Plaid has rightly called for an urgent extension of support for small businesses in Wales in order to safeguard jobs and livelihoods during the recession. Welsh Government support for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) is due to run out in March 2013 – and the doubts over future support are leading to uncertainty for businesses throughout Wales. The Welsh Government needs to commit itself to extending support for SMEs beyond March 2013. Plaid has renewed its call for government support to be extended to help more businesses. Plaid’s Small Business Job Protection Scheme would give financial help to extra 8,000 businesses in Wales by offering full relief from Business rates to businesses with a rateable value of up to £12,000 and tapered support up to a rateable value of £18,000. Plaid has argued that revised GDP figures that show that the double dip recession is even deeper that initially feared something that make it exceptionally important for the Welsh government to take urgent action on business rates. The party has also said that the Welsh government should be investing in capital projects which would help to create and safeguard thousands of jobs across all of Wales.
Plaid Cymru AM, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, said:
"It is imperative that the Labour Welsh Government takes urgent action in light of yet another stark warning about the depth and severity of this recession. The revised GDP figures show that the double dip recession is even deeper that initially feared and that is very worrying news indeed for the people of Wales especially as the worst of the ConDem cuts is still to come.
"As well as the general economic conditions which are making life very difficult indeed for small businesses, there is currently great uncertainty about how much support they will get from the Welsh Government after March next year. We’re now less than 9 months away and businesses do not know what their business rate bills will be for next year. The Labour Welsh Government is making it increasingly difficult for businesses to plan – and that is leading to uncertainty about jobs as a result.
"Small business owners have been doing all they can to maintain staffing levels during the economic crisis, yet their efforts are under threat from Labour’s lethargy. This situation needs urgent action if jobs and livelihoods are to be safeguarded.
"It’s bad enough that Labour ministers have refused to commit to Plaid Cymru’s plan to support small businesses during the economic crisis. We would extend support to more than 8,000 companies in Wales that do not currently receive any tax relief at all. But currently, Labour won’t even extend the current level of support – and if this uncertainty continues, there is a clear danger that further jobs will be lost."
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
TIME FOR SOME CONSEQUENCES?
Back in March I noted with interest that the trial of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, who was accused of negligence in his handling of the 2008 financial crisis that severely undermined the Icelandic economy, had begun in the capital, Reykjavik. A sizeable part of me thinks that it is quite refreshing for elected politicians to face real consequences for their actions? I mention this again because of the ongoing consequences of the embarrassing childlike spat between Osborne and Balls, which has served to provide a degree of distraction from New Labour and the Conservative party’s cosy relationship with the bankers and the City.
Now as most people know Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. Icelanders awoke to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. Iceland’s big three banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included Welsh local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.
Iceland’s economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but in the 1990s, the banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders got cheap credit (just like the rest of us) with next to no regulation. After the crash, the unemployment rate and inflation sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.
The ex Prime Minster was accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.
In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial began in March (2012) and ended with a guilty verdict (in April 2012). From here it certainly looks like the former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.
In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends at length.
Now where, save in Iceland have the ordinary people had a direct opportunity to pass judgement on any of the deals done to bail out the banks. Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. Iceland's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, then put the deal to a public vote. In April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum. I wonder how the voters would have voted if we had been given a choice on bailing out the banks?
Anyway while Iceland fell into one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008 and economic output fell by around 12 per cent in two years. Yet despite this Iceland did not fall, an International Monetary Fund reports show that growth has resumed. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.
Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than some other distressed economies in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Plaid Cymru believes that only a full public inquiry can offer an adequate response to a scandal on such a scale. A parliamentary inquiry could bring senior figures from the last New Labour administration to the dock under oath. Surely Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, and Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, their former economic advisers, would relish a chance to clear their names by being called to account for their actions.
Both New Labour and the Conservatives have been (and still are) entirely fixated with putting the market before people regardless of the cost. A parliamentary inquiry could at least shine a light on the City’s murky dealings. Sadly both New Labour and the Conservatives are still entirely hooked on high finance and dazzled by the City’s dodgy money men, so we may have a long wait before we start to see politicians giving evidence in the dock.
