Tuesday, May 22, 2007
22/05/07 – IS THIS THE SWIFTEST RENEGED PROMISE IN POLITICAL HISTORY?
Less than 24 hours, after Gordon Brown has pledged to restore faith in politicians he has remained neutral (and therefore is tacitly supporting the bill). The bill which is to amend the Freedom of Information act is supposedly to protect the correspondence of MPs on confidential matters and protect communication too MPs ensuring the privacy of the constituents on sensitive matters. The fact that the bill would also prevent newspapers and interested parties from requesting detailed break downs of MPs expenses, which has been highly embarrassing for some members after they faced impropriety allegations with relation to seemingly disproportionately high expenses claims in regard to postage and travel expenses etc… does not enter into the equation, apparently.
So weeks before he has taken office the heir to the prime ministers office has already broken one of his promises, and his reasoning, "Gordon has also spoken about the sovereignty of Parliament. If MPs have voted this measure through then that is a matter for them", (Take a deep breath in, count back from ten before you respond: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, I can’t take it) HE IS AN MP! HE HAS THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION, HIS IS NOT ABOVE PARLIAMENT AND THEREFORE CAN DEBATE WITH, AND IN, PARLIAMENT!
So with government support, (well to be accurate) without government opposition, this bill is likely to come into force preventing us constituents from keeping checks upon our representatives, so much for open politics, so much for restoring faith in politicians, as they protect their under-the-table dealings and abuse of public fund in law. (why else would they seek to remove this information from the public domain if it was legitimate reimbursement of expenses? Surely they would hold it up and say ‘look how much work I have done, I work harder than any other MP and am worth re-election because I listen to and represent you’.)
The one thing that I can’t understand (which also leads me to think that they are only concerned with skimming the cream off the public purse) is why if this bill is solely to protect correspondence, is it not abbreviated to omit correspondence to and from MPs rather than to omit the Houses of Parliament completely and it their entirety from the freedom of information act?
So much for democratic accountability.
¶ 8:38 PM 0 comments
links to this post
So weeks before he has taken office the heir to the prime ministers office has already broken one of his promises, and his reasoning, "Gordon has also spoken about the sovereignty of Parliament. If MPs have voted this measure through then that is a matter for them", (Take a deep breath in, count back from ten before you respond: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, I can’t take it) HE IS AN MP! HE HAS THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION, HIS IS NOT ABOVE PARLIAMENT AND THEREFORE CAN DEBATE WITH, AND IN, PARLIAMENT!
So with government support, (well to be accurate) without government opposition, this bill is likely to come into force preventing us constituents from keeping checks upon our representatives, so much for open politics, so much for restoring faith in politicians, as they protect their under-the-table dealings and abuse of public fund in law. (why else would they seek to remove this information from the public domain if it was legitimate reimbursement of expenses? Surely they would hold it up and say ‘look how much work I have done, I work harder than any other MP and am worth re-election because I listen to and represent you’.)
The one thing that I can’t understand (which also leads me to think that they are only concerned with skimming the cream off the public purse) is why if this bill is solely to protect correspondence, is it not abbreviated to omit correspondence to and from MPs rather than to omit the Houses of Parliament completely and it their entirety from the freedom of information act?
So much for democratic accountability.
22/05/07 – QUESTION, DOES PETER HAIN’S LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT HIS RIGHT HAND IS DOING?
This post is in response to a small clip that was shown on the news the other day, the clip was of a husting of the labour party deputy leadership candidates. It was only a small clip but it was enough to show how oblivious he was to the impact of Labour’s policy.
The clip was of Peter Hain fielding a question, and he replied in the following manner: “…For the first time Labour are behind the Tories on the NHS, the Tories who will contract out and privatise parts of the NHS…”
Now is it just me who is thinking, ‘is he serious?’ Labour have privatised and contracted out large sections of the health and education sectors under the pretences of PFI, contractual arrangements that give control of large areas of public procurement and day-to-day operations of many sections of the health and education sectors to the private sector and still Peter Hain has the audacity to say that the Tories would do it and when the Tories do it will be bad. LABOUR HAS DISMANTLED THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND IS AUCTIONING IT OFF PIECE BY PIECE.
Peter Hain’s argument is in the face that private companies now build hospitals and schools at greatly inflated prices, one hospital was commissioned at a capital cost of £250,000,000.00 and Labour have committed the tax payers to repaying £950,000,000.00, it would have been more cost affective if the state had build the hospital and put the cost on the national debt, but then out goes prudence and out goes the chancellors reputation, which must be retained at any cost (any cost to the tax payer that is). Moreover, in these PFI contracts Labour have given the private sector the responsibility of maintenance of these facilities, which is a highly bureaucratic affair (reportedly) with schools not permitted to contact the sub-contractors who do the work, they have to go to the LEA (whom the contract is with) who contact the private sector financer, who then contact the sub-contractor and commission the work, (the private financer charges the rate that was agreed in the contract – so you can imagine how cumbersome these documents are) it is a lot of work just to replace a light bulb, I think that you will all agree.
So back to my original point Peter Hain is claiming that the Tories = bad, he claims that the Tories = the dismantlement of public services, and he claims that the Tories = Armageddon. Well I have news for him and any body else that believes that Labour are the party of public services they have contracted out large sections of the NHS to private firms, a point that Peter Hain should know since after the health service of his own constituency contracted out its hygiene services (cleaning services) they were unable to impose a stricter regime of hygiene standards because the iron clad contract only mandated a certain level and the health authority couldn’t insist on stricter measures. So Labour have instigated a contractual system that has put parts out the public services outside of public accountability, and they still have the audacity to cry woof and say that the Tories would do the same thing.
Disbelief, Labour has to resort to scare tactics in order to garnish support and now they are scare mongering, telling people that the conservatives are going to do something bad, but omitting the fact that they have already done this very same deed.
¶ 8:36 PM 0 comments
links to this post
The clip was of Peter Hain fielding a question, and he replied in the following manner: “…For the first time Labour are behind the Tories on the NHS, the Tories who will contract out and privatise parts of the NHS…”
Now is it just me who is thinking, ‘is he serious?’ Labour have privatised and contracted out large sections of the health and education sectors under the pretences of PFI, contractual arrangements that give control of large areas of public procurement and day-to-day operations of many sections of the health and education sectors to the private sector and still Peter Hain has the audacity to say that the Tories would do it and when the Tories do it will be bad. LABOUR HAS DISMANTLED THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND IS AUCTIONING IT OFF PIECE BY PIECE.
Peter Hain’s argument is in the face that private companies now build hospitals and schools at greatly inflated prices, one hospital was commissioned at a capital cost of £250,000,000.00 and Labour have committed the tax payers to repaying £950,000,000.00, it would have been more cost affective if the state had build the hospital and put the cost on the national debt, but then out goes prudence and out goes the chancellors reputation, which must be retained at any cost (any cost to the tax payer that is). Moreover, in these PFI contracts Labour have given the private sector the responsibility of maintenance of these facilities, which is a highly bureaucratic affair (reportedly) with schools not permitted to contact the sub-contractors who do the work, they have to go to the LEA (whom the contract is with) who contact the private sector financer, who then contact the sub-contractor and commission the work, (the private financer charges the rate that was agreed in the contract – so you can imagine how cumbersome these documents are) it is a lot of work just to replace a light bulb, I think that you will all agree.
