UNDER ATTACK?

It was Peter the Pain (Hain) wittering on, on Radio 4's ‘Question Time’ from Chepstow the other week, that started me train of thought, he was having a go at the Lib Dems for not defending Wales. Naturally the panel contained no Plaid representatives but there would be Plaid representative the following week on the edition from Stroud. This sort of thing is now a simple irritant, perhaps you get used to this sort of sort of institutionalised not quite bipartisan behaviour from the BBC after a while.

I digress; it was the Pete the Pain’s behaviour that convinced me that this was the latest party attack / defence line from Labour Party HQ. Already the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, had claimed that the Conservatives by criticising the NHS and the education system in Wales were actually attacking Wales and Welsh values. While this is a less than subtle response to David Cameron's attacks on Labour in Wales it is potentially quite effective.

The basic principle of distraction is the substitution of a headline grabbing untruth, as with most blatant untruths it's simple and the more times it is repeated the more believable it will become.  What's actually occurred was in the run up to the recent Welsh Conservative Conference, DC was trying to score some political points at the expense of the Labour party in Wales (and Westminster).

Labour in Wales's less than subtle response to this was to suggest that the Labour Party in Wales is standing up for Wales and that it is the natural choice for Welsh voters. The problem is that this approach falls short of reality. Even the most disinterested observer may have noted that the Labour party in Wales (and Westminster) are split (if not downright dysfunctional) over their attitudes to devolution and to Wales.

Reasonably regularly Labour in Westminster's MP's who represent (electorally at least) geographically Welsh seats have put their own personal and Labour party self interest ahead of the Welsh national interest and the needs of the Welsh people. Part of the reason for this is that the transfer of more powers to the National Assembly will mean the call to reduce the number of Welsh MP's in Westminster will grow. The English electorate (and English MP's) will question the validity of Welsh over representation in Westminster and their influence on English only legislative matters.

One pretty predictable result would be fewer jobs for the boys - sorry fewer opportunities for Labour elected representatives to become geographically Welsh MPs. This is only a matter of time; the Con Dems have already looked at this once before dropping it as the coalition partners fell out of the democratically disastrous referendum on electoral reform. No doubt this lead too much relief on the part of our largely sitting Labour MP's in Westminster as this particular boundary commission bullet was dodged. This issue, is not however, going to go away...

NO SURPRISE THERE THEN...

The debate surrounding the debate around the Wales Bill (and the important related issue of fair funding for Wales) which took at Westminster has flushed out some blatant contradictions within the party formerly known as New Labour both in Wales and in Westminster. So rather than bringing clarity to the Labour position on devolution in relation to further financial powers and fair funding for Wales we have ended up with an increasingly bizarre series of contradictions.

Differences of opinions (which have existed for some time) have now fully emerged between Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith MP (an individual with diverse and contradictory opinions on the tax lockstep as he is both for it and against it) in relation to devolution and how it should or should not develop. Whatever Labour in Wales and Westminster is or is not saying about devolution in Wales, they are saying something different in relation to Scotland.

People may well ask just exactly who speaks for Labour on devolution and just exactly who speaks for Wales. Some of this, I think, can be put can be down to simple ineptitude and some of it can be put down to  barely disguised self-interest on the part of Labour in Westminster MP’s. I suggest this as some of these peoples comfortable jobs will be on the line if Wales gains more powers and the number of Welsh MP’s are understandably reduced.

Most of the responsibility for this  confused and inherently contradictory Labour vision for Wales is down to the fact that Labour in Wales remains deeply split over devolution. The problem is that this shambolic situation does not help the people of Wales very much who are struggling with the effects of the Con Dem Government’s ill-thought out austerity programme. It also further strains the paper thin credibility of Labour in Wales's claim to be standing up for Wales.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

The news that the Labour in Wales Government (in Cardiff) made no representations to Westminster opposing the privatisation of Royal Mail will surprise any observers our inert government in the Bay. A Freedom of Information disclosure to Plaid has revealed that the Labour Government in Cardiff did not participate in the campaign to oppose the sell-off.

