."
Claire Melamed, of ActionAid, chips in as well: "It is the duty of all governments, rich and poor, to provide every child with a decent education. ActionAid's experience in over 40 countries tells us very clearly that, rather than using scarce resources to develop private schools for a few children, governments and civil society groups should concentrate on improving the quality and quantity of state provision that is available to all."
With ideological imperatives failing to fit in with economic and social realities this policy will be difficult to defend.
Andrew Mitchell is proposing to inject free-market thinking into development policy by giving aid vouchers will be given to millions of people in the poorest parts of the world so they can shop around for the best schools and services.
He says that a Conservative government would also spend part of the £9.1bn overseas aid budget on funding for private schools across the developing world, which it believes would achieve better results than state schools and drive up standards overall.
The test of any policy must surely be how it improves the situation it applies to. In this case it is difficult to see how that works. However, as Oxfam points out in many countries there is no choice at all: "in many poor countries there are no services available, full stop. There is a chronic shortage of teachers, nurses, doctors, infrastructure and materials. What is needed is aid money invested in helping poor countries build and maintain free public health and education systems."
Kevin Watkins, director of Unesco's Global Monitoring Report on education, adds: "This is using vulnerable people to advance an ideologically loaded, market-based vision for education, which would exclude millions of kids from school. It completely overlooks the achievements of publicly financed, publicly provided education in countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania."
Claire Melamed, of ActionAid, chips in as well: "It is the duty of all governments, rich and poor, to provide every child with a decent education. ActionAid's experience in over 40 countries tells us very clearly that, rather than using scarce resources to develop private schools for a few children, governments and civil society groups should concentrate on improving the quality and quantity of state provision that is available to all."
With ideological imperatives failing to fit in with economic and social realities this policy will be difficult to defend.
Twitter - a sceptic writes
John Rentoul has an interesting article on Twitter in today's Independent on Sunday in which he comes to the same conclusion as a lot of other people - Twitter and other social networking sites are just a tool that enable you to communicate with different audiences. Nevertheless, he says so in a much more entertaining manner:
Mostly, the new media are more "democratic" than the traditional media, because they are so much more open – with not just hundreds of TV channels but millions of YouTube users. Anyone can start a blog. But media traffic between politicians and the rest of us is still bound to be mostly one-way. Interactive nonsense (press the red button now) is almost always a gimmick. The idea of instant, interactive democracy will always come up against the problem that there are few representatives and many represented. If enough people feel strongly about something, they have always had ways of making their views known to politicians. In the old days they would riot, or break into newspaper offices and throw printing presses out of windows, or chain themselves to railings, or throw themselves under horses. Or, more sedately, sign petitions. Computers and mobile phones give people more and different ways of receiving news, and more and different ways of protesting about news that they don't like. But the basic relationship is the same.
However he does have an answer to those who believe that politicians should be making better use of their time:
The obvious objection, if you don't find it clever or witty, is that the minister must surely have better things to do with his time. But Tom Harris, the Labour MP who was sacked as a junior transport minister by Brown, once mounted a spirited defence of his ability to carry out his ministerial duties and to write about Doctor Who on his blog at the same time. He was right. It is good for politicians to have interests in life beyond politics. I thought better of him for it, just as I warmed to Tom Watson, despite his leading role in Tony Blair's downfall, when he wrote about music, books and the internet. But my better opinion is simply a by-product of their personality coming through a medium that suits them.
Just as in the old days politicians might talk on the traditional media, or at public meetings, or over a cup of tea, about a cultural life including politics, now they can do part of that on the internet. But that should not be confused with some magical new way of communicating with the voters. It's just chat. Or, as we must learn to call it, Twittering.
Ultimately the use of social media by politicians is a matter of choice. There is no point doing it if you do not believe in it or are not going to make the most of it. As with so many other things in politics people can tell if you are just going through the motions.
Mostly, the new media are more "democratic" than the traditional media, because they are so much more open – with not just hundreds of TV channels but millions of YouTube users. Anyone can start a blog. But media traffic between politicians and the rest of us is still bound to be mostly one-way. Interactive nonsense (press the red button now) is almost always a gimmick. The idea of instant, interactive democracy will always come up against the problem that there are few representatives and many represented. If enough people feel strongly about something, they have always had ways of making their views known to politicians. In the old days they would riot, or break into newspaper offices and throw printing presses out of windows, or chain themselves to railings, or throw themselves under horses. Or, more sedately, sign petitions. Computers and mobile phones give people more and different ways of receiving news, and more and different ways of protesting about news that they don't like. But the basic relationship is the same.
However he does have an answer to those who believe that politicians should be making better use of their time:
The obvious objection, if you don't find it clever or witty, is that the minister must surely have better things to do with his time. But Tom Harris, the Labour MP who was sacked as a junior transport minister by Brown, once mounted a spirited defence of his ability to carry out his ministerial duties and to write about Doctor Who on his blog at the same time. He was right. It is good for politicians to have interests in life beyond politics. I thought better of him for it, just as I warmed to Tom Watson, despite his leading role in Tony Blair's downfall, when he wrote about music, books and the internet. But my better opinion is simply a by-product of their personality coming through a medium that suits them.
Just as in the old days politicians might talk on the traditional media, or at public meetings, or over a cup of tea, about a cultural life including politics, now they can do part of that on the internet. But that should not be confused with some magical new way of communicating with the voters. It's just chat. Or, as we must learn to call it, Twittering.