So back to my original point Peter Hain is claiming that the Tories = bad, he claims that the Tories = the dismantlement of public services, and he claims that the Tories = Armageddon. Well I have news for him and any body else that believes that Labour are the party of public services they have contracted out large sections of the NHS to private firms, a point that Peter Hain should know since after the health service of his own constituency contracted out its hygiene services (cleaning services) they were unable to impose a stricter regime of hygiene standards because the iron clad contract only mandated a certain level and the health authority couldn’t insist on stricter measures. So Labour have instigated a contractual system that has put parts out the public services outside of public accountability, and they still have the audacity to cry woof and say that the Tories would do the same thing.
Disbelief, Labour has to resort to scare tactics in order to garnish support and now they are scare mongering, telling people that the conservatives are going to do something bad, but omitting the fact that they have already done this very same deed.
Friday, May 11, 2007
11/05/07 - LIB DEMS CRY FOUL
Article from: http://www.libdemvoice.org/business-as-usual-for-labour-burying-bad-news-798.html
GOVERNMENT HAS BROKEN LAW TO BURY BAD NEWS ON ID CARDS - CLEGG
The Government was today accused of breaking the law in an attempt to bury bad news after waiting until the day of Tony Blair’s resignation to publish a report on ID cards that reveals the cost of the project has gone up by £640m since October
The Government had previously refused to publish the report despite the fact that it was breaking the law by doing so.
Section 37 of The Identity Cards Act says that a report on the costs of ID Cards must be put before Parliament every six months. However, the Government has ignored that deadline, which would have seen the report published on 9th April.
Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP said:
“It is bad enough that the Government seeks to bury bad news behind the camouflage of Tony Blair’s announcement.
“Breaking the law to do so breaks new ground even for Tony Blair’s Labour Party.
“This bad news has been illegally postponed, and is only now published a full month beyond the statutory deadline. That shows the depths of cynicism and media manipulation to which ministers are now resorting to ram this increasingly unpopular scheme through.
“To add insult to injury, the statement itself is a laughable cocktail of statistical sophistry and contradictory claims.
“But beyond the smoke and mirrors, one simple statistic remains: the total cost of the ID card project by the Government’s own admission has gone up by £640m since October. The costs are now spiralling out of control. On the grounds of expense alone, the Government should do us all a favour and abandon this great white elephant before it is too late.”
ENDS
¶ 10:11 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Thursday, May 10, 2007
10/05/07 - ABHORRENT MADNESS, ABHORRENT DISCRIMINATION, ABHORRENT ILLEGALITY
English is actually much worse for vocal chords. The word "Good Morning" contains 2 velar consonants - sounds articulated from the back of the throat. Not only that, but you need to shift many more muscles than you do with "bore da". Welsh should therefore be used - you don't want someone to break their jaw saying "good morning"!
Aled James, Cardigan, Wales
Personally i think that it is a shambolic excuse. I am a fluent Welsh speaker and so are my brothers, my sister and many of my friends. To say that adding two additional words to the start of a telephone conversation are going to cause that much of a health hazard. And as for people saying the we should just let the language die just shows how anglicised the country is becoming, but i'm sure you sing the national anthem on match day. If english and welsh speaking welsh people dont stand up for one if not the oldest LIVING language in Europe then there really is no hope. has any welshmen/woman here been asked "is Wales in England?" and been insulted by it then you should be insulted by this mockery of a old wives culture that seems to be all the rage these days.
Gareth Cryer, Casnewydd, Casnewydd
I hope this is not my Union who says this. If it is, then I will send back my membership card, shredded. What a load of rubbish.
Alun, Caerdydd, Caerdydd
I live in the Vale of Glamorgan and a tiny fraction of the population here speaks welsh, and thos have fluent english. The introduction of 'bore da' as a telephone greeting is a lip-service nod to the very powerful welsh language board. Welsh is a dead language (hear of 'parcio ceir' for 'car park' or 'cwio' for queue'?). Let it go
Trudi Skipp, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan
I've never heard such a farce. This health and safety business, in my amateur opinion, has far crossed the line. It must be stopped, or else where is the line going to be drawn. Will they be denying is from speaking, for fear of losing our voices altogether? Who knows.
James Whittaker, Caerdydd, Wales
This is ridiculous. Government at all level should devote more time to real issues, not rubbish like this.
Jonathan Krause, London,
What do you expext of the Left, they won't be happy untill everyone is speakning Urdu
S Braule, Llanelli, Wales
In the interests of health and safety surely this is a sensible measure. In fact, to spare the vocal chords of telephonists everywhere, an inside source alledges that one of Tony Blairs "going out with a boom of legislation" measures is to make it law that telephonists communicate by rapping the phone on the desk, using only the hand which is supported by the heavy duty padded wristbrace to avoid forming nodules on their larynxses. Sheer PC insanity.... "why should Britain tremble?"
Pete North, manchester,
I wonder whether the bureaucrats who came up with this simply had no useful work to do and needed to look busy, or whether Vale of Glamorgan council is interested in discouraging the use of the Welsh language and thought that "health 'n' safety" was the ideal excuse to do so without facing accusations of cultural prejudice.
knirirr, Oxford,
I recently followed a bus in Cardiff, the back of which was covered in ads, all in welsh, except for one rectangle in the top right hand side which asked politely: PLEASE LET ME PULL OUT. Don't they trust the Welsh reading drivers to oblige?
I.T.Macnamara, Plymouth,
Surely if only monolingual greetings are to be allowed, they should be in Welsh?
Martina Fuseli, Portsmouth, England
¶ 10:09 PM 0 comments
links to this post
It has long served as a polite, and apparently safe, greeting between Welsh speakers.
But now health and safety concerns have stopped council telephone operators from greeting callers in Welsh. The language of heaven, it is argued, could damage their vocal cords.
Union officials want to spare employees from greeting callers with “bore da” (good morning) and “prynhawn da” (good afternoon). The staff, they say, usually speak only in English and the extra greeting could damage their voice.
Under the Welsh Language Act, government bodies are obliged to offer services in the language, and most councils and large companies answer calls in English and Welsh. But now Vale of Glamorgan council has barred the greeting. It says that its move complies with the Health and Safety Executive’s advice that call centre workers limit the amount of time that they spend on the telephone.
But Welsh language speakers in the affluent and Anglicised area west of Cardiff are baffled. Steffan Williams, a Welsh-speaking Plaid Cymru councillor, condemned the ban as an infringement of human rights. He said: “I can’t see how saying ‘bore da’ will do people in a call centre any harm.”
A spokesman for the Vale of Glamorgan council confirmed that staff have stopped answering in Welsh after their union had raised health and safety concerns.
But now health and safety concerns have stopped council telephone operators from greeting callers in Welsh. The language of heaven, it is argued, could damage their vocal cords.
Union officials want to spare employees from greeting callers with “bore da” (good morning) and “prynhawn da” (good afternoon). The staff, they say, usually speak only in English and the extra greeting could damage their voice.
Under the Welsh Language Act, government bodies are obliged to offer services in the language, and most councils and large companies answer calls in English and Welsh. But now Vale of Glamorgan council has barred the greeting. It says that its move complies with the Health and Safety Executive’s advice that call centre workers limit the amount of time that they spend on the telephone.
But Welsh language speakers in the affluent and Anglicised area west of Cardiff are baffled. Steffan Williams, a Welsh-speaking Plaid Cymru councillor, condemned the ban as an infringement of human rights. He said: “I can’t see how saying ‘bore da’ will do people in a call centre any harm.”
A spokesman for the Vale of Glamorgan council confirmed that staff have stopped answering in Welsh after their union had raised health and safety concerns.
