I had a YouGov survey today that asked about voting intentions and issues that would affect my vote. One of the questions caused me some difficulty, a question about whether "immigration" is an important factor in the way I vote; it is, but not in the way that a British polling company like YouGov could appreciate.
Immigration is a huge factor in my political outlook, the immigration of English people into Wales; many of whom import their racist policies with them, and make UKIP and its intolerance of indigenous Welsh people and our acceptance of others into part of their political diatribe.
There are so many of these White Flight English Racists living in Wales now, that they may get a foothold in the Senedd. They already represent English intolerance, on behalf of Wales, in the European Parliament.
English racism colonising Wales is an issue that no party is willing to tackle, despite the fact that it is a major problem and one that Labour the Lib Dems and Plaid, if they had any conscious, should attack head on; it's a sad fact of modern Welsh political cowardice that none of these parties will make the case for Wales, until it is too late!
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
10/11/2015
21/04/2015
Election Launch Site?
Whatever you think about the party, its policies or it's personalities, hardly anyone can disagree that the SNP is the winner of the battle to make a manifesto launch in the most stunning location.
The Edinburgh International Climbing Arena, has had millions of pounds worth of free publicity by the world's media gathering there to report on what's included in the SNP Manifesto. That makes me wonder why the Welsh parties didn't have a similar vision?
Think of the impact that Leanne could have had by publishing her policies at 100 MPH in Zip World, imagine Carwyn bouncing Labour policies in Bounce Below, or Andrew RT publishing his policies in the fitting setting of the Dinosaurs of Tan yr Ogof, or Nick Clegg launching his party's manifesto in an iconic Welsh venue that might be big enough to hold next year's LibDem conference:
The Edinburgh International Climbing Arena, has had millions of pounds worth of free publicity by the world's media gathering there to report on what's included in the SNP Manifesto. That makes me wonder why the Welsh parties didn't have a similar vision?
Think of the impact that Leanne could have had by publishing her policies at 100 MPH in Zip World, imagine Carwyn bouncing Labour policies in Bounce Below, or Andrew RT publishing his policies in the fitting setting of the Dinosaurs of Tan yr Ogof, or Nick Clegg launching his party's manifesto in an iconic Welsh venue that might be big enough to hold next year's LibDem conference:
19/06/2012
Should Plaid and the Lib Dems think again about Police Commissioner Elections?
From what I understand neither Plaid Cymru nor The Liberal
Democrats intend to propose nominees for election to the Police Commissioners
posts next November.
I had been told that Plaid might be willing to give practical support to an independent candidate who was generally favourable to the national cause, so I looked at the possibilities of standing as an independent. But the evidence proves that it would be absolutely impossible for an independent to mount a credible campaign in policing areas as huge as Dyfed Powys and the North; in terms of costs, resources and of practicality so there is no point in a candidate standing without the support of a political party or a similar organisation.
So it appears that our choice come next November will be between the Labour candidate, the Conservative candidate or a person with more money than sense!
I had been told that Plaid might be willing to give practical support to an independent candidate who was generally favourable to the national cause, so I looked at the possibilities of standing as an independent. But the evidence proves that it would be absolutely impossible for an independent to mount a credible campaign in policing areas as huge as Dyfed Powys and the North; in terms of costs, resources and of practicality so there is no point in a candidate standing without the support of a political party or a similar organisation.
So it appears that our choice come next November will be between the Labour candidate, the Conservative candidate or a person with more money than sense!
19/04/2012
Labour's message of support for the Tories
During the 2011 Assembly elections Peter Hain and Carwyn Jones claimed that Wales could send a message to the Westminster administration by using the Assembly vote as a referendum on Wales' opposition to the ConDem government. It was a tactic that failed. The Conservative vote in Wales went up as did the number of Conservative representatives elected to the Assembly.
As a referendum on Tory policies the last Assembly elections actually gave the Tory's an endorsement. Wales was never ever going to vote Yes to Tory policy but as a result of Labour's campaign more people voted Yes than might have been expected otherwise and the Conservative vote was boosted.
Once bitten, twice shy, one might suppose. But no! Labour are trying the same tactic again; despite knowing that using the local government elections as a referendum on Westminster Tory policies will lead to many more Conservative councillors being elected in Wales. The question has to be asked:
WHY?
Simply because it is in Labours interest to have more Conservative councillors in Wales. The Labour party has become so lazy, so stagnant, so bereft of original ideas for the betterment of local communities or for the betterment of Wales that it's only unique selling point is we are not Tories and the more Tory Councillors there are the more negative and not Tory Labour can be!
Wales deserves better! Wales deserves councillors, of all parties and of none, who put our communities first and who couldn't give a damn about sending a message to either Westminster or Cardiff Bay!
Don't waste this election as a referendum on any unrelated point, please use the election to elect a councillor who wants to represent your local community in your local council chamber as an honourable way of serving your community, rather than voting for nothing better than sending a V sign, that will be ignored, to Mr Cameron!
As a referendum on Tory policies the last Assembly elections actually gave the Tory's an endorsement. Wales was never ever going to vote Yes to Tory policy but as a result of Labour's campaign more people voted Yes than might have been expected otherwise and the Conservative vote was boosted.
Once bitten, twice shy, one might suppose. But no! Labour are trying the same tactic again; despite knowing that using the local government elections as a referendum on Westminster Tory policies will lead to many more Conservative councillors being elected in Wales. The question has to be asked:
WHY?
Simply because it is in Labours interest to have more Conservative councillors in Wales. The Labour party has become so lazy, so stagnant, so bereft of original ideas for the betterment of local communities or for the betterment of Wales that it's only unique selling point is we are not Tories and the more Tory Councillors there are the more negative and not Tory Labour can be!
Wales deserves better! Wales deserves councillors, of all parties and of none, who put our communities first and who couldn't give a damn about sending a message to either Westminster or Cardiff Bay!
Don't waste this election as a referendum on any unrelated point, please use the election to elect a councillor who wants to represent your local community in your local council chamber as an honourable way of serving your community, rather than voting for nothing better than sending a V sign, that will be ignored, to Mr Cameron!
06/07/2011
Time to disqualify the disqualifications
I have refrained from commenting on the Lib Dem two, because I feel that it would have been unfair to do so before the legal advice was available. It has now been published.
From what I understand, John Dixon has fallen on his sword and Aled Roberts will challenge any motion to dismiss him in the courts.
The thing that has caused me the most disquiet about this saga isn't about whether the rules were broken or not but whether the rules are fair!
