Tale of two nations

Both Scotland and Wales now have their own Governments, and extremely progressive and radical energy policies have been a defining feature of devolution in both countries. This week there have been announcements in both nations about the future of renewable energy, but while Scotland advances towards a low-carbon future, Wales will be held back from achieving the same thing because of new plans by Labour at Westminster to effectively privatise major planning decisions in Wales.

In Wales, Environment Minister Jane Davidson has this week scaled up our already ambitious plans for renewable energy. It is a great statement of intent from an administration that has the support of Welsh Ramblings, but it is unfortunately an ambition that is ultimately beyond the remit of the weak devolution settlement we have. Shamefully, Westminster has deliberately excluded planning permissions for energy installations greater than 50 MW from the Welsh devolution settlement- similar to how they have excluded Welsh people from controlling their own water and other natural resources. This is very reminiscent of the age of imperialism where the colonial power retains control over the subsumed nation's resources, and exploits them. But that digression aside, the Scottish settlement devolves all energy planning to Holyrood. Frankly, this is our fault for not presenting a strong enough national movement, whereas in Scotland the British Government felt threatened enough to recognise in a declassified report that an independent Scotland would have become one of the strongest economies in Europe.

Previously, the Welsh Government had argued that Wales has enough potential to create all of its energy from renewable sources, in the very forward-thinking Renewable Energy Route Map. Despite the positive outcome, the Route Map was based entirely on factors beyond the Welsh Government's control becoming reality such as a Severn tidal energy project (final decision with Westminster), and the extremely questionable Prenergy Biomass Plant at Port Talbot.

Jane Davidson has now stated that in the next 10 to 15 years alone there is potential or £50bn worth of renewable energy projects in Wales, with the eventual reality that Wales could produce twice as much of its energy needs from renewables. We could become a major European exporter of renewable energy. Jane Davidson is a Labour Minister and does not support Wales becoming an independent state as far as we know, but surely a Wales that generated such a windfall of clean energy could sustain its economic needs by selling that energy to an increasingly hungry global market?

Because Wales does not have the planning and fiscal powers to develop a Welsh clean energy industry, our progress will be hampered. Westminster's priorities will take precedence, and on current form that is not good news for Welsh communities, in terms of both Labour and the Tories being indistinguishable on supporting a Severn Barrage (ignoring and undermining the alternatives) and "fake renewables" like the huge biomass plant at Port Talbot. For a nation that already generates more energy than we use, we should be innovating our energy sources much more so that we can create high-quality jobs and supply-side companies, rather than simply producing cheap energy for the needs of England.

An unhealthy side-note is the Labour Westminster Government's rush to create a new undemocratic quango (the Infrastructure Planning Commission) to control decisions over energy, including decisions in Wales. They will abolish public enquiries into major planning decisions and replace them with limited hearings. There is something sinister about these plans and the fact they will be imposed on Wales is a sad indictment of the generations of politicians that have failed us. Though this has become something of a trending topic amongst nationalists who have traditionally concerned themselves with keeping Westminster's hands of our resources, it's Friends of the Earth who will be mounting a legal challenge against these neo-liberal plans. It is obvious that New Labour are taking planning decisions away from elected politicians, so that the whims of the market can decide them. For a so-called socialist party to be pushing this through is hideously ironic. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are clearly the ones actually upholding socialist principles in this case, as there are no such plans to introduce an IPC in Scotland.

The alternative is clear. In Scotland, whose Government contrastingly has much more powers over energy than we do, First Minister Alex Salmond is talking about parts of his country being "the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy", presumably without the widespread oppression of women! In seriousness, it is an exceptional vision, especially when you consider the fact that Scottish nationalism has traditionally been based on demands around oil. Though Scotland should of course still get control of its own oil, the SNP government is positioning their country as the green engine of Europe. This is an incredibly dynamic vision and one we could quite easily emulate. Our wind and wave energy potential offshore is hugely significant and could help save the planet and lead to a more prosperous and fairer future. Yet we lack both the fiscal/regulatory and energy powers. But there's nothing to say we can't campaign to get those levers in the future.

We must start making an economic case for independence as a long-term aspiration, ready to argue it in ten or fifteen years' time when these energy projects come online. To allow the colonial-style exploitation of our resources without getting any direct benefit from them would be a betrayal of our people. On the bright side, it does look like Wales will eventually become viable as an independent nation, in terms of being prepared for the low-carbon future.

