Cambria

 

Journalists faced with fast-moving events (such as the riots in England this August) often take snap decisions which, they hope, will properly reflect the events as they unfold. In the case of the BBC, it was briefly criticised for at first describing the rampage in Tottenham as a ‘protest’, based on the fact that the riots stemmed from the death of a 29-year-old man killed by a police bullet.

To its credit, the ‘Beeb’ not only swapped ‘protests’ for ‘riots’, but made a  determined decision to refer to them as happening ‘in London’ then, later ‘England’ or ‘English’ cities – for two reasons: 1) the riots were not happening in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and 2) it was felt that constant references to ‘Britain’ or ‘British cities’ might – if only by implication – encourage copy-cat disturbances in those three countries.

On this basis, it seemed perfectly reasonable to assume that The Western Mail (as Wales’ national paper) would have approached the events in a similarily objective manner – as might be the case (for example) if riots had broken out just over the water in Northern France or Dublin. But unfortunately no, and largely thanks to an outburst by Professor Dave Adamson of the University of Glamorgan and chief executive of the Merthyr Tydfil-based Centre for Regeneration Excellence in Wales (Crew).

Writing on the Bevan Foundation website, he announced: “If Wales has escaped the scale of problems experienced in England it is only a temporary reprieve,  deriving more from the dispersed nature of the Welsh urban population than by any immunity to these anti-social behaviours.”

Whereupon The Western Mail took up his case with gusto. In an editorial comment on August 17th headed: ‘Powder keg conditions exist on this side of the Severn crossing,’ the paper boldly assured its readers: “Prof Adamson is not a pundit in an ivory tower…. With the passion of a prophet he describes the wild differences in wealth in modern Britain as symptoms of a society which has lost its ’moral direction’”.

Moreover, the paper told its readers: “It is rare for professors to use exclamation marks …. But when examining whether Wales is blighted by the same challenges as England, he [Prof Adamson] states: ‘The clear answer is yes!’”

This is totally nonsensical: the rare use of an exclamation mark by an academic does not by any means make his views all the more profound – the more so in light of Prof Adamson’s declaration that the scale of the socio-economic challenge in Wales “matches that of the banking crisis” and could result in us seeing “Welsh streets burning”. I beg his pardon: the banking crisis did not lead to the deaths of individuals trying to protect their property, the wanton destruction of buildings and the wholesale looting of shops. The banking crisis did not place an enormous operational, financial and political burden on our police forces, lead to families being left homeless and our gaols overflowing.

But let’s not be too pernickety: Denied the chance to report on riots in Wales, it was thanks to Prof Adamson that The Western Mail was at least able to jump on the riot bandwagon – to the extent of producing a lurid front page on August 17th featuring a white-clad black youth in a hoodie walking past a burning building, and complete with the strap line “Academic’s damning verdict on why Wales’ escape from the riots which swept across England is just a ‘temporary reprive’”.

But there is more to this. In watching the news unfold, the outbreaks of rioting as they occured in Birmingham and elsewhere appeared less random than was first apparent. After all, why not in Leicester, Luton, Bristol or Newcastle-upon-Tyne? In fact, people have already been jailed for inciting violence which never happened. This suggests to me, therefore, that some fairly strong, personal connections existed among those who used social networking media to promote their ‘’cause’ beyond London’s bounds: relationships forged via family, upbringing, business or (even) gangland connections, which effectively left those who failed tried and failed ‘out of the loop’.

So it was reassuring to read the comments of John Osmond, the director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, who argued (on the Institute’s website) that: “Wales is altogether on a different scale to England. It is not just a question of population size but the urban experience as well. Cardiff has a population of just less than 350,000…… [and} although most Welsh people now live in an urban milieu, the background culture of Welsh society is more rural and close-knit village-style communities than the cityscapes that characterise the bulk of the English experience.

“And significantly, the wealth and income gap between the least and most well off is much smaller in Wales than most of England, and certainly that found in London and the south-east”.

But it is here that John Osmond gets to the nub of the matter: “Related to this background economic reality is what I would argue is the dominant ideological outlook that characterises Welsh politics and to a great extent shared across the parties – even these days some in the Welsh Conservatives – and that is social democracy.”

 He then quoted the English historian Tony Judt, who argues that, like most liberals, social democrats favor progressive taxation in order to pay for public services and other social goods that individuals cannot provide for themselves; but whereas many liberals might see such taxation or public provision as a necessary evil, a social democratic vision of the good society entails from the outset a greater role for the state and the public sector.”

