admin

Online editor of Cambria Magazine

 
fire2

The Future of Welsh Television

By Ron Jones

Emyr Lewis could have chosen no better time to take up his appointment as a Senior Fellow in Welsh Law at Cardiff University. A new corpus of Welsh law is being developed before our eyes but seen by few. Meanwhile the relationship between our devolved and non-devolved administration responsibilities remains as one of the unresolved issues of devolution. For example, the Welsh Government’s frustration over its lack of powers relating to large-scale energy projects is a running sore, while, in other areas, disputes and issues are resolved in that old British way of informal deals and ad hoc compromise. Some matters fade into the shadows with no compromise and a nagging feeling within Wales that Welsh needs are not being adequately dealt with by the UK Government.

Get your research into overdrive Emyr, because – over the next few years – a non-devolved issue affecting the daily lives of everyone in Wales is up for grabs and will define broadcasting in Wales for a generation. Between now and 2017 decisions will be made on the new BBC Charter and the future of S4C and their future funding through the licence fee. The ITV licence is due to expire and the renewal process will redefine their public service obligations – if any – to Wales. The Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) plans for local television may not be delivered in their present form but whatever emerges will impact on the media landscape in Wales.

The starting point for such a radical review is not ideal. We are awash with legacy issues peculiar to Wales that may not be high on the policy priorities as seen from DCMS. The easy answer to these challenges is to call for the devolution of broadcasting policies, but we should beware that achieving the apparently straightforward is full of pitfalls, particularly when it is not politically deliverable. Broadcasting is not a devolved issue and we need to get used to it. Besides do we really want a broadcasting environment where the portrayal of Wales stems entirely from Welsh-based channels? For a long as we are part of the United Kingdom we need services that are for and from Wales, but which also stand as a reflection reflection of Wales rightful place as an important part of the UK television service. As in other non-devolved areas, the way forward is to find governance and accountability mechanisms that deliver both.

Before we look at structures we need to seriously consider the nature of the public service television we need and expect. Can we compensate, for example, for the worrying lack of plurality and news in our written press through improved television and on-line services? What are the particular needs of a country committed to bilingualism? And how do we achieve fairness for both our language groups and the variety of fluency that exists? How should our news providers underpin our new Welsh democracy and society? We need a strategic review with public consultation and the involvement of all the stakeholders, including the DCMS, BBC Trust, S4C, the Welsh Government, the relevant NDPB’s (non-departmental public body also sometimes known as quangos), Assembly members and Welsh MP’s.

Such a needs-based analysis of the public service element must prioritise Wales’ news and newsbased programmes, current affairs, events and sport. However, if this is to also include a range of public service programmes from history to culture, many genres will have to go. Remember, public scrutiny can only assess and describe needs: it does not guarantee that everything is possible.

We must also bear in mind that from 2014 there will be a new licence for ITV, although there has been little indication from the Government as to how it intends to move on from the present regime. Whether or not ITV is required to compete for its licence, we do have an interest in its future provisions for a public service for Wales. The licence will almost certainly contain such provisions and Wales needs to call for service levels consistent with its needs. Previous licence conditions have been loosened by Ofcom without taking account of Wales, so should we demand a licence for Wales protected by an ownership structure such as Glas Cymru? The service could then be sub-contracted to suitable operators more tightly than the existing DCMS/Ofcom/ ITV arrangements.

With our lack of any major metropolitan areas the present DCMS proposals for local TV are probably not sustainable without public sector support. They could, nevertheless, be provided as a component of a network of services that we do need. The Welsh Government is investing large sums in ensuring that the whole of Wales has access to high-speed broadband, much of it wireless. The integration of local news, national news and the Government’s commitment to delivering public services and education over the internet could provide answers to many of our information needs in Wales.

Even before the BBC was charged with funding S4C from the television licence fee, the Corporation was the major player in Welsh broadcasting. Now its role is even more important – economically, journalistically and culturally. As an institution created to operate where the free market cannot succeed, the BBC can and must fulfil its public purpose in Wales. However, history suggests the ‘Beeb’ needs a hand in defining what we need.

This should not be a painful process for Wales or the BBC. It is familiar with defining its services through a series of Service Licences, so should there be one for Wales? In the case of S4C the new partnership arrangements will almost certainly follow the Service Licence approach. In that case, the present thinking is that – in recognition of its statutory obligation to support and develop the Welsh language – this will be agreed through discussions between S4C, the BBC Trust and DCMS after consultation with the Welsh Government. If so, this then opens the door to a similar approach being taken with English language services.