AND THE REBUKES
Shouldn't this have been in the April 1 issue? Absolute nonsense.I usually only speak Welsh, so maybe I should stop greeting customers to my shop in English as I'm probably harming my vocal chords? And if ignorant persons like Trudi Skipp (best place for her) wants to be so negative, maybe she would like to get her facts/spelling right first- car park- 'maes parcio', to queue - 'ciwio'
Nia, Dolgellau, Gwynedd
Nia, Dolgellau, Gwynedd
English is actually much worse for vocal chords. The word "Good Morning" contains 2 velar consonants - sounds articulated from the back of the throat. Not only that, but you need to shift many more muscles than you do with "bore da". Welsh should therefore be used - you don't want someone to break their jaw saying "good morning"!
Aled James, Cardigan, Wales
Personally i think that it is a shambolic excuse. I am a fluent Welsh speaker and so are my brothers, my sister and many of my friends. To say that adding two additional words to the start of a telephone conversation are going to cause that much of a health hazard. And as for people saying the we should just let the language die just shows how anglicised the country is becoming, but i'm sure you sing the national anthem on match day. If english and welsh speaking welsh people dont stand up for one if not the oldest LIVING language in Europe then there really is no hope. has any welshmen/woman here been asked "is Wales in England?" and been insulted by it then you should be insulted by this mockery of a old wives culture that seems to be all the rage these days.
Gareth Cryer, Casnewydd, Casnewydd
I hope this is not my Union who says this. If it is, then I will send back my membership card, shredded. What a load of rubbish.
Alun, Caerdydd, Caerdydd
I live in the Vale of Glamorgan and a tiny fraction of the population here speaks welsh, and thos have fluent english. The introduction of 'bore da' as a telephone greeting is a lip-service nod to the very powerful welsh language board. Welsh is a dead language (hear of 'parcio ceir' for 'car park' or 'cwio' for queue'?). Let it go
Trudi Skipp, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan
I've never heard such a farce. This health and safety business, in my amateur opinion, has far crossed the line. It must be stopped, or else where is the line going to be drawn. Will they be denying is from speaking, for fear of losing our voices altogether? Who knows.
James Whittaker, Caerdydd, Wales
This is ridiculous. Government at all level should devote more time to real issues, not rubbish like this.
Jonathan Krause, London,
What do you expext of the Left, they won't be happy untill everyone is speakning Urdu
S Braule, Llanelli, Wales
In the interests of health and safety surely this is a sensible measure. In fact, to spare the vocal chords of telephonists everywhere, an inside source alledges that one of Tony Blairs "going out with a boom of legislation" measures is to make it law that telephonists communicate by rapping the phone on the desk, using only the hand which is supported by the heavy duty padded wristbrace to avoid forming nodules on their larynxses. Sheer PC insanity.... "why should Britain tremble?"
Pete North, manchester,
I wonder whether the bureaucrats who came up with this simply had no useful work to do and needed to look busy, or whether Vale of Glamorgan council is interested in discouraging the use of the Welsh language and thought that "health 'n' safety" was the ideal excuse to do so without facing accusations of cultural prejudice.
knirirr, Oxford,
I recently followed a bus in Cardiff, the back of which was covered in ads, all in welsh, except for one rectangle in the top right hand side which asked politely: PLEASE LET ME PULL OUT. Don't they trust the Welsh reading drivers to oblige?
I.T.Macnamara, Plymouth,
Surely if only monolingual greetings are to be allowed, they should be in Welsh?
Martina Fuseli, Portsmouth, England
10/05/07 – CONGRATULATIONS S4C
A Welsh language drama, has won the prize for best light drama at the Rose d'Or Awards in Lucerne, Switzerland.
I’ve never heard of the award either but apparently it’s a big deal, and it is an amazing achievement that the judges could understand it enough to consider it, a greater achievement since they beat English language dramas, and drama from around Europe.
It is good that Welsh dramas and Welsh culture in general is being promoted and recognised to be on a par with other cultures within Europe.
¶ 9:24 PM 0 comments
links to this post
I’ve never heard of the award either but apparently it’s a big deal, and it is an amazing achievement that the judges could understand it enough to consider it, a greater achievement since they beat English language dramas, and drama from around Europe.
It is good that Welsh dramas and Welsh culture in general is being promoted and recognised to be on a par with other cultures within Europe.
10/05/07 – COALITIONS
Do you remember before the election, Peter Hain and Rhodri Morgan were saying that it was up to Rhodri Morgan to decide about coalitions?
Well the BBC have reported that Rhodri Morgan has been given permission to look into coalition partners. I guess that means that Rhodri Morgan is not in charge of his own house as much as he thinks he is
¶ 9:22 PM 0 comments
links to this post
10/05/07 – BLAIR ANNOUNCES HIS RETIREMENT
The announcement has finally arrived, roughly a week after the announcement scheduling the announcement.
It was a good speech, Labour are going to miss Blair, because they have not got anyone on a par with Blair as a major player in the cabinet.
Brown is widely expected to proceed Blair, I can not envisage him winning an election, I wouldn’t vote for him, he is responsible for some of the policies that I despise the most: the PFI programme, which for one hospital (£250,000,000.00) he has committed to paying £950,000,000.00 to the company that is funding it, all so that he can keep the debt off the national debt, so he can maintain his image as a prudent chancellor. It emerged yesterday that this government has paid out over £6 billion pounds in fraudulent tax credits £1.4 billion has been written off, and those people who have been overpaid are being forced to pay back the overpayments. So instead of bringing families out of poverty, they are now having to repay the government from their meagre means. The NHS has been given massive amounts of money which have been swallowed up by PFI projects, and which has proliferated hospital managers and necessitated nurses being laid off and junior doctors struggling to get training places.
But lets return to Blair he has shown utter contempt for parliament, announcing major constitutional changes in a cabinet reshuffle. He has presided over a perversion of the British civil service, where it has now been suggested that people are progressing because they give the answers ministers want to hear and not the truth. He has presided over new school academies which, in the midst of an obesity crisis, are left without outside spaces for sport and recreation (well one of them). The PFI building of schools, has left some schools empty because they were made obsolete but because of the terms in the contract they cannot be used for another purpose preventing a school being built for secondary school pupils being used for primary school pupils.
They have spent and squandered billions of pounds, before labour came to power we were paying 34% of national income to the government now he is leaving we are paying 40%, nearly 20% more and quite frankly not enough has changed for that to be value for money.
Finally, I think it was suitably ironic that supporters at his constituency were singing his 1997 election anthem, it is very rare that an anthem is just as applicable when you’re going out to when you’re coming in, and that anthem: “Things can only get better!”
For his faults, I bet the labour party would be wishing that he would come back to lead them again, in not the distant future. I also predict that the conservatives will begin to unveil policies, since Brown does not seem to be as capable as putting the conservatives down as Blair was, however, my previous post shows how much attention should be paid to predictions.
¶ 9:19 PM 0 comments
links to this post
It was a good speech, Labour are going to miss Blair, because they have not got anyone on a par with Blair as a major player in the cabinet.
Brown is widely expected to proceed Blair, I can not envisage him winning an election, I wouldn’t vote for him, he is responsible for some of the policies that I despise the most: the PFI programme, which for one hospital (£250,000,000.00) he has committed to paying £950,000,000.00 to the company that is funding it, all so that he can keep the debt off the national debt, so he can maintain his image as a prudent chancellor. It emerged yesterday that this government has paid out over £6 billion pounds in fraudulent tax credits £1.4 billion has been written off, and those people who have been overpaid are being forced to pay back the overpayments. So instead of bringing families out of poverty, they are now having to repay the government from their meagre means. The NHS has been given massive amounts of money which have been swallowed up by PFI projects, and which has proliferated hospital managers and necessitated nurses being laid off and junior doctors struggling to get training places.
