Plaid’s right with its call for the management of Welsh railways to be put in the hands of a 'not for distributable profit' company when the current franchise contract with Arriva Trains Wales ends in 2018. In challenging times our country needs real leadership not lethargy, we need ambitious solutions to our problems, not make do and mend, if we are to make Wales the successful nation that it can be.
At a time when people are looking for an alternative to the car due to high fuel prices we have a situation where near continual hikes in rail fares (which just happen to boost rail company profits) mean that more and more people are finding rail travel unaffordable as well. Simple common sense suggests that we need to change the way the franchise system works here in Wales.
Plaid proposed to put Welsh railways into the hands of a ‘not for profit’ company back in November 2010 before the 2011 Welsh General Election campaign. If the current Welsh Labour government is serious about doing this then most of the preparation work for the re-franchising needs to be undertaken during the current Assembly term, so that there is sufficient planning time to develop a delivery model that is better suited to the needs of the people in Wales.
The Plaid Cymru plans would also mean that, in creating a not-for-distributable-profit organisation to run Welsh railways, more money could be made available to invest in rail services. This money could be invested directly to create more frequent services in the South Wales valleys, more frequent journeys to West Wales and on the Cambrian line, as well as additional services between the north and south of Wales. This could also mean more investment in new rolling stock to help keep pace with increasing passenger demand.
Now even though we are in difficult economic times, the Welsh government should be prepared to take radical and innovative action in order to get the best deal for the people of Wales. Sitting back and doing nothing is not an option, as rail fares in Wales continue to rise by as much as 11% while so many people are struggling to cope financially. If you are going to spend public money it is important to work it extra hard. At time when we have shrinking public sector budgets it is extra important that the Welsh government gets the best possible value for money out of every penny of public funds.
The Welsh government needs to wake up and to step up to the mark and use the excellent example of how a ‘not-for-profit’ company, Glas Cymru, can operate as the model to ensure the delivery of our nations rail services. There is absolutely no reason why train services here in Wales could not be run by a company with a similar not-for profit model, with a board containing representation from the Welsh government, experts from the fields of integrated transport, customer service, accessibility, rail projects and finance.
We need long term benefits not short term solutions, the creation of a not for profit rail franchise would deliver long term benefits for the economy of Wales and help to tackle climate change. When it comes to improving infrastructure, rail, is crucial to the sustainable development of the Welsh economy. An all Wales not for profit rail franchise could be a further step toward creating a national transport system for Wales, beginning to integrate all modes of public transport under one ticketing scheme similar, as is used in the Transport for London model.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
CAMERON'S CASABLANCA MOMENT...
 |
| PM David Cameron I'm shocked, shocked to find that tax evasion is going on in here! |
Monday, 27 February 2012
DOOMED TO REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST?
The Westminster Welsh Affairs Committee is correct when it says that Wales was ‘slow to adapt’ to changes in the international market for overseas investment. There is much truth in the Committee's labelling of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s as a ’golden age’ for attracting foreign business investment thanks to a combination of grants, land and relatively cheap labour costs.
The Committee is also correct to say that successive governments reacted far too slowly to new emerging challenges from Eastern Europe and more distant competitors. Wales paid the price for that complacency as between 1998 and 2008, some 171 foreign-owned sites closed, with the loss of 31,000 jobs, mainly in the manufacturing sector.
The economic development model as practised by the Westminster Government (and the Welsh Office) well before 1997 and by the Welsh Government before 2007) was fundamentally flawed at a very basic level – it was short term and fundamentally dependent upon a combination of relatively cheap labour and other inducements that could never compete on a truly level playing field.
For too many years economic development (from the 1950's onwards) was focused on one-off large scale developments - what can be best described a single egg solutions, which promised much and deliver significantly less. The assumption, not entirely incorrect, may have been that other smaller business would develop supply materials, goods and services to the primary larger employer – this happened in part, Llanwern Steel works being a reasonably good example.
The problem was that if the larger industry suffered a downturn or caught cold then the smaller firms would suffer with varying symptoms of pneumonia. The focus should have been on developing small to medium size local businesses, which are significantly less likely to up sticks and leave for perceived greener pastures and fresh applications of development grants and also trade with each other and other local firms.