We're doing worse than eastern Europe- but we're doing better than France and the US

Whether it's comparing Welsh NHS waiting times to England, Welsh education spending to Ireland, or the Welsh economy to other poor parts of the EU, Wales often comes off badly in those international comparisons so loved by the media and by the opposition in Wales. We all know that most of these comparisons are not strictly fair, but the damage they do when they appear in print is considerbale. It might damage the governing parties to an extent, but although most of the levers to address anything to do with the economy or spending (but not hospital waiting times, it should be noted) remain with Westminster, negative headlines about Wales invariably hurt the Assembly's reputation, and dent the standing of all politicians that sit in the Assembly. After all, because the Welsh Government is so active at the moment, alot of people in Wales (according to consistent polling) are under the misapprehension that the Assembly has the most influence over Welsh affairs. This cuts both ways, because although it shows that the Welsh Government is performing well, they also then get the blame for things beyond their influence or control that go wrong.

One of the biggest threats to devolution and the progress of democracy in Wales is the drip feed of these anti-Welsh headline statistics.

In this case, the Tories have managed to capture a prominent headline in the Western Mail that reads "Labour ‘complacency’ as stats put Wales below Eastern Europe". This isn't so much talking Wales down (it's factually correct), but making an unsuitable comparison for political gain, to try and shore up the Tories ahead of an election that isn't even an Assembly one. It's a game focused on British politics rather than on scrutinising the Welsh Government. Indeed, if an Assembly election was approaching, he would've blamed Ieuan Wyn Jones for a global economic crisis that was caused by the kind of people that fund the Conservative party.

Nick Bourne should be ashamed of this press release because it doesn't do the cause he professes to support any favours. Indeed, the reactionary and bigoted comments beneath the article say things like "Why give even more powers to the idiots who have put us in this position?"...and "Is it any wonder that Wales is poorer than Eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans are given priority when applying for jobs here and I am not referring to the headline "Ad says 'workers must speak Polish'". Anti-devolution and borderline racism. Even allowing for the fact that alot of internet commenting is now done by semi-organised groups with agendas, and that there are a couple of progressive comments about this not being the fault of the National Assembly, it's quite easy to imagine these sentiments becoming entrenched among Welsh people if this drip-drip of negative stories from the Welsh Conservatives continues.

Now what are these new stats that are putting us below eastern Europe? They're unemployment stats. Nick Bourne is correct when he says “We have the highest unemployment rate of any UK nation – and higher than countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia.” This is true, Welsh unemployment in February was at 8.6%, while the UK level is 7.9%. It is the worst rate of any UK nation. But it's misleading for Bourne to blame this on the Welsh Government, because for most of the devolution period Welsh unemployment was actually lower than the UK average. The fact Nick Bourne knows this makes his intentions with this press statement even more questionable.

He has deliberately used eastern Europe in his comparison because for people that are not clued up, "countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia" conjure up emotive images of poor, Stalinist economies, Trabant cars and secret police. The reality is different, with eastern Europe's economies making huge strides and catching up with the rest of Europe. Welsh unemployment is bad at the moment, but it is lower than some of the wealthiest nations like France (10%), Ireland (12.7%) and the United States (9.7%), and far better than places like Spain. Welsh unemployment is about the same as German unemployment at the moment. When the US Ambassador last visited Wales he said America would prefer Wales' unemployment rate "any day". So the Tories have just used eastern Europe because of commonly-held misconceptions that those countries are backward, old-fashioned or cheap. It's an attitude that taps into the anti-foreigner sentiment so beloved of Conservative politicians.

If Labour or Plaid had put out a press release saying "New stats put Wales ahead of France and the USA" they would be just as factually correct as Nick Bourne's press release. But they wouldn't do so because they'd know it is not an honest comparison. It seems only the Tories are willing to damage devolution with these misleading, inaccurate and anti-Welsh claims. Nick Bourne should be ridiculed in the Assembly chamber for his cynical belief that Westminster elections are more important than devolution.

Sell-out performance

Last night the English-language Welsh National Theatre held it's first performance, with A Good Night Out In The Valleys by Alan Harris playing at Blackwood. The play sold out, and Syniadau notes that we now have two National Theatres, one in each language. We have had the Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru since 2004, but the political will for English-language National Theatre dates back to a 2007 commitment in the One Wales agreement.

It's entirely fitting that Plaid Cymru Ministers have delivered this and that Plaid insisted that this policy be included in One Wales. There is a distinct lack of visibility for Welsh cultural performance in the English-language, across so many formats. The problem is that any culture be it music, drama or art, that is very much Welsh but is in the English language, risks getting lumped in with British culture, or worse is described is "Anglo-Welsh". This Theatre really is something to shout about as it gives an outlet for English-language dramatists and performers to showcase their talent in Wales.