But lets return to Blair he has shown utter contempt for parliament, announcing major constitutional changes in a cabinet reshuffle. He has presided over a perversion of the British civil service, where it has now been suggested that people are progressing because they give the answers ministers want to hear and not the truth. He has presided over new school academies which, in the midst of an obesity crisis, are left without outside spaces for sport and recreation (well one of them). The PFI building of schools, has left some schools empty because they were made obsolete but because of the terms in the contract they cannot be used for another purpose preventing a school being built for secondary school pupils being used for primary school pupils.
They have spent and squandered billions of pounds, before labour came to power we were paying 34% of national income to the government now he is leaving we are paying 40%, nearly 20% more and quite frankly not enough has changed for that to be value for money.
Finally, I think it was suitably ironic that supporters at his constituency were singing his 1997 election anthem, it is very rare that an anthem is just as applicable when you’re going out to when you’re coming in, and that anthem: “Things can only get better!”
For his faults, I bet the labour party would be wishing that he would come back to lead them again, in not the distant future. I also predict that the conservatives will begin to unveil policies, since Brown does not seem to be as capable as putting the conservatives down as Blair was, however, my previous post shows how much attention should be paid to predictions.
10/05/07 – POLL PREDICTIONS
I have come across this article that I noted down in the run up to the election concerning the predicted outcome of the election.
TELETEXT 184 APRIL 05 21:55:04
NEWS WALES
Labour losing seats-poll
Labour will remain the biggest party but will still lack an overall majority after May’s Welsh assembly election, according to a recent opinion poll.
The ITV Wales / NOP poll shows the Tories overtaking Plaid Cymru to become the second party in a hung assembly.
Labour see a drop of four to 25, Plaid no change on 12, Tories a again of three to 14, and Lib Dems go up one to seven.
This shows the value of polls, I’m guessing that this projection was gained from an opinion poll conducted in the south probably Cardiff.
¶ 9:13 PM 0 comments
links to this post
TELETEXT 184 APRIL 05 21:55:04
NEWS WALES
Labour losing seats-poll
Labour will remain the biggest party but will still lack an overall majority after May’s Welsh assembly election, according to a recent opinion poll.
The ITV Wales / NOP poll shows the Tories overtaking Plaid Cymru to become the second party in a hung assembly.
Labour see a drop of four to 25, Plaid no change on 12, Tories a again of three to 14, and Lib Dems go up one to seven.
This shows the value of polls, I’m guessing that this projection was gained from an opinion poll conducted in the south probably Cardiff.
Friday, May 04, 2007
04/05/07 – NATIONAL ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT FOR WALES RESULTS
Well it was a long night, with coverage finishing at 6.30am, which incidentally is when I got to bed, surprisingly though I was quite sprightly by 10.00am when I earthed in the potatoes gaining several calicoes on both my hands for my efforts – I’m not used to all this labouring.
It was fairly good election result with labour retaining seats by the skin of their teeth, e.g. vale of Glamorgan, which I believe was around 60 votes more for labour over the conservative among others, labour won back Wrexham, not that surprising since John Merik(?) seemed to have slightly gone off the rails in his relations with the Elis-Thomas, the pair not speaking by the end of the second assembly which was problematic since they were presiding officer and deputy presiding officer.
There are a few points thought that are worth mentioning.
1) During the commentary this morning (4th May 2007) they mentioned that neither the presiding officer or the deputy presiding officer will have votes in this assembly. This will defiantly suit labour, as they were scuppered on several votes because the presiding officer voting against them when the deputy was presiding. So this is a partisan alteration to the devolution settlement surely.
2) I can’t find the figures at the moment but I seem to recall that they said that labour had 35% share of the vote, and they have managed to get 43% of the seats – here is me thinking that we had a proportional system, however, this hybrid additional member system seems to favour labour.
3) Turnout, was quite good (in a comparison with recent elections) on average 44% nation-wide. Which compared to the percentages in general elections is good and would have gained more acclaim if it wasn’t for the recent French presidential election.
4) The rise of the BNP they gained 9% in the regional vote in Wrexham, and 8% in Swansea east (those being the most notable of their results). I don’t know the candidates in Swansea east however Wrexham had a very powerful independent candidate and I was wondering if there was a correlation between voting for independents and voting for peripheral minority parties such as the BNP. This is based on the assumption that if you vote for a major party then you would give them your two votes. However, since independents are not allowed to stand on lists in addition to the constituency does this prompt people to look at and vote for unorthodox parties? This I shall have a look at later, providing I can find a breakdown of the regional vote for each constituency, although I can’t recall a large BNP presence in Blaenau Gwent where the independent Trish Law won.
I can’t find such a break down, does anyone know where I can get one?
¶ 7:25 PM 2 comments
links to this post
It was fairly good election result with labour retaining seats by the skin of their teeth, e.g. vale of Glamorgan, which I believe was around 60 votes more for labour over the conservative among others, labour won back Wrexham, not that surprising since John Merik(?) seemed to have slightly gone off the rails in his relations with the Elis-Thomas, the pair not speaking by the end of the second assembly which was problematic since they were presiding officer and deputy presiding officer.
There are a few points thought that are worth mentioning.
1) During the commentary this morning (4th May 2007) they mentioned that neither the presiding officer or the deputy presiding officer will have votes in this assembly. This will defiantly suit labour, as they were scuppered on several votes because the presiding officer voting against them when the deputy was presiding. So this is a partisan alteration to the devolution settlement surely.
2) I can’t find the figures at the moment but I seem to recall that they said that labour had 35% share of the vote, and they have managed to get 43% of the seats – here is me thinking that we had a proportional system, however, this hybrid additional member system seems to favour labour.
3) Turnout, was quite good (in a comparison with recent elections) on average 44% nation-wide. Which compared to the percentages in general elections is good and would have gained more acclaim if it wasn’t for the recent French presidential election.
4) The rise of the BNP they gained 9% in the regional vote in Wrexham, and 8% in Swansea east (those being the most notable of their results). I don’t know the candidates in Swansea east however Wrexham had a very powerful independent candidate and I was wondering if there was a correlation between voting for independents and voting for peripheral minority parties such as the BNP. This is based on the assumption that if you vote for a major party then you would give them your two votes. However, since independents are not allowed to stand on lists in addition to the constituency does this prompt people to look at and vote for unorthodox parties? This I shall have a look at later, providing I can find a breakdown of the regional vote for each constituency, although I can’t recall a large BNP presence in Blaenau Gwent where the independent Trish Law won.
I can’t find such a break down, does anyone know where I can get one?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
03/05/07 - VOTE PLAID
The Welsh nationalist community is a broad church - including people who are Christian, Muslim, atheist, communist, capitalists, pacifists, ex-army people, a few nutters and yes, Nicholas Morgan. We have our differences and different priorities.
This has been said so well by "British nationalists in Wales Watch" that I am just going to cut and paste.
.The Welsh nationalist community is a broad church - including people who are Christian, Muslim, atheist, communist, capitalists, pacifists, ex-army people, a few nutters and yes, Nicholas Morgan. We have our differences and different priorities.
.
But on Thursday 3 May we have 2 votes. My vote will go to Plaid and I urge all nationalists to do so too. Not only do I agree with most of their policies but they seem the only party which has thought in details about governing Wales and will implement them - without the OK from a Viceroy or another Party leader.There is also one other simple reason. Were Plaid to win on 3 May the headlines of all the UK's newspapers will be that Wales is a nation and Wales needs to be respected and taken notice of. A vote for any of the other parties will be a vote for an invisible and irrelevant Wales - and in the case of Labour, a mediocre Wales too.
.
Wales - a nation not a region. Make Wales count - make your vote count. Vote twice for Plaid.