Now as most people know Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. Icelanders awoke to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. Iceland’s big three banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included Welsh local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.
Iceland’s economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but in the 1990s, the banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders got cheap credit (just like the rest of us) with next to no regulation. After the crash, the unemployment rate and inflation sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.
The ex Prime Minster was accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.
In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial began in March (2012) and ended with a guilty verdict (in April 2012). From here it certainly looks like the former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.
In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends at length.
Now where, save in Iceland have the ordinary people had a direct opportunity to pass judgement on any of the deals done to bail out the banks. Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. Iceland's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, then put the deal to a public vote. In April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum. I wonder how the voters would have voted if we had been given a choice on bailing out the banks?
Anyway while Iceland fell into one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008 and economic output fell by around 12 per cent in two years. Yet despite this Iceland did not fall, an International Monetary Fund reports show that growth has resumed. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.
Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than some other distressed economies in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Plaid Cymru believes that only a full public inquiry can offer an adequate response to a scandal on such a scale. A parliamentary inquiry could bring senior figures from the last New Labour administration to the dock under oath. Surely Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, and Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, their former economic advisers, would relish a chance to clear their names by being called to account for their actions.
Both New Labour and the Conservatives have been (and still are) entirely fixated with putting the market before people regardless of the cost. A parliamentary inquiry could at least shine a light on the City’s murky dealings. Sadly both New Labour and the Conservatives are still entirely hooked on high finance and dazzled by the City’s dodgy money men, so we may have a long wait before we start to see politicians giving evidence in the dock.
Sunday, 8 July 2012
SUPERMARKET SWEEP?
News that Labour run Newport City Council approved plans to convert a pub into a small Sainsbury’s in Caerleon will sadly shock very few interested observers. Opponents of the development were disappointed by the decision by Newport planning committee to allow the conversion of the Angel Hotel on Goldcroft Common, Caerleon. One of the reason as to why the application was approved may well have been the concern that the developer would appeal if the planning committee threw out the application.
Council Officers and a sub-committee of planning councillors had visited the Caerleon site but recommended Hillvale Properties Ltd’s plans for a Sainsbury’s be approved. Over 1,700 signatures were collected for a petition against the move, along with 128 letters of objection were sent to the council. Some 66 postcards, distributed by Sainsbury’s to local residents, were received in support.
Newport City Council has recently lost appeals against a decision not to give planning permission for a site in Rogerstone to be redeveloped for a Tesco Express store following a planning inquiry in 2008 and plans to convert the former Black Horse Inn pub on Somerton Road into a Tesco Express store over in Somerton. Despite the Council’s and local people’s concerns and objections, the Planning Inspectorate allowed Tesco to appeal.
It is worth noting that the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has previously noted that the UK loses around 2,000 local shops each year and if this continue then by 2015 there will be no independent retailers left in business. Over recent years across all of Wales, that particularly useful mix of local shops, small businesses and local suppliers have come under increasing pressure as the usual suspects in the shape of “identikit” chain stores have replicated themselves across our towns.
The bottom line is that our planning process has been weakened and undermined, as local authorities fear the cost implications of supermarket applications being taken to appeal after appeal if the original outline planning permission is refused. We are not far away from the point where Councillors will be advised by their officers to grant planning permission less the potential costs of refusing a development proposal from a large company prove to damaging – at which point an part of our local democratic system will have quietly died.
Council Officers and a sub-committee of planning councillors had visited the Caerleon site but recommended Hillvale Properties Ltd’s plans for a Sainsbury’s be approved. Over 1,700 signatures were collected for a petition against the move, along with 128 letters of objection were sent to the council. Some 66 postcards, distributed by Sainsbury’s to local residents, were received in support.
Newport City Council has recently lost appeals against a decision not to give planning permission for a site in Rogerstone to be redeveloped for a Tesco Express store following a planning inquiry in 2008 and plans to convert the former Black Horse Inn pub on Somerton Road into a Tesco Express store over in Somerton. Despite the Council’s and local people’s concerns and objections, the Planning Inspectorate allowed Tesco to appeal.
