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.

"Yes We Can"- the reality of Welsh public opinion

BBC Cymru/Wales has released the results of a new opinion poll which yet again makes great reading for those who support further devolution. Ramblings intends to post a few blogs pointing out interesting answers from the poll.

Support for a 'Yes' vote in the proposed referendum, when compared to previous opinion polls, appears not only to have solidified but to have grown. The 'Yes' camp, according to this poll, would command 56% of the vote, whereas 35% would vote 'No'. This means that since Assembly Members gave their unanimous thumbs up to a referendum, people have actually become slightly more inclined to vote 'Yes'. Shock horror, people might actually support what their AMs are doing and may even trust them with quicker access to legislative powers. Why is Peter Hain still not taking this work forward when it is there for the taking?

True Wales' response will surely be as interesting and reality-defying as ever- and we didn't have to wait long for it. Their spokesperson Len Gibbs has delivered a brief response over at Wales Home where, in an early response to the poll (before it was even published), he wrote-

"I can tell you the answer now 55% in favour of more powers. We had already made our own estimate of a poll based on the question that was used. It is more or less what we expected. The outcome of a poll is also determined by the question asked and how it is asked. We do not believe the question asked reflects the choice that the electorate will be required to decide on and will have increased a favourable vote by 8%."

Well Len underestimated the 'Yes' support by 1% but in seriousness, the True Wales response might well to be to complain about the question used. Expect them to use that tactic in the referendum as well as in reply to opinion polls. When they don't get the result they want they will blame the people that run the vote. In this case it does not work because the question put by the BBC was firm and based on real events, even though it used the misleading term "full law-making powers" which has turned voters off in the past-
You may have seen or heard that Assembly Members have voted in favour of holding a referendum on giving the National Assembly full law making powers. If there were to be a referendum, how would you vote?

Let's hope that whoever is in office at Westminster after their election does not sabotage proceedings with a difficult question; no talk of 'more powers', 'further powers' or God forbid 'full powers' please!

But that does hide the reality of Welsh public opinion- the people of Wales actually want even more than what is on offer. 40% of people, according to the poll, want to see the law-making powers (defined as 'full law-making powers' which might mean parity with Scotland) but also some fiscal powers as well. They want devolution to go even further than what the Government of Wales Act allows. This has been consistent now over several polls and needs to be addressed by the political parties for the future.

The state of the parties is less important to Ramblings than the national question, but the poll shows some good news for Labour with Welsh public opinion departing quite remarkably from wider British public opinion polls which still generally show a narrow Tory lead. In contrast, the Tories simply aren't getting traction here and at 24% under Cameron are scoring just a few points ahead of their Michael Howard results. Ramblings is grown up enough to recognise that on this poll, Labour are heading for a clear victory in Wales, but if that result is dramatically different from in England where the Tories will probably still win, what does that say for the UK as a democracy? The Tories wouldn't have a mandate from the people of Wales, but they'd be exercising massive influence over us based on votes from swing seats in Middle England. Something just isn't right about that, and it demonstrates the need to press ahead with our referendum and with building our own democracy. All we ask for is for Welsh governance to be based on the wishes of Welsh voters.

Plaid and the Lib Dems are also in contrasting positions. Ieuan Wyn Jones and Elfyn Llwyd get 14% of the vote, representing growth from their previous Westminster result and showing how Jones has turned the party around, and skilfully asserting that being in government in Wales has enhanced rather than dented Plaid's appeal. It isn't a breakthrough, but realistic Plaid members will be very happy with what would be their best ever result.

The Welsh Lib Dems meanwhile have gone badly wrong somewhere along the lines, with Nick Clegg and Kirsty Williams' appeal plummeting to just 9% (from 18% at the last General Election). As a previous post acknowledged, they do far worse in Wales than in the rest of Britain. A conclusion might be that Plaid is already doing their job well enough and that there's no space and no point for the Lib Dems in Wales. This isn't so much an attack on them as an endorsement of their Westminster policies, most of which are already being taken up by Plaid Cymru.