Ultimately the use of social media by politicians is a matter of choice. There is no point doing it if you do not believe in it or are not going to make the most of it. As with so many other things in politics people can tell if you are just going through the motions.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Gwylliaid Cochion storm BBC
Osborne to be investigated
Journalists love to use the phrase 'to be investigated' because it gives the impression of wrong-doing without saying it and because it gives the other parties a convenient hook to latch onto to call for the person's resignation, suspension or general immolation.
When at the end of a long process that often takes months, even years the person concerned is declared innocent, it is too late, the damage has been done. The accused person's reputation and career has been damaged and he or she is often exhausted both physically and financially through defending his or her reputation.
The damage can be so severe that often those who bear ill-will to a particular politician use the process of complaint as a weapon against them, constantly alleging wrong-doing even when there is no palpable evidence just so that they can then go to the press and onto phone-ins to imply that the politician concerned is guilty by the fact that he or she is associated with an on-going investigation. It takes considerable durability to survive a major allegation of impropriety.
As far as the person being hunted is concerned the principle of innocent until proven guilty goes by the board. It is the media and the reaction to their stories that determine guilt not the process of the law or of regulation. It is the act of complaining and the subsequent and necessary investigation that determines the politician's future, no matter how absurd the allegation.
I am therefore reserving judgement on George Osborne's mortgage until it is properly investigated and a considered verdict has been reached. Mr. Osborne himself is now fighting a battle on two fronts: public perception and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. He needs to win the latter to survive the rigours of the first, but he needs to fight hardest on the first if the verdict of the second is to matter at all.
When at the end of a long process that often takes months, even years the person concerned is declared innocent, it is too late, the damage has been done. The accused person's reputation and career has been damaged and he or she is often exhausted both physically and financially through defending his or her reputation.
The damage can be so severe that often those who bear ill-will to a particular politician use the process of complaint as a weapon against them, constantly alleging wrong-doing even when there is no palpable evidence just so that they can then go to the press and onto phone-ins to imply that the politician concerned is guilty by the fact that he or she is associated with an on-going investigation. It takes considerable durability to survive a major allegation of impropriety.
As far as the person being hunted is concerned the principle of innocent until proven guilty goes by the board. It is the media and the reaction to their stories that determine guilt not the process of the law or of regulation. It is the act of complaining and the subsequent and necessary investigation that determines the politician's future, no matter how absurd the allegation.
I am therefore reserving judgement on George Osborne's mortgage until it is properly investigated and a considered verdict has been reached. Mr. Osborne himself is now fighting a battle on two fronts: public perception and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. He needs to win the latter to survive the rigours of the first, but he needs to fight hardest on the first if the verdict of the second is to matter at all.
American satirists in mourning
I am more than happy to take Sarah Palin's imminent resignation as Governor of Alaska at face value. After all it is difficult to see how this action could advance her career in anyway whatsoever.
Whether there is a scandal waiting to break I do not know. We will just have to wait and see. However, I know how difficult it is to maintain a work-life balance when you are a full-time politician and I am in a very minor and insignificant league. The strain on Palin's family must have been immense and would not have been helped by her own behaviour since being brought onto the Presidential ticket by John McCain.
I am sure that a woman of Tiny Fey's talents and abilities will have no problem in finding other work.
Whether there is a scandal waiting to break I do not know. We will just have to wait and see. However, I know how difficult it is to maintain a work-life balance when you are a full-time politician and I am in a very minor and insignificant league. The strain on Palin's family must have been immense and would not have been helped by her own behaviour since being brought onto the Presidential ticket by John McCain.
I am sure that a woman of Tiny Fey's talents and abilities will have no problem in finding other work.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Cardiff Council's cash giveaway
What is most bizarre about the Western Mail's latest exposé about Assembly Members' expense claims is not that some AMs failed to apply for a 50% rebate on their Council Tax but that the rebate is available at all.
In actual fact this is one of the tamer revelations, not just because there is no personal gain involved but that it is easily put right. Now that he or she is aware of the discount an Assembly Member can easily apply for it retrospectively and give the backdated money to the Fees Office. Thus the Assembly itself will not lose out though Cardiff Council will. It is in effect a transfer of public funds from one body to another.
The questions that need to be asked however is why an Assembly Member might know that the rebate is available in the first place and why Cardiff Council offers it?
Cardiff must be one of the few Councils that still offers a 50% rebate on second homes. Swansea for example charges 100% Council Tax on a furnished second home and I believe that they are typical of most other local authorities. It is also the fact that if you look at Cardiff Council's website there is no reference to the availability of this discount.
An AM whose main home is in one of the more sensible Council areas therefore may have claimed the 25% single person's discount but might not even think to check for the more generous rebate. Why should they?
Secondly, why is Cardiff (and the Vale of Glamorgan) giving away public money? In these stringent times surely they need every penny that they can get. In that case it would make sense that they use the discretion available to Welsh local authorities and charge second home owners the full 100% Council Tax. Those owners may not make full use of Council facilities but their absence for large parts of the year has other social costs on the local community. I am astonished the Western Mail did not ask these questions.
Update: It seems that I am being very unfair to both Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan Councils. A bit of research (well one phone call and an e-mail anyway) reveals that the impact of the 50% discount for second homes is cost neutral because it is accounted for in their grant from the Assembly.
