So Carwyn Jones has been in the First Minister’s post for 100 days and to be honest it feels very much the same as under Rhodri Morgan tenure, but then Carwyn is a very laid back individual and earthquakes were unlikely.
Maybe it’s unfair who knows, a 100 days is a short period of time and the One Wales Agreement is still the driving force of the Government, but if nothing else the last 3 months have given us a sense of how things will be in the months and years ahead – as one of the people in Bridgend said on Dragon’s Eye Carwyn is a good AM, but Wales need someone with drive and energy to lead the country.
The biggest achievement that most commentators can point to is the trigger vote for the referendum which was almost derailed for party political reasons don’t forget and he has also given Leighton Andrews permission to look at the thorny issue of Education funding in Universities and Schools, both welcome and things that needed to be tackled.
I’ve been less impressed with the various attempts at sheltering Communities First from criticism or acknowledgment of problems with the scheme and the same old lines trotted out lines about ProAct when Carwyn is challenged over the economy and unemployment – but Labour don’t accept Wales has economic problems that weren’t cause by the last Tory Government.
There have been other changes in Cardiff Bay there are some new faces around the Cabinet table and one or two new Special Advisors, Carwyn was quizzed this week by AM’s in the First Minister’s Scrutiny Committee more vacuous platitudes on shows mind you and WAG now has a YouTube channel which the First Minister uploaded Welsh and English messages for St David’s Day recently and to help raise Wales profile, but these are cosmetic changes that could have been introduced by any party not specific to Carwyn or his Cabinet.
I’m not really sure what I expected, much of the last 100 days has been similar to the past 10 years, I suppose it depends on where you sit but I hope for better in the next 100 days Wales certainly needs a boost.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
How many more times before real changes are made?
I was in two minds whether to blog on the unemployment figures given that I think little will change in the Welsh Economy despite the figures, but there’s no doubt yesterday’s unemployment figures were another blow for the Welsh Economy and the workforce, Unemployment in Wales is now 133,000 or 9.2% and there is no hiding for the Labour Government however they spin them.
The figures are bad, but what is more depressing is that high unemployment and inactivity rates are facts of life in Wales rather than occasional news headlines during a recession.
And anyone who knows anything about the economy wasn't surprised by the rise in unemployment figures for the simple fact that so little has been done to change the makeup of the Welsh economy by all Governments since the last recession, Wales is still characterised by low skilled jobs that are easily moved abroad, an over reliance on the public sector and high failure rates for businesses to name but a few problems.
And as well as the drop in income caused by unemployment there are also the other related issues such as a loss of self confidence, increased anxiety and stress that seem to go unrecognised by the policy makers and need to be addressed.
No doubt Welsh unemployment figures will continue to rise after budgets are cuts to reduce the UK deficit followed by the usual one dimensional political responses that come on days like these, but sadly I don’t see things changing whoever gets elected because there is a distinct lack of political will to challenge to status quo.
It seems Wales is destined to be struck in the same rut for many years to come.
The figures are bad, but what is more depressing is that high unemployment and inactivity rates are facts of life in Wales rather than occasional news headlines during a recession.
And anyone who knows anything about the economy wasn't surprised by the rise in unemployment figures for the simple fact that so little has been done to change the makeup of the Welsh economy by all Governments since the last recession, Wales is still characterised by low skilled jobs that are easily moved abroad, an over reliance on the public sector and high failure rates for businesses to name but a few problems.
And as well as the drop in income caused by unemployment there are also the other related issues such as a loss of self confidence, increased anxiety and stress that seem to go unrecognised by the policy makers and need to be addressed.
No doubt Welsh unemployment figures will continue to rise after budgets are cuts to reduce the UK deficit followed by the usual one dimensional political responses that come on days like these, but sadly I don’t see things changing whoever gets elected because there is a distinct lack of political will to challenge to status quo.
It seems Wales is destined to be struck in the same rut for many years to come.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
ITV having second thoughts about pulling out of Regional News
Interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday about new ITV chairman Archie Norman is rethinking the policy of dumping regional news in England and Wales. STV and UTV provide the service in Scotland Northern Ireland respectively.
It states ‘(Archie) Norman has been conducting a strategic review of all ITV's activities since taking over from Michael Grade in January and is said to be considering reversing his predecessor's decision to withdraw from local news provision for the English regions and Wales.
"Archie thinks ITV should continue to do regional news," a source close to the ITV chairman said. "His sentiment is that it is important, not something to walk away from."
ITV's attitude is understood to be hardening against the plan to test independently financed news consortiums (IFNCs) in Wales, Scotland and the North East and Borders region, which would produce regional bulletins for ITV1. The scheme is being rushed through parliament ahead of a likely May general election
A source involved in the process said that ITV executives are concerned about keeping control of advertising airtime around the regional news slots on ITV1, the quality of the proposed replacement services, and the longer-term implications of losing control of parts of the schedule on its flagship network.