The LG development near Newport, was a good example of this - promising the usual total of 6,000 jobs – it accrued significant public funding (committed by the then Welsh Secretary, William Hague) yet never delivered anything like what was promised. Most economists (even Conservative ones) should have had serious concerns about the state of the Korean and the Far Eastern economies and a basic understanding of where technological developments in relation to PC monitor screens were going, enabling them to say hang on a moment.
A combination of fantasy island economic assessments, a fatally flawed business case and a forthcoming Westminster election led to one of the spectacularly duller decisions of recent years being made, something that ended up costing us millions of pounds worth of public money. The old WDA has in truth not really consistently delivered anything like long term economic stability and much needed long term job opportunities to our communities that it should have done considering the amounts poured into it..
European funding opportunities has been seriously squandered, where are the physical assets, by which I mean the things you can literally put your hand on like improved communications (rail and road), broadband infrastructure, etc - that bring long term benefits to our communities. How much money has been scammed (and scammed may be the key word) into dubious training programmes and questionable educations programmes that fail to deliver the necessary skills that workers and potential workers need to make a decent living in the modern economy?
What was called in some circles the Plaid driven One Wales Government (2007 – 2011) at least made significant efforts to think and act differently when it comes to economic development and support for small to medium sized enterprises. Simply going out to attract branch factory operations for a relatively short term period does not help develop our economy it merely seeks to repeat the mistakes of the recent past, but, of course Labour (New or Old) is far happier living in the past than in Wales.
The Committee is also correct to say that successive governments reacted far too slowly to new emerging challenges from Eastern Europe and more distant competitors. Wales paid the price for that complacency as between 1998 and 2008, some 171 foreign-owned sites closed, with the loss of 31,000 jobs, mainly in the manufacturing sector.
The economic development model as practised by the Westminster Government (and the Welsh Office) well before 1997 and by the Welsh Government before 2007) was fundamentally flawed at a very basic level – it was short term and fundamentally dependent upon a combination of relatively cheap labour and other inducements that could never compete on a truly level playing field.
For too many years economic development (from the 1950's onwards) was focused on one-off large scale developments - what can be best described a single egg solutions, which promised much and deliver significantly less. The assumption, not entirely incorrect, may have been that other smaller business would develop supply materials, goods and services to the primary larger employer – this happened in part, Llanwern Steel works being a reasonably good example.
The problem was that if the larger industry suffered a downturn or caught cold then the smaller firms would suffer with varying symptoms of pneumonia. The focus should have been on developing small to medium size local businesses, which are significantly less likely to up sticks and leave for perceived greener pastures and fresh applications of development grants and also trade with each other and other local firms.
The LG development near Newport, was a good example of this - promising the usual total of 6,000 jobs – it accrued significant public funding (committed by the then Welsh Secretary, William Hague) yet never delivered anything like what was promised. Most economists (even Conservative ones) should have had serious concerns about the state of the Korean and the Far Eastern economies and a basic understanding of where technological developments in relation to PC monitor screens were going, enabling them to say hang on a moment.
A combination of fantasy island economic assessments, a fatally flawed business case and a forthcoming Westminster election led to one of the spectacularly duller decisions of recent years being made, something that ended up costing us millions of pounds worth of public money. The old WDA has in truth not really consistently delivered anything like long term economic stability and much needed long term job opportunities to our communities that it should have done considering the amounts poured into it..
European funding opportunities has been seriously squandered, where are the physical assets, by which I mean the things you can literally put your hand on like improved communications (rail and road), broadband infrastructure, etc - that bring long term benefits to our communities. How much money has been scammed (and scammed may be the key word) into dubious training programmes and questionable educations programmes that fail to deliver the necessary skills that workers and potential workers need to make a decent living in the modern economy?
What was called in some circles the Plaid driven One Wales Government (2007 – 2011) at least made significant efforts to think and act differently when it comes to economic development and support for small to medium sized enterprises. Simply going out to attract branch factory operations for a relatively short term period does not help develop our economy it merely seeks to repeat the mistakes of the recent past, but, of course Labour (New or Old) is far happier living in the past than in Wales.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
THE PRICE OF TRUTH
 |
| Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik |
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
THIS LAND IS NOT FOR SALE!
