THE DAYS OF ANGRY DAVE...

An angry David Cameron pictured earlier! 

Where-ever else we are it may be safe to say that David Cameron is well over a million miles away from those 'hug a hoodie' sentiments expressed back in Manchester in July 2006. The 'English Riots' as they have been called have generated more than a fair amount of some of irate (and some of it ill-informed) opinion circulating since the riots of last week – some of it from social (both right and left wing) commentators, not to mention ivory tower dwelling academics and politico’s of various hues calling for a tough line and a clamp down on gang culture, wanton criminality, etc.

Some of the angry rhetoric is from the PM – no doubt about it Cameron is in a bad mood, I can understand that, he had to speed back from Tuscany to sort out the mess created by the riots, abandoning his holiday. I suspect that we may all see a great deal of Angry Dave as the gloves appear to be off and the war against the underclass, scroungers, benefit cheats (you take your pick) will no doubt continue for a while yet.

While this safe and happy ground for the right wing Tories who are not doubt much more comfortable with fulminating about riots (no doubt with acres of thundering Daily Mail editorials – calling for national service, deportations, evictions and the cancellation of any miscreants benefits, etc) than they have been with Cameron’s caring cuddly conservatism. As for the party formally known as New Labour appears to be on less steady ground – attempts to spin a narrative based around social deprivation and cuts came to a crashing halt on News night the other week when Michael Gove and Harriet Harman went head to head in what can best be described as the battle of the lightweights.

There has been a lot said about ‘greed’ of late and much condemnation of blatant criminality, it’s a pity that similar condemnation and the loud calls call for a rigorous application of the law have not been applied to tax evasion, tax avoidance and some of the dubious activities of the banksters within the banking sector. There are inherent dangers for the politicians not far down the line once they start to preach, especially when a significant number of them got caught with their hands in the till.

Where next we may all ask - we have a had the war on drugs (failed), we have had the war on terror (failing) are we now destined to see the war on the gangs! Best to search out a moral high horse and possibly a sword of truth (or vengeance in the case). The only problem is if you are going to preach it helps to have some sort of moral grounding. Both New Labour and the Con Dems have sat back and done nothing while the suited and booted professional looters or banksters got away with it. Milibland and Cameron are sitting pretty while the profiteers who run the energy cartel and our railways make tidy (if not excessive) profits at public expense and not a word is said.

Milibland has rightly said that MPs, journalists and bankers have been shown to be greedy and immoral and that they are part of the problem. Cameron has also drawn attention to what he see as a moral decline in banking and elsewhere among the wealthy. Hoodies might be out of fashion, it's worth noting that in certain circles when Bullingdon club members smash up restaurants, go on a rampage, no doubt stealing or trashing other peoples property and generally behave on a drunken, violent and obnoxious way for some reason they are engaged in high jinks, etc.

The Con Dem Government seriously needs to re-think it’s plans to cut police budgets by 20%. In the past, when the economic situation is poor, there has been an associated rise in crime such as thefts and burglary. The police have long pointed out that a 20% cut made to police forces in England and Wales would lead directly to difficulties in policing on the front-line. Neither the threat of cuts, job losses or heavy handed politicians (within and without the Home Office / Ministry of Justice) does not helps Police or Police civil staff morale at all, it merely sends the message that the Con Dem government does not value their sacrifices and their work on the streets.

The Universities Police Science Institute has estimated that the government grant for local policing will fall by £1.36bn over the next four years, this suggests that local services in England and Wales will be most affected by government cuts to the policing budget. The institute's report has noted that the rise in police officer numbers that took place since 2004-5 enabled the expansion of neighbourhood, or community, policing; and so logically they point out that cuts in funding for neighbourhood and community policing will have the greatest impact in some of our most vulnerable communities.

EVERY LITTLE HELPS?

It has long been noted that when it comes to justice (and a fair price) for consumers the wheeels of justice can turn pretty slow and those with deep pockets can no doubt smooth the path towards compromise and delay. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) after an inquiry into the price fixing of dairy products has hit Tresco with a £10m fine.

The supermarket giant was one of nine firms facing penalties totalling close to £50m for colluding over the price of milk and cheese in 2002 and 2003. The OFT found that Arla, Asda, Dairy Crest, McLelland, Safeway, Sainsbury's, The Cheese Company, Wiseman, and Tesco all infringed the Competition Act by co-ordinating rises in the prices consumers paid for certain dairy products in 2002 and, or 2003.

Tesco who have denied collusion with the other companies, say they will appeal have expressed "surprise and dismay" that it was included in the penalties handed down by the regulator. OFT estimates that the collusion (or unhappy coincidence) resulted shoppers paying 2 pence extra for a litre of milk and 2p extra on 100g of cheese.


The final penalties announced by the OFT were £9.39m for Asda, £7.14m for Dairy Crest, £1.66m for McLelland, £5.69m for Safeway, £11.04m for Sainsbury's, £1.26m for The Cheese Company, £3.2m for Wiseman and £10.43m for Tesco. Although Arla was found to been involved in the infringement regarding milk in 2003, it has not been fined as it alerted the OFT to price fixing and was given immunity.

While this does not sound much the regulator initially calculated that £270m extra was spent by UK consumers as a result of the price fixing, but no total figure has been included in the final report. So how much longer will we have to wait for the Con Dem Govenrment to deliever on its pre election promises of brining in a Supermarket Ombudsman?

REWRITING THE PLOT?

There are over 4,000 people in Wales still waiting for allotments, this number has not dropped in the last two years. The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (with 5,000 members in Wales) argue that there needs to be more emphasis on providing allotments.
Now there is an old adage about thinking globally and acting locally - the issue of allotments may be one of those local actions that can have far reaching consequences. I mention this because the UK Westminster government back in January 2010 revealed it's twenty year food strategy.

None of us should take our food supply for granted - back in March 2009, Professor John Beddington (Westminster Government adviser) predicted the possibilities of a climate change-induced "perfect storm". This is where a combination of food shortages, water scarcity and insufficient energy resources combine to drop us all right in it. Now this something that's been around for a while, but, the UK Westminster mindset, so it took a while for any sort of coherent response to emerge.

On a very local level, one of the simplest ways to make very basic preparations for ourselves to deal with the consequences of potentially rocketing food and oil prices, which many scientists believe are not that far away in the near future as a result of peak oil, is for as many people as possible to grow some of their own food. There are long waiting lists for allotments in all areas of Wales. Whatever demand is there should be encouraged.

A few years ago there were moves to try to increase the amount of land available for food production, Plaid’s then Rural Affairs Minister; Elin Jones looked for ways to increase the availability of land for allotments and community gardens. The Westminster government’s somewhat
belated call for less food waste, more seasonal food and for people to buy sustainably-farmed food is to be welcomed.

While the idea of a food strategy has been welcomed, we have to be realistic, as food price problems could hit us pretty quickly and with little warning. It makes logical sense for governments to help, encourage and enable communities on as small a scale as possible to build in their own resilience and their own resources so they can cope with a potential food or fuel crisis themselves.

However, we need to go much further and faster in terms of reducing food imports and avoiding food waste. Providing land for allotments to our communities, especially as the demand for allotments continues to grow apace would help. I am well aware of as a significant number of my friends, relatives and various acquaintance’s (in Newport, Torfaen and Monmouthshire and elsewhere) all have allotments, or are trying to acquire them, so I am aware of the length of time it takes to acquire a plot.

It's not just about providing a ready source of vegetables and saving money, there are other benefits from raising and looking after your own crops as the process actually provides a degree of necessary exercise, a good excuse to get stuck in a social context. Early in 2009, Plaid AM Leanne Wood produced research which showed that some people may well have to wait for nearly nine years before they get a sniff of a plot or pitch.

What I still find amazing is that the whole business of allotments is still largely regulated by legislation from the early years of the 20th Century. The 1908 Small Holdings and Allotment Act says a council has a duty to provide land if they are satisfied there is demand and if six electors petition that council, their representations have to be taken into consideration.

There are enough examples across Wales, where groups of interested people have petitioned their local council only to be told that the council has considered their request, but there is no land available and some examples where local authorities have made land available. This if nothing else shows a complete lack of anything like a consistent approach to the provision of allotments.

Clearly our local authorities need to sort themselves out when it comes to the provision of land for allotments and help people to help themselves. The Welsh Government has included allotment provision in its legislative priorities for the next five-year assembly term and says it will set out plans to ensure minimum standard for the amount of land Welsh councils should devote to allotments. This should be a win! win! for everybody - so get it done!

TEN YEARS WAITING FOR A TRAIN?

Ten years is a long time to wait for a train, that’s how long the good citizens of Ebbw Vale and Newport have been waiting for the go-a-head for approval for the final stage of rail link to be completed from Ebbw Vale to Newport. Two feasibility studies down the line so to speak and the jury is still out on whether or not we will get a decision come the autumn. The final business case appraisal of Network Rail’s report, has been completed but not yet been released. With more than a few degrees of irony, it can be said that few railways will have (if we get the final go-a-head) been waiting approval through two centuries (the twentieth and the twenty first). I have lost track (if you will pardon the expression) of how many start dates have come and gone on this project. Enough is enough this rail link is important and needs to be completed and fully opened as soon as possible! Which bit don’t they (the elected inhabitants of Cardiff Bay) get?

AID AND ABET?

The exposure of whats been done with aid in Ethiopia by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and BBC 2's Newsnight should make the UK Westminster Government and other Western Governments think about the consequences of misdirected aid and the form by which aid is offered to repressive governments in Africa and elsewhere. There is a need for a full, frank and periodic accounting of exactly how foreign aid is spent and who actually gets access to it on the ground.

Meles Zenawi and friend

Sadly this is old news, as observers have for many years been concerned that Western aid to Africa is being used to prop up some pretty grim autocratic regimes. The direct link between aid and political repression was demonstrated last year in “Development without Freedom,” an extensively documented new report on Ethiopia by Human Rights Watch. Based on interviews with 200 people in 53 villages and cities throughout the country, the report concludes that the Ethiopian government, headed by prime minister Meles Zenawi, regularly uses aid as a political weapon to discriminate against non-party members and punish dissenters, sending the population the draconian message that “survival depends on political loyalty to the state and the ruling party.”

Ethiopia is Africa’s largest recipient of foreign aid (at $3.3 billion in 2008 and rising), and is frequently described as a country where western assistance is providing a safety net for the poor and laying the groundwork for country-wide economic growth. The UK is the second largest aid doner in Ethiopia after the USA. Donors working in Ethiopia, cite progress on six out of the eight Millennium Development Goals, claiming that aid has had a significant impact on improving the lives of the poorest families.

Ethiopia which is a predominantly Christian country that borders two unstable Islamic states (Somalia, and Sudan), not to mention Africa's newest independent state (South Sudan) is seen as strategically important by the West. Former communist Ethiopia is seen as a crucial if not vital ally in the ongoing and floundering so called war on terror.

Human Rights Watch contends that the Ethiopian government abuses aid funds for political purposes—in programs intended to help Ethiopia’s most poor and vulnerable. For example, more than fifty farmers in three different regions said that village leaders withheld government provided seeds and fertilizer, and micro-loans because they didn’t belong to the ruling party. Some villagers have been asked to renounce their views and join the party to ensure that they receive assistance and aid.

Human Rights Watch, investigating one program that purportedly gives food and cash in exchange for work on public projects, the report documented the fact that farmers who have never been paid for their work and entire families who have been barred from participating because they were thought to belong to the opposition. Still more disturbing local officials have denied emergency food aid to women, children, and the elderly as punishment for refusing to join the party.

None of this should surprise anyone, not really, Meles Zenawi has for many years charmed and won the trust of Western leaders even as his government becomes increasingly repressive. Numerous journalists, editors, judges, academics, and human rights defenders have all been forced to flee the country or languish behind bars, at risk of torture. New laws that were passed in 2005 have made opposition political activity more difficult than ever.

The Ethiopian Government has used almost every tool in the book to from handing out fertilizer, credit loans to its supporters and denying them to its opponents which helps to crush the opposition. Human Rights Watch says that the umbrella group that representing the 26 donors to Ethiopia intend to continue more or less with business as usual. The overall response has been to reject the blatantly reject the conclusions of the Human Rights Watch report, stating that their own research, has not found any evidence of systematic or widespread distortion.

