Communist Authorities in the Peoples Republic of China are continuing a big security operation to try to end a wave of unrest caused by Tibetan campaigners. In the past year, at least 19 people have publicly set themselves on fire, five in the past week alone, in a campaign that calls for more freedom for Tibetans.
China has occupied Tibet for more than sixty years. The BBC Reporter, Damian Grammaticas has been to Sichuan province bordering Tibet where most of the unrest has been happening.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Thursday, 9 February 2012
THE HUMAN COST OF A UN VETO
The people of Homs (and the rest of Syria) continue to pay the price for the Peoples Republic of China and Russia giving the green light to Syria's rulers to slaughter its opponents. Russia and China have now twice vetoed UN action on Syria. President Assad and his government used the veto as an effective licence to kill those Syrian people who oppose them. Human rights groups and activists say more than 7,000 people have been killed by Syrian security forces since the uprising began last March.
The UN actually stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm the figures. Syrian Government forces have been battering the rebel stronghold of Homs since last week. It has been estimated at least 95 people died in the city last Monday alone. The Syrian government has publicly vowed to pursue the offensive until "order" is restored and state television has denied that there had been any bombardment.
Russia may persist in maintaining its relationship with the Syrian dictatorship; sue to a combination of arms sales, strategic desire for a warm water port and a lingering resentment in the corridors of the Kremlin to having lost the Cold War. It has been estimated that some 10% of Russia's global arms sales go to Syria, with current contracts being possibly worth as much as $1.5 billion (£950 million). Aside from ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons. The icing on the cake though is the fact that the Assad regime provides the Russian navy with a navy base at the port of Tartus (which is Russia's last base outside of the former Soviet Union).
It's entirely natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. The PRC’s behaviour towards ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and Xinxiang / East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, stability at any price may be a key factor here as well as potential arms sales.
Syria's slightly more fair weather friends Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India, abstained on previous UN resolutions have been pretty quiet of late (as has the old traditional ‘left’). Its a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or enjoying the trappings of power.
However, you spin this, its yet another pretty blatant diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signalling a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. Perhaps all of this signals the end of the new era of intrusive diplomacy brought about by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March, overwhelmed by Russia and China's self-interest.
It is entirely naive to think that that President Bashar al-Assad will go peacefully or any time soon. A brutal leader can kill as many of his people as he likes when there are no real consequences for him or his regime over the short time and stay in power. Assad's brutal murderous regime continues to rocket and shell its own citizens and to bring buildings crashing down on top of women and children in Homs.
The West and the Arab League invested a great deal of time and effort in putting together the UN Security Council resolution – which if not vetoed would have condemned the violence and called for a transition to democracy. Such a resolution would have sent a powerful signal not only to Assad but also to those around him that the world had taken note and a potential coalition forming against him. Although the wording of the resolution was weak, making no reference to sanctions or even the specific removal of Assad – both Russia and China quickly used their veto to kill it stone dead.
The UN actually stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm the figures. Syrian Government forces have been battering the rebel stronghold of Homs since last week. It has been estimated at least 95 people died in the city last Monday alone. The Syrian government has publicly vowed to pursue the offensive until "order" is restored and state television has denied that there had been any bombardment.
Russia may persist in maintaining its relationship with the Syrian dictatorship; sue to a combination of arms sales, strategic desire for a warm water port and a lingering resentment in the corridors of the Kremlin to having lost the Cold War. It has been estimated that some 10% of Russia's global arms sales go to Syria, with current contracts being possibly worth as much as $1.5 billion (£950 million). Aside from ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons. The icing on the cake though is the fact that the Assad regime provides the Russian navy with a navy base at the port of Tartus (which is Russia's last base outside of the former Soviet Union).
It's entirely natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. The PRC’s behaviour towards ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and Xinxiang / East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, stability at any price may be a key factor here as well as potential arms sales.
Syria's slightly more fair weather friends Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India, abstained on previous UN resolutions have been pretty quiet of late (as has the old traditional ‘left’). Its a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or enjoying the trappings of power.
However, you spin this, its yet another pretty blatant diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signalling a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. Perhaps all of this signals the end of the new era of intrusive diplomacy brought about by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March, overwhelmed by Russia and China's self-interest.