Unlike Mr Dixon I have consulted the list of disqualified people, and unlike Mr Roberts I have looked at the list in Welsh and English. My impression is that it is a big list for a small country, and that many of the people most likely to want to represent their area in our National Assembly are the sort of people who have already served Wales well by giving their services to these sorts of bodies.
Disqualifying hundreds of citizens who have already proven their willingness to serve the nation by being members of public bodies from being AMs is bloody stupid!
Rather than sacking Mr Dixon and Mr Roberts the Assembly should change the rules.
I can understand why you can't be an AM and a member of some (but not all) of the prohibited bodies. But surely a rule that says you can stand for election as a member of a public body and if elected you resign your membership of the body before taking up your Assembly seat through the oath would enable more people who are committed to Welsh civic life to stand for election!
Barring so many contributors to Welsh civic life (in all parties) can't be democratic or good for Welsh Governance!
Here is the banned from our democratic process list:
You are not allowed to be an Assembly member if you are also a member of:
From what I understand, John Dixon has fallen on his sword and Aled Roberts will challenge any motion to dismiss him in the courts.
The thing that has caused me the most disquiet about this saga isn't about whether the rules were broken or not but whether the rules are fair!
Unlike Mr Dixon I have consulted the list of disqualified people, and unlike Mr Roberts I have looked at the list in Welsh and English. My impression is that it is a big list for a small country, and that many of the people most likely to want to represent their area in our National Assembly are the sort of people who have already served Wales well by giving their services to these sorts of bodies.
Disqualifying hundreds of citizens who have already proven their willingness to serve the nation by being members of public bodies from being AMs is bloody stupid!
Rather than sacking Mr Dixon and Mr Roberts the Assembly should change the rules.
I can understand why you can't be an AM and a member of some (but not all) of the prohibited bodies. But surely a rule that says you can stand for election as a member of a public body and if elected you resign your membership of the body before taking up your Assembly seat through the oath would enable more people who are committed to Welsh civic life to stand for election!
Barring so many contributors to Welsh civic life (in all parties) can't be democratic or good for Welsh Governance!
Here is the banned from our democratic process list:
You are not allowed to be an Assembly member if you are also a member of:
A committee established by the Pensions Regulator under section 9 of the Pensions Act 2004;
A National Park authority for a National Park in Wales;
A panel, established under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977, of persons to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees for an area or areas every part of which is in Wales;
A tribunal constituted under section 27 of, and Schedule 3 to the Education Act 2005;
A tribunal referred to in paragraph 10 of Schedule 26 to the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998(4);
Adjudication Panel for Wales or Panel Dyfarnu Cymru;
Agricultural Land Tribunal;
An urban development corporation for an urban development area wholly in Wales;
Anglesey Recovery Board;
Any member of the Big Lottery Fund appointed under paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A to the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993(5) or of a committee established under paragraph 7(1)(b) of that Schedule;
Arts Council of Wales;
Board of Trustees of the National Library of Wales appointed by the Welsh Ministers;
Board of Trustees of the National Museum of Wales appointed by the Welsh Ministers;
Board of the Pension Protection Fund;
British Waterways Board;
Board of Medical Referees appointed by the Welsh Ministers);
British Broadcasting Corporation Trust;
British Transport Police Authority;
Care Council for Wales or Cyngor Gofal Cymru;
Care Quality Commission;
Central Arbitration Committee;
Channel Four Television Corporation;
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission;
Commission for Equality and Human Rights;
Competition Appeal Tribunal;
Competition Commission;
Competition Service;
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence;
Council of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service;
Countryside Council for Wales;
Electoral Commission or Comisiwn Etholiadol;
Environment Agency or Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd;
First-tier tribunal;
Food & Drink Advisory Partnership;
Food Standards Agency or yr Asiantaeth Safonau Bwyd;
Food Standards Agency Advisory Committee for Wales;
Gas and Electricity Markets Authority;
General Teaching Council for Wales or Cyngor Addysgu Cyffredinol Cymru;
Health and Safety Executive;
Health Protection Agency or yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd;
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales other than a member who is also an employee of the Council;
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;
Human Tissue Authority;
Independent Appeal Panel for Farmers;
Independent Police Complaints Commission;
Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales;
Independent Social Services Complaints Panel;
Joint Nature Conservation Committee;
Local Better Regulation Office;
Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales;
Meat Promotions Wales or Hybu Cig Cymru;
Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales;
National Employment Savings Trust Corporation;
Office of Communications;
Office of Fair Trading;
Pensions Regulator;
Postal Services Commission;
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales;
Sianel Pedwar Cymru;
Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee;
Sports Council for Wales;
Statistics Board or Bwrdd Ystadegau established by the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007;
Upper Tribunal;
Valuation Tribunal for Wales;
Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board;
Welsh Language Board or Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg;
Welsh Levy Board or Bwrdd Ardollau Cymru.
A person appointed by the Welsh Ministers under section 3(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989
An auditor appointed under section 13(2) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004;
Ambassador or Permanent Representative to an international organization representing Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom;
Auditor General for Wales and members of his or her staff;
Certification officer and any assistant certification officer having functions under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;
Chair of Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee;
Chair and members of the Marine Management Organisation;
Chair and members of the Welsh Committee of the Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council;
Chair and Chief Executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills or a Director or a Commissioner of that Commission appointed by the First Minister for Wales;
Chairman and Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company Limited;
Chairman and Chief Executive of the Technology Strategy Board;
Chairman and deputy chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board;
Chairman and vice chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission;
Chairman and any other member of the Passengers’ Council in receipt of remuneration;
Chairman and any member, not being also an employee, of a Local Health Board for an area in Wales;
Chairman and any member, not being also an employee, of a Special Health Authority performing functions partly or wholly in respect of Wales;
Chairman and Director General of the British Council;
Chairman and non-executive director of a National Health Service Trust all or some of whose hospitals, establishments or other facilities are situated in Wales;
Chairman of the Beef Assurance Scheme Panel;
Children’s Commissioner for Wales or Comisiyndd Plant Cymru, Deputy Children’s Commissioner and members of his or her staff;
Civil Service Commissioner;
Commissioner for Older People in Wales or Comisiyndd Pobl hŷn Cymru, Deputy Commissioner and members of his or her staff;
Commissioner for Public Appointments;
Commissioner and assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for England;
Commissioner and assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland;
Commissioner and assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Scotland;
Commissioner and assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Wales;
Comptroller and Auditor General;
Director of Finance Wales Public Limited Company or any wholly owned subsidiary of Finance Wales Public Limited Company;
Director of the Pensions Advisory Service Limited;
Director of the Post Office company (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Postal Services Act 2000(12)) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown;
Forestry Commissioners and member of their staff;
Governor or Administrator of a British overseas territory within the meaning of section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981;
Health Service Commissioner;
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales or Prif Arolygydd Ei Mawrhydi dros Addysg a Hyfforddiant yng Nghymru;
High Commissioner representing Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom;
Independent Case Examiner for the Department for Work and Pensions;
Independent Groundwater Complaints Administrator appointed under section 21 of and paragraph 27 of Schedule 7 to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993;
Ombudsman for the Board of the Pension Protection Fund appointed under section 209 of the Pensions Act 2004(15) and any deputy to that Ombudsman appointed under section 210 of that Act;
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;
Pensions Ombudsman appointed under section 145 of the Pensions Schemes Act 1993 and any deputy to that Ombudsman appointed under section 145A of that Act;
Person holding a politically restricted post, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989(17), under—
(a)a local authority in Wales, within the meaning of that Part,
(b)a National Park Authority for a National Park in Wales;
President of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairman or other member of that Tribunal;
Returning officer for a constituency or an electoral region of the National Assembly for Wales;
Social Fund Commissioner;
Trustee of the Independent Living Fund (2006).