There is a growing awareness in the aid community of how foreign development support has sustained anti-democratic regimes, yet little has changed and the dictators continue to receive a third of all international aid expenditures, and much of the remaining portion goes to countries that are at best only partly free. A study of aid recipients over the past three decades shows that this failure on the part of western aid donors to separate themselves from autocratic rulers is not just confined to Ethiopia—or even just to Africa.

One excuse, and it may be a genuine one, is a real concern for the poor, hungry and sick who will suffer or die if the government stopped providing vital social services as a result of aid cuts. Lets be brutally honest another less than generous reason is that aid agencies literally exist to give aid; careers and empires have been constructed within what is now the aid industry and organisational incentives push aid bureaucrats to keep the money flowing, to keep their field offices open, and secure their own jobs.

In Ethiopia's case, a violent government crackdown left 200 dead in 2005 and seriously embarrassed the donor community into an unusually frank reconsideration of their strategy. Until the 2005 crackdown, many donors had been giving aid through the mechanism known as “direct budget support,” by which money goes direct into the Ethiopian federal government budget (rather than directly to specific projects).

Even the World Bank (back in 2006) possibly disturbed by the Ethiopian government’s repressive behaviour decided to channel aid through local government to prevent funds being used for domestic political projects. The World Bank which has been no great friend of democracy let alone sustainable development in the recent past, stated that it would reduce aid to Ethiopia if governance did not improve.

Even before the Human Rights Watch report came out, impartial observers had noted how hollow the World Bank’s threats were as local governments in Ethiopia are also under the direct control of the ruling party. Donors have however been reversing this feeble step, as they have argued for a quick return to direct budget support, citing questionable progress in institution-building and small improvements in governance.

Blatant indifference to democratic values is both tragic and lazy as there are many ways the aid community might help Ethiopians rather than help their rulers. Aid donors could insist that investigations into aid abuse be credible, independent and free from government interference, and they could cut support to programs that are being used as weapons of repression against the opposition. Donars could speak out against repressive legislation that aims to weaken or destroy Ethiopian civil society. Donars could also find ways to bypass the government altogether, channeling funds through NGOs instead, or giving direct transfers or scholarships to individuals.

As a final last step, if the Ethiopian government moves to prevent attempts by donors to reach beneficiaries, then aid to Ethiopia could be suspended entirely. A complete aid cutoff under these circumstances cannot further hurt those who are not getting any aid in the first place. Aid donors need to recognise that the current status quo is unacceptable.

Repeated failures by the West to link development aid with the democracy, human rights and the rule of law during the Cold War and afterwards have led to this situation. We have reached the crazy situation where Foreign aid to Ethiopia ends up not improving (or even saving) the lives of those most in need. Much needed Foreign aid has actually ended up by financing the people's oppressors, and has made a bad situation even worse. Doing nothing is not an option, but, clearly we need to think again and ensure that foreign aid gets to where it can do the most good rather than prop up unsavoury regimes.

AFTER THE FAFF...

The UN Security Council has finally come around to condemning the Syrian government for its deadly crackdown on protesters. This is the first clear condemnation issued by the Security Council, which includes longstanding allies of Syria such as Russia not to mention Brazil, India and South Africa who all have close ties to Syria.

The UN Security Council has after much faffing about finally condemned "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities". And has said that those who are responsible for the violence should be held accountable. EU members of the 15-nation council had pushed for a strong resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for a rights inquiry.

Over the weeks and months since the unrest / uprising for democracy (take your pick) India, Brazil and South Africa have been dragging their heels on a Security Council resolution that would have allowed for strong international action on Syria. Despite the heel dragging they remain committed to democracy and peace and have called for an end to the brutality of Assad's regime.

The UN statement was adopted despite the concerns of some members that any action could lead to Libya-style intervention. The Syrian army is continuing to attack the city of Hama, a centre of opposition protest, with reports of much loss of life.

So far dozens of people may have been killed in the action against Hama, with residents saying that tanks have shot their way into Assi (Orontes) Square, in the centre of the city of 800,000 people. Human rights groups are suggesting that some 140 people may have been killed in the Syrian unrest since Sunday, mainly in Hama, adding to a civilian death toll believed to be more than 1,600 since March.