In conclusion, the 'Yes' vote is growing and becoming more solid evenly across Wales, the General Election results show that it may as well be a different election in Wales than the rest of the UK, and that Plaid Cymru is making solid but slow progress.

Peter Hain and Wayne David

Syniadau makes a prudent point about some comments Labour MP Wayne David made in a WalesHome article. Wayne David seems to go out of his way, in his pre-Conference piece, to make points about keeping Wales inside the UK. Syniadau is right to note that this is odd and that it's as if it isn't the Tories they are worried about, but a different party. Rather than simply copying Syniadau, we'll explore this point further and look at why alot of Labour's messages are flawed. Why don't they dismiss independence as an idea with little support in opinion polls, rather than allowing some MPs to strangely hype it up? It makes an actual mature debate on independence more difficult, which is even more strange because Ramblings would admit that at present the pro-independence homework has not been fully developed. Gordon Brown is also up to the same trick in the Western Mail.

Nationalism has undoubtedly gained ground in both Wales and Scotland during the last few years. But Labour are repeatedly telling people that while they might want to vote for Plaid or the SNP, it's only Labour and the Tories who can win and are relevant. Peter Hain has spoken along these lines, calling for 'progressive voters' to opt for Labour over the Tories. This is a strange one and sounds more like something Ramblings would come out with than Peter Hain on his usual form. Hain is referring to people that vote for the Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid as progressives (makes a change from calling us Welsh-speaking conservatives) and saying that we should vote for Labour "without signing up to Labour's entire record". This would make sense is Labour were looking to build some kind of broad progressive coalition to defeat the Tories, but they are not. If (putting aside the fact that Lib Dem voters are often quite different people to Green or Plaid voters) progressives decided to give Plaid a miss and opt for Labour, Hain wouldn't welcome this as ground to build a more pluralistic politics, he would simply claim we had endorsed Labour en masse. His record is in fact of speaking against coalitions of the left and acting in Labour's sole interest- quite different to the likes of Ieuan Wyn Jones who turned down self-interest in favour of his country's needs. It is deeply dishonest and makes Labour look desperate. That they cannot build a left-of-centre appeal on 13 years of Labour rule shows how deeply discredited they are as a supposedly progressive party. They are instead resorting to the usual cliches around the Tory bogeyman. But it's Labour who has widened inequality, Labour who has gone further than Thatcher dared on welfare reform (even recruiting actual Conservatives to work with James Purnell) and Labour who took us into two disastrous conflicts.

Peter Hain has a chance to help insulate Wales from Tory rule and to strengthen a progressive coalition here in Wales. He could do that by granting us the primary powers that a consistent majority of Welsh voters appear to support. He has instead chosen to stall the advance of devolution. He has chosen to ignore the case for fair funding. On St. Athan and the Severn Barrage he has been dishonest, putting deceptions and blunders in the press to try and hype up big vanity projects so beloved of a certain breed of Westminster politician.

Most 'progressive voters' rightly believe there is little difference now between Labour and the Tories. It will not be a surprise if this election demonstrates the highest ever percentage of votes going to parties other than the big two or even the big three. Wales can do better than endorsing Labour's horrific centre-right record, a record that has left us even poorer than before, compared to the rest of the UK. They've had their chance.

No Barrage Here

It's easy to fall into the 'Labour MPs are regressive and obstructive' trap but there's some clear evidence this week that they are making mischief over the Severn estuary tidal power consultation.

Peter Hain was exposed last week expressing support for the "privately-financed Cardiff-Weston Barrage". There is no such thing. Ramblings pointed out that Labour have already confirmed that that particular option would have to be publicly financed; not only the construction but the electricity generation too. Hain's advisors made a blunder.