08/05/2011
Is 50/50 best of both for Plaid?
Because of the 50/50 split between Labour and the others, my favoured coalition - that of a rainbow is now a no brainer. A minority Labour Government might (just) work, a minority rainbow coalition would be an impossibility.
Even if it was a possibility, I'm not sure that I would still back any form of coalition in either a First Past the Post or FPTP plus election, the risks of coalition are too high without the protection of a proper (STV type) proportional vote system.
Plaid Cymru's mantra since 2007 has been that the party has given added value to the Labour led government and stifled some of its excesses; the Lib Dems have made a similar claim about their influence on the Tories in Westminster since 2010. Both narratives are probably true; but neither party has benefited from it.
The problem seems to be that if you like what the Labour / Conservative led coalition governments have done you vote Labour / Tory rather than Plaid / LD. If you don't like what the Labour / Conservative led coalition governments have done you vote against their coalition partners who have enabled them to govern – a lose/lose situation.
There have been rumours that the Lib Dems are considering an agreement with Labour in the Assembly. That would be suicidally stupid! Giving the benefit of their input to two different parties and receiving the blame for the failures of both.
In a funny sort of way Plaid might be in the best possible position, if it resists both a Coalition or a Supply & Confidence agreement with Labour.
There are things that a Welsh Labour Government will want to do that the ConDem Westminster Government won't want them to do. Plaid is in a position to trade its support by squeezing a bit of blood from both sides!
Even if it was a possibility, I'm not sure that I would still back any form of coalition in either a First Past the Post or FPTP plus election, the risks of coalition are too high without the protection of a proper (STV type) proportional vote system.
Plaid Cymru's mantra since 2007 has been that the party has given added value to the Labour led government and stifled some of its excesses; the Lib Dems have made a similar claim about their influence on the Tories in Westminster since 2010. Both narratives are probably true; but neither party has benefited from it.
The problem seems to be that if you like what the Labour / Conservative led coalition governments have done you vote Labour / Tory rather than Plaid / LD. If you don't like what the Labour / Conservative led coalition governments have done you vote against their coalition partners who have enabled them to govern – a lose/lose situation.
There have been rumours that the Lib Dems are considering an agreement with Labour in the Assembly. That would be suicidally stupid! Giving the benefit of their input to two different parties and receiving the blame for the failures of both.
In a funny sort of way Plaid might be in the best possible position, if it resists both a Coalition or a Supply & Confidence agreement with Labour.
There are things that a Welsh Labour Government will want to do that the ConDem Westminster Government won't want them to do. Plaid is in a position to trade its support by squeezing a bit of blood from both sides!
17/12/2010
Poems and Politics "For those in Peril on the Sea" - William Whiting
A prayer for those whose lives are to be endangered by the latest cost cutting exercise from the heartless bastards in the Con-Dem Government who put money before humanity.
Eternal Father strong to save
Whose arm has bound the restless wave
Who bids the mighty ocean deep
It's own appointed limits keep
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in Peril on the sea
Oh Christ whose voice the waters heard
And hushed their raging at Thy word
Who walkest on the foamy deep
And how amidst the storm did sleep
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in Peril on the sea.
Even an atheist would agree that there is a better chance that God will take more heed of the needs of those in Peril on the Sea than either Cameron or Clegg!
Eternal Father strong to save
Whose arm has bound the restless wave
Who bids the mighty ocean deep
It's own appointed limits keep
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in Peril on the sea
Oh Christ whose voice the waters heard
And hushed their raging at Thy word
Who walkest on the foamy deep
And how amidst the storm did sleep
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in Peril on the sea.
Even an atheist would agree that there is a better chance that God will take more heed of the needs of those in Peril on the Sea than either Cameron or Clegg!
08/12/2010
The Welsh Language Measure
How odd. I support Plaid Cymru's position and Alan in Dyfed opposes it. Usually it is the other way around!
Alan praises the Lib Dem's on Welsh Language policy and criticises Plaid – he is wrong.
Having been canvassed by Liberal Democrats in Aberconwy and having heard from family members resident in Cardigan about Lib Dem canvassing any support for the language by Lib Dems is obviously opportunist. Lib Dem supporters were using the Language Measure as an example of Plaid forcing the language on non Welsh speaking residents last May; now they are trying to say that the Measure doesn't go far enoughand that Plaid have welshed on the Welsh Language!
There is a failure in the devolution settlement. The Assembly has the right to legislate on the Welsh Language, but not on the Languages of Wales. A measure that says that English and Welsh are both official languages would be illegal; a statement that English and Welsh have equal legal status would be retrograde because the English language is NOT an official Language in England & Wales. It is our de-facto language. I don't think that a measure that made Welsh the de-facto language of Wales would be acceptable to the majority of Welsh people now.
I would like the Assembly to have the responsibility to legislate on all the languages of Wales and to be able to state, unambiguously, that Welsh, English and BSL are the official languages of Wales, all with equal validity, but it doesn't have that competency!
The problem isn't what the Measure includes, but how broad an Assembly Measure on the languages of Wales can be. The Plaid / Labour coalition has passed the best possible measure in support of the Welsh language that it is competent to pass.
If the Lib Dems don't think that the current Measure is good enough, they are in government on an UK level, they can ask their ministers to give further language competence to the National Assembly, in order to enable the Assembly to strengthen the Measure, but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so.
Alan praises the Lib Dem's on Welsh Language policy and criticises Plaid – he is wrong.
Having been canvassed by Liberal Democrats in Aberconwy and having heard from family members resident in Cardigan about Lib Dem canvassing any support for the language by Lib Dems is obviously opportunist. Lib Dem supporters were using the Language Measure as an example of Plaid forcing the language on non Welsh speaking residents last May; now they are trying to say that the Measure doesn't go far enoughand that Plaid have welshed on the Welsh Language!
There is a failure in the devolution settlement. The Assembly has the right to legislate on the Welsh Language, but not on the Languages of Wales. A measure that says that English and Welsh are both official languages would be illegal; a statement that English and Welsh have equal legal status would be retrograde because the English language is NOT an official Language in England & Wales. It is our de-facto language. I don't think that a measure that made Welsh the de-facto language of Wales would be acceptable to the majority of Welsh people now.
I would like the Assembly to have the responsibility to legislate on all the languages of Wales and to be able to state, unambiguously, that Welsh, English and BSL are the official languages of Wales, all with equal validity, but it doesn't have that competency!
The problem isn't what the Measure includes, but how broad an Assembly Measure on the languages of Wales can be. The Plaid / Labour coalition has passed the best possible measure in support of the Welsh language that it is competent to pass.
If the Lib Dems don't think that the current Measure is good enough, they are in government on an UK level, they can ask their ministers to give further language competence to the National Assembly, in order to enable the Assembly to strengthen the Measure, but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so.
27/10/2010
Lib Dem Gerrymandering for a Fair Vote is an Oxymoron
I have always been a bit of an agnostic about PR, I can see its advantages and its disadvantages.
Even under first past the post Plaid Cymru with a very small vote (in UK terms) claims to have had major achievements and to have punched far and above its weight in Westminster. If this is true there is no need for PR. Why should a party that claims that it has punched far above its democratic mandate under FPTP get even more power under PR?
On the other hand I can see the democratic deficit in the fact that the Conservatives in Scotland got 17% of the vote but fewer than 1% of the seats earlier this year! This is an example of a democratic deficit that has disenfranchised the voice of Scottish Tories that PR might equalise!
I understand the arguments for and the arguments against, but for the arguments to be realistic they must be based on a true belief in fairness.
The fact that the AV referendum is to be held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and NI General Elections is an exercise in unfairness.
Firstly because a proportion of the population who have more than average experience of alternative voting will have a disproportionate turnout!
Secondly because the Lib Dems froze out the SNP and Plaid Cymru in the Westminster elections, because they had much more coverage than the Nationalist parties did on an UK level. Holding the referendum on the same day is a despicable attempt to ensure that Nick Clegg gets as much, if not much more, coverage on the widest TV networks during the Scottish and Welsh General elections as Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn get!
As I said, I am an agnostic about alternative voting systems, but I will be voting NO in the AV referendum, because there is one thing that I do know about fair voting – you don't get a fair vote through Gerrymandering!
Even under first past the post Plaid Cymru with a very small vote (in UK terms) claims to have had major achievements and to have punched far and above its weight in Westminster. If this is true there is no need for PR. Why should a party that claims that it has punched far above its democratic mandate under FPTP get even more power under PR?
On the other hand I can see the democratic deficit in the fact that the Conservatives in Scotland got 17% of the vote but fewer than 1% of the seats earlier this year! This is an example of a democratic deficit that has disenfranchised the voice of Scottish Tories that PR might equalise!
I understand the arguments for and the arguments against, but for the arguments to be realistic they must be based on a true belief in fairness.
The fact that the AV referendum is to be held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and NI General Elections is an exercise in unfairness.
Firstly because a proportion of the population who have more than average experience of alternative voting will have a disproportionate turnout!
Secondly because the Lib Dems froze out the SNP and Plaid Cymru in the Westminster elections, because they had much more coverage than the Nationalist parties did on an UK level. Holding the referendum on the same day is a despicable attempt to ensure that Nick Clegg gets as much, if not much more, coverage on the widest TV networks during the Scottish and Welsh General elections as Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn get!
As I said, I am an agnostic about alternative voting systems, but I will be voting NO in the AV referendum, because there is one thing that I do know about fair voting – you don't get a fair vote through Gerrymandering!
05/09/2010
Unscrupulous Liberal Bastards?
Next week the second reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will be debated; the measure in parliament that intends to introduced the proposal to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote system.
Caroline Lucas on behalf of the Green Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP will proposed an amendment to the legislation which will offer alternatives to voters in the referendum. A choice between AV the list system used for Assembly elections and European elections, or the Single Transferable Vote system, a system that the Liberal Democrats have supported for several decades.
Under such circumstances, what will the Liberals do?
They can support the Green amendment in the hope that Labour and the Conservatives will join together to kill the motion between them. A dangerous proposition, because Labour might back the Greens just for the thrill of giving the coalition a bloody nose!
The Liberals can abstain; which will ensure that the vote is lost, or they can vote against the amendment, in effect vote against a policy that they have supported for decades!
Opposing the Green and Nationalists amendment is the most likely response; then spinning a justification for voting against a policy that has been at the core of Liberal policy for generations.
Unscrupulous bastards? We wait an' see!
Caroline Lucas on behalf of the Green Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP will proposed an amendment to the legislation which will offer alternatives to voters in the referendum. A choice between AV the list system used for Assembly elections and European elections, or the Single Transferable Vote system, a system that the Liberal Democrats have supported for several decades.
Under such circumstances, what will the Liberals do?
They can support the Green amendment in the hope that Labour and the Conservatives will join together to kill the motion between them. A dangerous proposition, because Labour might back the Greens just for the thrill of giving the coalition a bloody nose!
The Liberals can abstain; which will ensure that the vote is lost, or they can vote against the amendment, in effect vote against a policy that they have supported for decades!
Opposing the Green and Nationalists amendment is the most likely response; then spinning a justification for voting against a policy that has been at the core of Liberal policy for generations.
Unscrupulous bastards? We wait an' see!
20/07/2010
An austerity conundrum
In these days of austerity and tightening of the public belt the ConDem Westminster government tells us that there is a need to cut all sorts of costs out of public service provision in order to reduce costs and to provide better services for less money. A very laudable ideal that many will support.
But yet, when the Plaid /Labour coalition spends less per head on education, or on health or on social services than is spent per head in England the Assembly Government is accused of short changing the people of Wales and of underfunding services in Wales by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats!
I can't understand this!
If we need to cut public service costs why isn't the Westminster Government looking at the Plaid/ Labour Government in Cardiff and saying Wales has proved that you can deliver a decent education for £xxx per pupil less than is spent in England etc rather than the same parties who want to reduce spend per pupil / patient / service user in England complaining that the spend per person isn't as much in Wales as is, according to their own mantra, overspent per head in England?
But yet, when the Plaid /Labour coalition spends less per head on education, or on health or on social services than is spent per head in England the Assembly Government is accused of short changing the people of Wales and of underfunding services in Wales by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats!
I can't understand this!
If we need to cut public service costs why isn't the Westminster Government looking at the Plaid/ Labour Government in Cardiff and saying Wales has proved that you can deliver a decent education for £xxx per pupil less than is spent in England etc rather than the same parties who want to reduce spend per pupil / patient / service user in England complaining that the spend per person isn't as much in Wales as is, according to their own mantra, overspent per head in England?
07/07/2010
The Liberal anti Democrats
Supporting fixed term parliaments and proportional representation are supposed to be indices of supporting democracy. Great I am all for both reforms.
It seems a bit odd though that the self proclaimed great party of fairness and democracy just happens to decide that the referendum on PR should be held on the same day as the 2011 Assembly / Scottish Parliament elections, and by coincidence the fixed term of the current Westminster Parliament will fall on the same day as the 2015 Assembly / Scottish Parliament elections!
Plaid and the SNP being excluded from the "British" debate in the last Westminster elections halted their progress and helped the Lib Dems campaigns in Scotland and Wales. Am I a cynic in thinking that the coincidence of two UK issues being dealt with on the same day as the next two Devolution votes is gerrymandering to benefit the Lib Dems?
The truth is that the Lib Dems couldn't give a damn about democracy – they are only in politics for what they can get out of it!
Shame on them for betraying their rich heritage of supporting democracy for democracy's sake, and selling their soul for power and party political advantage!
I sincerely hope that my acquaintances in the Welsh Liberal Democrat Party will tell Mr Clegg that this sort of fix is not in the party's tradition of campaigning for fair, honest and democratic elections. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so!
It seems a bit odd though that the self proclaimed great party of fairness and democracy just happens to decide that the referendum on PR should be held on the same day as the 2011 Assembly / Scottish Parliament elections, and by coincidence the fixed term of the current Westminster Parliament will fall on the same day as the 2015 Assembly / Scottish Parliament elections!
Plaid and the SNP being excluded from the "British" debate in the last Westminster elections halted their progress and helped the Lib Dems campaigns in Scotland and Wales. Am I a cynic in thinking that the coincidence of two UK issues being dealt with on the same day as the next two Devolution votes is gerrymandering to benefit the Lib Dems?
The truth is that the Lib Dems couldn't give a damn about democracy – they are only in politics for what they can get out of it!
Shame on them for betraying their rich heritage of supporting democracy for democracy's sake, and selling their soul for power and party political advantage!
I sincerely hope that my acquaintances in the Welsh Liberal Democrat Party will tell Mr Clegg that this sort of fix is not in the party's tradition of campaigning for fair, honest and democratic elections. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do so!
30/05/2010
Cohabiting? - No Sympathy for Laws!
Many moons ago a nursing colleague and I decided to leave the National Health Service in order to establish a private care home.
Whilst we were waiting for the registration process to go through its paces we signed on. Whilst awaiting registration we lived in the house which we hoped to turn into a care home. Because both of us did odd jobs for nursing agencies we never actually received any benefit payments, but we were warned that if we ever had a payment we would be investigated on the basis that both of us were living on the same premises and both of us were signing on as single people rather than as a couple.
When we protested that our relationship was totally business and not sexual, we were informed that co-habitation is sharing a table rather than sharing a bed and if we ate together (which we often did) we were a couple in benefit speak, and one of us had to claim as the head and the other had to claim as his partner.
Fortunately we never got any benefits so we were never prosecuted, but it's a sobering thought, I could have been prosecuted for living in sin with a bloke who I never, ever would have wished to sin with!
Many people on benefits have been fined and imprisoned for falsely claiming benefits as individuals whilst living in a relationship, some intentionally, some innocently, because they didn't realise what a relationship is in law!
Which brings one to the case of David Laws!
He claimed Parliamentary expenses to pay his gay lover rent. MP's are not allowed to claim for rental payments to their wives, their husbands, their girlfriends or their boyfriends or those who cohabit with them / share the same table as them.
I don't understand the sympathy Mr Laws seems to be receiving amongst the political class, I have no sympathy for him at all. A benefit claimant would be in court facing a fine or imprisonment for doing what he did!
At worst Mr Laws might get a slap on the wrist from a Parliamentary committee! Had he claimed that 40 grand as a state benifit rather than as a parliamentry perk he would be looking at time inside!
Whilst we were waiting for the registration process to go through its paces we signed on. Whilst awaiting registration we lived in the house which we hoped to turn into a care home. Because both of us did odd jobs for nursing agencies we never actually received any benefit payments, but we were warned that if we ever had a payment we would be investigated on the basis that both of us were living on the same premises and both of us were signing on as single people rather than as a couple.
When we protested that our relationship was totally business and not sexual, we were informed that co-habitation is sharing a table rather than sharing a bed and if we ate together (which we often did) we were a couple in benefit speak, and one of us had to claim as the head and the other had to claim as his partner.
Fortunately we never got any benefits so we were never prosecuted, but it's a sobering thought, I could have been prosecuted for living in sin with a bloke who I never, ever would have wished to sin with!
Many people on benefits have been fined and imprisoned for falsely claiming benefits as individuals whilst living in a relationship, some intentionally, some innocently, because they didn't realise what a relationship is in law!
Which brings one to the case of David Laws!
He claimed Parliamentary expenses to pay his gay lover rent. MP's are not allowed to claim for rental payments to their wives, their husbands, their girlfriends or their boyfriends or those who cohabit with them / share the same table as them.
I don't understand the sympathy Mr Laws seems to be receiving amongst the political class, I have no sympathy for him at all. A benefit claimant would be in court facing a fine or imprisonment for doing what he did!