So far, no matter how hard the Assad regime tries to crush the demonstrations it does not seem to be working. There were reports of further large demonstrations in several Syrian cities late on Wednesday evening and Syrian activists told AFP news agency that 50,000 people demonstrated in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour, 20,000 in Duma, north of Damascus, and 40,000 in Homs.

What comes next? I wonder what the UN will do next? Where does the UN go from here? In this case, I suspect that not a lot will happen, especially as the European element of NATO appears to be bogged down in Libya. Not to mention that Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa won't go along with anything close to intervention in Syria.

39%

A new report by Harvard researchers outlines potential economic benefits of independence for Wales. The bottom line is that had Wales become an independent small nation within the EU in 1990 (around the same time that the Berlin Wall fell and eastern Europe emerged from under Communism) and performed on a par with other small nations, the people in Wales could today be an average of 39% richer and Wales’ GVA per capita would now be greater than that of the UK.

These were some of the key conclusions form a new report produced by Harvard researchers Adam Price and Ben Levinger and commissioned by Plaid Cymru president Jill Evans MEP, a member of the Green-EFA group in the European Parliament. The report - 'The Flotilla Effect - Europe's small economies through the eye of the storm' - looks at what has been achieved by small independent EU nations and what an independent Wales could achieve.

This publication contributes to Plaid’s ongoing work in the field of economic development and present some key findings on the potential economic benefits of being a small independent nation.

Amongst some of the key findings of the report are:

• Had Wales become an independent small nation within the EU in 1990, and performed on a par with other small nations, people in Wales could today be an average of 39% richer.
  
• Small is richer: being small doesn't hamper a country's prosperity - in fact some of Europe's smallest countries are amongst its most prosperous, by various measures;
  
• There is a 'small country bonus' amongst the EU's member states, with smaller countries growing at a more rapid pace;
  
• In Western Europe, 50% of the differences in growth between the nations over the last 30 years can be explained by the differences in country size;
  
• Smaller countries are frequently the fastest to recover from recession;
  
• Four key factors make small nations economically successful - openness to trade, social cohesion, adaptability, 'the macro-politics of micro scale' - big government in a small country.

Launching the report, Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans MEP said:

"Plaid has a vision for a wealthier, more prosperous Wales. This exciting report reinforces Plaid’s ongoing work in the field of economic development. Plaid’s work in government has already show that the party can take bold steps to ensure that our nation has the right economic conditions to succeed in the coming years. This work will continue as we make the case for greater economic responsibility for our nation in order make our people richer.

"The increasing progress towards independence of many small nations in the European Union, such as Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland, has put this issue firmly on the political agenda. The debate on Scottish independence, in particular, has huge implications for Wales. So it is essential that we have a real debate on how we build a successful and sustainable economy. I commissioned this work as a factual contribution to that debate.

"The report shows quite clearly that the size of a state is no barrier to economic success and sets out the potential of an independent Wales. It provides further evidence that we have nothing to fear from independence. Rather than being a hindrance to success, independence can be its catalyst."

Author of the report, research fellow at the Center for International Development at Harvard, Adam Price added:

"We've looked in detail at what has been achieved by small independent EU nations, and what an independent Wales could achieve and the results are far-reaching.

"People in Wales could be around 39% richer, and the Welsh economy could have grown by 2.5% a year had Wales achieved independence around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and followed a similar patter to other similar small nations. In contrast, regions or countries which have rejected independence have performed poorly.

"This report shows quite clearly that size is no barrier to economic success, and in fact, that a small nations like Wales could benefit greatly from independence as many other small nations have done over the past decades.

“We discovered that there is a considerable 'small country bonus' amongst many of the countries we studies, with smaller countries growing at a more rapid pace and recovering quicker from recession.

"Opponents of independence and further devolution have often misused the current economic problems to suggest that small countries would struggle for survival in tough economic times. Many conclusions of this report blow these assumptions out of the water.

“Far from hampering a country's prosperity –being small can actually lead to greater economic success and greater prosperity. When it comes to charting the best economic course, small countries are the most adept and that is reflected in their wealth and well being. "

Makes you think doesn't it...