Osmond continued:: “In the Welsh political context this passes for mainstream thinking. Can the same be said for the English? It does not seem so. Thatcherism, followed by the years of Tony Blair, extolled different virtues, of competition and individual opportunity and took its eye off the importance of the public realm.”

To be fair, Osmond’s comments were published by The Western Mail – but with significantly less prominence than was acorded to Prof Adamson: yet Osmond  provided us with an an insight into Wales’ socio-political personality which The Western Mail would be well advised to consider in some depth. The riots in England should not have been seen as an excuse to jump on a shock-horror bandwagon, but an opportunity to demonstrate that Wales does have its own very distinct set of cultural, social and – above all – political values which are are distinct from those pertaining in English cities. Thank you, the BBC, for recognising and respecting this.

gan Jeremy Fonge

Share
 
donkeys

Siôn Jobbins argues that small nations can and do survive economically.

‘An independent Wales would not be economically viable.’ Funny, were Wales given a penny every time somebody said that, then Wales would certainly pay its way!
Yet this ‘can’t afford independence’ is a common refrain by commentators and politicians alike, and is currently used with great gusto as an argument against Scottish independence. But a quick glance through the articles, editorials and letters pages of the past make it clear that Wales and Scotland haven’t been the only European countries ‘which can’t afford independence’.
Malta was one example. An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely: ‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifth of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse without British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical.’
The Times published a letter on January 21st, 1964 by Joseph Agius of ‘Ta’ Xbiex’ who feared ‘… the folly of giving independence [to Malta] when we are not economically prepared for it.’
Yet Malta gained independence on September 21st, 1964: essentially a city state on a barren rock; which – from a British point of view – was no more than a very large dock. By 2009 its GDP – at $23,800 per capita – was similar to other former imperial port cities like Liverpool, Newcastle or Marsailles.
Norway was another country which – in the eyes of many – couldn’t afford the independence it eventually gained in 1905. At the time it had limited selfgovernment within Sweden and one of the great bones of contention was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the export-biased Norwegian one. Calls for greater independence were widely felt across Norway, but there were still some who were afraid its consequences, as was illustrated by a letter from ‘R.H.’ in The Times of July 6th, 1892. Headed ‘A Warning from Norway’, it argued:
‘… as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it. … At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not be a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’
More than a century later, it is certainly obvious to all that an independent Norway has not become a ‘central Asian khanate’.
To bring us closer to our present time, Slovakia gained independence in the famous ‘Velvet Divorce’ of 1993, an event which – in an otherwise generally balanced editorial – The Independent of December 31st, 1992 foretold with some gloom. ‘ … There is no shortage of potential disputes,’ it noted. ‘Currency union is doomed, with the Czechs determined to balance their budget and the Slovaks expected to head down the road of deficit financing and inflation.’ Continue reading »