This week the Secretary of State has added his voice to anonymous Labour MPs who are fighting for a specific commitment to the Barrage (rather than to the energy consultation as a whole) to go into the Labour manifesto for the next Westminster election. Luckily, Tomos Livingstone in his article reminds readers that such a project would be publicly financed. It is surely a matter of concern that Labour are pre-judging a supposedly neutral consultation exercise by giving clear preference to the most flawed and controversial option. They are undermining the efforts of their own Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the efforts of the Welsh Government who should be having a final say on this. The Welsh Government should be ready to challenge the results of the consultation if they do not reflect the widely-reported concerns from amongst our own communities and our own AMs.

The Severn Barrage represents a horrific exploitation of Wales' natural resources. Our resources must be harnessed but this should be done for the benefit of Welsh communities. Revenues from the Cardiff-Weston option would revert to London.

The journalists still haven't picked up on the fact Hain either lied about the Barrage being privately-financed, or is being fed inaccurate information on the biggest national issues of the day. Hopefully they will pick up on this and ask some questions.

The British Empire and immigration/asylum

Some good points in this very short article from Indymedia, points that deserve to be kept in mind if you want to debate immigration or asylum.

"The vast majority of people who make it to the UK, seeking asylum come from former British Colonies. Countries that the UK plundered of natural resources and when forced to depart, left most of the countries in political turmoil the ramifications of which still bedevil these countries today. It is vital that we emphasize this when discussing immigration and asylum."

Britain with brutal and violent oppression colonized over 57 countries mostly in the 16th/17th centuries. None of the countries asked to be colonized and most of them had to resort to bloody and violent insurgency to drive the British out and gain their freedom/independence back.

To the majority of those colonized the Union Jack was known as the 'Butchers Apron'. Though Britain boasted the sun never set on the British Empire, it would be more true to say, 'the sun never set and the blood of innocents never dried.'

Most of the countries after throwing of the shackles of Britain became part of the British Commonwealth; now an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four independent member states, all but two of which were formerly part of the British Empire.

Did the 'CommonWealth' bring peace/prosperity, to these nations, not at all, the Wealth was only Common to the rich and all that changed for the working classes of these countries; was the color of the flags that flew over them and the accents of their 'bosses'.

Comment:
It is assumed that once formal independence was achieved for these countries, the countries were entirely responsible for their own fate which ignores the constraints imposed on them by patterns of ownership and trade in raw materials as a part of colonial legacy and then subsequent developments after WWII when intricate financial regulation through the world bank, IMF strangulated them into indebtedness and dependency. Neo-liberal ascendancy finally devastated most of them since the 1990s.

The colonization of Africa took place largely during the 19th century. For some odd reason , South Africa is missing. The British took charge of Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Turk empire post WWI. Iraq and Jordan were created and colonized in the same period. Israel did not exist until 1948. I find that there is rewriting of history going on. I have found this in many sources in wiki.

Saleh Mamon

Netherlands getting out of Afghanistan

Afghanistan was high on the agenda for Plaid this weekend and it looks like they will make it part of their General Election campaign. Wales has made a proportionally high "contribution" to Afghanistan's occupation since 2001 in terms of Welsh men and women being killed, wounded or mentally scarred by deployment there. It's a conflict that is currently being talked about alot more than Iraq is, and Plaid is right to take a lead on it. It was very promising to hear leading Plaid figures (rather than just the usual suspects) echoing some of the arguments that his blog has used in opposing the war in Afghanistan. Particularly, Helen Mary Jones was impressive and not at all weak or soft on Afghanistan as some centre-left politicians have been (the Lib Dems being a key example).