If they were to do away with the discount and charge 100% Council Tax then the additional revenue they get would be wiped out by a consequential and equal reduction in grant. It is therefore the Assembly Government that loses out from these discounts as if they were not offered then WAG could give less grant to the Councils concerned.
It is also the case that the legislation does not distinguish between a second home and an empty property so any regime you apply to one affects the other too. That must give pause for thought in how we can use Council Tax as a social engineering tool.
Apologies to both Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Council but could you please make your websites more user friendly and ensure that they are more comprehensive in the information offered in future?
In actual fact this is one of the tamer revelations, not just because there is no personal gain involved but that it is easily put right. Now that he or she is aware of the discount an Assembly Member can easily apply for it retrospectively and give the backdated money to the Fees Office. Thus the Assembly itself will not lose out though Cardiff Council will. It is in effect a transfer of public funds from one body to another.
The questions that need to be asked however is why an Assembly Member might know that the rebate is available in the first place and why Cardiff Council offers it?
Cardiff must be one of the few Councils that still offers a 50% rebate on second homes. Swansea for example charges 100% Council Tax on a furnished second home and I believe that they are typical of most other local authorities. It is also the fact that if you look at Cardiff Council's website there is no reference to the availability of this discount.
An AM whose main home is in one of the more sensible Council areas therefore may have claimed the 25% single person's discount but might not even think to check for the more generous rebate. Why should they?
Secondly, why is Cardiff (and the Vale of Glamorgan) giving away public money? In these stringent times surely they need every penny that they can get. In that case it would make sense that they use the discretion available to Welsh local authorities and charge second home owners the full 100% Council Tax. Those owners may not make full use of Council facilities but their absence for large parts of the year has other social costs on the local community. I am astonished the Western Mail did not ask these questions.
Update: It seems that I am being very unfair to both Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan Councils. A bit of research (well one phone call and an e-mail anyway) reveals that the impact of the 50% discount for second homes is cost neutral because it is accounted for in their grant from the Assembly.
If they were to do away with the discount and charge 100% Council Tax then the additional revenue they get would be wiped out by a consequential and equal reduction in grant. It is therefore the Assembly Government that loses out from these discounts as if they were not offered then WAG could give less grant to the Councils concerned.
It is also the case that the legislation does not distinguish between a second home and an empty property so any regime you apply to one affects the other too. That must give pause for thought in how we can use Council Tax as a social engineering tool.
Apologies to both Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan Council but could you please make your websites more user friendly and ensure that they are more comprehensive in the information offered in future?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Cameron leads, will Tories follow?
The Guardian reports that David Cameron has embarked on another major step in the modernisation of the Conservative party by offering a public apology for section 28, the notorious legislation which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools.
In a gesture designed to stretch credibility the Tory Leader condemned section 28 as "offensive to gay people" and predicted that a Conservative would become Britain's first openly gay prime minister. How much of a journey this has been for Mr. Cameron is indicated by the fact that he voted against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003.
The real test though will be whether he can take the Tory Party with him on this. My guess is that many will be very unhappy at this u-turn.
In a gesture designed to stretch credibility the Tory Leader condemned section 28 as "offensive to gay people" and predicted that a Conservative would become Britain's first openly gay prime minister. How much of a journey this has been for Mr. Cameron is indicated by the fact that he voted against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003.
The real test though will be whether he can take the Tory Party with him on this. My guess is that many will be very unhappy at this u-turn.
Debating Twitter
Plaid Cymru AM, Bethan Jenkins staged a short debate yesterday on the use of Twitter. The Assembly Commission is of course on Twitter but it was only whilst preparing for the debate that I discovered it had a Twitter policy. Naturally I asked them to condense it down to 140 characters or less:
Using twitter to publish news atm, in future will use it to channel info,answer questions,inform public & engage them in democratic process
Using twitter to publish news atm, in future will use it to channel info,answer questions,inform public & engage them in democratic process
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The missing Deputy First Minister
He has been criticised for avoiding scrutiny, for not answering correspondence and a whole host of other matters but today the Deputy First Minister topped the lot by failing to show for a debate on the Welsh Assembly Government's Response to the Current International Economic Downturn.
Ieuan Wyn Jones is of course the Minister for Economy and Transport so one would reasonably expect him to be present. Instead he was speaking at a conference on 'Small countries and the global crisis: challenges and opportunities?'
The Assembly debate finished at 4pm, the time he was scheduled to speak and yet the time of his speech had already been brought forward from 4.15pm. Could it not have been put back to 4.30pm? That would have been ample time to get from the Senedd to the Cardiff Hilton.
Important as this conference may have been his duty was to be in the chamber defending his brief, something that the Plaid Cymru Leader seems more and more reluctant to do. Betsan Powys makes all the important points:
What's significant here? That Mr Jones is gaining a reputation amongst an increasing number of AMs for not responding quickly enough to their queries, not taking them and their job of scrutinising what he does seriously enough; that it's hard to avoid the feeling he's being targetted by those who suggest that being DFM and holding such a crucial portfolio must be very hard work indeed. You know what they mean - perhaps a bit too hard these days.
Mr Jones may argue, as a good country solicitor might, that the facts suggest otherwise. He's answered questions on the government's handling of the economy many times before .The ProAct and ReAct schemes - yes, those again - have generally gone down well. His department is working overtime to respond to what is a global crisis.