As with all non-devolved matters our voice is legally small. Our representatives in Parliament are sometimes less effective than we (and some of them) would hope to be. The Government in Cardiff inevitably has to prioritise its use of its political capital in London. Like it or not the media’s influence is pernicious. It describes the way we see ourselves and defines the way others see us. So do we still want to leave its fate to people in London?

gan Ron Jones

Reprinted from Cambria magazine Dec 2011

Share
 
scotland

Scotlands Brave New Future

A week is a long time in politics, a Gannex-clad politician once said, but in terms of international affairs a decade is the equivalent of about 100 light years. As our Celtic cousins to the north of Hadrian’s Wall fastidiously prepare for their ‘Independence Referendum’, the rest of the people of the United Kingdom look on (depending on where they reside) with a mixture of jealousy, fascination, bemusement, and Home Counties anger.

Alex Salmond’s great achievement is that he has seamlessly repositioned Scottish nationalism and forged, in its wake, a universal, ecumenical sense of Scottish nationhood. The rhetoric of ‘the nation’ has now become ‘the national rhetoric’. Patriotism, and ‘the Scottish will’, is now an essential part of not just the Scottish body politic, but each Scottish person’s body politic. Be they born in the Highlands, in the Lowlands or be they recent arrivals, Salmond’s SNP has created a national mood that simply, but firmly, says “Scotland First”. Even many life-long, instinctive conservatives, those most upstanding advocates for the retention of the Union, now see not supporting the SNP – tacitly at least – as tantamount to ‘putting Scotland down’. Hence, the primary hurdle in the way of achieving independence has already been leaped. Scottish people are thinking Scotland. Indeed, things have moved so far that the Scottish Conservative Party, celebrating its centenary next year having been set up in 1912 to bolster the Unionist voice, is now navel-gazing and wondering whether, in 2012, they’ll be reduced to waving the Scottish ship out of Port UK, at the very moment that ‘Britishness’, in whatever guises that still remains, has its own valedictory celebrations at an athletics stadium in East London.

Whatever some people may argue, history, and especially contemporary history, has taught us that movements towards constitutional and societal change – movements activated by that most stirring of concepts ‘freedom’ – are almost always irreversible. The clichés about the genie being out of the bottle since the   arrival of devolution will certainly be the mantra of the status quo brigade, though the decline and collapse of Internal Empire(-ism) has a longer genealogy. Point to Gwynfor in ’66 or Winnie in ’67, if you wish, but the Union itself, fabricated in the post-Absolutist milieu of 1707, was never a truly settled political project. As time went by, and through the bonding agents of wars and colonialism, more and more people certainly did buy into the adventurism of Empire. However, there remained a sturdy band of renegades – Irish Free Staters, and Chapel attending Cymru Fydd members amongst them – who never accepted, or at the very least did not fully buy into, ‘England’s Glory’. Furthermore, flashes of the Scottish Enlightenment sporadically stirred, and memories of Bannockburn were occasionally summoned. The SNP’s recent ascendency owes much to earlier feelings of Scottish distinctiveness, though, in fairness, they have also been calculating in their eschewing of some of the more over-the-top, dewy-eyed representations of Scotland and the Scottish psyche.

So where does Wales stand in this evolving political geography? Will Wales be a player for change, or will it be a peripheral bloc, shaken and stirred by constitutional upheavals but unwilling, or unable, to discard torpor and drift; unsteadily floating as events overtake it and shape its ultimate destiny. What can, or what should, it offer?

 One suggestion may be the re-invigoration of the notion of ‘Welsh Europeans’. It may be time to think once again about this concept of duality. As a nation, and as a people, we have enough skin and bone to allow both identities to live and flourish. But it is a choice, and like all choices it requires some degree of knowledge, a forum for rational debate, and a certain amount of prescience, commitment to seeing the bigger picture is also a pre-requisite, especially so as the discussion on ‘Internal Enlargement’ within the European Union resonates across the mainland of our continent, and is being vociferously advocated by emerging states such as Catalunya, the Basque Country and Flanders. Thus, cases have to be made, and arguments won, if Wales is to attain ‘nationhood’ within the European context; a context that must feel natural and not forced nor false. If that happens, then people will begin to acclimatise themselves, before they start to envisage a ‘Day One’ scenario wherein Wales is a fully-enlivened nation.