Arts Council Chair Dai Smith notes that unlike other nations such as England and Scotland, Wales does not have a large theatre-going middle-class. And if the Theatre's first production is anything to go by, viewers might expect a drama experience dominated by plays that are not elitist or high-brow and are more gritty, in keeping with Welsh character. This will probably make a huge contribution to the Welsh Government's agenda of opening up the arts for ordinary people to enjoy.

Dai Smith goes further and comments directly on the nation-building potential of the Theatre, as the article reports that he 'doesn't like the expression, but refers to the project as "nation-building" - a natural next step in the process of devolution and an important act of self-expression. He thinks that politicians in Westminster are slow to recognise and respond to what he sees as the future: a federal Britain.'

Devolution is a one way road. There's no going back, and neither is independence inevitable, but looking at the political dynamic there is no way Unionists can avoid federalism in order to preserve the Union. Just over ten years after devolution began we are already on the verge of an enhanced settlement for Wales, and Scotland gaining revenue-raising and fiscal powers, with Scottish independence also on the table. People like devolution, regardless of the results that the political aspect produces. Who in 1999 would have thought that we'd be seeing national theatres for Wales in either language, Plaid Cymru in government and Welsh laws being made for the first time since the medieval period?

In conclusion, the Welsh National Theatre is a wholly promising development, with a boost for careers in our creative industry for Welsh talent, a low level of public funding (just £1m per year) and hopefully a more working-class orientated style of drama. Let it never be said that Plaid Cymru is only looking out for Welsh speakers.

More from the BBC including a video clip here.

Is it healthy?

After reading the news report and Betsan's Blog about NHS waiting times, a perennial thorn in the side of Welsh Governments, you'll be hard pressed to work out whether Wales is performing better than England on waiting times, or worse. On the one hand the number of people waiting more than 26 weeks for referrals has gone up, but Betsan reports that there are "tolerances" and clinical exceptions and that even more confusingly, data is collected differently between Wales and England. The final reading seems to be that in some ways, the Welsh NHS is actually performing better than the NHS in England, but that in other ways, Welsh waiting times are heading in the wrong direction. Although commentators might still indulge the usual habit of trying to compare statistics between Wales and other nations in the UK, it's probably for the best than an honest comparison can't be made.

It isn't healthy to constantly compare the performance of Welsh institutions to their counter-parts in other countries. Even when we happen to do better, it still doesn't make sense. There are different policy approaches, different economic realities and different ways of measuring things. And that's a good thing. Devolution should be about improving life in Wales and representing our communities, not running some kind of race based on targets and numbers.

For most people in Wales, the most important thing about the NHS is that their rights are being recognised and upheld while in hospital, that healthcare remains free at the point of use, and that healthcare services are accessible. The Welsh Government has delivered on all of those things. They made the NHS Redress Measure, the first Welsh law since the Middle Ages, so that mistreated patients can get compensated quickly. They are developing a charter of patients' rights. They have kept the NHS in public hands and rejected privatisation (in contrast to Tony Blair's reforms in England), ensuring all health care including prescriptions is free and freezing dental charges, and they delivered free hospital parking which makes access to hospitals easier and less costly. Yes there are often cases of neglect, bad service and funding anomalies. But if you scan the letters section of any given local paper, you will consistently find letters praising the NHS, its staff and the treatment they have received.

Working people won those things through participating in a World War and by demanding them afterwards. They were then largely eroded by Thatcherism and by New Labour and the wholesale marketisation of public service. But they were won back through devolution. All of those gains are placed at risk in a debate over facts and figures that often threatens to undermine the NHS and undermine devolution by making meaningless cross-border comparisons.

Leaving Wales behind again

The UK Government announcement about high-speed rail this week has the support of both the Tories (from 2015) and Labour (from 2017), and will transform transport and the economy in parts of England. But in not reaching Wales, the decision condemns our economy and infrastructure to becoming outdated while the rest of the UK powers ahead.

In fitting with the spirit of the times, despite being billed as a UK-wide project the high-speed rail network will not reach Wales at all(or Scotland until much later). The network will be centred on connecting London, the Midlands and Manchester. By 2030, an additional phase will reach both Glasgow and Edinburgh. But in both the first and second stages of this development, there will be no connection to anywhere in Wales. A project being sold as 'the golden age of rail' will exclude Wales, despite industrialisation being pioneered here in the previous era.

The Labour Government is arguing that this modern high-speed rail system will bring huge economic benefits to the cities and regions it connects, and they are of course right, it represents a modern and low-carbon transport system which could create thousands of new job opportunities. Except none of these will be coming to Wales. We can therefore assume that the wealth gap between Wales and the rest of the UK will continue to increase and that it will be nothing to do with devolution, the Assembly or the Welsh Government. It hammers home the fact that all of the economic levers rest at Westminster and that Wales has precious little influence over them. There is no conceivable way that the Welsh economy will ever catch up with the rest of the UK if we are left out of this huge infrastructure project.