It is entirely naive to think that that President Bashar al-Assad will go peacefully or any time soon. A brutal leader can kill as many of his people as he likes when there are no real consequences for him or his regime over the short time and stay in power. Assad's brutal murderous regime continues to rocket and shell its own citizens and to bring buildings crashing down on top of women and children in Homs.
The West and the Arab League invested a great deal of time and effort in putting together the UN Security Council resolution – which if not vetoed would have condemned the violence and called for a transition to democracy. Such a resolution would have sent a powerful signal not only to Assad but also to those around him that the world had taken note and a potential coalition forming against him. Although the wording of the resolution was weak, making no reference to sanctions or even the specific removal of Assad – both Russia and China quickly used their veto to kill it stone dead.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
HAVING OUR SAY?
The South East Wales Transport Alliance (SEWTA) is canvassing our opinions on its report (from March 2011) that looks at improvements to rail provision along the Abergavenny to Newport line. The report includes proposals for a new railway station at Caerleon and improvements to existing stations at Abergavenny, Pontypool and New Inn and Cwmbran, has been pout out for public consultation.
The 'Abergavenny to Newport Rail Corridor Option Development and Appraisal' report lists three distinct proposals for rail development:
Interestingly enough a new Caerleon railway station is anticipated to add around 93,000 new rail journeys. The report estimates that there would be a increase in passenger numbers on the Abergavenny to Newport line of around thirty two percent when compared with whats happening at the moment.
SEWTA has asked members of the public to give their views of the plans. The consultation period closes on March 12th 2012.
Comments can be emailed to: sewtaconsultation@capita.co.uk or posted to:
Alison Walker
Ty Gwent
Lake View
Llantarnam Park
Cwmbran
NP44 3HR
The 'Abergavenny to Newport Rail Corridor Option Development and Appraisal' report lists three distinct proposals for rail development:
- The basic option includes improving the interchange and parking facilities at stations in Abergavenny and Cwmbran, providing a disabled access bridge at Cwmbran along with basic improvements at Pontypool and New Inn station.
- The middle option adds to the basic proposals by developing Pontypool and New Inn station, and improving parking and access to the A4042, and adding an infill service going from Abergavenny to Cardiff.
- The enhanced or full option include all of the above with an additional hourly service between Cardiff and Abergavenny and creating a new station at Caerleon.
Interestingly enough a new Caerleon railway station is anticipated to add around 93,000 new rail journeys. The report estimates that there would be a increase in passenger numbers on the Abergavenny to Newport line of around thirty two percent when compared with whats happening at the moment.
SEWTA has asked members of the public to give their views of the plans. The consultation period closes on March 12th 2012.
Comments can be emailed to: sewtaconsultation@capita.co.uk or posted to:
Alison Walker
Ty Gwent
Lake View
Llantarnam Park
Cwmbran
NP44 3HR
Monday, 6 February 2012
GETTING STUNG!
News that the last bank in Blaenavon is to close, despite a petition with over 1,000 signatures and a meeting between HSBC and local councillors is a real blow to the town. News that HSBC have stated that they will retain the cash point is a small crumb off comfort. At least for a while most members of the public in the town will be able to access the ATM without getting charged for it, the question is for how long will the ATM remain.
Many non bank associated ATMs carry charges for cash withdrawals - ATM charges hit all of us, especially some of the most vulnerable people in our communities - by charging people to withdraw their own money. A couple of years ago on a visit to relatives in London, half-wake I nearly got stung at a service station on the M4, narrowly avoiding being charge £2.50 for a £20 withdrawal but ever since have endeavoured to be wise to the practice.
The last New Labour government chose not to regulate ATM charges, and there will not doubt be little interest expressed in solving the problem by the current Con Dem Westminster government. Some of the amounts being charged to use these ATMs are scandalous, to make matters worse there has been a history of sharp increases in charges in recent years. Some are now charging as much as £2.50 for every withdrawal - for anybody withdrawing £10 that an extra 25%!