¶ 2:39 PM 0 comments
links to this post
03/05/07 – THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN WELSH DEMOCRACY
Forgive me for writing this prior to posting it, the results of the election might have made this post a mute point, or just incorrect, but that is a chance that I’m willing to take.
I speculated in my last post about the affect of the lack of media on democracy in Wales, which would probably result in poor turnout. Coupled with the fact that there is not a great deal of differentiation possible when they have so little power, so they are hardly likely to set alight an ideological debate about the future of Wales because they just don’t have dominion over it. However, it didn’t occur to me that a lack of major media coverage, could not only have a detrimental affect upon turnout, but could have a detrimental affect on plaid and other solely Welsh parties, like forward Wales, although the fact that John Merik(?) the main force behind forward Wales is (as I understand it) running as an independent again rather than under the banner of FW would make this point irrelevant in fact.
My point is that the lack of media coverage surely makes it more difficult for parties such as Plaid, FW, Welsh Christian party, and I am sure that there are others, to get there message across, plaid being the second party in the assembly (second assembly) so people might have been alerted to the election from receiving a poll card, or seeing a snippet on the radio, (did I just write seeing a snippet on the radio! – try that again) hearing a snippet on the radio, over hearing something on the bus or in the pub etc… but the fact that there is not a great deal of media coverage would starve the ordinary person (lets face it I’m pretty unique seeking out and reading all the manifestos that I could – granted I only typed commentary on the big four parties) of information that would lead them to vote on the perceptions of parties at the UK level, which are most commonly shown on the news. This would place parties such as Plaid who do not exist on a UK level, at a great disadvantage, so even though Plaid have an excellent manifesto – and in my opinion the best – with excellent and original ideas of how to take a new approach to tackling issues, in addition to an inspiring nation building ideas, the lack of publicity of the election would omit them from even being considered by the vast majority of the public, as people revert to how they vote at UK general elections.
There is the problem how then do you combat it?
1) Lower voting age to 16 – this would mean that some students would still be in full time education when there is an election happening permitting lessons on democracy, schools hosting debates between candidates, things that would make politics more personal and engaging – the same affect would result from extending education to the age of 18 and leaving the voting age as it is. The best results would come from lowering voting to 16 and extending mandatory education to 18, as this will mean more young people are in an environment that will teach them about elections and the issues of the day and the importance of voting.
2) Increase print media, welsh based print media. This would work providing there wasn’t a development of Murdock type papers who are solely there to scaremonger people into voting for whoever is in the favour of the billionaire (i.e. mail, sun, express etc…) but rather more independent newspapers or ones that do not intend to fill people with dogma, (i.e. independent, etc…) but at least intend to try and educate people: meaning that who won the newest reality TV show isn’t mentioned.
3) Increasingly demand, news channels like, sky, to broadcast meaningful coverage of Welsh elections. The BBC does well, however with the plurality in channels they can’t guarantee to reach all areas. (Bearing in mind I don’t watch sky news so I can’t tell you what their coverage of the election was like)
4) Establishing, televised debates between the four major parties (well all major parties – but at the moment there are only four) however, this may have a negative affect on independents like John Merik(?) and Trish Law.
¶ 2:15 PM 0 comments
links to this post
I speculated in my last post about the affect of the lack of media on democracy in Wales, which would probably result in poor turnout. Coupled with the fact that there is not a great deal of differentiation possible when they have so little power, so they are hardly likely to set alight an ideological debate about the future of Wales because they just don’t have dominion over it. However, it didn’t occur to me that a lack of major media coverage, could not only have a detrimental affect upon turnout, but could have a detrimental affect on plaid and other solely Welsh parties, like forward Wales, although the fact that John Merik(?) the main force behind forward Wales is (as I understand it) running as an independent again rather than under the banner of FW would make this point irrelevant in fact.
My point is that the lack of media coverage surely makes it more difficult for parties such as Plaid, FW, Welsh Christian party, and I am sure that there are others, to get there message across, plaid being the second party in the assembly (second assembly) so people might have been alerted to the election from receiving a poll card, or seeing a snippet on the radio, (did I just write seeing a snippet on the radio! – try that again) hearing a snippet on the radio, over hearing something on the bus or in the pub etc… but the fact that there is not a great deal of media coverage would starve the ordinary person (lets face it I’m pretty unique seeking out and reading all the manifestos that I could – granted I only typed commentary on the big four parties) of information that would lead them to vote on the perceptions of parties at the UK level, which are most commonly shown on the news. This would place parties such as Plaid who do not exist on a UK level, at a great disadvantage, so even though Plaid have an excellent manifesto – and in my opinion the best – with excellent and original ideas of how to take a new approach to tackling issues, in addition to an inspiring nation building ideas, the lack of publicity of the election would omit them from even being considered by the vast majority of the public, as people revert to how they vote at UK general elections.
There is the problem how then do you combat it?
1) Lower voting age to 16 – this would mean that some students would still be in full time education when there is an election happening permitting lessons on democracy, schools hosting debates between candidates, things that would make politics more personal and engaging – the same affect would result from extending education to the age of 18 and leaving the voting age as it is. The best results would come from lowering voting to 16 and extending mandatory education to 18, as this will mean more young people are in an environment that will teach them about elections and the issues of the day and the importance of voting.
2) Increase print media, welsh based print media. This would work providing there wasn’t a development of Murdock type papers who are solely there to scaremonger people into voting for whoever is in the favour of the billionaire (i.e. mail, sun, express etc…) but rather more independent newspapers or ones that do not intend to fill people with dogma, (i.e. independent, etc…) but at least intend to try and educate people: meaning that who won the newest reality TV show isn’t mentioned.
3) Increasingly demand, news channels like, sky, to broadcast meaningful coverage of Welsh elections. The BBC does well, however with the plurality in channels they can’t guarantee to reach all areas. (Bearing in mind I don’t watch sky news so I can’t tell you what their coverage of the election was like)
4) Establishing, televised debates between the four major parties (well all major parties – but at the moment there are only four) however, this may have a negative affect on independents like John Merik(?) and Trish Law.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
02/05/07 – WELSH DEMOCRACY
I was listening to BBC Wales, a week or two ago now, and they were saying that because of the intense media coverage of the Scottish election there was a different election strategy forming within Wales.
It seems because the main focus of the television media was on the Scottish parliamentary election and the majority of newspapers are London based and therefore do not promote Welsh matters as they are primarily concerned with what happens within London, everywhere else being foreign to them, with no differential between French presidential elections and the Welsh assembly election, in fact the French presidential election is probably attaining a higher proportion of coverage than the Welsh assembly. Nevertheless this is forcing the creation of a new style of election campaign in Wales.
Due to the lack of media, mass mobilisation of public opinion and therefore large turnouts is impossible. The parties are unwilling to yell about an election in case they alert supporters of the opposition parties and bring them out to vote, because, there are a lot of labour voters in Wales, (just in case that you don’t know) and if they thought that the bogyman party (commonly known as the conservatives) would get in then they would mobilise and get out to vote. Even though they don’t believe that the labour party are doing a good job or that they are still representing them, some communities have become so entrenched in their support that it forms part of their identity and they can not foresee voting for someone else, so if they don’t want to vote labour they don’t vote! Hence the quip, you can pin a red rosette on a donkey and have it elected. And also hence, labours election campaign ploy to suggest that every party other than labour would enter into a coalition government with the conservatives.
Although it must be noted labour has strayed so far from the values and culture of welsh communities it is becoming possible for other people to win, people like the late Peter Law, and latterly Trish Law, who represent traditional labour values not new labour.
I forgot what I was saying.