But perceptions and reputations are equally important and a good country solicitor ought to know that too.
Is the Deputy First Minister up to the job he has taken on?
Ieuan Wyn Jones is of course the Minister for Economy and Transport so one would reasonably expect him to be present. Instead he was speaking at a conference on 'Small countries and the global crisis: challenges and opportunities?'
The Assembly debate finished at 4pm, the time he was scheduled to speak and yet the time of his speech had already been brought forward from 4.15pm. Could it not have been put back to 4.30pm? That would have been ample time to get from the Senedd to the Cardiff Hilton.
Important as this conference may have been his duty was to be in the chamber defending his brief, something that the Plaid Cymru Leader seems more and more reluctant to do. Betsan Powys makes all the important points:
What's significant here? That Mr Jones is gaining a reputation amongst an increasing number of AMs for not responding quickly enough to their queries, not taking them and their job of scrutinising what he does seriously enough; that it's hard to avoid the feeling he's being targetted by those who suggest that being DFM and holding such a crucial portfolio must be very hard work indeed. You know what they mean - perhaps a bit too hard these days.
Mr Jones may argue, as a good country solicitor might, that the facts suggest otherwise. He's answered questions on the government's handling of the economy many times before .The ProAct and ReAct schemes - yes, those again - have generally gone down well. His department is working overtime to respond to what is a global crisis.
But perceptions and reputations are equally important and a good country solicitor ought to know that too.
Is the Deputy First Minister up to the job he has taken on?
The slow demise of ID cards
The Home Secretary has hit all the headlines today with his assertion that ID cards will not be compulsory and that plans to introduce compulsory identity cards for airline pilots and 30,000 other "critical workers" at Manchester and London City airports this autumn have been abandoned.
However, good news as this is, we should not celebrate too soon nor should we assume that the project is dead and buried. The Government is to press ahead with the National Identity Card Database and British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on it. This means that the main elements of the scheme will continue to be put in place leaving a future government the prospect of picking it up and running with compulsory cards in the future.
The database itself of course is a concern. How secure is it? Will it be used to interact with other databases to build up profiles of people for political or other non-crime related issues? The Government may have backed down on the most high-profile part of this scheme but the elements that are left continue to contribute to the erosion of our rights and civil liberties in this country.
However, good news as this is, we should not celebrate too soon nor should we assume that the project is dead and buried. The Government is to press ahead with the National Identity Card Database and British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on it. This means that the main elements of the scheme will continue to be put in place leaving a future government the prospect of picking it up and running with compulsory cards in the future.
The database itself of course is a concern. How secure is it? Will it be used to interact with other databases to build up profiles of people for political or other non-crime related issues? The Government may have backed down on the most high-profile part of this scheme but the elements that are left continue to contribute to the erosion of our rights and civil liberties in this country.
Labels: ID
On Social Networking
Plaid Cymru AM Bethan Jenkins is staging a short debate later today on 'The Twitter Revolution - a time for democratic renewal?'
As part of her 15 minute speech she is presenting a five minute video collage of people who use Twitter and social networking sites and why. This is my contribution to that video.
As part of her 15 minute speech she is presenting a five minute video collage of people who use Twitter and social networking sites and why. This is my contribution to that video.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Will Wales get its share of new affordable houses?
Gordon Brown's announcement yesterday that he will find an additional £2.1 billion to put into building affordable homes has posed a bit of a dilemma for the Welsh Assembly Government. Journalists were told that this money will mean an extra 20,000 homes will be built over the next two years on top of the 90,000 already in the pipeline but what will be the impact for Wales?
How we assess that depends on two things: is this new money and what will be the Welsh Government's Barnettised share of it? The Guardian indicates that the answer is not the one that the Welsh Deputy Housing Minister might hope for:
Half the extra £1.5bn will come from the Department of Communities and Local Government, and the other half will be redirected from other parts of Whitehall. The Home Office and Department for Transport were identified by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, as the most likely targets for further savings.
So with the exception of relatively small sums coming from the Home Office it looks like there will be no extra money coming to Wales as the Assembly will already have benefited from a Barnett share of the money the first time it was allocated.
This leaves Wales having to play catch-up with its own resources and a target of 6,500 net new affordable homes by 2011 that is looking increasingly unattainable. In the first year of this Assembly they only managed 600 new homes as measured by their own methodology.
Those looking to Gordon Brown's announcement to make a difference in Wales will therefore be disappointed, though I suspect that many will also be relieved that we will not be subject to the discriminatory allocation policies that seems to go with the money.
How we assess that depends on two things: is this new money and what will be the Welsh Government's Barnettised share of it? The Guardian indicates that the answer is not the one that the Welsh Deputy Housing Minister might hope for:
Half the extra £1.5bn will come from the Department of Communities and Local Government, and the other half will be redirected from other parts of Whitehall. The Home Office and Department for Transport were identified by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, as the most likely targets for further savings.
So with the exception of relatively small sums coming from the Home Office it looks like there will be no extra money coming to Wales as the Assembly will already have benefited from a Barnett share of the money the first time it was allocated.
This leaves Wales having to play catch-up with its own resources and a target of 6,500 net new affordable homes by 2011 that is looking increasingly unattainable. In the first year of this Assembly they only managed 600 new homes as measured by their own methodology.