It was only last year that Gordon Brown finally announced that the UK government would electrify Network Rail's line into Wales. The original commitment was only to electrify the line to Bristol, but lobbying from the Welsh Government ensured that it will now reach the south of Wales. This means that while Britain is developing a 21st century railway network, Wales will be getting it's first ever electrified traditional railways. Our economy and our Welsh transport network will only just, by 2017, be entering what is the norm for every other European nation in 2010. Allegedly, we share this uncomfortable accolade with Albania. Further to this, the Tories have not even committed to supporting even this modest and conventional electrification, let alone a new generation of high-speed trains coming anywhere near Wales.

A Westminster Government of alternative disposition could have recognised that the economy of the British Isles needs a new perspective, and that the high-speed rail network is an international project that requires the involvement of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Accepting Wales' geographic location on the periphery, it might even be acceptable that this project would reach Wales in 2030 or later, as it reached Scotland. Of course this is pie in the sky stuff, as it flies in the face of vested UK economic policy which is to drive all investment to the south-east of England.

This Anglo-Centric decision proves that Wales is losing out by electing Labour MPs. There is no onus for London to deliver anything for Welsh communities because Labour is not perceived to be under threat here. The creation of this new modern infrastructure means that the Welsh economy will become even less connected to European markets, and will condemn even more Welsh communities to poverty and hopelessness. Our carbon emissions will not fall as quickly as England's emissions. Our roads will be more congested, will require more maintenance and the private sector will find it harder to access business opportunities. When all of these outcomes are recorded they will be discussed in the Assembly and whatever is left of the Welsh media by then, but they will all be traceable to a decision that was not made in Wales or by politicians elected in Wales.

It is hard to understate the generational ramifications of our economy being penalised by this decision. When the GVA figures continue to disappoint in the future we will know where the blame lies.

Tories flop in Llandudno

The Tories held their Welsh Spring Conference in Llandudno, showing how seriously they are taking the Aberconwy seat. A UK-wide poster campaign featuring a mother from the town (presumably she is grateful she isn't a single mother who will be stripped of benefits under Tory plans) was launched to coincide with Dave Cameron's visit. But the problem with the London parties is that they come here and descend on our towns with their signature policies and posters without knowing the real issues that are going on in our communities. So while Plaid's visit to Llandudno coincided with AM Gareth Jones securing investment for the local hospital and a local credit union, the Tories' visit has, according to popular local paper the North Wales Pioneer, been overshadowed by the difficulties and splits surrounding the local party in that area of Wales.

As Cameron basked in the stage-managed glory of a party conference, the Tories lost another councillor who has defected to the independents, and had their candidate Guto Bebb launch an attack on the integrity local press. His blog has since been taken down. No wonder the Pioneer's front page ran with an anti-Guto Bebb story and an anti-Lord Ashcroft story. At the same time the Tories are stagnating in the UK polls (polls which will have a huge effect on a seat like Aberconwy), not because of any fondness for Labour but because a large body of working people find Conservative policies distasteful and worrying.

This might seem like fanciful stuff but these kind of local splits can paralyse a campaign, and it might be that the Tories will struggle to get their activists out to secure a victory for Bebb. Make no mistake, if the Tories do not win in this, one of their highest UK-wide target seats, it would send shockwaves through the political establishment.

Lib Dems want it both ways

It would be nice to subject the Lib Dems to a proper, rigorous analysis on the issue of bovine TB but their sheer opportunism makes such a thing extremely difficult. New leaflets have emerged in the marginal Ceredigion seat where Lib Dem MP Mark Williams is by all accounts fighting for his life against Plaid. The literature asserts that "contrary to Plaid's reports, the Lib Dems are NOT against a badger cull in west Wales." Williams goes on in the leaflet to argue that "6 Plaid Cymru/Labour Coalition AMs voted against the cull, along with 2 Lib Dems". Now bearing in mind that 2 Lib Dems constitutes a third of their entire group, it is very dishonest to put Plaid Cymru/Labour AMs when in fact only 6 Labour AMs oppose the TB reduction package. So the bizarre situation is that Mark Williams is spinning all kinds of webs to try and defend and support a Plaid Cymru/Elin Jones policy against his own party's AMs!

In other parts of Wales, Peter Black AM has been going out of the way to assure people that some Lib Dems are in fact against the cull. His defence is that "we do not have a policy on the cull". Well that's convenient!