Notwithstanding this, and however much we plan and prepare for this eventuality, it is not too fanciful to visualise some of the semi-surreal events that may take place on that momentous day when mature Wales finally positions itself, eye-to-eye, with the other nations of Europe and beyond. For instance, it will be a foregone conclusion that the uncompromising voice of Dr Kim Howells will be heard on Jason Mohammad’s Radio Wales phone-in talking about “the disaster” of self-government.

 “A total shock to us all….a retrograde step”, he will no doubt proclaim. But will it be? A shock, that is, and a retrograde step. Well it hasn’t got to be on both counts, though preparation will be the key.

Scotland’s ‘Yes’ vote may induce a myriad of responses and reactions. There could be calls for federating the remnants of the UK. This may be the position emanating from the Unionists, as the Conservative and Labour parties will seek, probably using desperately archaic rationales, to forge a ‘New Britain’ concord from the ashes of the old state: even though the moniker ‘Britain’ has no political meaning unless it includes the land of Scotland, which it evidently will not. In all of this flux and confusion Plaid Cymru may boldly designate immediate independence, which its grassroots members would enthusiastically endorse, or the party may adopt the more cautious, gradualist option of Devolution Max (short-term), then parity with Scotland (medium to long-term). This ‘either or’ will probably come down to the direction, ambition and vehemence of Plaid Cymru’s new leader, and the pace of political events in the years and months leading to the Scottish Referendum. Plaid Cymru, therefore, has to decide how transformative it wants this process to be, and at what speed it wishes to travel. It also needs to think a lot harder about what could be termed the ‘Welsh-ification’ of Welsh politics and society. How ‘Welsh’ would an autonomous Wales really be? But all of this may be overshadowed by two other conceivable developments.

 The first of these is a potential lesson from the recent past. The Berlin Wall was an edifice, like the UK state, which was seemingly indestructible. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of state control and rigidity. It also represented outmoded patterns of thought: the totalitarian hand over the mouths of the subjugated. But once challenged, and upon being toppled, the ‘domino effect’ of change – albeit that the change was in unknown directions and into uncharted waters – proved to be rapid and widespread. It was a visible pandemic of alteration. The UK, post the Scottish ‘Yes’, may follow the same path of express disintegration and metamorphosis. If it does, and this possibility cannot be lightly dismissed, then all of the political parties and politicians in Wales will have to postulate their contingency plans. Some, possibly many, ‘Brit Nats’ will disconsolately cling on to the crumbling UK apparatus in the pitiful hope that Wales could become some sort of ‘Greater England’ appendage in a concocted UK Mark 2. But, in all reality, when this moment does arise it will be far too late for those deniers of national selfdetermination, from all parts of the political spectrum, to merely bury their heads in the sand, or to heckle their disapproval from the Commons benches or Senedd swing-chairs.

 However, the other arrangement that could materialise, and one which may well prove to be the paramount, and most potent, driving force in all of the reconfigurations, will be the inevitable development of a progressive ‘radical centre / centre-left’ in England. Though currently relatively inconspicuous, the Commonweal of Albion – The Guardian letter-writers, the old SDP’ers, the Hampstead intellectuals – must at some stage offer a cogent and structured view of what an independent England, unshackled from Britannia, could look like. Fairly inevitably, a resurgent England, fostering civic nationalism and offering an honest critique of its own political traditions and history, would act as a catalyst for re-assessment and subsequent socio-political and cultural restructuring. So, though England currently slumbers, it must, and will, eventually realise it has to wake up, address the Realpolitik, and show its hand of identity and intent. Till that time comes, however, it is left to the nationalists’ imaginaire to conjure up a picture of a deconstructed UK state, which will begin to emerge once the Scottish people say ‘Yes’ and the Penny Sterling drops, clankingly, on the peoples of its three contiguous nations.

gan Dr Alan Sandry

Republished from Cambria December 2011

Share
 
Gary Speed

In my years in London’s Fleet Street I never worked for Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun but had a friend who did and, when he presented his first story to his news editor, he read it and asked him what he thought it was. “Well, basically, it’s shit,” my friend explained.

“I know it’s shit but I want it made shittier,” the news editor exploded.

I often think of this little cameo and the news editor wandering around his newsroom exhorting his reporters to write more shit since it tells us a lot about the way the newspaper operates and the cynicism which drove it to become the biggest-selling in the world.