At worst Mr Laws might get a slap on the wrist from a Parliamentary committee! Had he claimed that 40 grand as a state benifit rather than as a parliamentry perk he would be looking at time inside!
15/05/2010
Cymru na fydd - the heirs of Lloyd George?
There is an interesting post on the Liberal Democrat site Freedom Central that picks up on a comment made by Cynog Dafis the former Plaid AM and MP regarding demographic change in Ceredigion.
This is what Cynog said:
There has also been a demographic change in Ceredigion, to the point where up to half of the inhabitants are people who have either moved here themselves from England or are the children of people who have done so.
“This demographic change has reduced the number of people who have a Welsh perspective on politics.
“When the Liberal Democrat bubble was punctured towards the end of the campaign, voters elsewhere gravitated to the Tories or Labour. In Ceredigion, those parties don’t figure, so people tended to stick with the Lib Dems, whose only rivals were the Nats.
Cynog's comments are factually correct. A huge number of people have moved from England into the most rural areas of Wales and that demographic change does present an additional challenge to all political parties.
Plaid has risen to that challenge by making it clear that the party campaigns for the people who live in Wales, whatever their ancestry.
Of course the Liberal Democrats have jumped on Cynog's comments and condemned them as anti-English racism.
This comes as no surprise!
Since the advent of the National Assembly a consensus has developed between the Labour Party the Conservative Party and Plaid that being Welsh (in the widest possible sense of the word) is a positive thing, the Liberal Democrats have found a gap in the market and have attempted to exploit it by positioning themselves as the most ant-Welsh, even most racists towards the Welsh, party.
It is not a coincidence that the Lib Dems have only one Welsh speaking member in the Assembly, that it is the party that has benefited least from the Welsh lessons offered to Assembly members (0% success compared to very many successes in the other parties). It is not a coincidence that 39 out of 40 of the candidates in last week's election were not fluent enough to be interviewed on S4C and Radio Cymru, it is not a coincidence that well over half of the Lib Dem candidates were born outside Wales.
These things are not a coincidence they are the effect of where the Liberal Democrat Party has decided to position itself - as the anti Welsh Party in Wales. Lloyd George and (both) Tom Ellis' must be spinning in their graves!
Tip for pundits. Ask a sheep shagging joke in Wales, if you get a laugh you've found a Lib Dem strategist!
This is what Cynog said:
There has also been a demographic change in Ceredigion, to the point where up to half of the inhabitants are people who have either moved here themselves from England or are the children of people who have done so.
“This demographic change has reduced the number of people who have a Welsh perspective on politics.
“When the Liberal Democrat bubble was punctured towards the end of the campaign, voters elsewhere gravitated to the Tories or Labour. In Ceredigion, those parties don’t figure, so people tended to stick with the Lib Dems, whose only rivals were the Nats.
Cynog's comments are factually correct. A huge number of people have moved from England into the most rural areas of Wales and that demographic change does present an additional challenge to all political parties.
Plaid has risen to that challenge by making it clear that the party campaigns for the people who live in Wales, whatever their ancestry.
Of course the Liberal Democrats have jumped on Cynog's comments and condemned them as anti-English racism.
This comes as no surprise!
Since the advent of the National Assembly a consensus has developed between the Labour Party the Conservative Party and Plaid that being Welsh (in the widest possible sense of the word) is a positive thing, the Liberal Democrats have found a gap in the market and have attempted to exploit it by positioning themselves as the most ant-Welsh, even most racists towards the Welsh, party.
It is not a coincidence that the Lib Dems have only one Welsh speaking member in the Assembly, that it is the party that has benefited least from the Welsh lessons offered to Assembly members (0% success compared to very many successes in the other parties). It is not a coincidence that 39 out of 40 of the candidates in last week's election were not fluent enough to be interviewed on S4C and Radio Cymru, it is not a coincidence that well over half of the Lib Dem candidates were born outside Wales.
These things are not a coincidence they are the effect of where the Liberal Democrat Party has decided to position itself - as the anti Welsh Party in Wales. Lloyd George and (both) Tom Ellis' must be spinning in their graves!
Tip for pundits. Ask a sheep shagging joke in Wales, if you get a laugh you've found a Lib Dem strategist!
14/05/2010
Fair votes from students!
So the main responsibility of the New Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, will be constitutional issues. I wish him well in the job, there are, without doubt, a number of constitutional anomalies in the current, so called democratic, system that we have desperate need to sort out.
There is one glaring anomaly that Clegg probably won't even think about changing The Corrupt Student Vote.
Nick won't deal with it because it has benefited his party for the last two elections.
Residential students can register to vote in both their home constituency (at their parents address) AND in their collage constituency (their hall of residence or lodgings address).
Despite the presidential style of last week's election, where we were fed the line that we were electing a Prime Minister, the fact is that the election was about electing 650 constituency representatives.
In many of those constituencies the residential student vote made the difference between which candidate was elected and which was defeated. Up to a third of those students whose votes made the difference will move out of the constituency within the next month and a half. If we have a five year fixed parliament 90% of the students will have left, leaving both locals and new students with an MP who may not represent them.
Much worse than the fact that student voters vote for a local candidate, when they know that they are about to up sticks and burden a constituency with an MP, whom they will not have to suffer for much longer, is the fact that in reality students have two votes.
There is no way to cross reference that a student registered in both Oxford and Barmouth hasn't voted twice. If s/he has been inspired to vote the chances are that s/he did vote twice.
I can't find a reference but I have heard anecdotal claims that the Tories could have got an overall majority for want of 16,000 votes in the right constituencies, and Labour could have won with 40,000 extra votes! I don't know if these figures are correct, but the potential difference that a small minority of the 1.9 million UK students voting twice could make may be very significant!
Sorry Nick, but the student vote that you have chased so vigorously over the last two elections is fundamentally corrupt, if you really want to clean up politics get rid of the two vote student's vote!
There is one glaring anomaly that Clegg probably won't even think about changing The Corrupt Student Vote.
Nick won't deal with it because it has benefited his party for the last two elections.
Residential students can register to vote in both their home constituency (at their parents address) AND in their collage constituency (their hall of residence or lodgings address).
Despite the presidential style of last week's election, where we were fed the line that we were electing a Prime Minister, the fact is that the election was about electing 650 constituency representatives.
In many of those constituencies the residential student vote made the difference between which candidate was elected and which was defeated. Up to a third of those students whose votes made the difference will move out of the constituency within the next month and a half. If we have a five year fixed parliament 90% of the students will have left, leaving both locals and new students with an MP who may not represent them.
