A home for great Welsh Media...

We are often strident in bemoaning the lack of quality media in Wales. It makes my blood boil when we see whole items of 'health' stories in the media make no reference to the fact it is only relevant for England.

So it is with great pleasure to point you in the way of Wales Home.

Hell, it even includes articles by some mouthy twat from Pontypool.

This week's profile is of Steffan Lewis, who is attempting to topple Don Touhig in Islwyn. May I take this opportunity to say that it will bring me great pleasure in helping him doing so. Let just say, the representatives of Islwyn have a very special place in my heart.

Read more...

More Leadership bluffing.

What to make of this news?

Well, in a week where in a week where the One Wales Government laid out its plans in One Wales 24, I do think it seems highly implausible. It aims, in my view, to shoot across the bows at Plaid, undermining a Government at the same time. The key thing to notice is that there isn't one credible source in this information - my guess is that this is just pre-leadership contest willy waving.

Of course, the Lib Dems will lap it up, who wouldn't if you are in their position?

Any party willing to break up a programme of Government prior to 2011 will feel the wrath of the people of Wales. I would imagine giving Plaid a bloody nose along the way will win fans within the Welsh Labour Party - hence why it has appeared.

Plaid would do well to merely reaffirm to being a partner in a progressive Government that is rightly being praised.

Read more...

Judean People's Front Inequality

There is an odd debate on equality coming to the fore in the Labour Party, one which Plaid would do well to enter. The Guardian perhaps unhelpfully cherry picked what John Denham had to say, but ultimately he does shine a light on much of the thinking that New Labour has brought forward on inequality.

Before we reach for the shot gun I do hasten to add that Denham also said “A rejection of inequality - both absolute, relative and of opportunity - is absolutely core to who we are". Roy Hattersley poses a question that all parties on the left need to answer – that if we are not willing to tackle inequality, then what are we for?

Denham actually is onto something – but what he actually exposes is the ridiculous first past the post system, rather than a lack of those willing to vote for progressive parties. He says…

"The number of people who sign up to a traditional egalitarian view of society is simply too small to construct a strong, viable and inclusive electoral coalition.”

Really? I would argue that having a fairer voting system would in one fell swoop provide both a progressive coalition and remove inequality at the ballot box. The two biggest parties in Wales, both in Government I hasten to add, are social democratic.

Ultimately, and from my own experience, all this talk of what type of inequality to focus on is very much a “judean people's front” debate by the Government. Regardless of which inequality Labour thinks is important (or indeed whether it thinks it’s important at all) means very little when you see that the Government has resided over an increase in inequality. Child poverty targets being missed indicates that the Blairite view of ‘as long as drag the poor up, you can leave the rich alone’ has failed.

Having glanced at the figures towards attitude to poverty and inequality, I question as whether we are having the wrong debate. No one is going to support measures to help those ‘undeserving’, particularly if you offer no actual example of meaning of ‘undeserving’. One finding was that;

“Many participants did not find abstract arguments for greater equality persuasive. They preferred arguments for greater equality framed in terms of fairer rewards for effort and contribution.”

Well, not only is this not an indicator that people don’t want to see inequality tackled, but you find me an abstract political argument that is persuasive, I will get you a cold one at the bar. People want to see abstract ideas in action, they are less interested in seeing the ideological birthplaces of said action.

Let me be absolutely clear, I believe no one ‘deserves’ to be poor, ill, without a home, without food, bringing up children in poverty, addicted to drugs or trapped in the inescapable trap of being part of the underclass. It is not about merely sectioning people, like some gameshow, as to who deserves help. Inequality breeds so many social problems, improving it will mean a flowing of positive benefits for every single citizen, regardless of class.

I hope that Plaid is explicit about inequality – that it is unacceptable, and that we are healthier by having a more equal society. I am confident that is the case.

Read more...

Let's go on the attack against privatisation

The decision to not part-privatise the Royal Mail is welcome.That the Government listened, perhaps with the wrath of pretty much all of the centre-left in their ears (or indeed the Trade Unions that keep it afloat), is worth noting. Of course, the snipes will be aplenty – they bottled it, u-turn, paralysed etc – but we must present a positive way forward out of this decision.

The one fatal flaw with Gordon Brown is that he cannot see the wood from the trees, seeking short term political point scoring as his modus operandi. Those of us keen to oppose the privatization dogma within Government need to avoid such short term vision. We can sneer at the ‘we will return to this once market conditions improve’ retort, given that improving conditions and a Labour Government do not look likely for the forseeable future. That does however forget about what is coming – a tory party who ideologically and passionately believe the Royal Mail needs whole sale privatisation.

For too long we have allowed the debate over privatization to be held under the ‘no to privatisation’ banner, which to all intents and purposes is a defensive debate. The time is to be far more positive in entering that debate by offering a ‘yes to public ownership’ debate. We need, as Adam Price and Jon Cruddas have pointed out, to not only save the Royal Mail – but extend and deepen its public remit. A people’s bank, a network of shared services under the banner of being not-for-profit but still competitive will be a clear example of how we can rebuild our economy on a more progressive grounding.