There can be no sympathy for these people. There is nothing wrong with having disagreements within a party, but when Plaid have had such disagreements people like Peter Black have reacted in an extremely childish manner, accusing Plaid of splits, divisions and falling outs. The lesson should be that criticism from the Lib Dems is now meaningless. How are we to take them seriously when they make points about other Welsh Government policies in the future? They have completely undermined their own status as an opposition party and should be frozen out from any negotiations on future coalitions until they prove their maturity. And this is being written as a blog which is generally supportive of most things the Lib Dems argue for.

Supporting the strikes

The Tories, CBI and Liberal Democrats have been quick to question and undermine the current PCS strike over civil service redundancy changes. Credit must go to the Welsh Government AMs from Labour and Plaid Cymru for backing the workers in their dispute with the UK Government. We are now entering a crucial political period in which issues of principle are more important than ever. A focus on process issues (like the delay in Assembly business) or on dividing public sector workers against private sector workers risks completely distracting peoples' attention from the wider issue at hand which is New Labour's ongoing war against civil servants. An FSB spokesperson tweeted that he was unhappy that the Western Mail had run a headline saying the FSB had 'no sympathy' with public sector workers over this dispute. The FSB do not support the strike (nor is it in their remit to do so) but they certainly wouldn't want to be dividing workers against each other or fuelling the myths that the public sector is some kind of gold-plated workers' paradise. It's an economic recession not a cattle auction. If too many salaries are lost from the public sector, it will have a knock-on effect on the wider economy and surely that won't be good for private business.

There is still some waste in the public sector that can and needs to be reduced, but those kind of cuts are only acceptable if done in line with cutting the highest salaries of the questionable non-jobs that appear to have proliferated during the past ten years (as Dr. Eurfyl ap Gwilym argued). That more balanced approach would surely go down alot better with PCS members, who are hardly taking industrial action for no reason. Any discussion about the validity of the strike should also recognise that the scrapping of these civil service redundancy packages (packages hard-won by some of the lowest paid workers who traditionally supported the party which is now abolishing them) was planned before the financial crisis, before the recession and before there was any question of public expenditure being cut.

It's entirely justifiable for Assembly business to be disrupted momentarily in order to show solidarity with these workers. The debate about cuts is one that needs these kind of actions to remind us of what is at stake. The few conditions that workers do enjoy in the UK have been won by this kind of industrial action being available. The Tories and Lib Dems are wrong in arguing that politicians should not support these strikes, but that should be no surprise.

Hain still unchallenged on Severn Barrage lie

Ramblings has a long-standing interest in opposing the Severn Barrage which would be an ecological disaster and a monumental exploitation of Welsh natural resources by the London government. Peter Hain has come in for a grilling in particular on the Barrage, not because of any vendetta against him but because in openly supporting the proposed Cardiff-Weston Barrage over the other alternative options, he was pre-judging a supposedly neutral and arms-length consultation process. It is encouraging to read that environmental groups are now pulling Hain up on his colonial-governor style grandstanding over this issue.

When the issue at stake is as important as the natural environment of the southern Welsh coastline, not to mention the allocation of scarce resources, then it is essential that the consultation itself is fair and balanced, and involves prominent Welsh input. So far this has obviously not been the case, with the Welsh Government taking a feeble position and admitting that Ministers in London will have the final say, even though several of the proposed projects are entirely in Welsh waters. The case for involving the Westminster government in the Severn tidal energy study is clear, as any outcome will involve co-operation between the Welsh and UK governments. But the final decision, if it is to deliver a project in Wales, should be taken in our own Assembly. After all, our Assembly Members have years of familiarity with proposals for tidal energy projects in the Severn. It is they (and Plaid Cymru in particular) who have been holding the public meetings and doing the campaigning. The only time Peter Hain turned up was to drive journalists in a boat out into the sea.

The consultation itself is an exercise costing an amount of money that makes the All Wales Convention look like spare change. It would be interesting to see what the anti-devolution brigade would make of Peter Hain overruling this consultation, seeing as they were so up in arms about the Convention. But that would be to digress. There is no quick-fix to the Estuary opportunity. Hain's Severn Barrage, the largest and most expensive option, would also take the longest to construct. By the time it was completed, other more efficient technologies may have come to fruition.