Much worse than the fact that student voters vote for a local candidate, when they know that they are about to up sticks and burden a constituency with an MP, whom they will not have to suffer for much longer, is the fact that in reality students have two votes.
There is no way to cross reference that a student registered in both Oxford and Barmouth hasn't voted twice. If s/he has been inspired to vote the chances are that s/he did vote twice.
I can't find a reference but I have heard anecdotal claims that the Tories could have got an overall majority for want of 16,000 votes in the right constituencies, and Labour could have won with 40,000 extra votes! I don't know if these figures are correct, but the potential difference that a small minority of the 1.9 million UK students voting twice could make may be very significant!
Sorry Nick, but the student vote that you have chased so vigorously over the last two elections is fundamentally corrupt, if you really want to clean up politics get rid of the two vote student's vote!
11/05/2010
Has the Tory Press Murdered a ConDem Deal?
The bitter vitriol being poured on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in today's Tory Supporting Papers is incredible
The Sun:
NOW we see the Lib Dems for what they are... double-crossing, two-faced shysters who would sell their mothers for political gain.
Daily Mail:
In public, Nick Clegg, that supposed torch carrier for the ‘new’ politics, insisted it was his duty to first hold coalition talks with a Tory party given by far the strongest mandate to govern.
In private, the man who is emerging as the Madame Fifi of British politics was soliciting for the highest bid.
Telegraph
Mr Brown’s actions may tempt us to joke about Robert Mugabe stealing an election, with Nick Clegg in the role of Morgan Tsvangarai seduced into shaking hands with the man responsible for his nation’s misfortunes.
Comments on Tory blogs are even more bitter.
I suspect that the Lib Dem conversations with Labour were intended to be just a means of bringing extra pressure to bear on the Conservative party. But the over reaction of Tory supporters to the first minor difficulty in the negotiations might have made a Lib Con pact or coalition totally unobtainable and unsustainable. The Tory press' overreaction may well have cost David Cameron the keys to No10.
The Sun:
NOW we see the Lib Dems for what they are... double-crossing, two-faced shysters who would sell their mothers for political gain.
Daily Mail:
In public, Nick Clegg, that supposed torch carrier for the ‘new’ politics, insisted it was his duty to first hold coalition talks with a Tory party given by far the strongest mandate to govern.
In private, the man who is emerging as the Madame Fifi of British politics was soliciting for the highest bid.
Telegraph
Mr Brown’s actions may tempt us to joke about Robert Mugabe stealing an election, with Nick Clegg in the role of Morgan Tsvangarai seduced into shaking hands with the man responsible for his nation’s misfortunes.
Comments on Tory blogs are even more bitter.
I suspect that the Lib Dem conversations with Labour were intended to be just a means of bringing extra pressure to bear on the Conservative party. But the over reaction of Tory supporters to the first minor difficulty in the negotiations might have made a Lib Con pact or coalition totally unobtainable and unsustainable. The Tory press' overreaction may well have cost David Cameron the keys to No10.
22/04/2010
Are the Welsh Lib Dems embarrassed by their road pricing plans?
In the Welsh Leaders debate on Tuesday and on CF99 last night the issue of the high price of petol arose. On both programmes the Liberal Democrats' representatives expressed sympathy for the difficulties caused to individuals and businesses because of rising fuel prices but neither mentioned their party's policy of road pricing.
According to this report on the BBC the Liberal Democrats want to charge road users between 8p and 12p for every mile that they travel on the roads.
Am I a cynic for suspecting that this reluctance to mention their policy on Welsh political programmes is because three of the seats being defended by the Liberal Democrats are in the most rural part of Wales where such a policy would be as popular as a rat sandwich?
According to this report on the BBC the Liberal Democrats want to charge road users between 8p and 12p for every mile that they travel on the roads.
Am I a cynic for suspecting that this reluctance to mention their policy on Welsh political programmes is because three of the seats being defended by the Liberal Democrats are in the most rural part of Wales where such a policy would be as popular as a rat sandwich?
20/04/2010
Shut up Girl! Lembit on Feminism?
The second BBC Wales 2010 Election debates came from from Newtown, Montgomeryshire.
Heledd Fychan the Plaid Cymru candiadate, did well, very well. In a constituency that Plaid is unlikely to win Heledd put her name down as a contender to keep at it and build the Maldwyn vote into a victory for Plaid and/ or to make her a contender for a safer seat in the Assembly.
With the surge in the Liberal Democrats vote, following the leaders debate, the Lib Dems should keep this seat.
I can understand why the Lib Dems have had a surge, and good luck to them. If the Lib Dems have the most votes but the fewest MPs it will aid the democratisation of politics in the UK - it may be a step in the direction of fair votes for all including MK, SNP, Plaid.
My worry is that I don't think that a person who dismisses a female candidate with shut up girl, or who looks at politics through the lens of the Daily Sport, deserves to be an MP for any party, not least a Liberal and Democratic party.
I wish the Lib Dems the best of luck in England, I hope that they do well in those Scottish and Welsh seats that Plaid / SNP haven't got a sniff at, (I hope that MK beats the pants off them in Cornwall).
I would be pleased to see Nick Clegg PM, with that one caveat that the most illiberal and undemocratic embarrassment to the, non partisan, idea of Liberalism and Democracy loses his seat – Ta! Ta! Lembo!
Since 1879 Maldwyn has voted for Traditional Welsh Radical Liberalism, keep that tradition by voting Heledd Fychan the true keeper of that tradition.
Heledd Fychan the Plaid Cymru candiadate, did well, very well. In a constituency that Plaid is unlikely to win Heledd put her name down as a contender to keep at it and build the Maldwyn vote into a victory for Plaid and/ or to make her a contender for a safer seat in the Assembly.
With the surge in the Liberal Democrats vote, following the leaders debate, the Lib Dems should keep this seat.
I can understand why the Lib Dems have had a surge, and good luck to them. If the Lib Dems have the most votes but the fewest MPs it will aid the democratisation of politics in the UK - it may be a step in the direction of fair votes for all including MK, SNP, Plaid.
My worry is that I don't think that a person who dismisses a female candidate with shut up girl, or who looks at politics through the lens of the Daily Sport, deserves to be an MP for any party, not least a Liberal and Democratic party.
I wish the Lib Dems the best of luck in England, I hope that they do well in those Scottish and Welsh seats that Plaid / SNP haven't got a sniff at, (I hope that MK beats the pants off them in Cornwall).