Those looking to Gordon Brown's announcement to make a difference in Wales will therefore be disappointed, though I suspect that many will also be relieved that we will not be subject to the discriminatory allocation policies that seems to go with the money.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Forever delayed
Gordon Brown's position of being in denial about future public spending cuts was reinforced today with news that the next Comprehensive Spending Review will be delayed until after the General Election.
This enables the Government to try and maintain the fiction that expenditure will continue to rise throughout the post-recession years, even though their own forecasts suggest differently. It will also enable them to avoid any questions on detail. Instead they will say that this will be dealt with as part of the CSR. On the other side of the equation the opposition will be able to do the same.
Understandable as it is that any new government will want to have all its options open on assuming office, none of this is much good for the cause of transparency.
This enables the Government to try and maintain the fiction that expenditure will continue to rise throughout the post-recession years, even though their own forecasts suggest differently. It will also enable them to avoid any questions on detail. Instead they will say that this will be dealt with as part of the CSR. On the other side of the equation the opposition will be able to do the same.
Understandable as it is that any new government will want to have all its options open on assuming office, none of this is much good for the cause of transparency.
The long awaited publication
The new searchable database of Assembly Members claims under their allowances system can be found here.
The media have been salivating over this for days now so we will see what emerges. However, if Westminster had been as open and as transparent as this from the start then they would have taken much of the sting out of their own problems.
The Sir Roger Jones report on reforming AM's allowances is due out a week today, at around 2.30pm I believe.
The media have been salivating over this for days now so we will see what emerges. However, if Westminster had been as open and as transparent as this from the start then they would have taken much of the sting out of their own problems.
The Sir Roger Jones report on reforming AM's allowances is due out a week today, at around 2.30pm I believe.
Old slogan watch
Peter Hain has just been on Radio Wales and has described Gordon Brown as a 'serious politician for serious times'.
You cannot keep a good slogan down.
You cannot keep a good slogan down.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Why we should not ban the BNP from our classrooms
Nick Cohen sums up many of my thoughts in the Observer today on moves by trade unions and some Government Ministers to ban members of the BNP from working as teachers. It is worth quoting it extensively:
As statements of basic principle never win you friends in England, I will state the theoretical objection that it is unjust to penalise men and women for their political views without further evidence of wrongdoing only briefly and move on to the practical difficulties.
According to its membership records, there are about 12,000 BNP members. Finding and firing them would be a task the like of which Britain has never undertaken before. As Stalin's armies imposed dictatorships across Europe, George Orwell warned the 1945 Labour government about the dangers of employing real and potential Soviet agents in the Foreign Office. It followed his advice, but outside the diplomatic corps and security services, British McCarthyism was a puny phenomenon.
He concludes:
Assuming it can unmask them, that is. For finding out who is a BNP member is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. When the list of members appeared on the net last year, many on it complained that they had nothing to do with neo-fascism. If Labour instigates a purge of the public sector, it will need tribunals to ask the victims of dismissal: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the British National party" and weigh the veracity of their denials.
Instead of adopting the methods of the witch-finder, ministers could try behaving like politicians. They could abandon selective anti-fascism and notice that many of the supposedly left-wing thinkers and trade union leaders who urge them to sack BNP members have been happy to share platforms with the reactionary ultras of Jamaat-i-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, as indeed have Jack Straw and many another Labour grandee.
Opposing sectarianism equally without regard to colour and creed would not only be principled, but would have the additional advantage of reducing racism in the white working class.
The current double standard is the result of a version of multiculturalism, which has placed a sinister and ignorant emphasis on race and religion. Immigrants, and particularly their children, have not been acknowledged as full British citizens, but stuffed into boxes labelled "the blacks", "the Muslims", "the Hindus" and seen everyone from the local council to the BBC treat unelected and sectarian "community leaders" as their authentic representatives. Idiotically, the proponents of multiculturalism forget that the working class could play the same game, label itself as "the whites" and insist that society must uncritically "celebrate its diversity" as well. Given the scale of the folly, we should be grateful that the BNP vote remains so small.
The chances of ministers correcting past errors are long. But I live in the hope that in its dying days, Labour will grasp that you don't defeat opponents by briefing lawyers and quangocrats, but by fighting the battle of ideas as if you meant to win it.
Nick Cohen is absolutely right. These sort of witch hunts achieve nothing apart from creating martyrs, underlining the anti-establishment credentials of those they seek to penalise and driving the potential targets underground.
Objectionable as they are the BNP are a legitimate party. We must fight them by exposing the bankruptcy of their ideas, by putting in place solutions to the problems they exploit and by campaigning hard on the issues in the communities they are targeting. Their creed has no place in the classroom but teachers must be judged on their behaviour and their teaching methods not on the labels they wear.
The sort of purge of public service employees being promoted by some is not just un-British but undemocratic. As ever in these things one should judge the appropriateness of our views and actions by imagining the situation being reversed. Would we be happy if the BNP were in power and using our actions as a precedent to sack those on the left from employment? No we wouldn't and nor should we be content with this idea to treat the BNP membership in that way either.
As statements of basic principle never win you friends in England, I will state the theoretical objection that it is unjust to penalise men and women for their political views without further evidence of wrongdoing only briefly and move on to the practical difficulties.
According to its membership records, there are about 12,000 BNP members. Finding and firing them would be a task the like of which Britain has never undertaken before. As Stalin's armies imposed dictatorships across Europe, George Orwell warned the 1945 Labour government about the dangers of employing real and potential Soviet agents in the Foreign Office. It followed his advice, but outside the diplomatic corps and security services, British McCarthyism was a puny phenomenon.