The selection panel chaired by Richard Hooper is on schedule to make a decision on the three winners next Tuesday, 23 March, ahead of Bradshaw's announcement on 25 March.
Successful bidders will share a pot of licence fee money from the digital switchover surplus worth £40m and will also have to sign a contract with ITV, which remains responsible for compliance.
It all sounds like too little to late to me and you have to ask why ITV is changing its mind so late into the process?
It states ‘(Archie) Norman has been conducting a strategic review of all ITV's activities since taking over from Michael Grade in January and is said to be considering reversing his predecessor's decision to withdraw from local news provision for the English regions and Wales.
"Archie thinks ITV should continue to do regional news," a source close to the ITV chairman said. "His sentiment is that it is important, not something to walk away from."
ITV's attitude is understood to be hardening against the plan to test independently financed news consortiums (IFNCs) in Wales, Scotland and the North East and Borders region, which would produce regional bulletins for ITV1. The scheme is being rushed through parliament ahead of a likely May general election
A source involved in the process said that ITV executives are concerned about keeping control of advertising airtime around the regional news slots on ITV1, the quality of the proposed replacement services, and the longer-term implications of losing control of parts of the schedule on its flagship network.
The selection panel chaired by Richard Hooper is on schedule to make a decision on the three winners next Tuesday, 23 March, ahead of Bradshaw's announcement on 25 March.
Successful bidders will share a pot of licence fee money from the digital switchover surplus worth £40m and will also have to sign a contract with ITV, which remains responsible for compliance.
It all sounds like too little to late to me and you have to ask why ITV is changing its mind so late into the process?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Scottish Secretaries negotiated better than their Welsh counterparts
In light of today’s Wales Audit Office Report stating the need for drastic reductions in public spending in Wales over the coming years, its worth highlighting a passage from by Lord Ivor Richard at the start of the Lords Debate on the Barnett Formula last week.
He said that the Barnett Formula’s introduction was in part an attempt to contain spending in the 1970’s and on allocation of additional resources that ‘After World War II successive Scottish Secretaries of State negotiated additional allocations. They argued special needs, such as sparsity of population in the remote areas and density and poor housing in the central belt.’
The full passage is here ‘I cannot resist going into the history of the Barnett formula a little, although I see that my noble friend Lord Barnett is here. The history is interesting and, indeed, instructive. It dates back to 1976, when it was felt by Ministers in the Treasury that a formula was needed to determine the territorial distribution of public spending in the UK.
As far back as 1888 the Goschen formula-named after the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the one whom Lord Randolph Churchill forgot-allocated funds based on the population: 80 per cent to England and Wales, 11 per cent to Scotland and 9 per cent to Ireland. Over time the precision of that formula came to be eroded. After World War II successive Scottish Secretaries of State negotiated additional allocations. They argued special needs, such as sparsity of population in the remote areas and density and poor housing in the central belt.
The introduction of what became known as the Barnett formula was part of a wider attempt to constrain public spending in the mid-1970s. The new formula was in essence an update of Goschen, being based on population rather than need. I cannot resist quoting from one or two portions of the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He made it clear to us that the formula was not designed as a permanent solution. He said:
"I thought it might last a year or two before a Government would decide to change it. It never occurred to me for one moment that it would last this long".
Later, I put it to him:
"You devised a mechanism which helped the Treasury to distribute money. You did not base it on need. It was a straight population index and you did not think it would last".
To this, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, gave a simple and definite answer: "No". When asked whether he thought that the formula had been successful, he answered in thoughtful terms:
"Successive Governments over 30 years have kept it going. I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair. It cannot be fair with this kind of gap ... At the moment, all one can say is that the figures indicate a huge gap in the expenditure of the different regions".
He said that the Barnett Formula’s introduction was in part an attempt to contain spending in the 1970’s and on allocation of additional resources that ‘After World War II successive Scottish Secretaries of State negotiated additional allocations. They argued special needs, such as sparsity of population in the remote areas and density and poor housing in the central belt.’
The full passage is here ‘I cannot resist going into the history of the Barnett formula a little, although I see that my noble friend Lord Barnett is here. The history is interesting and, indeed, instructive. It dates back to 1976, when it was felt by Ministers in the Treasury that a formula was needed to determine the territorial distribution of public spending in the UK.
As far back as 1888 the Goschen formula-named after the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the one whom Lord Randolph Churchill forgot-allocated funds based on the population: 80 per cent to England and Wales, 11 per cent to Scotland and 9 per cent to Ireland. Over time the precision of that formula came to be eroded. After World War II successive Scottish Secretaries of State negotiated additional allocations. They argued special needs, such as sparsity of population in the remote areas and density and poor housing in the central belt.