Share
 

As a newly naturalised citizen, the recent display of rain-soaked arrogance and sloth masquerading as the business and economic development disaster for Wales also known as The Ryder Cup was an unmitigated PR and financial disaster. Even without the rain, the government built this up to a level of expectation only the 2012 Olympics could surpass.
We should have had a few hints of our true standing when BBC network covering Pope Benedict’s arrival in Edinburgh. His Holiness was greeted by Scottish First Minster Alex Salmond. The BBC commentator then asked who the white haired gentleman standing next to Alex was, then greeting the Pope. It was Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones. Oops!
While there was a gripping Monday finish, few in the target US and Canada markets saw it. Sadly, most will only again see it as a highlights show in two years because of the foolhardy decision to play the tournament on a hilly, poorly draining Parklands course in October. That the officials then tried to lamely blame the US PGA Tour’s FedEx playoff calendar for the late start (only two weeks later than past contests) was a last gasp effort to save their backsides. Ironically, Royal Porthcawl, a tough jewel of a links course that could have truly tested the Ryder Cup players, remained open Friday and Sunday all day.
Even branding will not save team Wales. All references to the location of the previous Ryder Cup European contest are to the K-Club just as they will be to Celtic Manor. Ireland like Wales will be soon forgotten. Wales stands a slightly better chance to be remembered for the poor weather.
So the irony is Wales will be remembered for the one thing it was hoping not to have as a legacy… rain. While an admitted source of national pride to see Wales favourably displayed on SKY, the Monday live audience from 01:00-09:00 am in the USA and around the world was missing and presumed dead.
Also missing from the coalition’s recently released list of quangos headed for the dustbin was the Welsh Assembly Government itself who spent some £50 million pounds to bring the Ryder Cup to Wales. That same WAG boasted 2 billion homes would watch the cup, which was curious since only 6.6 million watched it globally in 2008.
And that same WAG boasted tourism benefits and indeed touted a figure saying that some 700 rounds of golf were played on courses around Celtic Manor. First Minster, for half the amount you spent, all 700 players could have been flown here and home by private jet and stayed in 5-star hotels.
Indeed if you owned a golf course west of Swansea by now (if ever at all) all golfers and fans have returned home. Too, the much touted website www.businessgolfwales.com has not been updated since before the event and will, like the £1.1 million pound advert buy and glossy brochures for Wales to sell golf in Wales across the UK on SKY is also likely to be swept into the dustbin of failed campaigns. Why Wales were not advertising on the PGA Channel, ESPN (Friday coverage) and NBC Saturday and Sunday coverage to reach an audience outside the UK is perplexing.
The circus has left town, tents are folded away, Wales has been dry since the infamous washout weekend and questions persist about Return on Investment (ROI) and our woefully inadequate business attraction record.
Not a word appeared in twelve days on the government’s Twitter feed. Not one figure has appeared talking about projected economic development benefits. Even the opposition is silent on the waste in advance of the coming budget cuts.
Having been dismissed as a curmudgeon over my comments, the questions remain. Who, beyond Sir Terry, his resort, hotels, bars and restaurants benefitted from £115 per day tickets and a complete no-golf Friday washout? The course on Monday could have handled another 10-12K visitors yet the Friday contingent was out of luck and could not come Monday.
Looking for a £150-£200 million (A standard 3 or 4:1) return on investment in the form of new jobs for the Valleys and across Wales? Don’t hold your breath. But hey, Team Wales did well in the Commonwealth Games and there will be enough magician’s misdirection to go around for months. Remember we have a 5-day cricket test match next year with Sri Lanka, European Cup football qualifiers, Six Nations rugby and Olympics 2012.
By then we will all say Sir Samuel who? The Ryder what? Aaah – it’s good to be king in a land of no accountability.

By Denis G Campbell of UKProgressive. Republished from Cambria magazine with permission

Share
 

ER SERCHUS GOF

Hywel Teifi Edwards
1934-2010

Cambria pays tribute to the life and work of a great and noble Welshman and a true, generous and loyal friend of Cambria Magazine.

Cawr o Gymro – llewyrched goleuni gwastadol arno

A full obituary will appear in the next issue of Cambria.

Share
 

Jonathan EdwardsThese are certainly exciting times for Plaid Cymru.  A General Election when we expect to win the largest amount of Parliamentary seats in our history; an Autumn or 2011 New Year referendum on full law making powers within devolved competencies; and a Welsh General Election in 2011.     From a personal perspective it’s great to be back full time in active politics at the heart of the national movement; the political equivalent of playing central midfield for the national football team every day of the year!

Over the next 18 months the future of Wales for a generation will be shaped.  In this period, Plaid has the best opportunity in its history of replacing a discredited Labour party as the dominant political force in our country.  It’s an opening we have a duty to grasp.

A new political environment will be shaped following the General Election.  It is highly likely that we are looking at significant Tory victory across the UK.   If tensions between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have been all too often visible with a Labour Government in Westminster, imagine what it’s going to be like with a Tory Government in London that is at best suspicious of devolved politics.

The Labour party will inevitably implode after their defeat.  In the medium term it has two choices in Wales.  Firstly it grows up and becomes a party that genuinely promotes progressive nationalism – making itself relevant to the new political environment, or it continues along the path to self destruction with its current political malaise due to its own deep splits.

When Labour enjoyed political hegemony over our country it was able to pacify the two warring factions within its ranks by playing the politics of the lowest common denominator.   Opposition parties working within this context had no option but to grit their teeth and bear it.   Unfortunately for Labour, in the space of a few years their hegemonic control over Welsh politics (that lasted the best part of a century) disappeared.  And the trajectory is only going one way.    In the new plural political environment of modern Wales, Labour’s current approach will be ruthlessly exposed – the events within the Government of Wales only last week are a case in point.