It is worth noting that the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has previously noted that the UK loses around 2,000 local shops each year and if this continue then by 2015 there will be no independent retailers left in business. Over recent years across all of Wales, that particularly useful mix of local shops, small businesses and local suppliers have come under increasing pressure as the usual suspects in the shape of “identikit” chain stores have replicated themselves across our towns.
The bottom line is that our planning process has been weakened and undermined, as local authorities fear the cost implications of supermarket applications being taken to appeal after appeal if the original outline planning permission is refused. We are not far away from the point where Councillors will be advised by their officers to grant planning permission less the potential costs of refusing a development proposal from a large company prove to damaging – at which point an part of our local democratic system will have quietly died.
Saturday, 7 July 2012
LABOUR CONFUSED OVER POLICING
Plaid Cymru has described the Labour Welsh government’s view of policing as "confused" and "lacking any clear thinking" after the relevant minister seemed unable to answer questions on the issue during questions in the Senedd.
Plaid Cymru AM Jocelyn Davies had asked the Minister what actions he would support in order to protect policing in Wales from UK government cuts, and why he believes the issue should remain in the hands of the Conservative Secretary of state in Westminster, rather that being under Welsh control.
Under questioning from Ms Davies, the Minister refused to back the devolution of policing to Wales.
Plaid Cymru AM, Jocelyn Davies, said:
"Both Police officers and the general public are very concerned about the impact that the UK government cuts will have on policing on the ground. Those concerns have been repeated by the minister himself who has been more than happy to criticise the way our police service is being run.
"In light of that I asked the Labour Minister whether he would support devolving policing to Wales, thereby taking it out of the hands of Theresa May and bringing it under the control of his government here in Wales. However the Minister, clearly unwilling to give a clear answer, gave a rather confused answer about budgets.
"It is high time that the Labour government here in Wales clarified its position on this matter as it appears they currently lack any clear thinking on the issue. Either they are content to leave policing to be torn to shreds in the hands of the Tories in Westminster or they should be prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it here.
"Plaid Cymru wants to see the powers and budget for policing devolved to Wales in order to ensure that Welsh communities get the service most suited to their needs."
Plaid Cymru AM Jocelyn Davies had asked the Minister what actions he would support in order to protect policing in Wales from UK government cuts, and why he believes the issue should remain in the hands of the Conservative Secretary of state in Westminster, rather that being under Welsh control.
Under questioning from Ms Davies, the Minister refused to back the devolution of policing to Wales.
Plaid Cymru AM, Jocelyn Davies, said:
"Both Police officers and the general public are very concerned about the impact that the UK government cuts will have on policing on the ground. Those concerns have been repeated by the minister himself who has been more than happy to criticise the way our police service is being run.
"In light of that I asked the Labour Minister whether he would support devolving policing to Wales, thereby taking it out of the hands of Theresa May and bringing it under the control of his government here in Wales. However the Minister, clearly unwilling to give a clear answer, gave a rather confused answer about budgets.
"It is high time that the Labour government here in Wales clarified its position on this matter as it appears they currently lack any clear thinking on the issue. Either they are content to leave policing to be torn to shreds in the hands of the Tories in Westminster or they should be prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it here.
"Plaid Cymru wants to see the powers and budget for policing devolved to Wales in order to ensure that Welsh communities get the service most suited to their needs."
Friday, 6 July 2012
REBUILDING OUR RAILWAYS
Even the last Labour in Wales manifesto for the last National Assembly elections in May 2011 included this proposal, admittedly after Plaid Cymru's Ieuan Wyn Jones proposed when serving as Transport Minister in the last Assembly Government. Now apparently Labour in London have woken up to the idea, which if nothing else shows how far they have moved since the heady days of the late 1990’s when a then new Labour spokesperson was quoted as saying that New Labour would have privatised the railway’s when elected if they had not been previously privatised by then Conservative Prime Minister John Major.
Now a major new analysis which lays out a possible policy route to achieve a better railway has been published, by Transport for Quality of Life. The Rebuilding Rail report offers positive options, and recommends a radical but realistic approach by which a future Labour Westminster Government could begin to fix some of the operational problems, extra expenses and travel inconvenience that has been caused by and aggravated by the deliberate fragmentation and privatisation of Britain’s railway system.