It was often said that no self-respecting haddock would want to find itself wrapped in The Sun yet I did often drink with its reporters in Fleet Street and found them a companionable bunch, never slow to get to the bar for their rounds and with at least two disgusting stories about everyone. They were little more than second-hand car salesmen really, enjoying good pay and huge fraudulent expenses with private lives that would have put a gang of alleycats to shame.

I did have a few run-ins with The Sun over the years, once over my then friend, the Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, with whom I had shared a house in university. I wrote a piece for The Independent about our college days which, unknown to me, was sold on to The Sun. They took the piece and carefully changed almost every line until it suited the anti-Kinnock line they were promoting at the time. It became a tissue of lies and, perhaps needless to say, Kinnock never spoke to me again.

The best thing you can ever do with any Sun reporter, if he comes poking around your door, is not to say one single word and keep that door firmly shut. Whatever they say, even it’s to tell you the time, is almost bound to be a lie.

Occasionally I am called to take part in a lunchtime discussion on BBC Radio Wales, usually when it’s something to do with the media. Recently I found myself on a panel with the London online editor of The Sun. When asked why his newspaper kept hounding celebrities about their sex lives he said they did so as a service to society, that the paper made them into better and more responsible people.

The show’s presenter Jason Mohammed asked me what I thought of that reply and, practically foaming at the mouth, I shouted, “Well there are only two words to describe that and they are ‘Complete bollocks’.”

I couldn’t then finish what I wanted to say because Jason cranked up his apology machine and drowned out all my other words saying how sorry he was about all this bad language. Even the online editor of The Sun started complaining about me using such language in front of him.

Well that’s the end of my career as a BBC pundit, I thought rather happily because it’s an occasional job I’ve worked hard to kill off for years. But minutes later a businessman got on the line and, before Jason could bleep him, shouted: “Tom Davies was absolutely right. What that man from The Sun said was complete bollocks.” Jason moaned and groaned and started cranking up his apology machine all over again.

An unusual thing happened to me the other day since I kept crying copiously during a football match. I know I’m in the absolute prime of my decrepitude but there was Newcastle playing Chelsea – neither of which I am particularly fond of – and I was sitting there blubbering like a baby because the fans kept chanting: “There’s only one Gary Speed.” 

There is a lot of talk on Twitter and elsewhere that Gary Speed was gay and that he committed suicide because The Sun was pursuing him about some affair he was alleged to have been having. I don’t know if there is any truth in this but I do know that who a man wants to sleep with is entirely his own business, no matter what the online editor of The Sun might tell you.

But if The Sun was actually hounding this lovely, beautiful footballer to a premature grave, for whatever reason, then I can promise you that, if it does get out, all hell will break loose and every decent minded person in the land will rise up and march on the offices of this shitbag newspaper and destroy the dump with the flame and flood of their purest anger.

This paper has become the very cornerstone of a great dynasty of evil which is now ruling the minds and thoughts of almost everyone in this blighted world. With its routine lies, degradation of women on Page Three and merciless hounding of people merely because their faces appear on television, this newspaper is rotten to the core and all it truly deserves is to be consigned to an early and dishonourable grave.

gan Tom Davies – see my facebook page for more articles

Share
 

We are pleased to welcome the author and ex-journalist Tom Davies as a contributor to Cambria Politico.

Tom DaviesYet another mad dog of the video age, Anders Behring Breivik, was hauled up into the public dock in Oslo for the first time this week and I can’t quite decide who I despise the most: this wretch who took 77 lives or the world’s media gathered there recording his every word and look.

When you look at Breivik’s life you see a man who planned his attack meticulously over years and one who was plainly relying on the publicity generated by his attack to give him a world platform for his ideas. And didn’t it work like a dream! “Gruesome but necessary,” he said of what he had done.

The last thing he did before his attack was to send out e-mails listing his ideas and, within hours of that attack, all these dopey ideas on such as political correctness and Islam were being run at nose-bleeding length even by so-called respectable papers like The Observer. They’re still examining his ideas in column after column in papers everywhere as if they have some intrinsic worth just because he mercilessly gunned down all those poor kids.

This tragedy takes us right to the heart of modern terrorism: the filthy relationship which has grown up between terrorism and the media. They have both become the truly fatal lovers of our lost and falling world: the media with its addiction to all forms of violence and the terrorist with his ruthless and even intelligent exploitation of that addiction. It is all beyond the wildest fantasies of Shakespeare. Both sides hate one another and yet are locked in a lethal, sado-masochistic embrace which they cannot get out of and, in so doing, are both dragging the world spiralling down into their stained and incestuous beds.