Plaid are on the ball because this week the Dutch politics has been paralysed by their own involvement in Afghanistan. The Dutch coalition government collapsed over the issue, after Labour thought their conservative coalition partner was backtracking on its previous commitment to end the Dutch deployment in 2010. They previously should have gotten the troops home by 2008, but Nato failed to find replacements. It does now look like the Dutch Government will be honouring their 2010 commitment and will be withdrawing from Afghanistan. Netherlands isn't too dissimilar to Wales in terms of size and potential international influence. Clearly, being involved in Afghanistan hasn't made Wales or the Netherlands any safer, as Islamist terrorists can organise in any number of alternative countries (this is without even mentioning the reality that extremist terror in the UK has been mostly home-grown rather than trained in Afghanistan or anywhere else), including in a number of states that are purportedly allies of the UK, the USA and the European Union.

But is the war in Afghanistan winnable? In modern history there has never been a government in Afghanistan that has been able to control all of its own territory. There has never been a democracy there. The Karzai regime, as Helen Mary Jones pointed out, was elected in a fraudulent election. It would be more honest in Afghanistan not to have Western-style elections until there is more stability, and to recognise that European-style democracy won't work there. Karzai's government is not liberal in any way (insofar as any kind of liberal politics is conceivable in a country like Afghanistan) and in some provinces operates in a similar style to the Taliban, based on tribal warlords with private armies. And that's without saying that eventually the most moderate parts of the Taliban will inevitably be embraced by Karzai (to us, even the moderate Taliban will still look exceptionally cruel and regressive). This sends out the message that we will allow extremists to be in power as long as we're the ones funding, training and arming them. Elfyn is bang on the money in saying that Britain cannot win there.

Much hay was made over giving aid to Uganda, which was threatening to execute people for being gay. Yet where are these voices on Afghanistan? Where are the Lib Dems? After all, in Afghanistan it is already illegal to be homosexual, and this is punishable by death. It is an outrage that Welsh and British troops are being used to prop up such a regime.

Although Plaid is quite responsibly shielding its anti-war stance with a desire to see some kind of UN force take over, they were obviously right that we should never have gone there in the first place. Unlike certain UK governments, the left has never supported the Taliban or its predecessors in the region, and a basic point should be that Welsh people have nothing to gain from being in such a hostile and ungovernable state.

Mark Serwotka and Eurfyl ap Gwilym

Putting aside the soundbites and election platforms, the most important thing to happen at Plaid's Pre-Election Conference was that the recently re-elected General Secretary of the PCS Union, Mark Serwotka, addressed a group of party activists at the UNDEB (Plaid's trade union section) meeting with Leanne Wood AM and Carmarthen East candidate Jonathan Edwards. Importantly, the leading economist Dr. Eurfyl Ap Gwilym was also present for a different perspective.

And what a breath of fresh air Mark was. Pointing out that he would never get such a hearing and reception from any of the other mainstream political parties, Serwotka exploded some myths about the public sector. The vast majority of public sector workers in Wales as in the UK are low-paid and in some cases on the minimum wage. He explained that when the minimum wage legislation was brought in, a number of Westminster departments immediately found themselves in contravention of their own law, such was their record of underpaying their workers! Mark went on to explain that the human cost of the recession should be valued as much as the public finance cost of the crisis. The human cost will have economic implications such as long-term unemployment, a larger risk of mental health and social problems (including crime) and a lack of civil service wages being spent in private shops and in the private sector. To huge applause, Mark said that the PCS is completely different to the pro-Labour unions who have given over £70million of their members' money to the same Government that has unleashed wave after wave of Thatcher-style attacks on pay and conditions.

Without departing from basic socialist positions, Mark argued that New Labour had in fact done even worse than the Tories on welfare reform and inequality. On welfare reform, Mark was warmly received when he stated that benefit cheating is wrong but is caused by the social circumstances that people find themselves in, and also that tax fraud, evasion and avoidance (some of which is perfectly legal) costs the taxpayer far more money than benefit fraud does. He argued that the banking sector has effectively defrauded the taxpayer.