I would be pleased to see Nick Clegg PM, with that one caveat that the most illiberal and undemocratic embarrassment to the, non partisan, idea of Liberalism and Democracy loses his seat – Ta! Ta! Lembo!
Since 1879 Maldwyn has voted for Traditional Welsh Radical Liberalism, keep that tradition by voting Heledd Fychan the true keeper of that tradition.
02/04/2010
Family Allowance -past it's sell by date?
According to Question Time tonight St Vince Cable made a mistake in the Chancellors' debate on Monday. Apparently he said that he wanted to stop Child Benefit to rich people, which isn't party policy what the Lib Dems want to stop is The Child Trust Fund payments for richer families.
Child Benefit is the old Family Allowance it is a benefit which pays families about £50 a month per child, and is a non means tested benefit. The Child Trust fund is a £250 one-off payment which is put into an account to encourage families and their children to build up a long term investment accounts.
I didn't notice the mistake when I listened to the debate, but as the debate was so boring I might have missed it whilst yawning!
But is scarping Family Allowance a bad idea?
To declare an interest I have two children under 16 so I get the benefit.
Family Allowance was a benefit introduced in the UK in the aftermath of the two World Wars. With two generations butchered and damned there was a danger that Britain wouldn't have a birth rate sufficient to support industrial growth in the aftermath of war. There was also the problem that many women had taken on men's jobs during the wars, and had given the aspiring working class the idea of dual incomes in order to increase their aspirations.
Universal Family Allowance was introduced in order to encourage women to get out of the workplace and make babies. At 4 shillings a week per child, when first introduced, Family Allowance was a good reason for getting out of the workforce and making babies. Even If you went down from your mother's 13 kids to the 1940's/50's average of 5 kids, the value of family allowance was (in today's money) about £260 a week – worth staying home and making babies for!
Child benefit doesn't help the poorest, because it is seen as income for the purposes of Income Support and Tax credit and is deducted from other benefit claims.
The only people who actually benefit from Child Benefit are those who are above benefit levels!
Child benefit doesn't do what it was supposed to do anymore. Many kids are given the Child Benefit as Pocket Money.
Family allowance wasn't designed as state provided pocket money for teenagers from well off families, but that is what it has become. Child Benefit served it's purpose, it did its job, but now it is an anachronistic drain on public finances – it is time it was abolished!
Perhaps Mr Cable was Freudian correct!
Child Benefit is the old Family Allowance it is a benefit which pays families about £50 a month per child, and is a non means tested benefit. The Child Trust fund is a £250 one-off payment which is put into an account to encourage families and their children to build up a long term investment accounts.
I didn't notice the mistake when I listened to the debate, but as the debate was so boring I might have missed it whilst yawning!
But is scarping Family Allowance a bad idea?
To declare an interest I have two children under 16 so I get the benefit.
Family Allowance was a benefit introduced in the UK in the aftermath of the two World Wars. With two generations butchered and damned there was a danger that Britain wouldn't have a birth rate sufficient to support industrial growth in the aftermath of war. There was also the problem that many women had taken on men's jobs during the wars, and had given the aspiring working class the idea of dual incomes in order to increase their aspirations.
Universal Family Allowance was introduced in order to encourage women to get out of the workplace and make babies. At 4 shillings a week per child, when first introduced, Family Allowance was a good reason for getting out of the workforce and making babies. Even If you went down from your mother's 13 kids to the 1940's/50's average of 5 kids, the value of family allowance was (in today's money) about £260 a week – worth staying home and making babies for!
Child benefit doesn't help the poorest, because it is seen as income for the purposes of Income Support and Tax credit and is deducted from other benefit claims.
The only people who actually benefit from Child Benefit are those who are above benefit levels!
Child benefit doesn't do what it was supposed to do anymore. Many kids are given the Child Benefit as Pocket Money.
Family allowance wasn't designed as state provided pocket money for teenagers from well off families, but that is what it has become. Child Benefit served it's purpose, it did its job, but now it is an anachronistic drain on public finances – it is time it was abolished!
Perhaps Mr Cable was Freudian correct!
14/02/2010
Bates Timing - WoS hits back
Last weekend I was amongst a number of bloggers who questioned the timing of a report in the Wales on Sunday about Mick Bates night out. I thought that it was more than a coincidence that the AMs moment of madness had happened in the early hours of 19th-20th January, but was reported in the press 18 days later at a time that the Welsh Liberal Democrats happened to be holding their party conference.
In today's Wales on Sunday reporter Matt Withers hits back at the acussations of political bias and sitting on the story in order to harm the Lib Dems conference.
So WoS were duped by an anonymous e-mail sent two weeks after the event into running a story designed to disrupt the conference.
In today's Wales on Sunday reporter Matt Withers hits back at the acussations of political bias and sitting on the story in order to harm the Lib Dems conference.
The story, which I wrote, broke last weekend on the front of our paper – coincidentally, on the second day of the Lib Dems’ Spring Conference in Swansea.
And it’s that timing which has led to many rumours, letters of complaint and plenty of rumblings on the blogosphere. The charge? Wales on Sunday knew about Mr Bates’ behaviour at the time it occurred – and deliberately held back running the story in a bid to disrupt the party’s conference.
Utter rubbish.
Mr Bates’ night on the tiles was on January 19. I was first alerted to what is alleged to have happened on Thursday, February 4, when my editor asked me to investigate a tip-off in an anonymous e-mail.
The next two days were spent trying to verify the truth of the allegations through a second source. Eventually, on the Friday afternoon, we found a senior source who was able to confirm an investigation into verbal abuse by Mr Bates into staff at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.
We were unable to verify separate allegations of assault on paramedics. These made their way into the public domain the day after the WoS story.
I phoned Mick Bates’ mobile four times on the Friday afternoon to speak to him, each time without success, and eventually spoke to the Welsh Lib Dems’ head of communications, who was aware Mr Bates had suffered an accident that night, but not that he had been allegedly involved in trouble following it.
A statement from the party confirming it was investigating their AM followed early on Saturday evening.
So that’s why the story appeared when it did, rather than a deliberate attempt by Wales on Sunday to sabotage the Welsh Liberal Democrat Spring Conference.
In fact, the most baffling thing about it is there’s so many Lib Dems who genuinely believe their conference to be of such vast importance that journalists spend their precious time concocting vindictive and deliberate attempts to wreck it.
So WoS were duped by an anonymous e-mail sent two weeks after the event into running a story designed to disrupt the conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)