In the end it always comes down to the land, Who owns it? Who farms it? And who lives on it? Or who makes a living from it? Since Humans have been living in relatively settled communities land has been bought, sold and stolen fuelling grievances both real and imaginary. What is a relatively new in recent years is that land deals have become a new form of international trade. In recent years, sub Saharan Africa has been the public focus for this trade (the reality is that is been going on around the world for many years). A combination of commercial companies and the various commercial arms of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have been chasing profits (and land) in Africa pursing profits and (in the case of the PRC) foodstuffs for the world (and the Chinese) market.
Between 2008 and 2009 the World Bank noted media reports of land deals that added up to something like 60 million hectares. The traditional UK media unit of measurement, Wales, won't help to illustrate the scale of the issue, that all adds up to something like the land equivalent to the Ukraine – some two-thirds of the land acquired happens to be in Africa. The evidence points to the fact that land deals are taking place on an unprecedented scale and at an increasing rate. Some of the specific land deals are pretty big, a recent deal in Liberia involved some 220,000 hectares.
The western media has tended to focus on the land deals signed by Middle Eastern and Asian government-backed operators but in reality Western commercial companies and Hedge Funds have also been heavily involved in the process – they don’t like the glare of publicity. One of the reasons why commercial companies are seeking to acquire land is because there is potentially big money to be made with cash crops as world food and commodity prices are expected to increase because of increasing demand for foodstuffs and also bio-fuels from China and India. Some of this is being driven by governments who are chasing land acquisitions abroad as a way to secure affordable food for their people at home.
In 1961 at or on the edge of independence Africa largely fed itself and even managed to export surplus crops. This is no longer the case, partially due to a neglect of the agricultural sector in many African countries, political instability, corruption and a chronic lack of investment to improve productivity and the means of getting surplus crops to both local and international markets. It goes without saying that not all types of investment is good and evidence is beginning to pile up that suggests that large scale land deals have a detrimental impact on indigenous local farmers.
Research by the International Land Coalition suggests that a growing number of these large scale land deals are failing due to a combination of poor soil types, financial problems, local resistance and unrealistic business plans. Some of these land acquisitions have resulted in some pretty raw deals for local people and as a consequence have fuelled dissent and resistance (in Ethiopia and Madagascar to name but two).
Now this does not mean that African states and peoples should steer clear of all land deals. What is needed is for land deals to be implemented properly, transparently, with safeguards for local people and local involvement. Some of the world's poorest people are losing the land, water and natural resources that have supported their livelihoods and their communities for generations. In Uganda, Oxfam has noted that some 20,000 people who claim to have been evicted from their land have taken their case to court seeking redress.
Part of the problem is because of the massive power imbalance between multinational companies, African governments and local farmers and landholders. Many of these land deals are negotiated behind closed doors without transparency, without local consultation something which fuels local dissent and anger. Across much of Sub Saharan Africa, as noted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, there is lack of secure land tenure which affects local farmers, herders and gatherers. This is partially down to a lack of written documentation and also because a great deal of land is owned by the state, which can obviously allocate it to outside investors even against fierce local opposition.
There are some pretty successful business models out there that show what can be done by local people, one co-operative of 60,000 cocoa farmers (in Ghana) has been in business for almost twenty years and owns 45% of a UK company that manufactures and distributes chocolate. There are ways to improve productivity and market access that can support local farmers or at least give them a realistic chance of competing.
Many international companies are able to successfully source agricultural produce from local family farmers, and have invested in other activities along the production line to help secure their supplies and improve local livelihoods. Some farmers associations (in Mali and Zambia) own shares in the company they collaborate with, which gives them monetary benefits and a greater say. Co-operatives have reduced their costs by working with large numbers of farmers.
Some land deals could bring many benefits including increased food production; access to improved agricultural skills, secure land tenure for indigenous farmers and more sustainable development in rural communities. This is something that could help to slow one of sub Saharan Africa's greatest problems rural to urban migration. Civic groups in sub Saharan Africa are demanding far greater transparency and openness from their governments and from investors. If this is done right then local indigenous communities can be helped to become equal partners rather than ending up as victims.
Between 2008 and 2009 the World Bank noted media reports of land deals that added up to something like 60 million hectares. The traditional UK media unit of measurement, Wales, won't help to illustrate the scale of the issue, that all adds up to something like the land equivalent to the Ukraine – some two-thirds of the land acquired happens to be in Africa. The evidence points to the fact that land deals are taking place on an unprecedented scale and at an increasing rate. Some of the specific land deals are pretty big, a recent deal in Liberia involved some 220,000 hectares.
The western media has tended to focus on the land deals signed by Middle Eastern and Asian government-backed operators but in reality Western commercial companies and Hedge Funds have also been heavily involved in the process – they don’t like the glare of publicity. One of the reasons why commercial companies are seeking to acquire land is because there is potentially big money to be made with cash crops as world food and commodity prices are expected to increase because of increasing demand for foodstuffs and also bio-fuels from China and India. Some of this is being driven by governments who are chasing land acquisitions abroad as a way to secure affordable food for their people at home.
In 1961 at or on the edge of independence Africa largely fed itself and even managed to export surplus crops. This is no longer the case, partially due to a neglect of the agricultural sector in many African countries, political instability, corruption and a chronic lack of investment to improve productivity and the means of getting surplus crops to both local and international markets. It goes without saying that not all types of investment is good and evidence is beginning to pile up that suggests that large scale land deals have a detrimental impact on indigenous local farmers.
Research by the International Land Coalition suggests that a growing number of these large scale land deals are failing due to a combination of poor soil types, financial problems, local resistance and unrealistic business plans. Some of these land acquisitions have resulted in some pretty raw deals for local people and as a consequence have fuelled dissent and resistance (in Ethiopia and Madagascar to name but two).
Now this does not mean that African states and peoples should steer clear of all land deals. What is needed is for land deals to be implemented properly, transparently, with safeguards for local people and local involvement. Some of the world's poorest people are losing the land, water and natural resources that have supported their livelihoods and their communities for generations. In Uganda, Oxfam has noted that some 20,000 people who claim to have been evicted from their land have taken their case to court seeking redress.
Part of the problem is because of the massive power imbalance between multinational companies, African governments and local farmers and landholders. Many of these land deals are negotiated behind closed doors without transparency, without local consultation something which fuels local dissent and anger. Across much of Sub Saharan Africa, as noted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, there is lack of secure land tenure which affects local farmers, herders and gatherers. This is partially down to a lack of written documentation and also because a great deal of land is owned by the state, which can obviously allocate it to outside investors even against fierce local opposition.
There are some pretty successful business models out there that show what can be done by local people, one co-operative of 60,000 cocoa farmers (in Ghana) has been in business for almost twenty years and owns 45% of a UK company that manufactures and distributes chocolate. There are ways to improve productivity and market access that can support local farmers or at least give them a realistic chance of competing.
Many international companies are able to successfully source agricultural produce from local family farmers, and have invested in other activities along the production line to help secure their supplies and improve local livelihoods. Some farmers associations (in Mali and Zambia) own shares in the company they collaborate with, which gives them monetary benefits and a greater say. Co-operatives have reduced their costs by working with large numbers of farmers.
Some land deals could bring many benefits including increased food production; access to improved agricultural skills, secure land tenure for indigenous farmers and more sustainable development in rural communities. This is something that could help to slow one of sub Saharan Africa's greatest problems rural to urban migration. Civic groups in sub Saharan Africa are demanding far greater transparency and openness from their governments and from investors. If this is done right then local indigenous communities can be helped to become equal partners rather than ending up as victims.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
WAKING UP FOR WALES – PERHAPS NOT?
There may be some signs the Labour in Wales is finally waking from its self induced slumber? First Minister Carwyn Jones claimed that Wales is losing out on jobs and investment because it lacks the same powers over renewable energy enjoyed by Scotland. He has called for control of energy projects up to 100MW to be devolved to Wales.
Now I have no problem with that, it is worth noting that when Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards (31.01.2012) introduced a bill in Westminster which would have given the Welsh Government powers over energy generation in Wales – something both Labour and the Conservatives included in their respective Welsh general election manifesto's last year - its clear that Labour in Wales’s Westminster representatives were not prepared to play ball.
Mr Edwards argued not unreasonably 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 entirely reasonable proposal 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 against the Bill.
Waking up for Wales perhaps not? Carwyn is on record as saying that he wants decision-making powers for renewable energy developments up to 100MW to be devolved to Wales. So what about any projects that come in over the magic 100MW figure? That according to Carwyn's logic would get decided upon in London by Conservative / Lib Dem Ministers.
Now oddly enough this position may not quite be as ill-thought out as it first appears as it would mean that all of Wales' offshore wind farms, large-scale tidal developments (including any proposed re-badged Severn Barrage) and some of the biomass plant proposals that are floating about would all be excluded. Obviously from a developmental, strategic or practical point of view this is complete nonsense.
Anything for a quiet life and nothing controversial to disturb ones sleep perhaps? And anyway as Labour in Wales representatives in Westminster are totally opposed to any plans to devolve more powers to the National Assembly anyway perhaps this is the ideal solution to the problem as it puts party interest before the national one? Perhaps Carwyn hopes that no one will notice...
Now I have no problem with that, it is worth noting that when Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards (31.01.2012) introduced a bill in Westminster which would have given the Welsh Government powers over energy generation in Wales – something both Labour and the Conservatives included in their respective Welsh general election manifesto's last year - its clear that Labour in Wales’s Westminster representatives were not prepared to play ball.
Mr Edwards argued not unreasonably 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 entirely reasonable proposal 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 against the Bill.
Waking up for Wales perhaps not? Carwyn is on record as saying that he wants decision-making powers for renewable energy developments up to 100MW to be devolved to Wales. So what about any projects that come in over the magic 100MW figure? That according to Carwyn's logic would get decided upon in London by Conservative / Lib Dem Ministers.
Now oddly enough this position may not quite be as ill-thought out as it first appears as it would mean that all of Wales' offshore wind farms, large-scale tidal developments (including any proposed re-badged Severn Barrage) and some of the biomass plant proposals that are floating about would all be excluded. Obviously from a developmental, strategic or practical point of view this is complete nonsense.
Anything for a quiet life and nothing controversial to disturb ones sleep perhaps? And anyway as Labour in Wales representatives in Westminster are totally opposed to any plans to devolve more powers to the National Assembly anyway perhaps this is the ideal solution to the problem as it puts party interest before the national one? Perhaps Carwyn hopes that no one will notice...
Monday, 20 February 2012
WINNERS AND LOSERS
News that one of the 'Big Six' is due to announce a raise in profits at a time when many people are trying to avoid or to live with fuel poverty is never going to go down well with hard presser domestic energy customers. On Thursday Centrica (who own British Gas)are expected to reveal a group operating profit of £2.5 billion pounds, up four percent on 2010.
This unfortunately timed announcement comes against a backdrop of growing fuel poverty, which affects around 5.5 million households in the UK. Fuel poverty is defined as being when a household spends more than ten percent of their disposable income on gas and electricity. Fuel poverty is one of those things that the previous (and former) New Labour Government and the current Con Dem Government have done nothing about.
Nothing has been done or will be done to curb or regulate excessive profits from the energy companies via windfall tax. The talk about customers benefiting from dual fuel bills, etc, is mere distraction. What we have here is a dual political failure that speaks volumes as to how far both the former New Labour Government and the Conservatives (and their Lib Dem coat holders) have gone to drop even the pretence of standing up for the interests of ordinary people in favour of courting the City.
For growing numbers of ordinary people this winter it has come down to a choice of heat or eat, literally choosing between putting food on the table and heating their home. The only winners here are HM Government (with extra tax)and the big six energy companies (with fat profits) all of us as customers are losing hand over fist as the energy cartel ramps up its profits - I have not doubt over coming months that the rest of them perhaps slightly shamefaced (or perhaps not) will ever so quietly announce their profits as well.
This unfortunately timed announcement comes against a backdrop of growing fuel poverty, which affects around 5.5 million households in the UK. Fuel poverty is defined as being when a household spends more than ten percent of their disposable income on gas and electricity. Fuel poverty is one of those things that the previous (and former) New Labour Government and the current Con Dem Government have done nothing about.
Nothing has been done or will be done to curb or regulate excessive profits from the energy companies via windfall tax. The talk about customers benefiting from dual fuel bills, etc, is mere distraction. What we have here is a dual political failure that speaks volumes as to how far both the former New Labour Government and the Conservatives (and their Lib Dem coat holders) have gone to drop even the pretence of standing up for the interests of ordinary people in favour of courting the City.
For growing numbers of ordinary people this winter it has come down to a choice of heat or eat, literally choosing between putting food on the table and heating their home. The only winners here are HM Government (with extra tax)and the big six energy companies (with fat profits) all of us as customers are losing hand over fist as the energy cartel ramps up its profits - I have not doubt over coming months that the rest of them perhaps slightly shamefaced (or perhaps not) will ever so quietly announce their profits as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)