If you have a cause to promote forget about stupid words and get yourself a bomb or a gun. Give me a celebrity murder, preferably of a sexual nature, and I’ll reward you with eternal fame.

The media will shout and scream about these charges. They almost always do. But maybe that’s as it should be. The greater the truth, the greater the rage.

gan Tom Davies – follow me on facebook

Share
 

Open Letter to Cadw:
Re: your exhibition about the cartoon Princes of Gwynedd, located in a public lavatory just off the A55

Cadw down the toiletHow is it possible for an organisation charged with the preservation of a nation’s heritage to then treat it with such disrespect? As a patriotic Welshman with a developed interest in my nation’s history and culture, I am revolted and the frankly bizarre decision to place an exhibition about the Princes of Gwynedd in …. a public lavatory! You have made our history, culture and indeed our nation itself into a laughing stock throughout the world. Browse the Internet and discover how people are reacting!
Your decision at Abergwyngregyn (to use the post-conquest name) is incomprehensible – at the least level as a waste of public money – and has made me deeply ashamed and angry. Please consider my long-standing life membership of your organisation void and terminated.
I hope one day soon that those responsible for this tasteless travesty and poorly produced vulgar farce will be made publicly accountable. Your badly produced, childish and ill-sited garbled cartoons have insulted Welsh people everywhere and devalued a proud heritage.

Cadw ToiletYours with complete disrespect, Dafydd Bullock, Gorsedd y Beirdd

Photos: Kathryn Gibson

Share
 

Here’s the story. Imagine that you are a long established Welsh supplier of a product/service in a global market and you found out that a publicly funded project specifically designed to support Welsh business had chosen  to use an American product which is less feature rich and a direct competitor, how would you feel?

Pissed off that’s how you or I would feel. There is a principal at stake here.

Politicians of every hue have made many statements about ‘localism’ and how they are bending over backwards to encourage procurement by local authorities and public sector agencies to be done locally. However, it seems that when it comes to the crunch this principal is secondary to many other overriding considerations.

The guilty party in this small, but illustrative, story is Software Alliance Wales (SAW) who are allegedly funded to the tune of £8 million of EU and Welsh Government funds to deliver training (in Information Technology/software development) to businesses in so-called convergence areas of Wales. A noble and useful project no doubt although you can probably count on the fingers of two hands the number of businesses in this area that are capable of receiving or benefiting from this expensive ‘training’ provided by academics (who may be well behind the curve of software development). £8 million to run a few courses for a couple of dozen people and put on some events? It begs a question.

Anyway to continue, the SAW (no, it is not a computer game featuring vampires – see http://softwarealliancewales.com/) have chosen to procure for their backend office a piece of US software called MailChimp.  This software is used for bulk emailing of newsletters. It is one of very many products in a crowded and highly competitive market. The other player in this sad story is MarketMailer, a long established Welsh software product by a Welsh company located in Cardigan in the very ‘Convergence area’ that is supposed to be being assisted (sic) and with a large client base of Welsh and UK businesses and organisations (including several politicians!). In any head to head, technical or financial analysis/evaluation, MarketMailer stacks up equal and better in many respects than MailChimp. SAW maintain that this kind of evaluation was done and that MarketMailer was considered. However, the records show that no (free) trial of MarketMailer was done nor has there been any correspondence, enquiry or request for information or invitation to tender. In a telephone conversation with the Project Manager of SAW it was admitted that the clinching argument in favour of MailChimp was that a member of staff had prior experience in its use and that it would be too expensive in time to retrain this staff member in the use of another product (even though the skills needed to operate both products are identical).

In email correspondence, the first line of defence by SAW is that they are constrained by regulations presumably against ‘protectionism’ .

“Although we’re an EU funded project, we work within the stringent procurement regulations of both Swansea University and the Welsh European Funding Office, and are therefore not in a postition (their spelling mistake) to show preferential treatment to companies based in Wales.  We do however support businesses in the Convergence areas of Wales by offering innovative training solutions and other services.”

This protectionism defence won’t wash simply because MarketMailer just wishes to be considered on a level playing field in a proper technical head to head evaluation, not because it happens to be a Welsh product. Chware teg.