Our Post Office: Sold on the cheap?

A letter received by Plaid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in Whitehall states: “I can confirm that the Department has not received representations from the Welsh Government about the privatisation of Royal Mail.” While Plaid Cymru actively sort to develop a Welsh way forward to keep postal services in public hands, but Labour in the Bay could not be bothered to send a single email or a letter on this important issue.

On yet another issue of importance to the Welsh people Labour have simply sat on their hands while public opinion rallied to support of public ownership and to support of the postal workers.  Whether we are talking about chasing extra funding for our country as a result of the proposed HS2 development, belated support for our farmers, the lack of interest in value for money in relation to public transport investment, or missed opportunities for additional EU funding for Wales.  A recognisable if not well established pattern has emerged, with the Labour in Wales Government talking the talk, but actually doing nothing practical to back up the rhetoric.

This week, the American bank JP Morgan valued Royal Mail at between £7.75 billion pounds and £9.95 billion pounds, the top figure being three times the flotation figure of £3.3 billion pounds. Citibank suggested an upper valuation figure of £7.3 billion pounds and Deutsche Bank argued that Royal Mail could be worth something between £6.4 billion pounds and £6.9 billion pounds.

The Coalition Westminster Government floated the company on a share price of 330 pence. In barely a week, shares had broken the 500p mark – an increase of more than 50% – valuing the company at £1.7bn higher than the original Government estimate and losing the taxpayer £900m. This, if nothing else suggests that the Con Dem Coalition Government in Westminster sold of the Post Office on the cheap.

BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR...

So there we have it, Carwyn Jones has said that it is unfair for Welsh people to be charged to enter their own country and that the tolls on the Severn bridges would be reduced if the Welsh government takes control of them. To be honest I would have been surprised if he had said anything different. Naturally the Con Dems want to retain control, as does the Department for Transport, aside from denying the Senedd the tools to do the job, rather than snubbing the people of Wales this probably has more to do with controlling a handy revenue stream.

I question the Labour in Wales Government’s sincerity when it comes to calling for control of the Severn Bridges (and the tolls) to be transferred to Wales. I suspect that they are trying to make as much political capital as possible with their calls to the Con Dem Government in Westminster transfer the Severn Bridges to Wales; it’s easy to do this when you know that the Con Dems won’t do it. It’s a good if cynical example of a pretty inert government creating the convenient  illusion that it is ‘standing up for Wales’.

Were the Con Dem Government, as part of the implementation of the Silk Commission recommendations, to offer as part of the package the transfer of the Severn Bridges (and control of the tolls) aside from shock I would not be surprised if Labour in Wales rejected the powers offered. Such an eventuality would in my opinion be as a result of the near nuclear explosion from Labour in Westminster Welsh MPs, numerous fevered telephone conversations down the M4 from Westminster and the Labour in Wales’s not so underlying lack of belief in the devolution for Wales.

At present it costs £6.20 to take a car over the M4 and M48 bridges from England to Wales, while driving into England is free. The bridge toll for vans and minibuses is £12.40 and for lorries and coaches is £18.60. A Welsh Government report last year suggested that abolishing the tolls could increase traffic by an estimated 12% - equivalent to about 11,000 vehicles a day.  The report also revealed that businesses and commuters spend £80 million pounds a year crossing the bridges.

At the moment the M4 and M48 Severn bridges are run by a private company (Severn Crossings Plc) carrying around 80,000 vehicles a day. The concession will finally come to an end and the bridges return to the UK government when takings from the tolls reach £996 million pounds (1989 prices) at some point in 2018. While the Labour in Wales’s government in Cardiff has expressed a desire to take control when they return to public ownership in about 2018, the Con Dem Westminster government has shown no inclination to make a decision about the bridges' future management one way of another.

If the Con Dems offer nothing of value then Carwyn will have to wait for a Labour Westminster government before he can get his hands on the Severn Bridges and the tolls. He may have a long wait for both a Labour Government in Westminster and any commitment from Labour in Westminster to transfer control of the Severn Bridges to the Senedd.  When the last Labour Government was in office before the financial crash there was scant commitment to transfer any powers or assets to Wales, so why should things change after the next Westminster general election.

Not a subsidised toll bridge near us...

When in office the Labour Westminster Government quietly subsidised the Humber Bridge tolls, but, made no move towards doing anything about dealing with the tax on jobs and the tax on commuters that pass themselves off as the Severn bridge tolls. The Humber Bridge subsidy has been continued by the Con Dem Coalition Government, who also shows no inclination to transfer control of the Severn Bridges to Wales or offer to help Welsh commuters and businesses out with a simular subsidy.

The Conservatives in the Senedd have also proposed transferring the bridges to Wales, cutting the bridge tolls and using the proceeds to spend on infrastructure – which puts them out of step with their government in Westminster. So we have elected representatives from the same party in opposition to each other over an issue of importance to the Welsh people and our economy. Nothing new here, Labour in Wales was often at loggerheads with Labour in Westminster, putting party (and self) interest before the interests of Wales.

Now when it comes to transferring the Severn Bridges (and their income) to Wales, this is also not a new idea. Back in October 2010 Professor Peter Midmore produced an independent economic study of the Severn Bridge tolls which recommended that the revenues should stay in Wales, once the crossings revert to public hands. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee back in December 2010 recommended that the bridge tolls be cut once the concession ends.

Plaid has long called for control, or shared control, over the bridge to be devolved to the Welsh government and for negotiations to start immediately to ensure that the transfer is in place by 2018. The Party, committed to reducing the tolls on the Severn Bridges to under £2 per car, recognises that the high cost of the tolls impacts on commuters and businesses (especially freight and logistics) and on people visiting Wales. The bridges are of such importance that it is only fair that control, or at least shared control, over them is in the hands of the Welsh people.

DOING THE NUMBERS

The Labour in Wales Government’s reaction to the report of the Silk Commission, which recommended limited tax varying powers be devolved to Wales, is somewhat subtle, if not unexpected. Carwyn Jones, First Minister, has said that there should be no question of the raising (or perhaps using) the power to vary tax rates being devolved until the unfair funding formula which ‘robs’ Wales of some £350 million pounds a year is reformed.

Oddly enough when in government from 1997 until 2010 the Labour Party (whether in Wales or Westminster) consistently refused to accept that Wales was underfunded and that there was any problem with the Barnet funding formula. Now in opposition and (despite the surface gloss) fairly hostile to the idea of devolving further powers to Wales (if not to the concept of Wales itself) things have somewhat unsubtly changed.

Sleeping soundly for Wales, because of the financial disaster left by the last Labour in Westminster Government, Carwyn can safely call for fair funding, in the knowledge that he won’t get it.  Loudly calling for something he knows Wales won’t get he can safely ignore the recommendations of the Silk Commission and focus our attentions on the fair funding issue. All well and good, save for the fact that Labour in Wales (and London) did precisely nothing to fix the problem of fair funding in Wales when they had both the power and the opportunity.

The Commission has recommended that control a number of smaller taxes be devolved to Wales including air passenger duty on long haul flights (a reduction of which could benefit Cardiff-Wales airport); stamp duty, the aggregates levy, landfill tax, and the full devolution of business rates, etc. I have no problem with any of that at all, or the devolution of the power to vary income tax by up to ten pence in the pound.

The failure to consider the devolution of corporation tax (unless it is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland) is in my opinion a missed opportunity. I welcome the proposed if limited devolution of borrowing powers for capital projects, current spending and tax revenue variation. The proposal to create a Welsh Treasury function for better financial accountability should also be welcomed if a little belated.

As for the referendum, Wales only got one last time because Labour in Wales had to pay that price to be in government. I have no doubt that whatever the Labour in Wales National Assembly manifesto includes for 2016 it won’t include any reference to the Silk Commission’s findings or another referendum. Labour has been consistently ambivalent on further powers and remains (however well camouflaged) decidedly ambivalent on the issue of devolution project.

The Commissioners, who have hitched the whole financial package to a further referendum, may have potentially brought the whole devolutionary process to a grinding halt. Any referendum cannot be held until it gets the support of a Welsh Government, two thirds of elected AM’s and the support of the Secretary of State – who may well be a Labour Party selectee by 2016

By 2016 the political landscape in Westminster may have changed - we could be a good year into another Labour in Westminster government who would by fairly indifferent to making parliamentary time for Wales related issues in their first year of office. By way of comparison, Peter Hain’s delaying tactics prior to the last referendum on legislative powers might pale into insignificance when compared to what the self-interested Labour in Wales parliamentary representatives might accomplish.

Yet perhaps if Labour in Wales found itself faced with the prospects of no majority (and no trimmings) in Cardiff Bay after May 2016 it would either be forced to choose between forming a minority government or going into coalition with Plaid of the Lib Dems (if there are any left by then). Post 2016 the political situation in the bay could be much more complicated with Conservative AM’s and a smattering of UKIP AM’s. So any chance of a rainbow coalition and a referendum will be entirely dependent (no pressure) on Plaid’s performance, with a new Leader and the desire to stand up for Wales – so there is everything to play for over the next three years.

THANKS FOR NOTHING...

A report (produced by Arup - engineering consultants) on behalf of the Welsh Government has suggested that ditching the bridge tolls on the Severn Crossings could boost the economy of south Wales by £107 million. The report suggests that the removal of the tools could boost traffic flow by around an extra 11,000 vehicles driving over the two bridges every day. The Arup report says that businesses and consumers pay out around £ 80 million pounds a year to cross the Severn bridges.

The report looked at what would happen if the tolls were halved, increased by 50% or scrapped entirely. The total revenue brought in 2009 was £77.4 million pounds. A reduction in revenue if the toll was cut by around half (46%) could be around £36 million pounds a year (based on 2009 prices). An increase in the toll by around half (41%) would bring in an extra revenue of around another £36 million pounds per year. Either way any projected change in revenue (on paper) comes in is less than proportional to the change in toll because of either higher or lower traffic flows.

The tolls have been used to pay for their construction of the new bridge, and the maintenance and operation of both the old and the new bridge(s) via a concession agreement with Severn Crossings Plc.

The concession agreement currently in place ends at the point that the operator has raked in around £996 million pounds at 1989 prices (so we are talking about probably well over a cool £100 million pounds by 2018). The tolls are due to end in 2018 when the bridges will revert back to the UK Government.

Back in October (29012) the UK transport minister Stephen Hammond revealed that the government has substantial debts on the bridges which would to be repaid so the tolls would not cease to be collected.  Currently both the Severn Bridges are run by a private company, the concession agreement is due to run its course in 2018, at which point the bridges will return to government ownership. It had been suggested that once that concession agreement ran out, the bridge tolls might have dropped to around £1.50.

This, however, now appears not to be the case, the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee, was told that there would be no drop bridge tolls when the concession ends. Even though the bridges would come back into public ownership there were apparently "substantial government debts that needs to be repaid" from building and maintaining the river crossings amounting to around several hundred million pounds.

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee was told that the government has a deficit of at least £112 million left on the bridges covering items such as maintenance costs and the costs of "professional advice". The Department for Transport has stated that once the concessions ends the government will need to repay its own debts resulting from the building and maintenance of the bridges, and so tolls will continue after 2018.

Meanwhile the Labour in Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones has stated that control of the bridges should be transferred from the UK government to the Welsh government in 2018, he has so far refused to state say what a Welsh Government would do to the tolls. The Severn Crossings which are the main way in and out of South Wales carry an average daily traffic of about 80,000 vehicles. Bridge Tolls have been in place ever since the first Severn Bridge was constructed.

So there appears to be little chance that hard pressed commuters will see and end in sight to the tolls, whether they remain under the control of the Department of Transport (in London) or the Welsh Government (in Cardiff) – no doubt both potential inheritors of the tolls don’t want this cash cow to be put out to pasture.  So whether it looks like it will be one of our governments continuing to fleece us  and continue to the ramp up fat profits at our expense for the foreseeable future (after 2018). Thanks for nothing...

TAKING THE LONG VIEW?

When it comes to economic development (sustainable or otherwise) I am no longer sure that the Westminster system of Government is capable of taking, let alone sticking to any long term decisions, they take. I have my doubts about the current development model being considered by the Labour in Wales Government (‘pushed’ is far too dynamic a word to be associated with this inert government) in Cardiff Bay. Despite the rhetoric and the speech making I suspect that we have reached that point where there are no new ideas, merely recycled old ones.

With the government in Cardiff bay effectively passing itself off as the old Welsh Office in drag, I would not be surprised if we see a new ‘Welsh Development Agency’ launched in the relatively near future. Following old flawed models of economic development planning for Wales (‘one egg, one basket’) just won’t wash anymore, and neither will simply waiting for a Labour victory in Westminster which might (from a Labour in Wales perspective) start the largesse flowing down the M4 again.

When it comes to economic development and regeneration providing the best conditions to enable our communities to grow and flourish, a sound planning policy is a key component. We should favour local small to medium sized enterprises and need to have much better thought out and far more consistent planning policies for in, out and edge of town retail developments, before our communities are damaged beyond repair.

One, but, not the only, potentially key area for economic activity is that of our town centres. Over the years regeneration scheme has followed regeneration scheme yet with a few exceptions we have failed to find a way of creating the right conditions for sustainable prosperity in most but not all of our towns. Regeneration has become one of those words that has no real meaning anymore. It is often perceived (and sometimes it is) as being driven from the top down i.e. by elected bodies as a process that merely consults after the plans have been drawn up rather than before, during and after - any process run this way runs the risk of becoming deeply flawed.

Our communities, towns and cities have over the years has been the recipient of much grant aid, development and redevelopment schemes and initiatives - how can we measure success? This is something that should be a key factor in the regeneration process. This is the question that needs to be asked - after the cement and the paint has dried, after the regeneration professionals have moved on (having vacuumed up significant funds to distant bank accounts) have the various schemes made a difference?

I suspect that ‘regeneration’ is now an industry in itself and a pretty well paid one at that. Beyond any immediate physical improvements to the locality and the local environment, do many of the regeneration schemes make a real difference when it comes to wealth generation in the area affected by the regeneration scheme? If the end result is in reality a makeover, and the targeted community is no better off, save for being bereft of the 'regeneration funds' that have been effectively siphoned off by professional regeneration companies - is this success?

We need to think beyond the tick box list of the regeneration schemes managers? One key component that is often ignored or marginalised is the community’s greatest resource – is ironically its people. So rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals moving in and engaging in a token consultation process they should directly talk to local people and find out what they would like to be done, what they actually want for their community and their town.

Regeneration schemes and projects should be bottom up rather than the top down. The bottom line should be when spending public money, work it extra hard and squeeze out every single possible benefit and maximise the impact locally of the regeneration process and build local benefits into the tendering process - whether by employing local people, using local resources, local skills and local input.

If you are reusing or renovating old buildings then any regeneration scheme needs to ensure that old buildings can make a living after the regeneration scheme is finished. If we do this rather than merely making a token gesture towards public consultation then any regeneration schemes will, with hard work really begin to deliver tangible benefits to our communities. As had been said elsewhere, regeneration should be a process rather than an event.

Over the last thirty years, we have all seen the commercial hearts of many of our communities have been seriously damaged as a result of a combination of aggressive policies pursued by the larger retail chains and exceptionally poor decision making on the part of local government and central government indifference. The result of the abject failure or indifference of local and central government when it comes to developing realistic local economic plans leads to a failure to create a level playing field for local businesses and suppliers. This when combined with some very questionable planning decisions over the last thirty years, has directly lead to many of our town centre's being "regenerated" to death.

The rise in the number of shops owned by larger retail chains damages the local economy, drains profit out of the area to remote corporate headquarters and reduces local job opportunities. Ten pound spent in a local business circulates in the local economy three times longer than if it is spent in a non local business. A real side effect of this is a real loss of a sense of community, a loss of local character as our high streets has lead to our high streets losing lost their distinctive local shops which have been replaced by “micro-format” supermarket or chain store branches and any real loss of choice for the customers.

Now the National Assembly Government is now looking to simplify the planningprocess to held railroad through large developments potentially overturning logical planning decisions and local opposition. Yes, the planning system needs overhauling, but, not at the expense of fundamentally damaging democratic control of the planning process – already weakened by years of National Assembly / Welsh Office indifference to local needs. Any plans to speed up the planning process should not at the cost of creating unsustainable developments that further damage the regional economy, our high streets and our communities.

Oddly enough, poor regulation, stupidity and greed and a desire by Government’s (of all political hues) to look the other way as long as things appeared (on the surface at least) to be working all contributed to drop us all in it economically. Now here in Wales, our local authorities, certainly not the best guardian of the public interest and our environment have been bluntly told, by the Welsh Government, that they should recognise that ‘there will be occasions when the economic benefits will outweigh social and environmental considerations’. 

It is one thing to have ‘a Government of Spivs, by Spivs and for Spivs’ in Westminster, quite another to have a government of the inert and the inept in Cardiff Bay allegedly standing up for Wales.  Sadly neither government appear to have any real interest in sorting out our economic problems.  The rules and regulations are now blamed for the lack of economic growth rather than it being a combination of the banking crash, the bankers recklessness and years of stupidly allowing the so called ‘free market’ to drive economic policy and economic planning. 

A CONSEQUENCE OF CHANGE...

News that the next Welsh assembly election could be fought with different constituencies with a slight change to the current voting system won't excite many people - save for the elected representatives of the Labour Party in Wales that is and some political anoraks. A Wales Office consultation includes a proposal to reduce the number of constituency assembly members from 40 to 30, and to extend the numbers elected on the regional list from 20 up to 30. Providing the fair votes element remains unchanged, being a democrat I have little or no problem with this, but, naturally the Labour Party does.

The Labour in Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones naturally kicked off saying: "There is no mandate for this. The electoral system for the assembly is a matter for the people of Wales and no one else. "The Prime Minister has assured me that there would be no change to future electoral arrangements without the agreement of the Assembly."
 Now the irony is that increasing the proportional element (via list seats) would make the system more democratic and peoples votes would actually count far more. Labour in Wales has a long history of putting self-interest and party-interest before the interests and needs of the Welsh people. In November 2011, they proposed 'a reform' of the electoral system that would give them around 70% of the seats in the National Assembly with barely 42% of the vote.

At the time an Electoral Reform Society report shone a little light on Labour in Wales's dubious proposal to tweak the electoral system to their benefit. Labour in Wales has long looked for an opportunity to make a change to an electoral system that mostly fails to guarantee itself a permanent majority. Having failed to get away with it, they now, as a consequence of the Con Dem Westminster government's plans to cut the number of MPs from 40 to 30, they face being put in a situation where they actually have to go out and actively campaign for votes.

Labour in Wales publicly opposes reducing the number of assembly constituencies to match the boundaries of new parliamentary seats. The ERS report suggested that Labour could win "disproportionately" more seats if all Welsh Assembly members were elected via the first-past-the-post system. Scrapping the semi-proportional elections would have denied thousands of voters a voice. Naturally Labour in Wales accused the ERS of "misrepresenting" its position - actually they exposed the dubious truth of their position.

At the moment, 40 constituency AMs are elected via first-past-the-post contests and the remaining 20 are elected from regional lists based upon the percentage of votes cast. Labour in Wales (after the National Assembly elections in May 2011) was left with a bare majority in the National Assembly, holding 30 seats.
Now reducing the number of contituency seats to 30 and having the remainder elected on the list would balance things out and make our electoral system far more democratic - obviously Labour in Wales would not want that...would they?

ONE STEP BEYOND...

News that the Chancellor, George Osborne has promised to look at the cost of the Severn Bridge tolls, after halving Humber Bridge fees in his Autumn Statement last week is interesting news. There may be a deal on the Severn crossings as the Chancellor is willing if not keen to talk to the Welsh government. From January 1st Tolls for cars on the Severn bridges are due to rise to £6, while vans and small buses will have to pay £12.10 (a 60p increase) and heavy goods vehicles and coaches will pay £18.10 (an increase of 90p).

The tolls on the Humber Bridge between East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire are paid in each direction and are currently set at £3 for cars and up to £20.30 for an articulated lorry. The chancellor announced that he was writing down the outstanding debt on the Humber crossing by £150m which would allow tolls to be cut in half. This decision was included in the UK Treasury's National Infrastructure Plan; which also included a pledge to work with the Welsh government to improve the M4 in south east Wales - which if nothing else shows how bereft of ideas concerning Wales the Con Dems are.

The UK government is apparently "holding open the opportunity of a discussion" on the Severn crossing tolls. The Welsh Government First Minister, Carwyn Jones has pointed out that the Treasury has failed to match the cuts given to the Humber Bridge Board. A Welsh government spokesperson stressed it was for UK ministers to take action as “the Severn crossings are owned by the UK government. The Welsh government does not set the tolls, nor do we benefit from the toll income."

Very true, but a little inconsistent, as while there was consistent and persistent bleating from duly elected Westminster Labour sheep between 1997 and 2010 along the lines of there is nothing we can do to reduce or stabilise the tolls! It turned that this is or was not quite true as the last New Labour Government intervened in October 2009 in relation to the Humber Bridge. Perhaps New Labour’s representatives in Wales hoped that no one would?

The (then) New Labour Minister of Transport Sadiq Khan, announced a grant of £6m to the Humber Bridge company, saying that, “the Government was committed to doing everything it can to protect communities and businesses from economic downturn and help the country to recover. That is why I decided not to accept the Humber Bridge board’s proposed toll increases”. New Labour, then fully in control at Westminster and in coalition Government in Wales did precisely nothing to try to reduce the impact of the Severn bridge tolls between 1997 and 2010, which somewhat ironically may not be the case when it comes to the Con Dems.

FOR WALES SEE...

At the moment Scottish and UK government ministers are busy discussing proposed new financial powers for Scotland. Treasury Minister David Gauke and Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney have been taking part in the first meeting of the joint exchequer committee.

The Committee will look at the financial implications of the Scotland Bill, which is currently going through the Westminster parliament. The SNP have understandably said that answers are still needed over the planned tax changes.

The Scotland Bill will devolve £12 billion pounds of new tax and borrowing powers under plans which will see Scotland control a third of its budget. At the heart of this important piece of legislation is a recommendation that Scotland should take charge of half the standard income tax rate - 10p (with a corresponding cut in the block grant Scotland gets from the Treasury).

UK Con Dem ministers have said that the powers within the bill mean Scotland, with its annual £30bn budget, will have more accountability for the money it spends. The Scottish government, however, wants to cut the headline rate of corporation tax, paid through company profits, from 23% to 20% would create an extra 27,000 jobs over 20 years. UK ministers have said that any case to devolve corporation tax to Scotland would need to be strong. So the debate goes on...

Meanwhile in Wales...Carwyn‘s formerly New Labour lot have asked for nothing. Now if its offered, whatever it is (Corporation Tax variation, a better fairer financial settlement, control of criminal justice, etc) then they will take it, especially if it's offered to Northern Ireland and Scotland, but they won't ask for it?

Now I don’t believe for a moment that this stance is down to pride, its merely a lack of any real belief in the devolution project in Wales or any belief in Wales for that matter save for political expediency. They (Labour) may actually believe or at least pay lip service to the idea that Labour in power in Westminster will actually deliver for Wales.

Yet oddly enough they didn't manage to deliver when in power last time (between 1997 and 2010) nor have they previously so why should they in the future? So much for standing up for Wales...perhaps not?

THE URGENT QUESTION?

Lindsay Whittle AM

Plaid Cymru AM for the South East, Lindsay Whittle, has described the loss of 150 jobs at the Identity and Passport service offices in Newport as a bitter blow for the city. Speaking after he raised an Urgent Question in the Senedd, Mr Whittle challenged the First Minister on what action he is taking to mitigate the effects of the job losses on the people of Newport.

Plaid Cymru’s Lindsay Whittle AM said:

“Such large numbers of jobs lost are a bitter blow for Newport and the surrounding areas. While the Tories and Lib Dems seem to think we should be grateful that more people haven't lost their jobs, the new Labour Welsh government must now act to help those people who will be out of work and to help Newport. The new Labour Welsh government should be proactive as the Scottish and Northern Irish governments are being in order to secure new funding from the UK government in order to invest in our communities. It appears that the new Labour Welsh government is last to the table here and the people of Wales have a right to ask why.”

ITMA

He's at it again - that David ("Call me Dave") Cameron, the Con Dem Prime Minister (at Westminster) currently running the risk of becoming the new ITMA ('It's That Man Again') with his repeated talk of dread and dire public sector cuts. He has only  managed to go and stir things up so much with his mantra of public sector spending cuts that he has united the Political Leaders of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in opposition to his proposed cuts. With Alex Salmond, Carwyn Jones and Peter Robinson who all want the proposed cuts phased in over a longer period, they all signed the following declaration of opposition.

Basically the leaders of the three devolved administrations have said the coalition's cuts are "too fast and too deep" and may put the economic recovery at risk. They said "The devolved administrations believe that the proposed approach to public spending reductions by the UK government runs the risk of delivering significant economic and social harm and urge the UK government to reconsider its proposals."

This is quite an achievement for PM Cameron, I wonder what he will do next?

A BUSY SATURDAY MORNING...IN RED SQUARE

An interesting and educational morning in a warm and sunny 'Red Square' in Abergavenny, with a street stall, with Plaid activists, a steady stream of potential voters and at a slight distance some of New Labour's finest (some more on that later). Street stalls can be good fun (in Abergavenny and elsewhere) giving you a good opportunity (as a candidate) to get face time (which in truth is the only thing that matters) with potential voters.

So there we were doing the business with potential voters and up walks Carwyn Jones obviously looking for New Labour activists. there was the briefest of pauses, a slight wry smile and a minute moment of bewilderment as he clocked that the busy activists were actually Plaid, rather than New Labour, who were clustered up the hill, looking daggers, and then off he went.

Anyway, back to the main business, Abergaveny is a lovely old market town, for those who don't know it and people come from miles to visit it, so you bump into voters from all over Wales and from across the border - so you keep meeting people from different constituencies - a number of whom were pretty pleased to see us on the street - and a number of whom made a particular point of taking on of our leaflets and / or confirmed that they would be voting Plaid (either in their home constituency or within Monmouth constituency).

Five minutes later up walks Huw Edwards, the New Labour former MP for Monmouth, a rapid 'hail fellows and well met' followed and off up the hill he trundled to join the New Labour candidate, Carwyn and a cluster of New Labour activists. A pleasant, interesting and busy morning followed, made more pleasant by the staggered departure of New Labour, leaving us with the street to ourselves and the voters.