But a better reason to oppose the Barrage is the fact that its construction would alter the tide in such a way that any other tidal project in the estuary would never be possible. The Barrage would also use as much as £23bn (or as little as £15bn) worth of taxpayers money and would need to be publicly funded, including electricity generation. If such a project went ahead, it's difficult to see any other renewable energy projects getting funded in such a time of austerity. The alternative 'Shoots Barrage' on the other hand would be able to be privately financed. Though it's rare to see Welsh Ramblings arguing for private finance, this would take the burden off the taxpayer, and if we are to combat climate change then the private sector must play its part. The construction time would be quicker, and a high-speed rail link could be integrated into the smaller Shoots Barrage to replace the ailing Severn Tunnel. Despite misleading statements by some Labour MPs, there is no possibility for any kind of transport link on the Cardiff-Weston option. The Shoots Barrage would still damage significant bird habitat areas, but even the RSPB are willing to accept the Shoots Barrage as they agree that something needs to be done, and that you must be willing to take a reasonable hit to your interests in order to safeguard the planet.

Shoots would also not generate as much energy as Cardiff-Weston, but has a much better financial viability and would make a meaningful contribution to the Welsh economy with it's rail link, especially as it would almost certainly be an electrified link. It therefore does not represent the same exploitation as the Severn Barrage does, and would help generate longer lasting jobs in the Welsh economy. This is in contrast to Cardiff-Weston, which would create more construction jobs, but they would not be as closely linked to Welsh needs as would the wider spread of jobs that the rail link could bring in. On the energy point, if Shoots went ahead, other more innovative projects such as tidal lagoons could still be developed further towards the sea. If Cardiff-Weston gets built you can say goodbye to tidal lagoons or any kind of Welsh developments that might foster green skills and hi-tech jobs.

Yet Peter Hain, in the face of criticism from the environmental movement, has chosen to simply reaffirm his support for the flawed, old-fashioned and colonial Cardiff-Weston option. Like many London politicians he seems to be supporting it simply as a megalith that will awe voters. Notably the Welsh media has still not challenged him on the lie or blunder he told last month when he claimed that the Cardiff-Weston Barrage could be privately financed. His own Government has ruled this out, yet the Welsh media still hasn't pulled him up on it. This means that ordinary people who don't read blogs or follow politics may have read his comments and may now be under the illusion that they won't have to pay for the Severn Barrage out of their taxes. How convenient, just ahead of a Westminster Election.

Something not right with Yougov poll

After reading the Druid's blog about the 1st-3rd March ITV Wales/Yougov poll, you'd conclude that Plaid's support in the 'North Wales' region has declined from 17% in mid-January, to 10% now. This would not have Plaid winning Ynys Mon or Arfon.

But what the Druid doesn't notice is that the same poll is a strange anomaly compared with consistent election polling by other companies. In the referendum section, the Wales-wide figure indicates growth for the 'Yes' vote in line with the BBC poll, with the 'Yes' camp on a slightly lower but still increased 53%. But in the 'North Wales' region support for the 'Yes' vote is the lowest in Wales, significantly below the Wales-wide average, at just 47%. This is in complete contrast to the BBC St. David's Day poll which had the north commanding the largest 'Yes' vote at 60%.

Although Ramblings isn't an impartial blog, a subjective observer could well conclude that Plaid's support has for some reason plummeted dramatically in the north. But the anomalous 'Yes' vote would suggest that their small North Wales sample, at 250 people, is unrepresentative of the region as a whole.

Maybe we shouldn't complain. The Mid and West Wales result has Plaid winning Ceredigion with a 10,000 majority! With all due respect to Plaid, things are surely not that set in stone out west. Everything is pointing to a weird poll, but one that is nonetheless showing the Tories and Plaid up, and Labour and the Lib Dems down.

Headline figures from the poll versus change from 2005 GE-

Labour- 37% (-5.7)

Tories- 29% (+7.6)

Plaid- 14% (+1.4)

Lib Dems- 12% (-6.4)

Referendum-

Yes- 53%

No- 31%

No Plaid-SNP split on Barnett

Although there isn't an easy reference at hand, it's been said a couple of times in the comments of political blogs and on TV that there might be some kind of divide or friction between Plaid and the SNP over the Barnett formula. The background is that as part of their entry into the Welsh Government, Plaid secured a wide-ranging review into how Wales is funded. The review was backed by all the political parties, and confirmed Plaid's long-held suspicions that Wales is being funded less than it needs. Both Labour and the Tories have refused to take any concrete action on this, but the evidence is at least in the open.

The idea is that because Plaid's logical follow-up would be to demand an increase in funding from Westminster, there is a contradiction with their allies in Scotland, who might be aggrieved because the same Barnett formula that penalises Wales slightly rewards Scotland.