This is a cost that many users can ill afford. To make matters worse it would appear that more deprived wards with no free cash withdrawal options are being targeted by these companies, this is disgraceful and unscrupulous behaviour by these ATM companies. From a standard £1.99 charge, about 60p will go to the owner of the site where the cash point is, roughly 60p is taken by the firm that owns the machine and another 40p goes to Link.
What little is left over - about 39p in this case - pays towards installing and maintaining the cash point. Very often people living in these communities that have seen the loss of local branches of banks and do not have the luxury of being able to travel to withdraw cash. People's options have been further limited by the ongoing Post Office closure programme begun under the Conservatives and continued under the last New Labour government.
Many of our smaller communities, especially (but not just) in the Valley communities have lost their banks and their post offices, leaving people with little choice - so much for market forces. Even in those communities that are lucky enough to still have a post office, the days of withdrawing benefits and pensions directly and over the counter are long gone.
Since 1995 banks have closed 22% of their branch network, 15% of post office branches have been closed, 5% of building society branches have been closed. Machines which charge now account for over 40% of the 53,000 machines in the LINK network. In 2001 only 7,000 cash machines charged to get money out but by July 2009 that figure had rocketed to 25,000. It is high time that action is taken to protect our communities, it is wrong that unscrupulous companies should profit most from those who can afford it least.
Even some of the larger banks have their issues when it comes to charging people to make withdrawals. Back in October 2011 the House of Commons Treasury select committee wrote to the heads of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group expressing their concerns about the fact that two of Britain's largest banks had restrictions on basic account holders using commercial opponents cash machines. Basic accounts offer most of the services of a standard current account, but do not have overdraft facilities or chequebooks. Just for the record RBS is 83%-owned by the government, while Lloyds is 43% state-owned.
If I am being honest I expect little or no joy from the current Westminster government (their interests are a million miles away from Wales) and just like the previous then New Labour Government they have no interest or desire to take any action to regulate the proliferation of ATM charges. In Wales, it would be nice of the Minister for Social Justice and Local Government was to step up and work with local public service providers to provide free alternatives and to try to protect our communities from this unfair practice and unfair charges, but, I am not going to hold my breath.
Many non bank associated ATMs carry charges for cash withdrawals - ATM charges hit all of us, especially some of the most vulnerable people in our communities - by charging people to withdraw their own money. A couple of years ago on a visit to relatives in London, half-wake I nearly got stung at a service station on the M4, narrowly avoiding being charge £2.50 for a £20 withdrawal but ever since have endeavoured to be wise to the practice.
The last New Labour government chose not to regulate ATM charges, and there will not doubt be little interest expressed in solving the problem by the current Con Dem Westminster government. Some of the amounts being charged to use these ATMs are scandalous, to make matters worse there has been a history of sharp increases in charges in recent years. Some are now charging as much as £2.50 for every withdrawal - for anybody withdrawing £10 that an extra 25%!
This is a cost that many users can ill afford. To make matters worse it would appear that more deprived wards with no free cash withdrawal options are being targeted by these companies, this is disgraceful and unscrupulous behaviour by these ATM companies. From a standard £1.99 charge, about 60p will go to the owner of the site where the cash point is, roughly 60p is taken by the firm that owns the machine and another 40p goes to Link.
What little is left over - about 39p in this case - pays towards installing and maintaining the cash point. Very often people living in these communities that have seen the loss of local branches of banks and do not have the luxury of being able to travel to withdraw cash. People's options have been further limited by the ongoing Post Office closure programme begun under the Conservatives and continued under the last New Labour government.
Many of our smaller communities, especially (but not just) in the Valley communities have lost their banks and their post offices, leaving people with little choice - so much for market forces. Even in those communities that are lucky enough to still have a post office, the days of withdrawing benefits and pensions directly and over the counter are long gone.
Since 1995 banks have closed 22% of their branch network, 15% of post office branches have been closed, 5% of building society branches have been closed. Machines which charge now account for over 40% of the 53,000 machines in the LINK network. In 2001 only 7,000 cash machines charged to get money out but by July 2009 that figure had rocketed to 25,000. It is high time that action is taken to protect our communities, it is wrong that unscrupulous companies should profit most from those who can afford it least.