This does represent an opportunity for those who have watched in horror at the hatchet jobs privatizations have undertaken on our public utilities. It is an opportunity because for once those of us seeking for public ownership to go further than propping up discredited banks and utilities are not the swivel eyed dogmatists as painted previously. We can bold and strident in the facts as presented – that privatization hasn’t delivered, that light touch regulation and competition in essential utilities has merely cost us more than it remaining in state control. I use the words ‘state control’ with caution, we must remind people that public ownership is about installing a public service ethos into those organizations and keeping the owners (us) happy with what is provided. I propose an enabling state, a strong but not all encompassing one – a busy but not bureaucratic state.

After the cardiac arrest our economy has suffered, we must not slide back to business as usual. We cannot stand for the Government looking to offload to Northern Rock to Tesco, dogmatically insisting that taxpayers should be denied getting our money back by holding onto the bank until market conditions improve.

Read more...

Ignominious Incarceration

I love Ignominious Incarceration, brutal and lush.



Support independent music buy the band's stuff at the Earache Store.

Read more...

Social Media - debate.

This afternoon, I need to suck eggs somewhat. After giving Bethan Jenkins AM grief about what debate she was bringing forward, it is now clear the ‘social networking’ debate is clearly relevant for the Assembly.

Wales does have a vibrant online politics, one which is perhaps shorn of some of the cross party previous stars – Blamerbell, Normal Mouth – but out of the ashes will come new ones. I suppose the debate is not focused on bloggers, because there is a rather odd situation where bloggers seek to widen the debate – but do so by being self referential and pretty hostile to new ‘cats in the game’ (excuse the Tim Westwoodism).

The real issue is whether social media is aiding the wider communication between people and politics/politicians?

I have very mixed feelings on this, reminding of the green debate somewhat. That comes from the fact that we are told that trying to take small steps now are to reap wider benefits down the line. Crucially, we also often merely dismiss such moves because such is their smallness, it’s pointless. Politicians are told that, including by me, that it is all good having social media, but without an audience, it is like peeing in a gale.

It is very easy to pull up a raft of statistics and pithy remarks to lacerate politicians who use social media to ‘connect’ to voters while political participation continues to fall. Perhaps, in the spirit of social media, electoral participation is a moot point, surely the connection might well be a citizen being made aware of the available channels to communicate. The problem for the nay sayers is that they believe that it is futile to have social media without the audience. I believe that sometimes politicians go to far in eulogising its impact, but unless it’s there, people will never use it.

The Assembly needs to promote its genuine openness far more – you can literally just walk into there to see democracy in action, but also it needs to make sure it does social media well. The crux of my ire towards the political class using social media is when it is done with tokenism or just badly. It is not a replacement for traditional lines of communication, but it’s an addition.

Plaid Cymru have a good record in regards to social media, but as per my previous criticism regarding its strategy – social media must bring with it a ‘value add’ premium. People will seek a deeper, informal, two-way and open style of communication – dead twitter accounts, ghost town facebook groups and blog mortuaries probably do more harm than good.

Plaid must be seeking to build and utilise a network, an eco-structure and seek to empower activists with electronic campaign materials. It has shown it can be ahead of the curve on this, but work is always there to be done. Frankly, it is a bit rich of me to be making that point a day into joining, but it’s a worthwhile discussion point.

Read more...

Prince and the revolution

I watched with a certain amount of interest last night’s debate regarding the future of the Monarchy in Wales. Credit must go to BBC for holding such a debate, because the chance to do so is not often there.

So what did I think? I have always maintained that I was an agnostic republican; if given the choice, I would choose to the end the monarchy. However, those feelings were rather dormant in my thinking it must be said, so it perhaps takes a lower profile in my world view.

Before last night, I perhaps had been naïve to the fact that Wales’ changing constitutional status raises all manner of debate regarding Prince Charles’ role and potential replacement. Of course I recognise the work of such organisations as the Prince’s Trust, but I am perhaps minded to consider whether a similar body can exist without all the patronage and cost of having a member of the Royal Family on board.

I am also not minded to believe that Charles is some aloof ‘face’ on top of such organisations, but I cannot move from the fact that we could merely establish similar figures to head up some organisations.

What I really wanted to grasp was the generational impact of the research conducted. Ultimately, the research does show a drop in support for the monarchy – something I believe will increase as time goes on. I do link this change with the secularisation of our state apparatus, one built on less deference, more information and less secrecy. Do I expect my son to meekly defer to the monarchy, seeing it as relevant? Well, besides the fact his father didn’t, you would imagine he won’t grow up with pro-monarchy (often older) members of his family around him.

The debate as to whether we should have new Prince of Wales after Charles is certainly a live and vibrant debate, it must be said I think the time would be to consider whether his role needs filling after it.

Read more...