He concludes:
Assuming it can unmask them, that is. For finding out who is a BNP member is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. When the list of members appeared on the net last year, many on it complained that they had nothing to do with neo-fascism. If Labour instigates a purge of the public sector, it will need tribunals to ask the victims of dismissal: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the British National party" and weigh the veracity of their denials.
Instead of adopting the methods of the witch-finder, ministers could try behaving like politicians. They could abandon selective anti-fascism and notice that many of the supposedly left-wing thinkers and trade union leaders who urge them to sack BNP members have been happy to share platforms with the reactionary ultras of Jamaat-i-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, as indeed have Jack Straw and many another Labour grandee.
Opposing sectarianism equally without regard to colour and creed would not only be principled, but would have the additional advantage of reducing racism in the white working class.
The current double standard is the result of a version of multiculturalism, which has placed a sinister and ignorant emphasis on race and religion. Immigrants, and particularly their children, have not been acknowledged as full British citizens, but stuffed into boxes labelled "the blacks", "the Muslims", "the Hindus" and seen everyone from the local council to the BBC treat unelected and sectarian "community leaders" as their authentic representatives. Idiotically, the proponents of multiculturalism forget that the working class could play the same game, label itself as "the whites" and insist that society must uncritically "celebrate its diversity" as well. Given the scale of the folly, we should be grateful that the BNP vote remains so small.
The chances of ministers correcting past errors are long. But I live in the hope that in its dying days, Labour will grasp that you don't defeat opponents by briefing lawyers and quangocrats, but by fighting the battle of ideas as if you meant to win it.
Nick Cohen is absolutely right. These sort of witch hunts achieve nothing apart from creating martyrs, underlining the anti-establishment credentials of those they seek to penalise and driving the potential targets underground.
Objectionable as they are the BNP are a legitimate party. We must fight them by exposing the bankruptcy of their ideas, by putting in place solutions to the problems they exploit and by campaigning hard on the issues in the communities they are targeting. Their creed has no place in the classroom but teachers must be judged on their behaviour and their teaching methods not on the labels they wear.
The sort of purge of public service employees being promoted by some is not just un-British but undemocratic. As ever in these things one should judge the appropriateness of our views and actions by imagining the situation being reversed. Would we be happy if the BNP were in power and using our actions as a precedent to sack those on the left from employment? No we wouldn't and nor should we be content with this idea to treat the BNP membership in that way either.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Know your Welsh
Am I the only one who finds this story about a shopkeeper in the Isle of Wight evicting two ladies from her shop for speaking Welsh a bit bizarre?
Holidaymakers Rosemary Dean and sister Ann were told to stop talking in Welsh and told: “Speak English instead.” They were then asked to leave Grange Gifts in Shanklin High Street on the Isle of Wight:
Lifelong Welsh-speaker Mrs Dean, 60, of Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, said: “It was unbelievable.
“We were just talking in Welsh about the price of goods in the shop and the woman behind the counter shouted at us to stop.
“There was no warning, she just launched into us.
“She got really angry and admitted she was discriminating against the Welsh.
“It was the day before we were due to return home and we had had a lovely time up until then and everyone on the island had been really welcoming.
“It put a real dampener on our holiday.”
Mrs Dean has reported the incident to the Welsh office of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
She said: “I became determined after the outburst to take the matter further because no-one should be prevented from speaking in their own language and be treated like that for doing so.
“It is clearly a breach of our human rights.
“My sister, who now lives in Bath, and I are proud of speaking Welsh, which is our first language.
“But if we speak to an English person we do so in English because we certainly don’t wish to appear rude.
“We were purely speaking to each other and banned for doing so.”
Shop manager Sue Pratley admitted that she asked the women to leave over the language bust-up.
She said: “I made a comment to them that I wished they would speak English. But she took issue with that and said I should learn to speak bloody Welsh.
“I don’t want to go into detail about what happened. I did ask them to leave.
“I welcome all creeds and colours and running a shop you get a lot of abuse. Mostly you just take it but sometimes you do retaliate.”
I suppose you had to be there to know what really happened but it does seem strange that a gift shop proprietor might object to other languages being spoken in her shop. After all I am, sure that she gets a lot of visitors from the continent. It is also the case that most Welsh speakers I know will revert to English when faced with somebody who can not understand them.
It is just as well really that the Welsh Language LCO will not stretch so far as to protect the rights of Welsh speakers when elsewhere in the UK.
Holidaymakers Rosemary Dean and sister Ann were told to stop talking in Welsh and told: “Speak English instead.” They were then asked to leave Grange Gifts in Shanklin High Street on the Isle of Wight:
Lifelong Welsh-speaker Mrs Dean, 60, of Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, said: “It was unbelievable.
“We were just talking in Welsh about the price of goods in the shop and the woman behind the counter shouted at us to stop.
“There was no warning, she just launched into us.
“She got really angry and admitted she was discriminating against the Welsh.
“It was the day before we were due to return home and we had had a lovely time up until then and everyone on the island had been really welcoming.
“It put a real dampener on our holiday.”
Mrs Dean has reported the incident to the Welsh office of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
She said: “I became determined after the outburst to take the matter further because no-one should be prevented from speaking in their own language and be treated like that for doing so.