Even some of the larger banks have their issues when it comes to charging people to make withdrawals. Back in October 2011 the House of Commons Treasury select committee wrote to the heads of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group expressing their concerns about the fact that two of Britain's largest banks had restrictions on basic account holders using commercial opponents cash machines. Basic accounts offer most of the services of a standard current account, but do not have overdraft facilities or chequebooks. Just for the record RBS is 83%-owned by the government, while Lloyds is 43% state-owned.
If I am being honest I expect little or no joy from the current Westminster government (their interests are a million miles away from Wales) and just like the previous then New Labour Government they have no interest or desire to take any action to regulate the proliferation of ATM charges. In Wales, it would be nice of the Minister for Social Justice and Local Government was to step up and work with local public service providers to provide free alternatives and to try to protect our communities from this unfair practice and unfair charges, but, I am not going to hold my breath.
Friday, 3 February 2012
WHICH BIT OF NO DON'T THEY GET?
How many times must a community say ‘NO’ before its voice is heard? That may sound a strange question but when it comes to the planning and development process it appears to be the case that our local communities and sometimes the wishes of our local authorities are most often ignored, marginalised or overridden. The reason why I mention this is because locally a public inquiry began on Wednesday (1st February) into Torfaen County Councils rejection of plans for open-cast mining at Varteg, near Pontypool.
For those of unfamiliar with the case, Torfaen County Council had refused permission for 325,000 tonnes of coal to be extracted because of concerns over dust and noise pollution. The planning applicant in this case is the Glamorgan Power Company who appealed against the decision at the inquiry at County Hall, Cwmbran, which was chaired by Welsh Government appointed Officer.
The developer argues at that the proposal is the only way to achieve reclamation of the land. Some hundreds of local residents have opposed proposals (including teachers and parents from Ysgol Bryn Onnen, which is barely 120 metres away).
The proposed opencast development at, on and around the Varteg / the British has been around for a very long time. As a trainee journalist (on the old Pontypool Free Press) I covered some pretty fired up and passionate packed out meetings back in the very late 1980’s. Local people have been living with the threat of opencast and the promise of reclamation / redevelopment afterwards for over twenty years.
I can only hope that the Welsh Government Inspector listens to the expressed wishers of the local community and the County Council and then makes his decision accordingly. Open cast is and is likely to remain a controversial big issue that has blighted a number of our communities in the former mining valleys from one end of Wales to the other.
Three significant issues, that actually apply across the whole of Wales, have been raised, but have been largely overlooked. They are the linked issues of development / redevelopment, the planning process and community consent. One thing I have noticed over the years when it comes to controversial development proposals such as: large scale housing developments (the South Sebastopol plan, Llanwern and Carmarthen West housing development to name but three), the livestock market in Abergavenny, open cast mining, waste incinerators, etc that there is an apparent tendency for repeated applications by developers – regardless of any refusal – until they get the result they want.
Now there is nothing wrong with appealing against a planning decision because a decision to refuse has to be based on sound rather than emotive reasoning. In recent history there have been occasional refusals of planning permission by County Councils, who on far too many occasions have then been overruled by the old Welsh Office and more lately by the Welsh Government. Now part of this could be out down to what might be best described as a form of judicial indifference, or perhaps it’s a consequence of a combination of poor advice from civil servants to their ministers in Cardiff.
The planning process is being undermined, as our local authorities fear the cost implications of planning applications being taken to appeal. My sources tell me (locally) that we have reached the point where Councillors are regularly advised by their officers of the potential costs if this or that development proposal is refused and goes to appeal.
So basically don’t refuse the planning application. One result is that people have become cynical about local democracy and the planning process especially when people see land being bought up, infrastructure work being done and road junctions built to serve planned developments years before any public planning process ever begins.
The current system of rolling Unitary Development Plans and the regional development strategy no longer works, they don’t allow our local authorities to adequately serve or represent our local communities. Our current planning system fails to deliver real and lasting benefits to our communities and fundamentally fails to deal with the issue of over-development.
Our planning process is far too vulnerable to an often developer led assessment of market trends for easy build/easy sell for higher profit many of which bring our communities minimal benefit. We need a far more joined up all Wales development plan and need to develop Welsh Greenbelt which should serve all our communities over the medium and the longer term rather than the relative short term.
For those of unfamiliar with the case, Torfaen County Council had refused permission for 325,000 tonnes of coal to be extracted because of concerns over dust and noise pollution. The planning applicant in this case is the Glamorgan Power Company who appealed against the decision at the inquiry at County Hall, Cwmbran, which was chaired by Welsh Government appointed Officer.
The developer argues at that the proposal is the only way to achieve reclamation of the land. Some hundreds of local residents have opposed proposals (including teachers and parents from Ysgol Bryn Onnen, which is barely 120 metres away).
The proposed opencast development at, on and around the Varteg / the British has been around for a very long time. As a trainee journalist (on the old Pontypool Free Press) I covered some pretty fired up and passionate packed out meetings back in the very late 1980’s. Local people have been living with the threat of opencast and the promise of reclamation / redevelopment afterwards for over twenty years.
I can only hope that the Welsh Government Inspector listens to the expressed wishers of the local community and the County Council and then makes his decision accordingly. Open cast is and is likely to remain a controversial big issue that has blighted a number of our communities in the former mining valleys from one end of Wales to the other.
Three significant issues, that actually apply across the whole of Wales, have been raised, but have been largely overlooked. They are the linked issues of development / redevelopment, the planning process and community consent. One thing I have noticed over the years when it comes to controversial development proposals such as: large scale housing developments (the South Sebastopol plan, Llanwern and Carmarthen West housing development to name but three), the livestock market in Abergavenny, open cast mining, waste incinerators, etc that there is an apparent tendency for repeated applications by developers – regardless of any refusal – until they get the result they want.
Now there is nothing wrong with appealing against a planning decision because a decision to refuse has to be based on sound rather than emotive reasoning. In recent history there have been occasional refusals of planning permission by County Councils, who on far too many occasions have then been overruled by the old Welsh Office and more lately by the Welsh Government. Now part of this could be out down to what might be best described as a form of judicial indifference, or perhaps it’s a consequence of a combination of poor advice from civil servants to their ministers in Cardiff.
The planning process is being undermined, as our local authorities fear the cost implications of planning applications being taken to appeal. My sources tell me (locally) that we have reached the point where Councillors are regularly advised by their officers of the potential costs if this or that development proposal is refused and goes to appeal.
So basically don’t refuse the planning application. One result is that people have become cynical about local democracy and the planning process especially when people see land being bought up, infrastructure work being done and road junctions built to serve planned developments years before any public planning process ever begins.
The current system of rolling Unitary Development Plans and the regional development strategy no longer works, they don’t allow our local authorities to adequately serve or represent our local communities. Our current planning system fails to deliver real and lasting benefits to our communities and fundamentally fails to deal with the issue of over-development.
Our planning process is far too vulnerable to an often developer led assessment of market trends for easy build/easy sell for higher profit many of which bring our communities minimal benefit. We need a far more joined up all Wales development plan and need to develop Welsh Greenbelt which should serve all our communities over the medium and the longer term rather than the relative short term.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
SOMETHING WE WILL NEVER SEE...
 |
| President Obama |
The gist of his comments ran along the lines of everyone needed to pay their fair share of tax, otherwise the American dream was broken, and that hard work was no longer rewarded and that unnamed others should be required to play by the rules and do their bit too – and pay their fair share of taxation, the same as everyone else does.
That is about as close the an American President can get to having ago at tax evaders and even then he may get accused of playing the ‘class war' card. Tax or its apparent avoidance briefly became a big issue in the US Republican primaries as Newt Gingrich effectively forced Mitt Romney to publicise his tax returns, which revealed the fact that he made $20m (£13m) last year in unearned income.
Newt Gingrich's supporters then funded a series of adverts labelling Mr Romney a "vulture" and "corporate raider", and accusing him of making his millions by asset-stripping and firing workers. He openly mocked Mr Romney's bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
 |
| Prime Minister David Cameron |
So tax, tax evasion and tax avoidance in times of austerity may well be a big issue in the forthcoming US Presidential election amongst other things. After all we are all supposed to be in this together. David Cameron used to make much of saying we were all in it together, but, that no longer seems to be, nor ever was the case.