Yes so to stop alerting the die hard supporters of the other parties, political parties are playing a low key election campaign targeting known supporters only through internet, emails, telephones etc…rather than high profile election campaign played out through the media, there is a low profile election. Which will most likely result in a low turnout enabling people to question the legitimacy of the Assembly, but what can be done?
I have previously mentioned that a lack of print media might contribute to a low turnout, however, America has possibly the largest coverage of any election and that struggled to rise above 40% turnout. But in France’s recent presidential election (first round) had over 80% out and the reason being – a vast gulf between the parties on policy and their vision of the direction that France should take. But again this would necessitate the mass publication of political policy in order to accentuate the differences and enthuse people with the thought that their vote can make the difference. So we return to the lack of a print media based in Wales, after all it is proven that it was the ‘Sun’ what won it for the conservatives in 1992 after they published a front page spread of how damaging labour would be to the economy. The Independent on the 2nd May 2007 is a case in point it has roughly 15 column inches addressing the Scotland’s election, none regarding Welsh election there is an editorial piece entitled ‘Separatism and scare tactics’, but again this article is centred on the Scottish election. However, there is a double page spread on the battle between the two remaining French presidential candidates for the support of people who voted for Francois Bayrou. Why is there such a lack of information the day before the election in Wales and Scotland?
I am very eager now to know the turnout for tomorrow’s election.
¶ 7:11 PM 2 comments
links to this post
It seems because the main focus of the television media was on the Scottish parliamentary election and the majority of newspapers are London based and therefore do not promote Welsh matters as they are primarily concerned with what happens within London, everywhere else being foreign to them, with no differential between French presidential elections and the Welsh assembly election, in fact the French presidential election is probably attaining a higher proportion of coverage than the Welsh assembly. Nevertheless this is forcing the creation of a new style of election campaign in Wales.
Due to the lack of media, mass mobilisation of public opinion and therefore large turnouts is impossible. The parties are unwilling to yell about an election in case they alert supporters of the opposition parties and bring them out to vote, because, there are a lot of labour voters in Wales, (just in case that you don’t know) and if they thought that the bogyman party (commonly known as the conservatives) would get in then they would mobilise and get out to vote. Even though they don’t believe that the labour party are doing a good job or that they are still representing them, some communities have become so entrenched in their support that it forms part of their identity and they can not foresee voting for someone else, so if they don’t want to vote labour they don’t vote! Hence the quip, you can pin a red rosette on a donkey and have it elected. And also hence, labours election campaign ploy to suggest that every party other than labour would enter into a coalition government with the conservatives.
Although it must be noted labour has strayed so far from the values and culture of welsh communities it is becoming possible for other people to win, people like the late Peter Law, and latterly Trish Law, who represent traditional labour values not new labour.
I forgot what I was saying.
Yes so to stop alerting the die hard supporters of the other parties, political parties are playing a low key election campaign targeting known supporters only through internet, emails, telephones etc…rather than high profile election campaign played out through the media, there is a low profile election. Which will most likely result in a low turnout enabling people to question the legitimacy of the Assembly, but what can be done?
I have previously mentioned that a lack of print media might contribute to a low turnout, however, America has possibly the largest coverage of any election and that struggled to rise above 40% turnout. But in France’s recent presidential election (first round) had over 80% out and the reason being – a vast gulf between the parties on policy and their vision of the direction that France should take. But again this would necessitate the mass publication of political policy in order to accentuate the differences and enthuse people with the thought that their vote can make the difference. So we return to the lack of a print media based in Wales, after all it is proven that it was the ‘Sun’ what won it for the conservatives in 1992 after they published a front page spread of how damaging labour would be to the economy. The Independent on the 2nd May 2007 is a case in point it has roughly 15 column inches addressing the Scotland’s election, none regarding Welsh election there is an editorial piece entitled ‘Separatism and scare tactics’, but again this article is centred on the Scottish election. However, there is a double page spread on the battle between the two remaining French presidential candidates for the support of people who voted for Francois Bayrou. Why is there such a lack of information the day before the election in Wales and Scotland?
I am very eager now to know the turnout for tomorrow’s election.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
01/05/07 – SCOT WILL BE PM SOON: BLAIR
TELETEXT 306 MAY 01 19:17:28
NEWS
Scot will be PM soon: Blair
A Scot will “in all probability” become the prime minister of the UK within the next few weeks, Tony Blair has said.
His comments came after he announced he will make a “definitive” statement next week, a move which should see his replacement as PM by July 2.
Mr Blair, campaigning for the Holyrood polls in Edinburgh, said: “In the next few weeks I won’t be PM,” and alluded to his likely successor Gordon Brown.
I hope that this will encourage John Reid to run for the Labour leadership, he is the only labour minister (apart from Des Browne – but he is just a junior minister) that I can see myself voting for. So I hope this Glaswegian will run for the leadership.
¶ 7:17 PM 0 comments
links to this post
NEWS
Scot will be PM soon: Blair
A Scot will “in all probability” become the prime minister of the UK within the next few weeks, Tony Blair has said.
His comments came after he announced he will make a “definitive” statement next week, a move which should see his replacement as PM by July 2.
Mr Blair, campaigning for the Holyrood polls in Edinburgh, said: “In the next few weeks I won’t be PM,” and alluded to his likely successor Gordon Brown.
I hope that this will encourage John Reid to run for the Labour leadership, he is the only labour minister (apart from Des Browne – but he is just a junior minister) that I can see myself voting for. So I hope this Glaswegian will run for the leadership.
01/05/07 – ‘THE NEW STATESMAN’
Yesterday (Monday, 30th April, 2007) I watched the opening night of Rik Mayall’s revival of the Alan B’stard character at the New Theatre, Cardiff, it was fantastic I strongly advocate that you go and watch it, it’s touring so you don’t necessarily have to come to Cardiff.
There were a few opening night mishaps with a swivel of the filing cabinet revealing a secrete compartment, which wasn’t supposed to be revealed until after the intermission, within the first five minutes. The next mishap was when the minister at number 9 Downing Street, B’stard, tried to throw a piece of paper at his PPS (parliamentary private secretary – or parliamentary private slave as it was quipped later) and missed throwing it into the audience, then making the target retrieve the projectile for a second take, after Mayall had recovered from corpsing, rolling his arm like an American baseball pitcher, just to rescind the move in favour of launching the projectile from no more than 30 cm away from the PPS in comic fashion another bout of corpsing from an improvisation from the terrorist character. However, the most entertaining mishap came when there was a ‘power cut’ forcing B’stard to scramble for the candelabra which then took about two minutes to light all three candles. (doesn’t sound like much but it was longer than Mayall should have taken – which was accentuated when he proclaimed, “won’t these things light” with more expletives obviously) then as the wife-soon-to-be-ex-wife character came on set he over hammed the reaction, missed the surface which he was meant to put the candelabra and sent three lit candles onto the stage (luckily the fall put them out) then rolling off onto the floor, which were soon followed by Mayall launching himself after them, and muttering “this has got to be the most unluckiest place” and later when he was trying to relight the candles “Plaid Cymru”. It was a fantastic play and Mayall reactions to these little mishaps only enhanced this. The final mishap occurred when ‘Condoleezza Rice’ grabbed B’stard by the balls and began to twist and squeeze, Mayall broke character to exclaim that she’s got a hand full of pubes and then asked if he had broken the mood.