The introduction of what became known as the Barnett formula was part of a wider attempt to constrain public spending in the mid-1970s. The new formula was in essence an update of Goschen, being based on population rather than need. I cannot resist quoting from one or two portions of the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He made it clear to us that the formula was not designed as a permanent solution. He said:
"I thought it might last a year or two before a Government would decide to change it. It never occurred to me for one moment that it would last this long".
Later, I put it to him:
"You devised a mechanism which helped the Treasury to distribute money. You did not base it on need. It was a straight population index and you did not think it would last".
To this, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, gave a simple and definite answer: "No". When asked whether he thought that the formula had been successful, he answered in thoughtful terms:
"Successive Governments over 30 years have kept it going. I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair. It cannot be fair with this kind of gap ... At the moment, all one can say is that the figures indicate a huge gap in the expenditure of the different regions".
Monday, March 15, 2010
Another round of the blame game that get Wales nowhere
Welsh Conservative leader Nick Bourne has told us today that according to European GDP figures Wales is poorer than parts of Eastern Europe, if it’s a surprise to Nick and his colleagues where have they been for the past decade?
The figures show that West Wales and the Valleys, the poorest parts of Wales could qualify for another round of European Convergence money, although given the EU's expansion its unlikely.
So what’s new, Welsh Labour has never had economic credibility despite being the dominant force in Welsh politics with the ability to drive through the changes needed to help the Welsh economy grow they are not interested in changing the status quo, but how telling is it that the Welsh Conservatives have failed in all this time to sell an alternative economic narrative to those people want a better life for themselves and their families across Wales?
However I shouldn’t be surprised since the level of economic debate among Welsh politicians never rises above mudslinging, perfectly illustrated today article which is full of outrage and blame of WAG but precious few answers which is rebutted by Labour refusing to accept blame and saying that the figures are the Tories fault for the destruction of jobs and communities in the 1980’s and early 1990’s under Thatcher, you have to ask if things will ever change?
As I have said many times before WAG’s economic record is awful and diagnosing Wales’s multiple problems is easy but coming up with workable solutions and selling them to the Welsh electorate is more difficult part of opposition, but it’s not impossible. So here’s an idea how about less outrage and mudslinging and more constructive ideas you never know it might just work for Nick and his Conservative pals.
The figures show that West Wales and the Valleys, the poorest parts of Wales could qualify for another round of European Convergence money, although given the EU's expansion its unlikely.
So what’s new, Welsh Labour has never had economic credibility despite being the dominant force in Welsh politics with the ability to drive through the changes needed to help the Welsh economy grow they are not interested in changing the status quo, but how telling is it that the Welsh Conservatives have failed in all this time to sell an alternative economic narrative to those people want a better life for themselves and their families across Wales?
However I shouldn’t be surprised since the level of economic debate among Welsh politicians never rises above mudslinging, perfectly illustrated today article which is full of outrage and blame of WAG but precious few answers which is rebutted by Labour refusing to accept blame and saying that the figures are the Tories fault for the destruction of jobs and communities in the 1980’s and early 1990’s under Thatcher, you have to ask if things will ever change?
As I have said many times before WAG’s economic record is awful and diagnosing Wales’s multiple problems is easy but coming up with workable solutions and selling them to the Welsh electorate is more difficult part of opposition, but it’s not impossible. So here’s an idea how about less outrage and mudslinging and more constructive ideas you never know it might just work for Nick and his Conservative pals.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Focus on the wives shows the poor quality of leaders on offer to the electorate
The media are getting very excited about the emergence of Samantha Cameron on to the campaign trail along side hubby David this weekend and have enjoyed covering Sarah Brown’s increasingly high profile over the past year in a bid to raise husband Gordon’s appeal, but to me their increasing profile highlights the failure of the political party leaders to convince the electorate they have the answers to the problems we face and to vote for them - instead of policy and a new direction we can now vote for window dressing.
Don’t get me wrong Samantha Cameron and Sarah Brown are interesting women in their own right and have quite a lot in common, both are intelligent, successful career woman, both are committed to their husbands and families and both have suffered the tragic loss of a child, but does wheeling out the wife make us want to vote for either party or is this just the latest step with the introduction of Prime Ministerial debates in hollowing out the political process and making it more like American Presidential Elections?
Here is a selection of what's on offer
From the Wales on Sunday
From the Times
Don’t get me wrong Samantha Cameron and Sarah Brown are interesting women in their own right and have quite a lot in common, both are intelligent, successful career woman, both are committed to their husbands and families and both have suffered the tragic loss of a child, but does wheeling out the wife make us want to vote for either party or is this just the latest step with the introduction of Prime Ministerial debates in hollowing out the political process and making it more like American Presidential Elections?
Here is a selection of what's on offer
From the Wales on Sunday
From the Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)