Dr. Eurfyl ap Gwilym also made a hugely positive contribution to the meeting. Eurfyl has for some time been Plaid's economics advisor, and is well known as one of the most presitigious financial minds in the Welsh banking industry. We might have expected Eurfyl to go head to head with Serwotka but he in fact supported much of Mark's analysis and reminded Plaid's members that 3 out of 4 workers in Wales are in fact private sector workers. Eurfyl pointed out that there were some very highly paid positions in the civil service which New Labour has set up, that are non-essential during a time of economic crisis. Mark Serwotka agreed with Eurfyl that these massively paid positions should be cut in order to safeguard the £14k a year worker at the tax office in Porth.

It was very refreshing to see the public sector cuts agenda being approached from a worker perspective. Public sector wages aren't money flushed down the drain, they get spent in shops, on train tickets, on car insurance, in retail and on all kinds of consumer goods. It's money that circulates into the wealth-creating enterprises. Mark said that no parties other than Plaid and the SNP were prepared to listen to him speak on behalf of his members. He made it clear that party politics however was not as high a priority as is gearing up PCS' membership to fight against the unjust attacks from the London parties that are looming on the horizon. He expects Plaid's support (paying tribute to Elfyn Llwyd's work at Westminster for the PCS, and Leanne Wood's chairing of the Assembly PCS cross-party group) and we must be ready to help with that. It's important to realise that although the PCS is a British, not Welsh, trade union, it organises workers without regard to borders within the UK. This is fine because PCS recognises devolution and recognises Plaid Cymru as being different in principle and in practice to the disastrous centre-right parties.

Yet after a blistering attack on Labour, the Tories and even the Lib Dems (who themselves coined the term 'savage cuts'), Serwotka indicated that after the next General Election the PCS will be organising union-supported independent candidates to stand in seats where there is no left alternative.

To Leanne's quite obvious relief, Mark confirmed that he saw no need for any PCS candidates in Wales- Plaid is doing already the job.

Robbing Peter...

A full week after Ramblings blogged giving tentative support to the 'Robin Hood Tax' campaign, the Secretary of State for Wales Peter Hain has spoken out in support of it. It's good (seriously) that he or his staff are following the blogosphere and engaging with it. In supporting the campaign we said "hopefully it won't be hijacked by the parties that helped cause the economic crash". Disappointingly it looks like this has happened, with Hain echoing Gordon Brown's warm words about the idea but not pointing to anything that could be implemented ahead of the UK election. Labour has been trying to shift to the left on some aspects of the economy in the run up to the Westminster election, without actually delivering the progressive economic policies that most people want. Like Darling's non-existent 'tax on bonuses', they'll talk a good fight about social justice but will refrain from actually delivering on it. In many ways, this is the whole basis of New Labour, and Hain's warm words towards Robin Hood are entirely consistent with the centre-right New Labour project.

Admittedly Brown and Hain's alleged support for the Robin Hood Tax is better than it being flatly rejected, but it ultimately means little until a proposal is on the table for implementing this tax. Along with the tax on transactions, Ramblings believes a justifiable and popular policy for the banks would be an Obama-style levy on profits and bonuses (it needn't exceed the levels set by his administration) and some kind of People's Contract to regulate the behaviour of the bailed out banks and ensure that we don't need to step in to correct them again. Simply put, the banks that owe their continued existence to the people should have to meet a number of sensible and mutually beneficial obligations set by the people. Couple that with setting up an alternative banking model, and you'd have a solution that would result in economic fairness. New Labour, despite Hain's support for a transactions tax, is not bringing forward anything that will meet that criteria. Again, cuts are not morally justifiable until the UK Government has carried out actions along those lines.

After all, during the past eighteen months the government of Gordon Brown and Peter Hain has performed a 'reverse Robin Hood' on the ordinary people in Wales who rely on public services and will have their living standards battered over possibly the next decade.

The more it's examined, the more the Robin Hood campaign seems like a weak liberal cause a bit like 'Make Poverty History'. Unless you find a cure, you're just treating the symptoms, and at some point we'll all get sick again.