This seems like nonsense. Wales and Scotland are at different stages of their national development. Scotland is ready for independence and is pushing towards it. Wales is not and needs further nation-building, it's own legal system, and all kinds of other advances before we can get independence put on the table. Some nationalists believe that Wales shouldn't campaign for a better deal, because we should not be dependent on London for funding. That's a decent point and one Ramblings is sympathetic towards, but Welsh communities are owed that extra funding, and building the nation needs to be paid for. Until a case for Welsh independence has been developed and costed, we should squeeze the Treasury until the pips squeak. They have extracted huge amounts of natural resources from Wales in the past and continue to do so without the economic kickback we would enjoy were we a nation-state.

The solution is to abolish the outdated Barnett formula and give Wales a new deal, and for Scotland to be allowed self-determination and a referendum on independence, or if Westminster insists on denying the people of Scotland a say on their own future they might well grant Scotland fiscal autonomy as an alternative. They would then have no need for any formula from the Treasury, being quite capable of raising all the revenues they need from their own resources.

Iraq Birth Defects Scandal

The BBC's John Simpson has come out with some very harrowing and disturbing reports of unusual rates of high birth defects amongst children born in Fallujah, Iraq. At the time of writing it was the top news story at the BBC's website, but has since been replaced by the story about Lord Ashcroft. The scenes are said to be extremely disturbing, with some defects being so severe (Simpson claimed to see a baby born with multiple heads) that they cannot be shown on television. Local doctors blame the weapons and munitions used by the United States in the heavy fighting around Fallujah six years ago. The city was an infamous hotbed of resistance to the illegal invasion of Iraq, until the influential Sunni "Awakening Councils" made a deal with the US to reject Al Qaeda, allegedly in return for generous financial backing from Western sources (according to the BBC approximately 100,000 Sunni fighters are getting their wages paid by the US to the tune of $360m, this doesn't include the cost of arms or training).

Simpson's report brings up memories of the birth defect problems in Vietnam which still persist to this day. In that country, chemical weapons used by the United States caused massive cancer rates and mental illness amongst American service personnel, and have had a lingering effect on children that are born in the areas targeted by the US forces during their war in Vietnam.

This episode reveals a very sinister and dark side to the illegal war against Iraq, and needs a full investigation. Hopefully there will not be a cover up, and Simpson's excellent work will get the full exposure it deserves. Imperialism is seriously bad for your health.

Gordon Brown on the role of Britain

According to the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown during a visit to Wales for the Labour Conference, Britain remains a worthwhile union for us to be a part of, because:

“I think everybody knows that Wales, like Scotland, is stronger within the Union, and the strength of Great Britain and the United Kingdom is important to developing the modern economy and international relations that we need.

“We’re able, through Britain’s leading role in the world, to influence the events in international development, in climate change, in economic restructuring."

Britain's role in "leading the world" arguably either does nothing for Wales, or does things that are deeply unpopular and alien to the values held by most people in Wales.

In international development, perhaps Brown means the UK's success in channeling more than £50m per year in arms (as far as we know) to the human rights-loving government of Uganda? There was principled outrage at the fact that the Welsh Government granted £50,000 to a coffee farming co-operative in Uganda at a time when the country's government was considering a bill that would confer the death penalty on homosexuals- but the British Government gives alot more than that, and not to co-ops but directly to their government and military.

On climate change, Brown might be promoting Britain's participation in refusing to confront neo-liberalism and rampant capitalism at the failed Copenhagen summit?

And on economic restructuring Brown is possibly promoting the spectacle of British MEPs trooping through the European Parliament to vote for the marketisation and full privatisation of postal services with only Jill Evans and a handful of others putting up resistance?

Ramblings for one would not mind Wales losing that kind of "influence". It's a poisonous kind of influence that ends up with Welsh men and women dying to protect a fraudulently elected group of warlords in Afghanistan. An independent Wales could opt out of imperialism entirely and play a more concilatory and less hated role in world events.

Stitch-up by the BBC, ITV and Sky

A few things in the past week or so have made it crystal clear that the BBC is failing in its duty to understand devolution or the simple fact that Britain is made up of several different nations. Most blatant is the vomit-inducing spectacle of three identikit and generic "mainstream party leaders" being presented across the TV networks as prospective leaders of the whole of the UK. Never mind that they all agree with public spending cuts, all support staying in Afghanistan and all want right-wing welfare reform. How ironic that the parties that support "choice" in public services are completely denying voters the choice of seeing all of the UK leaders on one programme.

The news that Plaid, despite being a Welsh party of government and a long-established UK Parliamentary party, is being excluded from the leaders' debates on the BBC, ITV and Sky, confirms that the London-based parties have stitched things up so that the General Election coverage will as always reflect the interests of people in England. You have to wonder at the fairness of this. These broadcasts are being sold (according to a news bulletin last night) as one of the main ways you will be helped to decide who to vote for. It can only be concluded that Plaid will not receive the kind of vote that fair and balanced coverage would provide, and that Plaid's vote may artificially be understated due to their deliberate exclusion from this debate.