Similarly, further statements (excuses) are not acceptable:

“We are a very small team and needed an email solution that best suited our needs. We did look at a range of solutions available (no evidence of this) as I mentioned before, but the online resources available from MailChimp together with their willingness to incorporate Welsh language, and the fact that we have in house expertise made this the best option for us.  We also needed the chosen email solution to fully intergrate (their spelling mistake) with our CRM, and as our database solution was already in place we needed something that would simply and effectively work with it. We were able to do this with MailChimp.”

MarketMailer does all that MailChimp does and, moreover, it is specifically designed to accommodate the Welsh language for bilingual newsletters. The integration with their CRM is by import and export of csv files a trivial task that is also handled simply and automatically by MarketMailer.

The most galling thing about this is that MarketMailer sponsors and supports many many local organisations and charities free of charge and would have been perfectly amenable to assist SAW by providing their services pro bono.  But no, it seems that this continuation of the economically damaging procurement policies of ‘anywhere but Wales’ (whose classic exemplar is the VisitWales website) is set to continue.

I don’t wish to belittle SAW and what they are trying to do (although it would be nice to know why the project is costing nearly twice the amount of money that the Opportunity Wales Project had to run a four year project in Objective One areas more directly supporting all sector Welsh businesses).  However, I would like to think that they will work harder next time to ensure that if a service or solution exists locally they should use it. Also, even if a solution or service doesn’t exist locally or doesn’t exactly match their specifications they should put resources into creating it locally. They should NOT be buying it in from a direct foreign national competitor.

Finally, I have concentrated on a specific documented case here but my concern is applicable across all Public Sector procurement policy. Every other country in the world interprets the procurement rules and regulations to suit their local circumstances and to ‘look after their own.’ In Wales, we apparently choose not to do this. In fact, in some well known cases the…  ‘anywhere but Wales’ policy has prevailed . This is self flagellation and the road to economic suicide.

 gan Chris Jones

Share
 

taffymanderingThe first democratic nation in the world, the United States, came into being in 1789. It tells you something about democratic politicians that it only took them 20 years to work out how to thwart the voters and rig the voting system in their own favour.
In 1809 Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry realized that his opponents got most of their votes from the outlying parts of the state (which is roughly square in shape). His own voters were mostly in the centre of the square. So he drew the boundaries of the six constituencies to which Massachusetts was then entitled in such a way that one huge, long, very thin district curled around the edge of the square. It contained almost all his opponents, and of course they won it by a huge majority. The other five constituencies – central and compact – each had a small majority for Gerry, since the opposition voters were almost all in the long thin outer edge district. This outrageous long thin monstrosity was called “Gerry’s salamander”, from whence our term “gerrymander”.
While most people are presently focussing on the AV referendum, the new Conservative government is also planning to reduce radically the number of MPs in Parliament. The details are not yet completely settled, but the principle is that all seats should have exactly the same number of voters, as near as possible. What this means for Wales is (a) that, since Welsh seats are much smaller than average, Wales will lose a lot; not knowing the exact details yet, it will go down from 40 seats at the last election to somewhere between 18-26 seats at the next one; and (b) there are going to be amalgamations,divisions and other surgery on the existing seats to make
this reduction. This will give scope for rigging the voting system geographically, i.e. for gerrymandering.
There is an easy way to calculate the approximate effects of this, which is the point of this article. Welsh seats are so small at present that, if you combine them two by two, without any other surgery, they come out almost exactly equal. So I simply draw a map of the present Welsh seats, combine each one with one of its neighbours, add the votes for each party in the two seats, and predict the winner in the combined seat. The
number of seats goes down from 40 to 20.
But which seat to combine with which neighbour? The answer turns out to be surprisingly simple, the reason basically being that Wales is such a peculiar shape, with a lot of “sticking-out bits”, and a “thin bit in the middle.” American political scientists (who know all about gerrymandering) speak learnedly of “corner” seats
and “isthmus” seats. I prefer to say “promontory” seats like Lly^n, and a “Mid-Wales bloc” in the thin middle.
The most extreme promontory seat is Ynys Mon, whose only connection with the mainland is with the Arfon seat across the Menai Strait . There is no other natural way of combining it with any other part of Wales. The “natural” way of amalgamating seats is to add the votes in these two:

2010 Seat    PC    Lab   C    LD
Ynys Mon   9029 |11490 |7744 | 2592
Arfon            9383 | 7928 | 4416 | 3666
New Seat     18412 | 19418 | 12160 | 6258