In the face of a Tory Westminster Government, the alternative narrative will not be a replacement New Labour London Government – but rather the development of Welsh political democracy and sovereignty.   As someone who has spent the last two years of my life campaigning directly for social justice with the CAB movement, it became evidently clear that Wales doesn’t have power over the real leavers to fully tackle social inequity.   That is why, if elected, my political future will be in Westminster until Wales has control over the benefits system and fiscal autonomy are devolved.  Northern Ireland already has administrative control over the benefits system and even the unionist parties in Scotland are campaigning for fiscal autonomy.  We want Wales to have the same rights as our Celtic cousins – why should we accept less?

There are those in the Labour party who accuse us of navel-gazing over the constitutional question.  What they fail to acknowledge is that political power is the key to driving forward the social justice agenda.  Without the tools to do the job – no craftsman no matter its skill can achieve its task.   Are the unionists in their midst seriously arguing that a Tory Government in London is likely to deliver on the social justice more than a government of progressives in Wales?

The political dynamic of post General Election Wales will therefore be between a Conservative right wing, South-East-of-England-Centric UK Government in conflict with an increasingly Plaid dominated Government of Wales.   If Labour fail to react to this new political dynamic they will become increasingly marginalised.  Peter Hain is only half right – the real political choice is between Plaid and the Tories.

At this stage it’s important to pay tribute to the way in which current Plaid leader Ieuan Wyn Jones, an Amman Valley boy like myself having been born and raised in Garnswllt, is creating the new Wales.  Ieuan knows where the future strategic battles lie.  Apart from his contribution in steering Wales through the recession, his major contribution will be the way that he has paved the way and shaped the future of so many young politicians.

With Wales’ most effective political campaigner in Bethan Jenkins and the party’s Director of Policy Nerys Evans already elected at the Senedd, Ieuan has facilitated the development of the likes of the next Jennie Eirian in Myfanwy Davies , the hugely talented Steffan ‘Next But One’ Lewis, forensic thinker Colin Nosworthy and ultra impressive Heledd Fychan.

Added to this, he has managed to recruit a group of exceptionally gifted young staffers and advisers to drive Plaid’s ambitions.  Having individuals as talented and committed as this team must make other political parties in Wales not only envious but also extremely worried.

A lesser leader would have pinned down the ‘young Turks’ in the party in order to preserve his own position.  His selflessness is creating the new Wales that will shape the future of our nation.

In doing so Ieuan has not only ensured an increasingly impressive team to lead, but has also provided his party with a new generation of politicians ready to lead Wales to justice and prosperity well in to the future.

I am confident that the future is bright – and I’m convinced the future is Plaid.

Jonathan Edwards

Plaid Prospective Candidate, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

Share
 

Jonathan EdwardsWe predicted on Cambria Politico a few weeks ago that the young gladiator from Ammanford, Jonathan Edwards, Plaid uberstrategist and widely acknowledged architect of Adam Price’s long march to consolidated victory in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, would win the nomination as parliamentary candidate to replace Price at the next election. And we were right.

Edwards romped to victory in the first ballot at a hustings convention attended by over 200 party faithful in Llandybie this evening, after a contest between four strong and convincing candidates, all with roots in this staunchly patriotic heartland constituency. After bravura performances by all four, Edwards was victorious after being described by many activists to your correspondent as the “man with real fire in his belly“.

It is a development Welsh Liebour will dread. Edwards is a political strategist who does not take prisoners. In the short term he will go for the Labour jugular next year but plans carefully for the future. The endgame is the emergence of a new democratic politics based on principled economic development and social justice ­ and the ruination of the discredited London parties in Wales.

An already disillusioned and disheartened Labour Party faces almost certain humiliation at the next General Election. Edwards ‘the matador’ will seek to administer the coup de grace. With relish.

Share
 

henry2

We have received and now publish a response from Henry Jones-Davies (of Cambria  magazine) on the ongoing saga of Mr.Lewis versus Cambria Politico.We feel that this is an important issue of freedom of the Press/ blogosphere and are publishing the correspondence in the expectation that, on this basis, people will make their own minds up about the politician and party in question.

—————————————

Annwyl Mr. Lewis

Re: Your complaint to the Press Complaints Commission

A complaint from you regarding an item published on the Cambriapolitico blog, which you chose to make in the style  ‘Matt Greenough’, has been passed to me. Your complaint referred to a post on the Cambria Politico blog, yet it was directed to Cambria Magazine, which did not publish the post.

I will make a defence of the post that must be made in the interests of free speech. I will deal with your points in turn:

• Allegation of intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit:

You have provided no particulars of this, which would seem to require acts which are repeated or intrusive.

• Pejorative reference to mental illness:

You have alleged that “there is a clear implication running through the piece that (you) suffer from a mental health problem”.