The background is one where all three of the mainstream parties have lost credibility against a backdrop of economic catastrophe and political crisis. In the British electoral system, the number of people that do not vote for one of the two traditional governing parties is at a record high. At a time when people demonstrably want a more plural politics, the big broadcasters are lining up to prevent this from being expressed on TV to a UK-wide audience. It is a stitch-up, nothing less.

Make no mistake, they are freezing out the alternative mainstream parties like Plaid and the SNP because our message is one of genuine societal and structural change. People coming on screen and daring to diverge from the managerial consensus around centre-right politics would not be welcome. It is a message that would spoil the whole show, which will instead be about US-Presidential style personality politics. That kind of thing is all well and good for Presidential systems, but does not work in Wales or the UK where you elect MPs and AMs, not heads of state.

The Presidential-style personality debate means that they don't want political discussion. The broadcasters and media want the party leaders to have more or less similar policy outlooks, so that the debate is about who is the best leader, who is the most charismatic leader or who says the best soundbite rather than which party has reacted best to the expenses crisis, the war or the financial crisis. This theme isn't just confined to the party leaders' debates but runs throughout the media, from Piers Morgan to the "MPs on a Council Estate". The media and London political establishments want politicians and particularly senior ones to come across as celebrities or business-style people, rather than political thinkers. Tory leader David Cameron admitted as much a few months ago when he remarked that all the party leaders agree on the same things, they just have different ideas of how to achieve them.

This leaders' debate stitch-up is unacceptable and a legal challenge must be mounted by the excluded parties. Nationalists should also be ready to protest against the BBC, a publicy-owned corporation that was quick enough to give a fascist MEP a slot on TV but won't give progressive nationalists from Wales and Scotland a fair election-time hearing. Let's turn up en masse and spoil their show.

Welsh Public Opinion- Ieuan Wyn Jones

More from the poll.

Ieuan Wyn Jones
We've concluded that the party-specific section of poll makes pleasing but not exciting reading for Plaid (they'll be far happier with the devolution headline). Ieuan Wyn Jones specifically should get some limited praise for how he has managed to grow the party's support. He has been criticised by this blog before over issues like nuclear power and St. Athan, but on economic policy this blog has recognised that he has done an honest job to try and contrast Wales with the failed economic policies supported by the British parties.

14% of voters back Ieuan and Elfyn to lead Wales out of recession, compared to 47% for Brown and Carwyn, 24% for Cameron and Bourne and 9% for the Lib Dems. Daran Hill argues that this is grim for Ieuan because he is Economy Minister. That doesn't really make sense, because voters quite clearly understand that only Westminster has the levers to lead the UK out of recession (even Ieuan Wyn Jones has acknowledged this fact in his speeches when most politicians would try and claim they would work miracles). The results bear this out. So the 14% is really Plaid's Westminster level of support, because 16% would want to see Ieuan as First Minister. Contrastingly, 47% of voters want Brown and Carwyn to lead the economic recovery, but only 38% actually want Carwyn Jones as First Minister. Quite a large deficit.

The ratings for First Minister are more positive for Ieuan. The approval ratings for would be First Ministers are-
Carwyn Jones on 38%
Ieuan Wyn Jones on 16%
Nick Bourne on 10%
Kirsty Williams on 10%

This is great news for Ieuan Wyn Jones, that even though he is in government as Deputy First Minister he is still outstripping the leader of the opposition, Nick Bourne. Bourne should surely be the First-Minister-in-waiting, but the 2 Government party leaders both match or beat him. This is a failure of Nick Bourne's leadership of the Tory opposition who have been roundly exposed now as being inconsistent on every Welsh issue. In fact, the Lib Dems, true to their style, could even claim that Kirsty would actually make a more popular First Minister than Nick Bourne because she got 98 votes and Nick got 97!

Far from disappearing as you might expect from being the leader of the junior partner, Ieuan Wyn Jones is still seen as a more influential figure than the opposition leaders, and for the first time in his career has a modest amount of recognition and support from amongst all social classes and all geographic parts of Wales. Interestingly though, Ieuan's support is stronger (some 20% of the lowest social grade think he would be the best First Minister) amongst manual, unskilled workers and the working classes than it is amongst professionals and higher managers. Didn't expect that one.

Nick Bourne contrastingly does better than Ieuan by quite some distance amongst rich people, and amongst those who would vote 'No' in a referendum.