I will explain shortly what I mean by “natural”. For now, notice that one Labour seat and one Plaid seat are folded into a Labour marginal. The map then dictates that, if promontory seats can only be combined with the neighbouring mainland, the next promontory (Lly^n = Meirionnydd & Dwyfor seat) can only combine naturally with the Tory seat of Aberconwy. The adding-up procedure then gives a marginal PC seat with the loss of one Conservative seat.
The next promontory is the Penfro peninsula in the South-West, which is big enough for two seats (Pembroke S. & Carmarthen W., and Preseli). The only natural  combination is to put them together. Since both are held by the Tories, the new seat will be safe for them.
The Mid-Wales bloc at present contains four seats. Given the way the six promontory seats are forced to combine as above, there are only two ways of pairing the Mid-Wales four: an east-west pairing (Ceredigion + Montgomery and Brecon-Radnor + Carmarthen E.-Dinefor) or a north-south pairing (Ceredigion with Carmarthen E., Brecon-Radnor with Montgomery).
The Cambrian mountains are a natural dividing line; there are cultural differences between the borderlands of Powys and the Welsh-speaking west. The natural pairing is thus the north-south one. If so, the new Ceredigion+Carmarthen E. seat is marginal for Plaid Cymru, and the Powys seat (Brecon-Radnor-Montgomery) is Lib-Dem.
The remaining 30 present-day seats can be paired in almost any way you please. However, they have one thing in common – they form compact blocs in the North-East and South-East which are so strongly Labour that, whichever pairing you choose, all pairs except two will still be won by Labour after pairing. The current Liberal Cardiff Central seat and Conservative Cardiff N. and Vale of Glamorgan will be swamped by any possible neighbouring Labour-held partner. The two exceptions are Clwyd W. in the North-East and Monmouth in the South-East, which are both strongly Conservative enough to overcome possible Labour partners. The possible partners for Monmouth are the two Newport town seats and Torfaen; I regard the Torfaen option as the only natural one.

The situation is less obvious for Clwyd W.; I have rather arbitrarily chosen the Denbighshire pairing Clwyd W. + Clwyd S. In any case, the new seat is again Tory. I won’t go into detail about any other pairings in the North-East and South-East, because they will all be Labour.

My predictions are:
Party Old New Loss of Possible Marginals
Seats Seats seats (incumbent)
PC 3 2 33% Ynys Mon + Arfon (Lab)
Labour 26 4 46% Monmouth + Torfaen (Con)
Conservative 8 3 63% Dwyfor-Meirion. + Aberconwy (PC)
Lib. Dem. 3 1 67% Ceredigion + Carmarthen E. (PC)

So, while Wales as a whole of course loses, within Wales Plaid come out relatively well. This may appear surprising, but it is due to the way Welsh speakers are distributed, since they are Plaid’s core. They form a compact bloc (the “Bro”) in the west and particularly in the promontory seats. The promontories lose by being forced to expand, but they can only “naturally” expand into the adjacent mainland, which itself is strongly Welsh-speaking. The opposite is true for the Tories and Liberals, whose support is scattered across Wales. Expanding any of their seats brings in supporters
Finally, how to recognize a gerrymander once the new map has been drawn in a year or two? I have indicated in this article the pairings of seats which I consider “natural”. Any departure from the natural arrangements for the named seats should be suspect (for example) promontory seats not being combined with the adjacent mainland)
- a “taffymander”, so to speak.

gan MICHAEL HARRIS

Republished from the latest issue of Cambria magazine

Share
 

S4C What of it’s future?

 