Although, the play wouldn’t have been so funny if the scenarios weren’t so plausible B’stard during this play is playing a continuation of his character from the 80s TV show of the same name, but is now a senior member of the New Labour cabinet quipping that he did not move to join new labour, new labour moved to join him. a point echoed by David Davies AM, MP (Monmouthshire) who said “based on their current political standpoints, the Tories and Labour were probably better suited to a coalition. [than another other parties in Wales]” the theme is that B’stard is determined to survive and prosper. Claiming all the changes made to New Labour all women short lists, for example, were his idea because he had slept with all the secretaries and tea-ladies, well the ones that hadn’t been flattened by John Prescott you understand. Then he manages to persuade Rice to invade Norway instead of Iran – because they have lots of oil and too few people to resist an invasion. Although, in an indication of the stereotypical American rice doesn’t realise that Norway is not a desert country and sends desert acclimatised troops of which a large segment dies from hypothermia before they even land. This is after he puts all his money in oil shares (insider trading) and manipulates his old labour PPS to call a strike on the north sea oil rigs the cumulative result of the actions pushes oil prices sufficiently high to ensure his membership of the esteemed trillionaires club (the secrete organisation that governs the world). It was also suggested by the character Rice, that America had no interest in securing oil reserves but only destabilizing oil producing regions – in order that oil companies (which funded Bush’s presidential campaign) can maximise profits. B’stard also managed to persuade Rice to bomb the BBC television centre after saying that he had hidden WMD (that he was trying to sell) in the empty basement where the BBC comedy department once was. It forces reminiscences of Bush’s comments that he wanted to bomb Al Jazerra (apologies for spelling) the Qatar based news agency.
These is a fantastic play, and a fantastically thought provoking piece, (if you choose it to be) it gives you a new interpretation on events, and reasoning behind the events, a fantastic play hosting a character which could still have a massive impact in more popular media than stage. I highly recommend it to you.
¶ 7:17 PM 0 comments
links to this post
There were a few opening night mishaps with a swivel of the filing cabinet revealing a secrete compartment, which wasn’t supposed to be revealed until after the intermission, within the first five minutes. The next mishap was when the minister at number 9 Downing Street, B’stard, tried to throw a piece of paper at his PPS (parliamentary private secretary – or parliamentary private slave as it was quipped later) and missed throwing it into the audience, then making the target retrieve the projectile for a second take, after Mayall had recovered from corpsing, rolling his arm like an American baseball pitcher, just to rescind the move in favour of launching the projectile from no more than 30 cm away from the PPS in comic fashion another bout of corpsing from an improvisation from the terrorist character. However, the most entertaining mishap came when there was a ‘power cut’ forcing B’stard to scramble for the candelabra which then took about two minutes to light all three candles. (doesn’t sound like much but it was longer than Mayall should have taken – which was accentuated when he proclaimed, “won’t these things light” with more expletives obviously) then as the wife-soon-to-be-ex-wife character came on set he over hammed the reaction, missed the surface which he was meant to put the candelabra and sent three lit candles onto the stage (luckily the fall put them out) then rolling off onto the floor, which were soon followed by Mayall launching himself after them, and muttering “this has got to be the most unluckiest place” and later when he was trying to relight the candles “Plaid Cymru”. It was a fantastic play and Mayall reactions to these little mishaps only enhanced this. The final mishap occurred when ‘Condoleezza Rice’ grabbed B’stard by the balls and began to twist and squeeze, Mayall broke character to exclaim that she’s got a hand full of pubes and then asked if he had broken the mood.
Although, the play wouldn’t have been so funny if the scenarios weren’t so plausible B’stard during this play is playing a continuation of his character from the 80s TV show of the same name, but is now a senior member of the New Labour cabinet quipping that he did not move to join new labour, new labour moved to join him. a point echoed by David Davies AM, MP (Monmouthshire) who said “based on their current political standpoints, the Tories and Labour were probably better suited to a coalition. [than another other parties in Wales]” the theme is that B’stard is determined to survive and prosper. Claiming all the changes made to New Labour all women short lists, for example, were his idea because he had slept with all the secretaries and tea-ladies, well the ones that hadn’t been flattened by John Prescott you understand. Then he manages to persuade Rice to invade Norway instead of Iran – because they have lots of oil and too few people to resist an invasion. Although, in an indication of the stereotypical American rice doesn’t realise that Norway is not a desert country and sends desert acclimatised troops of which a large segment dies from hypothermia before they even land. This is after he puts all his money in oil shares (insider trading) and manipulates his old labour PPS to call a strike on the north sea oil rigs the cumulative result of the actions pushes oil prices sufficiently high to ensure his membership of the esteemed trillionaires club (the secrete organisation that governs the world). It was also suggested by the character Rice, that America had no interest in securing oil reserves but only destabilizing oil producing regions – in order that oil companies (which funded Bush’s presidential campaign) can maximise profits. B’stard also managed to persuade Rice to bomb the BBC television centre after saying that he had hidden WMD (that he was trying to sell) in the empty basement where the BBC comedy department once was. It forces reminiscences of Bush’s comments that he wanted to bomb Al Jazerra (apologies for spelling) the Qatar based news agency.
These is a fantastic play, and a fantastically thought provoking piece, (if you choose it to be) it gives you a new interpretation on events, and reasoning behind the events, a fantastic play hosting a character which could still have a massive impact in more popular media than stage. I highly recommend it to you.
01/05/07 – WALES IS TOO SMALL TO GO IT ALONE…
…but apparently Guernsey is just the right size.
Guernsey, a country which considerably smaller than Anglesey, is deciding this week whether it will sever its’ final link to Great Britain. Guernsey which is a crown dependency rather than a full constitutional nation of Great Britain (and therefore is not represented at Westminster) is to decide whether to cut the links to Britain which have existed since king John lost his French territories in 1207 – 1209.
Now this move, although I’ll accentuate that it is only being discussed by the channel island’s parliament is a long way to be ratified by the populous of the island, normally, I would only mentioned this as a passing folly, however the coincidence of this event occurring at the time of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Two institutions that host nationalist parties, both of which advocate, with varying degrees of insistence, independence – separation from Britain - Freedom. So what is most interesting about this story is that the British Labour party has not said (anywhere that I can see) that Guernsey is too small to be economically viable.
So Messer Hain, Morgan, Brown, Blair and [insert name of Scottish labour party leader] who are all adamant that Wales will become obsolete on the world stage, or Scotland’s economy would collapse, I’m sure that you have heard all the wranglings on the news particularly vehement between Labour and the SNP are mute on Guernsey’s economic prospects. Why is there not a similar outcry from these politicians regarding Guernsey, is it because the people of Guernsey are some how more sovereign than the Scots or us Welsh? The answer to this has got to be no, since all people, in democratic theory, are equally sovereign. Is it perhaps that the people of Guernsey are more productive? Probably not. So why then do the aforementioned gentlemen refuse to condemn Guernsey’s actions as economic suicide, where is all the rhetoric about Britain being stronger when united, surely this extends to its most strenuously attached outposts of Britain as well as the most immediately attached. Yet there is silence from these men.
So, if there arguments regarding Welsh and Scottish independence is not based on economics, and Guernsey has shown, sentimentality has no influence on this argument; why is there such vehement suppression of these ideas? I’m afraid to say it is all real politik. We must assume that self-interest is forbidding them from even considering the disintegration of the union.
1) Peter Hain, he is the one that said that Wales would become obsolete on the world stage – most people wouldn’t mind that as the inference is that we wouldn’t be sending troops half-way around the world to interfere in affairs that are not our concern. However, Hain seems to desire a global spot-light he was renowned for leading the anti-apartheid demonstrations and his ambitions to become labour’s deputy leader (and therefore deputy prime-minister) so perhaps he is concerned, not that Wales would be too small an actor, but that Wales would be too small a stage for him.