I mean, its awfully awkward, having gone out to bat in Europe for the square mile and conveniently forgetting the UK’s other 5,999 square miles. I think for most of us, despite the increasingly desperate Tory spin, it is now pretty clear where David Cameron stands (or squirms) in his position, it would make dinner with Lord Ashcroft awfully embarrassing.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
LABOUR TEAMS UP WITH THE TORIES
Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards yesterday (31.01.2012) repeated calls for energy powers to be transferred to the Welsh Government, which is currently run by elected representatives of Labour in Wales. Jonathan Edwards hoped to introduce a bill in Westminster which would give the Welsh Government powers over energy generation in Wales – this was something that was supported by both Labour and the Conservatives in their Welsh general election manifesto's last year, where they argued that there should be an increase from the present 50 MW limit.
Mr Edwards argued that the proposal would lead to equality with Scotland and Northern Ireland and that it would mean that we would be better placed to fight fuel poverty with responsibility for our own resources. This sounds fair and is entirely reasonable, but Mr Edwards motion was voted down by Labour MPs, who were more than happy to team up with Conservatives MPs to stop their own party in Wales taking these powers. The proposal was defeated by 239 votes to 44 after Labour and Conservative MPs teamed up together against the Bill.
After the vote, Jonathan Edwards, Plaid MP for Carmarthen East, said:
"It is extraordinary to see Labour MPs from Wales teaming up to vote with the Conservatives against a motion that would empower the Welsh Government which they run. Do they just not trust Carwyn Jones with these powers?
“My Bill was simply titled ‘Energy Generation Wales’ and, although our policy is for full transfer of powers to Wales, it would have been open for other MPs to amend and put forward their own suggestions.
“This was an opportunity for Labour to introduce proposals from the manifesto on which their Welsh Government were elected last year but their MPs in London seem strangely keen that Wales should not have these powers.
“When you see the Conservatives and Labour walking through the lobbies together in London then you know that they are doing something which is good for Westminster, not for Wales.
“It is a strange world where Labour would so obviously rather have the Conservatives in charge of energy in Wales than take responsibility for it themselves.
"In 2012 alone, Labour MPs from Wales have voted in favour of NHS privatisation, a reduction in farming subsidies for Wales and now against Wales having the same energy powers as Scotland and Northern Ireland.
"If Carwyn Jones can't persuade Welsh MPs to support his policies, then it makes you wonder if he has any influence on his own party – never mind his complete failure to influence the Tories in charge at Westminster."
Mr Edwards argued that the proposal would lead to equality with Scotland and Northern Ireland and that it would mean that we would be better placed to fight fuel poverty with responsibility for our own resources. This sounds fair and is entirely reasonable, but Mr Edwards motion was voted down by Labour MPs, who were more than happy to team up with Conservatives MPs to stop their own party in Wales taking these powers. The proposal was defeated by 239 votes to 44 after Labour and Conservative MPs teamed up together against the Bill.
After the vote, Jonathan Edwards, Plaid MP for Carmarthen East, said:
"It is extraordinary to see Labour MPs from Wales teaming up to vote with the Conservatives against a motion that would empower the Welsh Government which they run. Do they just not trust Carwyn Jones with these powers?
“My Bill was simply titled ‘Energy Generation Wales’ and, although our policy is for full transfer of powers to Wales, it would have been open for other MPs to amend and put forward their own suggestions.
“This was an opportunity for Labour to introduce proposals from the manifesto on which their Welsh Government were elected last year but their MPs in London seem strangely keen that Wales should not have these powers.
“When you see the Conservatives and Labour walking through the lobbies together in London then you know that they are doing something which is good for Westminster, not for Wales.
“It is a strange world where Labour would so obviously rather have the Conservatives in charge of energy in Wales than take responsibility for it themselves.
"In 2012 alone, Labour MPs from Wales have voted in favour of NHS privatisation, a reduction in farming subsidies for Wales and now against Wales having the same energy powers as Scotland and Northern Ireland.
"If Carwyn Jones can't persuade Welsh MPs to support his policies, then it makes you wonder if he has any influence on his own party – never mind his complete failure to influence the Tories in charge at Westminster."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)