“It is clearly a breach of our human rights.
“My sister, who now lives in Bath, and I are proud of speaking Welsh, which is our first language.
“But if we speak to an English person we do so in English because we certainly don’t wish to appear rude.
“We were purely speaking to each other and banned for doing so.”
Shop manager Sue Pratley admitted that she asked the women to leave over the language bust-up.
She said: “I made a comment to them that I wished they would speak English. But she took issue with that and said I should learn to speak bloody Welsh.
“I don’t want to go into detail about what happened. I did ask them to leave.
“I welcome all creeds and colours and running a shop you get a lot of abuse. Mostly you just take it but sometimes you do retaliate.”
I suppose you had to be there to know what really happened but it does seem strange that a gift shop proprietor might object to other languages being spoken in her shop. After all I am, sure that she gets a lot of visitors from the continent. It is also the case that most Welsh speakers I know will revert to English when faced with somebody who can not understand them.
It is just as well really that the Welsh Language LCO will not stretch so far as to protect the rights of Welsh speakers when elsewhere in the UK.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Why so quiet on IT consultancy?
Freedom Central has already covered the payment of £10,000 by the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr to his National Party chair and Plaid PPC for the adjoining seat for IT consultancy. There is no suggestion that anything untoward took place but unlike other stories about legitimate allowance claims this one was tucked away inside the Western Mail, who have failed to follow it up by asking the obvious questions.
We have been told that this money was paid to supervise the installation of a new computer system in the Ammanford office of Adam Price. By definition that is a fairly small operation. Even combined with Rhodri Glyn Thomas' office as suggested I suspect that we are talking about four or five staff at most. In addition the majority of those staff, if not all would have use of either the Parliamentary network or that belonging to the Assembly, together with the software associated with them.
There is of course a strong case to set up a separate network unconnected to official channels to run applications to pursue the legitimate work of MP and AM and I have no problem with money being spent on this. However, £10,000 seems rather a lot of money and I think that it is only reasonable that questions are asked as to what exactly Adam Price got for it. The consultancy time purchased appears to be more than adequate to perform the stated tasks. So was additional work carried out and if so what?
We are also told that the tasks involved unifying the casework staff of Rhodri Glyn Thomas and Adam Price. If that is the case was Assembly money paid out to Mr. Dixon as well? If so how much? Would this increase the number of hours of consultancy paid for? If so then what work was carried out in that time?
As a taxpayer who helped fund this work I believe that these are legitimate questions to ask. It does not matter who did the work, what matters is whether we got value for money.
We have been told that this money was paid to supervise the installation of a new computer system in the Ammanford office of Adam Price. By definition that is a fairly small operation. Even combined with Rhodri Glyn Thomas' office as suggested I suspect that we are talking about four or five staff at most. In addition the majority of those staff, if not all would have use of either the Parliamentary network or that belonging to the Assembly, together with the software associated with them.
There is of course a strong case to set up a separate network unconnected to official channels to run applications to pursue the legitimate work of MP and AM and I have no problem with money being spent on this. However, £10,000 seems rather a lot of money and I think that it is only reasonable that questions are asked as to what exactly Adam Price got for it. The consultancy time purchased appears to be more than adequate to perform the stated tasks. So was additional work carried out and if so what?
We are also told that the tasks involved unifying the casework staff of Rhodri Glyn Thomas and Adam Price. If that is the case was Assembly money paid out to Mr. Dixon as well? If so how much? Would this increase the number of hours of consultancy paid for? If so then what work was carried out in that time?
As a taxpayer who helped fund this work I believe that these are legitimate questions to ask. It does not matter who did the work, what matters is whether we got value for money.
Plaid Cymru advisor warns of impact of Labour cuts
The Western Mail site has just gone into time travel mode again and won't display any items later than last week, but I thought it was important to highlight the latest musings by Plaid Cymru guru Dr. Euryl ap Gwilym, even though they are pretty depressing.
The good doctor says that according to Treasury forecasts the amount of money the Assembly will have to spend will increase nominally in the current year and in 2010-11. That of course amounts to a real term cut. In subsequent years it gets worse.
Dr. ap Gwilym says that there is sufficient information in the Budget Red Book to come to an informed estimate based on two key statements by the Chancellor. These are that (1) UK current expenditure will grow at 0.7% per year in real terms from 2011-12 onwards and that (2) public sector net investment will move to 1.25% of GDP by 2013-14. As the current level of investment is 2.2% this means a 17.2% real cut in the amount available to the Assembly to spend.
His conclusion is that between 2011-12 and 2013-14 there could be a total loss of £2.2 billion from Wales' budget.
Now that could be a problem. It would of course mean some very difficult decisions. It will almost certainly have a major impact on key services including education and health that could not be mitigated by 'efficiency savings'.
Above all it means that the next Assembly election will be fought on manifestos seeking to manage these cuts and lessening their impact rather than previous efforts that have sought to spend increases to produce distinctive benefits (sometimes called gimmicks) for the people of Wales.
We will not know the actual situation until after the next public sector spending review which will be post the General Election but whatever happens this evidence is testimony to the impact of the current recession and the future problems it is storing up for us. Above all we cannot let Labour assume the moral high ground because they face the same issues as everybody else.
It is not just Tory cuts that we need to worry about but the impact if Labour's policies as well.