2) Gordon Brown, well his opposition to Scottish independence should be self-evident, he’s been waiting for an opportunity to assume power for over a decade, to move into Number 10 just in time to ratify Scottish independence (assuming that SNP are able to push through a bill proposing Scottish independence) would be a tragedy on a Shakespearean level for him – and a farce in the true B’stard tradition (I went to see ‘The New Statesman’ absolutely fantastic – I’ll comment on that later).
3) As for Messer Blair, Morgan, and [insert name of Scottish labour party leader] Blair can be dealt with by an assumption that he doesn’t want his legacy to read “dissolved Great Britain” as for the motives of the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish labour governments I can’t fathom their reasons, if Wales was independent, Morgan could probably be first minister until he dies, not quite true in Scotland. However, the real value of Wales to labour is that the Welsh constituencies are more likely to vote labour than any others, similarly Scotland. It is widely known that if all the Scottish and Welsh MPs are removed from Westminster then the Conservatives would have won the last election, so perhaps labour in the ‘Celtic fringe’ are not permitted to do what is best for their constituents because this would leave the English labour party in the wilderness.
Before I am bombarded with numerous comments, I’ll point out that there are no economic statistics that can back up whether or not independence is economically viable for Wales and Scotland, because there is no separate figures for tax collected from corporations and businesses, use of natural resources, tourism, income tax etc… the only figures there are is those paid per head of population for services under the Barnett formula. If Wales was independent then Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to contribute to maintaining nuclear weapons, Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to contribute to maintaining armed forces that are mainly based in the south of England or for the interventionist policy that they enforce. Finally, Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to pay their share for PFI projects that are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into the pockets of private companies just so that Gordon Brown can keep the cost of building new schools and hospitals off the national debt, so he can maintain his ‘Prudent’ image.
There is no economic argument against the disintegration of the United Kingdom because the figures which are necessary are not collected, and vice-versa, there is no economic argument for the disintegration of the United Kingdom because the figures which are necessary are not collected. However, if it is possible for countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc... and now possibly Guernsey to exist as small but prosperous nations how then can you justify dogmatic arguments against independence. However, as I have said before, it is all a mute point without the figures inform the argument.
¶ 7:10 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Guernsey, a country which considerably smaller than Anglesey, is deciding this week whether it will sever its’ final link to Great Britain. Guernsey which is a crown dependency rather than a full constitutional nation of Great Britain (and therefore is not represented at Westminster) is to decide whether to cut the links to Britain which have existed since king John lost his French territories in 1207 – 1209.
Now this move, although I’ll accentuate that it is only being discussed by the channel island’s parliament is a long way to be ratified by the populous of the island, normally, I would only mentioned this as a passing folly, however the coincidence of this event occurring at the time of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Two institutions that host nationalist parties, both of which advocate, with varying degrees of insistence, independence – separation from Britain - Freedom. So what is most interesting about this story is that the British Labour party has not said (anywhere that I can see) that Guernsey is too small to be economically viable.
So Messer Hain, Morgan, Brown, Blair and [insert name of Scottish labour party leader] who are all adamant that Wales will become obsolete on the world stage, or Scotland’s economy would collapse, I’m sure that you have heard all the wranglings on the news particularly vehement between Labour and the SNP are mute on Guernsey’s economic prospects. Why is there not a similar outcry from these politicians regarding Guernsey, is it because the people of Guernsey are some how more sovereign than the Scots or us Welsh? The answer to this has got to be no, since all people, in democratic theory, are equally sovereign. Is it perhaps that the people of Guernsey are more productive? Probably not. So why then do the aforementioned gentlemen refuse to condemn Guernsey’s actions as economic suicide, where is all the rhetoric about Britain being stronger when united, surely this extends to its most strenuously attached outposts of Britain as well as the most immediately attached. Yet there is silence from these men.
So, if there arguments regarding Welsh and Scottish independence is not based on economics, and Guernsey has shown, sentimentality has no influence on this argument; why is there such vehement suppression of these ideas? I’m afraid to say it is all real politik. We must assume that self-interest is forbidding them from even considering the disintegration of the union.
1) Peter Hain, he is the one that said that Wales would become obsolete on the world stage – most people wouldn’t mind that as the inference is that we wouldn’t be sending troops half-way around the world to interfere in affairs that are not our concern. However, Hain seems to desire a global spot-light he was renowned for leading the anti-apartheid demonstrations and his ambitions to become labour’s deputy leader (and therefore deputy prime-minister) so perhaps he is concerned, not that Wales would be too small an actor, but that Wales would be too small a stage for him.
2) Gordon Brown, well his opposition to Scottish independence should be self-evident, he’s been waiting for an opportunity to assume power for over a decade, to move into Number 10 just in time to ratify Scottish independence (assuming that SNP are able to push through a bill proposing Scottish independence) would be a tragedy on a Shakespearean level for him – and a farce in the true B’stard tradition (I went to see ‘The New Statesman’ absolutely fantastic – I’ll comment on that later).
3) As for Messer Blair, Morgan, and [insert name of Scottish labour party leader] Blair can be dealt with by an assumption that he doesn’t want his legacy to read “dissolved Great Britain” as for the motives of the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish labour governments I can’t fathom their reasons, if Wales was independent, Morgan could probably be first minister until he dies, not quite true in Scotland. However, the real value of Wales to labour is that the Welsh constituencies are more likely to vote labour than any others, similarly Scotland. It is widely known that if all the Scottish and Welsh MPs are removed from Westminster then the Conservatives would have won the last election, so perhaps labour in the ‘Celtic fringe’ are not permitted to do what is best for their constituents because this would leave the English labour party in the wilderness.
Before I am bombarded with numerous comments, I’ll point out that there are no economic statistics that can back up whether or not independence is economically viable for Wales and Scotland, because there is no separate figures for tax collected from corporations and businesses, use of natural resources, tourism, income tax etc… the only figures there are is those paid per head of population for services under the Barnett formula. If Wales was independent then Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to contribute to maintaining nuclear weapons, Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to contribute to maintaining armed forces that are mainly based in the south of England or for the interventionist policy that they enforce. Finally, Welsh tax payers wouldn’t have to pay their share for PFI projects that are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into the pockets of private companies just so that Gordon Brown can keep the cost of building new schools and hospitals off the national debt, so he can maintain his ‘Prudent’ image.
There is no economic argument against the disintegration of the United Kingdom because the figures which are necessary are not collected, and vice-versa, there is no economic argument for the disintegration of the United Kingdom because the figures which are necessary are not collected. However, if it is possible for countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc... and now possibly Guernsey to exist as small but prosperous nations how then can you justify dogmatic arguments against independence. However, as I have said before, it is all a mute point without the figures inform the argument.
SUPPORT TAFFIA DON: MERCHANDISE
DAILY CARTOON
- WE SHALL REMEMBER THEM
- 08/06/07 – THEATRE REVIEW
- 02/06/07- THE WELSH LANGUAGE IS BEING OVER PROMOTE...
- 22/05/07 – IS THIS THE SWIFTEST RENEGED PROMISE IN...
- 22/05/07 – QUESTION, DOES PETER HAIN’S LEFT HAND K...
- 11/05/07 - LIB DEMS CRY FOUL
- 10/05/07 - ABHORRENT MADNESS, ABHORRENT DISCRIMINA...
- 10/05/07 – CONGRATULATIONS S4C
- 10/05/07 – COALITIONS
- 10/05/07 – BLAIR ANNOUNCES HIS RETIREMENT
ARCHIVES
- June 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- November 2007
- Current Posts
- SMILING UNDER BUSES
- BRITISH NATIONALISTS IN WALES WATCH
- BIG STICK SMALL CARROT WORLD
- WALES COMMENT
- INSIDE SWANSEA COUNCIL
MAP