The “implication running through the piece”: the theme of the article is that the Labour Party in Wales has in it a body of opinion which is “devo-sceptic”, or “terrified of being labelled a closet nationalist”, or “rabidly unionist or loony-left”, or who “loath Wales, its people, language and culture and history”. Those who hold such views end in positions which, in the opinion of the writer, ought to expose them to ridicule. That is what runs through the article.

You “suffer from a mental health problem”: you appear to base this on the use of the description of you as “Screwloose”. This description appears as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 – where it is linked to political views which the writer perceives you as holding,

2. Paragraph 2 – where it is linked to you allegedly having ‘chips on your shoulder’,

3. Paragraph 4 – where it is linked to you being a contender in the Wales Labour leadership contest.

In the premises, I cannot see that “Screwloose” refers to the state of your mental health. I think a reader would link the description to your political views, with which the writer of the piece clearly disagrees.

References to your mental health: in Paragraph 4 you are referred to as in many ways “reasonable”. There is no other reference to the state of your mental health anywhere in the piece.

On this point, I therefore reject your suggestion that any allegation has been made against you as to your mental health. The suggestion made in the piece is that you, an otherwise reasonable man, hold puzzingly extravagant, inconsistent and unattractive views on the subject of Wales.

I would invite you to consider the use of the epithet “Screwloose” as being analogous to the following. On Saturday 21 November 2009, the normally reliable Andrew Grice, Political Editor of The Independent, wrote an article published in that paper. In the article he reported:

“Mr.Brown (Prime Minister) and others had to swallow their doubts about the centre-right nominee for President (of the EU), the non-descript Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy. Mr. Brown didn’t mind that, even though for weeks his allies have been referring to the Belgian premier as “Rumpy Pumpy” and “Rumpelstiltskin”.

I suggest that the use of these epithets by – apparently – your colleagues in the Labour Party, carry no implication of unchastity in M. van Rompuy, or prejudice against ugly persons of restricted growth. I hope it does not tax the imagination too greatly to realise that the epithet “Screwloose” – which has, for some considerable time, been applied to you by way of conversational currency amongst the political classes in Cardiff and elsewhere in Wales – is, quite obviously, a play on your name, rather than a comment on any aspect of your personality or state of mind. As you will know, the use of such epithets has a very long and strong tradition in Wales.

In summary, I feel entitled to point out to you that, as you expose yourself to a level of politics which has more prominence than the level you have occupied to date, you will in future have to accustom yourself to comment couched in tones with which you are apparently unfamiliar and may well find displeasing.

You have chosen to resort to the Press Complaints Commission. As one who loves – and strives for – Wales, I must surely be expected to defend a piece in its comment about a politician – you – who ought, but sadly appears not to, share my feelings for Wales. And I will do so robustly.

As to the remainder of your letter, my replies are as follows:

• Legal Advice: I imagine that you will receive advice which includes the following:

1. Allegation of insanity: defamatory if made, but not in fact made in this case.

2. Cambria Politico: has available the defence of Fair Comment on the views of a person in public life.

• Removal of blog post: As you will know, the relevant blog post was removed while legal advice was taken. You will also know, which will not surprise you on reflection, that it has been re-posted, and that you did – by your (office’s) actions – draw increased, unnecessary and presumably unwelcome attention to the political criticisms made of you in the piece.

Yours etc.,

Henry Jones-Davies

——————————————————-

Editor’s note

Copies of this (edited) reply have been sent to the Press Complaints
Commission and to the Presiding Officer and Chief Executive of the National
Assembly for Wales.

Cambriapolitico finds itself on the front line of the defence of free speech
in Wales, and we will not let the retreating rabble of a rapidly
disintegrating Labour Party attempt to stamp it out.
Share
 

Who are we thinking of? You know who you are.

cic gosb!

Who is Look Luke Holland?

‘The unsmiling svengali behind Screwloose’s campaign….’.  ‘Is Luke the Rasputin to Huw and Anne’s Nicholas and Alexandra….?’ ‘Is he Dutch…or is he Georgian? – just who is this enigmatic Machiavelli whose very name strikes dread into the hearts of erm……his own Party!?…..this media magus, this augurer of the airwaves, this thaumaturge, seer and sorcerer who is leading his idol so deftly and so brilliantly to almost certain disaster victory in Labour’s  leadership armageddon?????????????’

Is he (gulp) a manifestation of Jonah’s Curse?

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