The good doctor says that according to Treasury forecasts the amount of money the Assembly will have to spend will increase nominally in the current year and in 2010-11. That of course amounts to a real term cut. In subsequent years it gets worse.
Dr. ap Gwilym says that there is sufficient information in the Budget Red Book to come to an informed estimate based on two key statements by the Chancellor. These are that (1) UK current expenditure will grow at 0.7% per year in real terms from 2011-12 onwards and that (2) public sector net investment will move to 1.25% of GDP by 2013-14. As the current level of investment is 2.2% this means a 17.2% real cut in the amount available to the Assembly to spend.
His conclusion is that between 2011-12 and 2013-14 there could be a total loss of £2.2 billion from Wales' budget.
Now that could be a problem. It would of course mean some very difficult decisions. It will almost certainly have a major impact on key services including education and health that could not be mitigated by 'efficiency savings'.
Above all it means that the next Assembly election will be fought on manifestos seeking to manage these cuts and lessening their impact rather than previous efforts that have sought to spend increases to produce distinctive benefits (sometimes called gimmicks) for the people of Wales.
We will not know the actual situation until after the next public sector spending review which will be post the General Election but whatever happens this evidence is testimony to the impact of the current recession and the future problems it is storing up for us. Above all we cannot let Labour assume the moral high ground because they face the same issues as everybody else.
It is not just Tory cuts that we need to worry about but the impact if Labour's policies as well.
Tugging on my heart strings
MPs on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee have complained that the Legislative Competence Order which seeks to devolve more powers over the environment to the Assembly is so complicated, that they are struggling to understand it:
Wales Office Minister Wayne David conceded the LCO was “quite laborious to read”, but added that complexity did not entirely explain the delay.
“It’s the most complicated LCO that has come forward so far, and a great deal of negotiation has taken place across a whole range of different departments,” he told MPs on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee.
“It also has to be said that this was one of the first LCOs put forward by the Welsh Assembly Government, and, unlike now, there was no attempt to get the support of government departments.”
The LCO contains a long list of exceptions to the proposed powers for the Assembly, and even contains some “carve-outs” – exceptions to the exceptions.
Alun Michael, the former Assembly First Secretary and MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, asked the Wales Office to “provide something that’s much simpler for us poor mortals to understand”, while Ynys Mon MP Albert Owen queried why the order did not use simple terms such as “recycling”.
My heart bleeds but actually, this is quite serious. Not because the complex negotiations that led to the current document has left politicians on both sides of the Severn Bridge struggling to properly scrutinise it but because it underlines serious flaws in the current settlement.
It has taken two years to get the LCO to this stage and yet we are still some way off devolving the powers contained in it (which include a tax on plastic bags) to the Welsh Assembly and we have not yet even had the chance to make any actual laws yet. The original idea of devolving general areas of policy within which the Assembly can work to legislate has long gone by the board.
We are now embroiled in putting together what can only be described as a series of agreements or treaties between competing interests that enables MPs and Ministers in particular to virtually dictate in detail what we can and cannot legislate on. That is not devolution, it is control freakery run rampant.
I feel like I am repeating myself but this is important. The present system of legislative competence orders is not fit for purpose. It is time consuming, it is expensive and it is debilitating.
The referendum when it comes (and it cannot come too soon) is not about giving extra powers to the Assembly, it is about dismantling this bureaucratic nightmare and letting us get on with our job by utilising the full range of responsibilities contained in Part Four of the Government of Wales Act 2006 in accordance with the will of the voters who put us there. Now that would be devolution.
Wales Office Minister Wayne David conceded the LCO was “quite laborious to read”, but added that complexity did not entirely explain the delay.
“It’s the most complicated LCO that has come forward so far, and a great deal of negotiation has taken place across a whole range of different departments,” he told MPs on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee.
“It also has to be said that this was one of the first LCOs put forward by the Welsh Assembly Government, and, unlike now, there was no attempt to get the support of government departments.”
The LCO contains a long list of exceptions to the proposed powers for the Assembly, and even contains some “carve-outs” – exceptions to the exceptions.
Alun Michael, the former Assembly First Secretary and MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, asked the Wales Office to “provide something that’s much simpler for us poor mortals to understand”, while Ynys Mon MP Albert Owen queried why the order did not use simple terms such as “recycling”.
My heart bleeds but actually, this is quite serious. Not because the complex negotiations that led to the current document has left politicians on both sides of the Severn Bridge struggling to properly scrutinise it but because it underlines serious flaws in the current settlement.
It has taken two years to get the LCO to this stage and yet we are still some way off devolving the powers contained in it (which include a tax on plastic bags) to the Welsh Assembly and we have not yet even had the chance to make any actual laws yet. The original idea of devolving general areas of policy within which the Assembly can work to legislate has long gone by the board.
We are now embroiled in putting together what can only be described as a series of agreements or treaties between competing interests that enables MPs and Ministers in particular to virtually dictate in detail what we can and cannot legislate on. That is not devolution, it is control freakery run rampant.
I feel like I am repeating myself but this is important. The present system of legislative competence orders is not fit for purpose. It is time consuming, it is expensive and it is debilitating.
The referendum when it comes (and it cannot come too soon) is not about giving extra powers to the Assembly, it is about dismantling this bureaucratic nightmare and letting us get on with our job by utilising the full range of responsibilities contained in Part Four of the Government of Wales Act 2006 in accordance with the will of the voters who put us there. Now that would be devolution.