For once it would be nice for Wales to take the lead, with a rail franchise run on a not for dividend basis, which could be a publicly owned company with representation from government, passengers, and railway workers. We, in Wales should put party differences aside and make this happen ending the situation where a private company runs the franchise under public contract, receives a public subsidy and where any profits vanish as dividends rather than being reinvested.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
THE OLD CONTEMPT FOR WALES
As we wait to hear about the cuts to Welsh Regiments, the news that that the Ministry of Defence decided not to participate in an enquiry by the Welsh Affairs Committee (chaired by David Davies MP for Monmouth) into the future of the remaining Welsh Regiments should not come as much of a surprise. The MoD along with much of Whitehall has a pretty clear track record of being pretty dismissive of Welsh concerns and interests, whether they are related to the impact of defence cuts or the historic acquisition of land in Wales for artillery ranges.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
NOT ABOVE THE LAW?
No one should above the law, be they politicians, bankers or the rest of us. The latest blatant illegality on the part of the banks should result in a criminal investigation into affairs at Barclays (the bank was fined £290m for manipulating LIBOR interest rates between 2005 and 2009). This latest criminal act is a direct result of the financial crisis and its lack of legal consequences, the banks (and the bankers) have got away with it in recent years. Where guilt and criminal intent can be established then those responsible should be charged for their crimes.
The banking sector has developed a culture of entitlement, with its something for nothing operating culture. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has now established that there was systematic abuse and manipulation of interest rates in Barclays’ favour. Any individuals who illegally claim benefit or try to manipulate the system to their benefit run the risk of criminal convictions and prison terms – so why not the bankers who have rigged the market to the tune of billions of pounds? Since when has it been acceptable for a to be fined £290m and the only sanction is to offer to give up your bonus.
It is no more acceptable for the rich people to scam money than anyone else. Such behaviour might be acceptable under a New Labour or a Conservative Government but it is not acceptable to the rest of us. It is worth remembering that much of the illegality took place under the last Labour government, when Ed Balls and Ed Miliband and the rest of them were ‘relaxed’ about people becoming filthy rich.
There is little difference between New Labour and the Conservatives when it comes to their fawning attitude towards the mega-rich in the finance sector and it was their ‘light-touch’ (near nonexistent) regulation which helped City money men rake it in at our expense. The scandals over MPs expenses, newspaper phone hacking and the economic collapse all broke when New Labour were running the shop.
The Con –Dems and New Labour have been happy to stand up for the mega-rich and have cared little for the ordinary citizen. Resignations (and no doubt ‘golden parachutes’) are not acceptable; there have to be some real lasting consequences. So enough off the court of public opinion it’s time for some appearances in the law courts!
The banking sector has developed a culture of entitlement, with its something for nothing operating culture. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has now established that there was systematic abuse and manipulation of interest rates in Barclays’ favour. Any individuals who illegally claim benefit or try to manipulate the system to their benefit run the risk of criminal convictions and prison terms – so why not the bankers who have rigged the market to the tune of billions of pounds? Since when has it been acceptable for a to be fined £290m and the only sanction is to offer to give up your bonus.
It is no more acceptable for the rich people to scam money than anyone else. Such behaviour might be acceptable under a New Labour or a Conservative Government but it is not acceptable to the rest of us. It is worth remembering that much of the illegality took place under the last Labour government, when Ed Balls and Ed Miliband and the rest of them were ‘relaxed’ about people becoming filthy rich.
There is little difference between New Labour and the Conservatives when it comes to their fawning attitude towards the mega-rich in the finance sector and it was their ‘light-touch’ (near nonexistent) regulation which helped City money men rake it in at our expense. The scandals over MPs expenses, newspaper phone hacking and the economic collapse all broke when New Labour were running the shop.
The Con –Dems and New Labour have been happy to stand up for the mega-rich and have cared little for the ordinary citizen. Resignations (and no doubt ‘golden parachutes’) are not acceptable; there have to be some real lasting consequences. So enough off the court of public opinion it’s time for some appearances in the law courts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)