gan Eifion Lewis

Touring a show they had devised themselves about S4C’s on-going crisis my students had quite a shock. The drama – 4 waleS/C england – was the product of intensive discussions they organised on behalf of a channel that they infrequently watch. Indeed, they infrequently watch any television channel. Facebook and other social media applications have generally taken the place of television with regard to this age group. The response of audiences in the village halls and chapel vestries of our Welsh speaking communities was quite a shock to them. Audiences presented them with a depth of feeling and concern about the potential fate of S4C that they were just not prepared for.
At the beginning of this year I took part in an open discussion in my own community about the channel’s crisis. Two emotions were prevalent: anger and anxiety. The anger emanated from the UK coalition government’s high-handed treatment of our one and only Welsh medium channel. The anxiety was focussed on its future. Does S4C have one?
It’s a good question and one that has almost as many answers as there are interested parties. Some media analysts are concerned that the contractual arrangements between S4C and the small group of largely Cardiff based companies that supply the bulk of its output will make it very difficult for the channel to manage the severe budget cuts that the government has enforced.
Although they are too wary to say it out aloud what they infer is simple: S4C does not have a sustainable future. Not, that is, in its present form. Their worst day scenario is a complete – call-in-the-receivers style -shutdown.
Their best guess is that a much smaller and very much less active S4C will be rescued from the ashes. Less active would mean a return to limited hours broadcasting – from 6.00pm until 10.00pm nightly, for example. Such a reduced schedule would mean the end of S4C’s substantial children’s output – an output that is widely acclaimed not only for its high production standards but also for its tangible contribution towards delivering a bilingual Wales. Such a reduction would also raise questions about S4C’s presence at our main communal happenings which include the Royal Welsh Agricultural Show as well as the Urdd and the National Eisteddfodau. Whereas television coverage tends to have an adverse effect on sporting events Wales’ principal cultural festivals have doubtlessly enhanced their appeal and effectiveness since the advent of S4C and its comprehensive coverage.
Ned Thomas, a veteran of the battle to establish a Welsh channel and an academic with wide experience of international media, has commented that whilst many European broadcasters are heavily dependent on the dubbing of American drama and films to fill their schedules S4C, from the start, has managed to provide us with television that is home-produced through and through. But whilst the harbingers of doom warn us that such a service cannot be taken for granted in the future other, more radical voices say that cutting S4C’s working budget does not necessarily mean a less virile service.
Indeed, they argue to the contrary. A slimmer S4C could be more invigorative and much more exciting. Such an argument is based on a presumption that the channel’s guiding figures will translate the funding crisis into an opportunity to re-imagine its role and re-define its raison d’etre to take account of the very different current context of television as a national media and its relationship with the whole issue of the Welsh language in comparison to the days of its inception, almost 40 years ago. In 1982, the Welsh fourth channel was allowed to join BBC 1, BBC 2 and HTV’s collective monopoly of home  entertainment. Within the last 10 years the advent of multi-channel digital television followed by the social networking revolution has consigned that situation well and truly to history.
Similarly, the day-to-day status of the Welsh language has changed considerably over the same period of time.
Forty odd years ago hardly any one of the many professional agencies that now plan and promote the language at national, regional and local level existed. Most importantly of all, there was no Welsh Assembly Government to take political responsibility for the language and to instigate progressive initiatives across the boundaries of all devolved matters.
The students who wrote and performed 4 waleS/C england are from a variety of linguistic backgrounds. They would not have gathered together on a Welshmedium university course were it not for the bilingual educational provision whose widespread blossoming is indicative of the changes Wales has undergone since S4C was first launched. Language commentators attribute much of the success of the bilingual schools movement to the change in attitude towards the Welsh language effected by S4C’s early success. From being the language of all our yesterdays it became the lingua franca of a confident and ambitious young and creative energy.
Doomsday could still happen – not least if S4C is to become merely an esoteric department within the BBC’s vast and hierarchical empire. Surely the radicals’ approach is the only possible way of ensuring a meaningful future for the channel. Such an approach would engender the development of a broadcasting strategy that is based on the multi-channel and multi-platform reality of the moment. Such an approach would ensure that S4C, and its world-wide potential, is seen as an essential component within the burgeoning framework of a bilingual nation. In Welsh, ‘language’ opinionis idiomatically partnered by ‘culture’ (iaith a diwylliant). The radical re-imagining of S4C would re-establish the symbiotic link between the language and distinctive culture of Wales. Such a step could be very far reaching. It could even provide us with the power of self-belief.
It was understanding the battle fought by a determined few that enthused my students to create a drama out of S4C’s crisis.

Eifion Lewis

Eifion Lewis is a proud product of the Rhondda Valley. However, it is the rural communities of the west that have provided him with a base of creativity and energy with which to question both the fragility and resilience of Welsh culture. During his time as Lecturer in Charge of Theatr Felin-fach he instigated radical projects that
sought to develop a creative dialogue between cultures. Subsequently he established Cwmni Cydweithredol Troedyrhiw – a co-operative company that produced, in 2010, a whole year of multi-media work dedicated to the re-telling of how the community of Epynt was lost, 70 years previously. In May, 2010 he was appointed Performance and Script-writing Fellow at University of Wales, Trinity St David’s. He has one son, Rhodri, and his wife, Eleri, is part of Tinopolis’ Wedi 3 production team in Llanelli.

Share

Cambria Books

New publication. Important contribution to our knowledge of the Arab Spring by Denis Campbell.
© 2011 CAMBRIA POLITICO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha