Anti-Welsh Liebourites such as Piggy Andrews and others have recently been jumping on the bandwagon to gainsay the troubled economies of small independent nations in a pathetic attempt to cover up the devastating problems of a genuinely failing state: the good old UK.
Their argument runs something like this: These troubled times prove that Wales is far better off under the protective wings of Westminster rather than going it alone as an independent nation. Just look at small independent nations like Iceland and Ireland – they’re going bust. Isn’t it just great, especially when just a year ago these uppity little countries had GDPs which put that of the UK to shame? Well now they’re on the road to ruin, while we, under Gordon Brown’s world-saving helmsmanship are deadheading towards an early recovery. The green shoots just lurking there under the surface ready to spring to life.
Piffle and balderdash.
As Lieghton and his chums well know, Brown and Liebour’s mismanagement of the current economic crisis has saddled every man, women and child in Britain with a debt in excess of £35,000. The UK’s manufacturing base has been shot to bits; public spending (Liebour’s euphemism for electoral bribery) has reached unprecedented levels, and the whole flimsy structure is about to split apart against a backdrop of mounting public anger, a police force running out of control, and dangerous, unpopular and prohibitively costly overseas adventures to which the UK’s poorly equipped armed forces have been committed.
No wonder the Scots are asking themselves whether they want to be part of this basket case arrangement. So should we. Urgently.
Despite the grim reality of the situation charismatic Rhondda AM and “Minister for Regeneration” (!) Piggy Andrews seems happy to continue bamboozling his long-suffering constituents with a mishmash of downright twaddle and hogwash in his local organ. This is what he wrote in last week’s offering:
“They (Plaid Cymru) want to cut Wales off from the rest of Britain.
They threaten jobs coming to Wales.
Over recent years they have said that Wales should be an independent country, like Iceland.
Well, we know what has happened to Iceland in the current global economic crisis.
It is bankrupt.
An independent Wales would be bankrupt very quickly, cut off from UK and international investment.”
If, like me, you can’t honestly believe that Piggy is completely devoid of intelligent thought, then he’s got to be spouting this stuff for nefarious reasons.
The whole idea of independence is to give Wales the prosperity and economic security it lacks as part of the United Kingdom, because union with England (and the boom-and-bust policies of successive Liebour and Tory governments) has turned Wales into one of the poorest parts of the EU. The whole idea of independence is to attract inward investment into Wales, because it can’t get it under the present arrangement. The whole idea of independence is to ensure job creation in Wales and to prevent the current drain of talent as young people are forced out of the country to find work. The whole idea of independence is to put Wales at the heart of Europe with a direct voice at Europe’s decision-making top table rather than seeing it represented by dodgy second-hand car salesmen from Essex. What on earth would be the point of championing it if it wasn’t?
It’s precisely because those who get the point realise that small independent nations like Iceland and Ireland have the ability to control their own affairs – for good or ill. Iceland may be bankrupt, but this is NOT because it is independent, but because it had bad leadership and bad fiscal management in a global financial crisis.
Britain is bankrupt for the same reason.
Ireland, on the other hand – another example Liebourites use to warn of the ‘dangers’ of independence – is regularly disparaged in the British press with gleeful headlines such as “Roar goes out of Celtic Tiger” and “Celtic Crown loses Gleam” with accompanying pictures of half-drowned cats, drink-sodden leprechauns and the like, is, actually proof that small nations have a better chance than large ones. Well, better, certainly, than the poor old UK.
In an article (‘Celtic Tiger sharpens its claws for recovery’) in last week’s Financial Times, BP chairman and former EU commissioner Peter Sutherland describes Ireland’s problems as being ‘acute rather than chronic’. The article is worth quoting at length because it clearly shows the unfathomable chasm between the incisive analysis of a brilliant international economist on the one hand, and the bizarre ramblings of a puffed-up buffoon from the backbenches of Wales’s toothless Assembly on the other.
“The reasons for the deficit are well known,” writes Sutherland, “Ireland’s growth and tax revenues, from about 2003, became overly dependent on housing. So, when the property bubble burst, the economy slowed sharply and tax revenues plummeted. The problems of the Irish banks are related to this issue too (their exposure to US mortgage-backed securities and other non-domestic toxic assets is minimal).
While the housing slowdown and the associated budget deficit has created a major challenge, to focus exclusively on housing-related problems provides a distorted picture of the under lying health of the Irish economy. The economy has been a phenomenon since the late 1980s. From a relatively poor country on Europe’s periphery, Ireland has risen to become one of the richest economies in the world in 20 years. Even after an anticipated 8 per cent fall this year, its GDP per capita, in terms of purchasing power, will remain significantly higher than that of the UK or Germany. And, while unemployment has risen, there are still 80 per cent more jobs in Ireland today than 15 years ago. Much of its infrastructure has been transformed during this period.
Since 2007, Ireland’s current account position has been rising and, at the current trajectory, it should return to surplus by the year end. To the extent that Irish public sector borrowing has been rising, this is being more than offset by a rise in private sector saving.
The cause of these favourable statistics is export-led growth, led by inward investment in industries such as information technology, pharmaceuticals and private sector services. The fact that Ireland’s economic success has been driven by exports in these areas has resulted in a far stronger basic Irish economy than the one that existed in the 1980s. Because of the nature of these exports the drop in exports anticipated for this year, as a result of recession, is estimated to be only 5.9 per cent. The corresponding Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figure for Germany is 16.5 per cent, France 11.4 per cent and Great Britain 9.8 per cent. Some others are considerably worse, such as Japan, forecast at 26.4 per cent.
Another issue on which there has been much comment is the alleged disadvantage to Ireland of being in the eurozone. In reality, Ireland may have been saved by its membership from the possibility of a run on its currency – however unwarranted such a run would have been. The UK, meanwhile, has seen its currency fall by 30 per cent against the euro and this is likely to bring short-run benefits. This option is not, of course, available to Ireland; flexibility has had to come instead from an adjustment in real wages. But – and this is the most important positive for Ireland’s long-term prospects – there is clear evidence that it is dealing with the competitiveness issue in a sustainable manner and one I believe to be unprecedented in the OECD area.
The latest data suggest there has already been an 8 per cent drop in private sector wages and salaries and, via the “pension levy”, there has also been in effect a 7-8 per cent fall in public sector pay. It is hard to imagine wages in other economies displaying such flexibility. If these figures are maintained or even supplemented, the Irish economy should emerge from the recession in a highly competitive position. Meanwhile, the minister of finance has given an undertaking to maintain Ireland’s low corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent.
It has to be recognised that Ireland has a very open economy.
Ireland’s problems are acute in nature rather than chronic. Once Ireland overcomes this short-term panic – and I believe that last week’s budget, whatever its alleged deficiencies, was a vital step in this process – the basic strengths of the Irish economy remain formidable. If the Irish people continue to react constructively to the harsh measures necessary, Ireland will be in a very strong position to benefit from the eventual global recovery and its healthy demographic profile will greatly help in this.”
Piggy and his cronies need to wise up. Yes, we all know that the recession is global; but it will be small nations like Ireland who will see the first green shoots of recovery rather than Britain’s benighted wasteland.
by Cuneglas
my guess, and I’ll place a bet on it, is that Ireland and Iceland’s GAV will be higher than Wales in lets say four years time, 2013. So will their unemployment and their national debt. Wales? Well, without independence we’re jsut an afterthought for the City of London and voting fodder for Labour’s chinless wonder.
With every economic recesession the ties of britishness have decreased. I think this recesession will see the beginning of the final demise of the British state.
I’m not sure if Andrews is anti-Welsh, but he’s certainly a British nationalist and it’s time Plaid AMs and MPs began refering to them as such.
Leighton Andrews is indeed a British Nationalist and Unionist, which means, by definition, that he is anti-Welsh. Why? Because he and his ilk oppose the right toself-determination and sovereignty of the Welsh nation. Those who are not with Wales are against Wales. It is high time indeed that we start facing up to what these people are and represent and name them as such. West Brits, Uncle Toms and so forth. But what about the female equivalent of Uncle Toms? Let’s not be old fashioned about this! I reckon Auntie Glenys (or Glen) might be the most appropriate, after Mrs Kinnock, perhaps the most anti-Welsh of all anti-Welsh ‘polticians’. As that great republican troubadour Harri Webb once wrote: ‘Sing for Wales or shut your trap – all the rest’s a load of crap’!
PIGGY PIGGY PIGGY!!! OINK OINK OINK!!!
I believe it was the Nazis who had most success in comparing their enemies to animals, but it is a campaigning trait common to most anti-democratic nationalist zealots. I imagine the use of the pig as the chosen animal in this case points to the blogger’s anti-semitism, either concious or subconcious. If you think this stuff is any less repulsive to the ordinary Welsh voter than the actions of Brown’s spin doctor, you are sadly mistaken.
“I believe it was the Nazis who had most success in comparing their enemies to animals, but it is a campaigning trait common to most anti-democratic nationalist zealots”
Obviously Dafydd has never read Animal Farm, where the highly non-anti-semitic George Orwell compares totalitarian and deceitful animals to pigs.
Coparing politicians to pigs is very normal, and hardly anti-semitic. Where do you think the idea of their ‘trough’ comes from, for goodness’ sake?
If you are accusing of Cambiapolitico of being anti-semitic just because they’ve nicknamed Leighton Andrews piggy, then you’re pathetic, and also you’re lying, and you’re also making cynical use of anti-semitism, which is a genuine problem, as little more than a rhetorical tool.
You should prove your case, which you can’t , or take that lie back, Dafydd. Oh, and go and read Animal Farm. You might learn something. And you might also stop lying, and stop trying to further your arguments by manipulating genuine political issues. Shame on you, Liebour clone.
Kid,
I have read Orwell, and the comparison you make is false. I have little doubt where GO would stand in relation to nationalists de-humanising their opponents by referring to them as animals; vermin, cockroaches, pigs etc… There are examples of this tactic are littered through history, and they have continually come from nationalist political movements that want to characterise their cultural and political (for the nationalist these are often the same) opponents as being less “pure”. It is classic propaganda of the worst order.
I am not lying in the slightest when I say that I find the comments on this blog to be incredibly offensive.
I have no intention of following your example and trading personal insults. I posted to make a valid point as a student of political history and language.
Dafydd.
Not true mate, you accused this blog of being anti-semitic because it called one politician piggy. I note you haven;t renewed the anti-semitism accusation in your reply. Repeat it, then prove it, or take it back.
As for your imputation of questions of “purity”, you’re retreating to schoolboy politics. The phrase ’snouts in the trough’, has nothing to do with purity, racial or otherwise, and zero to do with anti-semitisim. And it’s hardly a nationalist trait to accuse politicians of having said noses in said trough. If it were it would make most people in the world anti-semites.
You may find this blog offensive, as i occasionally do, but to accuse it of being anti-semitic on the grounds you do is dishonest and , I repeat, cynical misuse of a genuinely emotive and serious subject. You should grow up, and don;t try to bambooozle us with tales of your studies of language and history, if all you’re going to do with those studies is make unsubstantiated allegations of racism against a blog that merely calls one rather porcine (gentile) politician Piggy.
Kid,
There is no burden of proof upon me relating to the charge of the anti-semitic (concious or subconcious) undertones of this blog, as that is merely my perception based on the text and imagery I’ve encountered here. I have every right to come to that opinion, especially given the other points I have already made in relation to the use of far-right propaganda techniques. This blog does not call just refer to one political opponent as an animal, it does so in relation to many of the perceived culturual and political opponents to Welsh nationalism. Put simply I would re-iterate that the de-humanisation of political opponents is, in my opinion, extremely offensive and relates very clearly to tradition of far-right propaganda and anti-semitism.
And in in the interests of historical accuracy you should know that Orwell has indeed been challenged over potentially anti-semitic views in his writings; it is a charge that I would say is wrong, but it does show up the importance of perception to different audiences.
Dafydd.
Well, the burden of proof lies on you to validate your accusation of anti-semitism on the part of this blog for calling Leighton Andrews “Piggy”. As I have said, the pig is used metaphorically and unfairly to desv=cribe politicians. It may also be used by anti-semites to attack jews, and by some jews and arabs to describe people they see as unclean, but it is not the exclusive property of any of these groups.
In this context it merely refers to the piggy features and smug pomp of one politician, Leighton Andrews. Who isn’t Jewish, and who is as Welsh as you and me and more so than Clive Betts. So I find teh racism argument hard to credit..
Historically, since you bring it up, the large number of porcine images used by Soviet Russia in its own attacks on Jews should also put you straight on the idea that anti-semitism is the sole province of the right, or indeed of nationalism. It was the favoured caricature of the jew under Stalin, and the tame international Left that supported and covered for him right up to the 50s. To pretend that anti-semitism is only right-wing is silly.
It is possible to be nationalist and left wing and not at all anti-semitic, and it is possible to call Leighton Andrews Piggy without someone accusing you of anti-semitism. It is possible to be right-wing and pro-jewish, and it is also possible to be left wing an virulently anti.
You still haven’t proved your initial charge – a smear really – that the author of this blog, an Englishman called Clive Betts (so he must disappoint you here, not being ‘pure’ welsh, which is another one of your obsessions) is anti-semitic.
You may not feel there’s a ‘burden of proof’ on you, but I think that when you accuse people of racism, you have to prove it?
“The importance of perception to different audiences” sounds clever but it’s really your way of saying: “I’m going to smear an individual for being anti-semitic, and when challenged I will simply say that i perceive it as such and therefore have no obligation to defend my views”.
Nice. There’s a career in politics for you yet.
Sorry – when I aid the pig was used metaphorically and unfairly to describe politicians, I meant of course, unfairly on the pig. The pig gets a lot of bad press.
I think it would be better if writers and editors of all blogs just wouldn’t call other people by ‘nick-names’ or slag them off. Labour’s policies are weak enough as it is.
Andrews has a rather unappealing habit of threatening at least two Welsh publications with lawyer writs which points to his rather thin skin but there’s nothing gained by calling him piggy. He also seems to be letting his researcher be a little to footlose in attacking the DFM and Andrew’s direct Minister, which points either to a lack of respect on the behalf of his researcher for Andrews and IWJ or lack respect on behalf of Andrews for IWJ. Whichever it is, it rather belittles him as a policitian.
For the record Dafydd I believe he’s called this name because his supposed resemlence to pigs nothing anti-semitic so there’s no need to be hysterical or start jumping to conclusions either.
Please boys, from now on, no name calling? Please?
Kid,
I’ve not “smeared” anybody, I have no intention of doing so and despite your attempts to turn this into some kind of personal argument I simply refuse to do so. I am engaging with the language and imagery of this blog, nothing more.
The point I have made is that the blogger (I have no idea if it is Clive Betts or not, nor do I know or care of his origins) has completely devalued any argument he wishes to make about Labour’s troubles by using an offensive propaganda technique not just to smear, but to de-humanise political opponents.
The technique cannot be explained away as a simple physical attack on Leighton Andrews, as other Labour politicians are also discussed in the same terms elsewhere on the blog. It is a political decision to brand political opponents as less than human – it is a technique rooted in an extremist and anti-semitic past.
I am sorry if you don’t think I should be offended by this, but I am – and I think any other rational student of political history would be too. I would ask you to consider how you would react, how this blogger would react, if a supposedly politically independent publication started referring to Plaid Cymru politicians as “vermin”?
If this were a childish blog run for fun by politically naive volunteers, it might be almost excusable, or at least understandable, but this a blog of a supposedly independent and credible magazine.
Dafydd
PS Masaryk, I couldn’t agree more regarding the name calling.
“I imagine the use of the pig as the chosen animal in this case points to the blogger’s anti-semitism, either concious or subconcious.”
Those are your words Dafydd, and therefore a smear. You are accusing someone of anti-semitisim. You haven;t proved why, just asserted it because of “his choice of animal”.
You keep mentioning your studentship of history. I suggest you are misusing it by exploiting it to accuse people of racism and anti-semitism
You claim to be against name-calling, yet you accuse someone of anti-semitism.
Bonkers, and deceitful too. Orwell had a good word: newspeak.
Please: as the one who alleged anti-semitisim on the part of the blogger – here’s your phrase again: “the use of the pig as the chosen animal in this case points to the blogger’s anti-semitism, either concious or subconcious.” – please provide us with proof of that anti-semitism, or stop lying, or express your offence at the blog by something other than an unsubstantiated smear.
You might think I insult you. I don’t. I charge you with smearing, and challenge you to prove a very serious allegation. I don;t have much respect for you on the evidence of your comments (nat-bashing by numbers – call ‘em all racists and nazis and hope they shit sticks) but least I am not calling *you* racist and antj-semitic, an insult you seem able to fling around with abandon.
Here’s another reminder of your words and your allegation: “the use of the pig as the chosen animal in this case points to the blogger’s anti-semitism, either concious or subconcious.”.
Kid,
I have made all the arguments I wish to make on the matter. I will make them again one last time.
The blog writer has dehumanised his political opponents. I am glad you have now moved away from the entirely misleading claim that this is solely a reference to Leighton Andrews’ physical appearance, though that would raise questions enough. The blogger has used techniques entirely consistant with the propagandists of the anti-semitic far-right, and this is merely re-inforced by his choice of animal. My speculation regards the blog writer comes only from reading his text and looking at his imagery. I have used an academic method called deconstruction to look at the values espoused here; I accept the method allows for more than one conclusion, I have given you the evidence base for mine. Your evidence base so far consists of the argument “Leighton Andrews looks a bit like a pig”. I think my argument holds more water. I have no interest in “nat-bashing” by numbers, I leave the puerile stuff to the myriad of anonymous blogs in Wales. This site however, is meant to be run by a credible independent magazine – that is why I find the use of dehumanisation as a political tactic so utterly unforgivable.
If you disagree with my points, that is your decision and your opinion. Fine. I have no problem with that. I find it quite incredible however, that you would find it beyond the bounds of possibility that people would find this kind of politics by debasement offensive. That marks you out as being utterly blinkered by your own political allegiances and incapable of making a independent judgment about the disgraceful nature of the techniques employed here.
I would point you again to my closing questions, which you have ignored. If you are capable of taking a neutral viewpoint for one moment, I would ask you to consider how you and the blog author (who might be one and the same person for all I know) would react if a supposedly independent blog/magazine started routinely calling Plaid Cymru AMs “vermin”?
Dafydd.
Dafydd,
I’m not interested in your closing questions, because they are irrelevant. You cannot evade your responsibility for your gross cmments by simply inventing irrelevant questions for others to answer. What is relevant is that you have accused someone of racism and anti-semitism, explicitly so, and have failed to provide either proof, apology or retraction. That is gutter politics, and it is also smear. For someone who jumped into this blog to uphold something like standards you have shown yourself to be both a liar and a gross cynic, willing to manipulate the very serious issue of anti-semitism for the purposes of political point-scoring.
I find that pretty disgusting myself, and I am appalled that people like you can use such terms, drenched as they are in horrific ethnic and racial violence, so lightly.
Nothing qualifies you to make pronouncements on my political allegiances, because you don’t seem to know what they are. But they are strong enough to be repelled at your tactics. I would say that my objection to you in this case is moral and not political.
Dafydd: I have seen and heard elected Labour politicians publically call Plaid ‘vampires’, ‘parasites’ and ‘rats’, and I have also seen Tories call Blair a ‘devil’, etc. None of them are racist or anti-semitic despite the fact that those terms were used by racists to depict jews and foreigners (especially the vampire image). They are just part of over-heated political insult-trading. I’ve also seen politicians depicted as animals on Spitting Image and in a host of satirical cartoons. Mostly as pigs, oddly enough, in a range of publications from the Guardian to the Telegraph.
If you’re saying that Plaid isn’t allowed to avail itself of animal images because when Plaid uses them they’re racist (but not when others use them), then you’re very silly. And stop trying to browbeat us with your allegedly superior studies of this or that subject. You’ve not exactly put them to shining use on this blog.
Kid,
My questions are not irrelevant, they go absolutely to the heart of the matter. I have answered the questions you have asked. Do you think you are above questioning? Are you a moral authority? Whilst I accept your right to interpret the dehumanisation of political opponents as acceptable copy for a supposedly credible independent magazine, you do not accept my interpretation despite the fact that it is rooted in textual analysis and I have given you context. I think that makes you unreasonable.
None of my comment has been made lightly, I would have been more flippant if I were making points lightly. I have tried to convey very clearly just why I feel the techniques employed by the blogger are grotesque. I feel that I have marginally succeeded in making my point even to you, because you have now given up trying to defend the blogger, preferring to attack me again. That is a neat diversion technique, but it undermines your initial argument (which was untrue) that the blogger only refers to one politician as a pig, because he looks a bit like one.
I would contend that you will not honestly answer my questions because you do not want to lie, which I respect, because that you know that an honest answer will make my case and undermine your case.
If a supposedly independent blog or magazine started routinely referring to Adam Price, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Helen Mary Jones and Bethan Jenkins as vermin you would be disgusted. Are you genuinely unable to admit that?
Further more, I content that you, or at least fellow Plaid travellers, would compare that kind of language and technique to the worst kind of propaganda used by the far-right and anti-semites. And you would be exactly right to do so.
Dafydd.
I do know that i have responsibilities when it comes to supporting this site and I would like to say something cleaver but dai williams has said it all – PIGGY PIGGY PIGGY!!! OINK OINK OINK!!! sorry i do not like him
Dafydd. OK, since you seem unable to defend the following quotation: “the use of the pig as the chosen animal in this case points to the blogger’s anti-semitism, either concious or subconcious.” which is an accusation of anti-semitism and racism.
I note you haven’t defended it, or proved it, just ignored it. As I say, my objections to you are not political, they are moral. They concern the crass and cynical holllowing out of emotive and deeply serious terminology for personal or rhetorical gain. It is pretty despicable really.
Dafydd says: “There is no burden of proof upon me relating to the charge of the anti-semitic (concious or subconcious) undertones of this blog, as that is merely my perception”
Ah well, that’s handy.
Surely Andrews is called Piggy for the simple reason that is what he is has been called in political circles for some years. It’s common knowledge and didn’t originate on thsi blog. He can’t help the way he looks and people can’t help referring to him as Piggy because of it. If he was indeed Jewish there might (possibly) be an argument that the term was anti-semitic, but as far as I know he’s not. The term could just as easily be considered anti-Islamic for exactly the same reason. However, apparently Andrews and his wife regularly attend a non-confomist chapel in Cardiff – which might provide a bit of a clue as to his religious leanings!
It just shows how pathetically weak and feeble once powerful Liebour has become in Wales in that its simpering apologists have to stoop to the dubious babble of psycho-analysis to try and fight their way out of an ever-tightening corner.
I love Wales, her people, her history, and I want to see her become a free and independent nation. I have therefore decided to ‘come out’ as an anti-semite! I want to make a full public apology for all the damage this attitude of mind has caused to the people of any nation, especially those minorities who have been persecuted and suffered because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wise up Liebour apologists, cheap rhetorical tricks won’t save you from the wrath of the Tories!
PS: Pigs are lovely animals. Liebour pigs are not.
In fact they’re just pigs.
Don’t be put off by lies and half-truths. Liebour will no doubt accuse you of being child-molesters next. There is no depth to the extent of guile, ignominy and slander to which these people will sink. Damian, Dolly, Vain, Pigswill, Eluned etc have already proved that point.
Keep going at them – relentlessly – and these cowards will be driven out of Wales with their tails between their trotters!