++ Fighting, and Winning, for Anglesey ++

The Druid: Best Political Blog
in Wales

I have just learned that this blog was named as the Best Political Blog at tonight's inaugural Wales Blog Awards in Cardiff. I am both delighted and somewhat surprised -- little did I think ten short months ago when I started penning my thoughts about the problems facing Ynys Môn that 'The Druid' would end up attracting either the following that it has, or winning such an award as this.

As I believe is traditional on occasions like this, I send my congratulations to all the other blogs which were shortlisted for this category, in particular Syniadau -- I may not often agree with MH's conclusions, but am always in awe of the depth of his knowledge and his passion for the nationalist cause (not to mention the length of some of his posts!). Using this chance I would also like to highlight and thank some other political blogs which inspired me to start writing, such as Dylan Jones-Evans, Valley's Mam, A Change of Personnel, Blog Menai, and also Borthlas, John Dixon's blog. Between them they represent a veritable panorama of political views -- and are always well written, informative and entertaining.

How I intend to celebrate

If this blog had a founding ethos then it would probably be that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". I have always thought that if enough light was shone onto the goings-on in the murky gloom of the Council Chamber in Llangefni then it could only have a beneficial effect on the behaviour of some of our county councillors. From that point of view I can only welcome the extra publicity (and, hopefully, light) that this award may bring. However just being critical is not enough - through this blog I have also tried to marshall the combined wisdom of literally hundreds of Anglesey residents who contributed to the writing of the People's Manifesto for Ynys Môn. I believe it contains a plethora of good ideas and policies which could help turn around both the economic and political fortunes of this Island -- I hope that this award will now give it added impetus.

Anyway, must dash, its almost midnight and I have to knock up a wicker-man to burn in celebration...

Wylfa granted two year reprieve

The Health and Safety Executive, which comprises the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, has agreed that the current nuclear reactor in Wylfa can continue generating electricity for another two years. Wylfa first began generating electricity in 1971 and, following two previous extensions, was scheduled to close down in December this year -- it will now continue until sometime in 2012, preserving the 650 jobs at the plant and and estimated 500 more at various suppliers.

Needless to say this is excellent news for Anglesey -- it would be hugely embarrassing if the 'Energy Island' wasn't actually generating any energy! Most importantly this extension will now close the gap between the eventual decommissioning of the current reactor and the hopeful commencement of work on Wylfa B -- meaning that nuclear workers may not be forced to leave the island to seek other work, and local suppliers will be better placed to survive the wait until Wylfa B. Lets all now hope that the good nuclear news keeps coming.

UPDATE 10:27: With dreary predictability Albert Owen is now claiming credit for the extension. He tells the Daily Post, "I have led on this campaign and the news is good for Anglesey and good for the whole country".

Can county councillors be recalled? (updated)

A Bodffordd resident has written in to ask whether it is possible to 'recall' county councillors -- i.e. have them removed prior to scheduled local elections. Apparently at last night's public meeting to discuss the village's continued resistance to the infamous biodigester, several attendees started calling for the county councillor for the ward of Bodffordd, Plaid Cymru's William I. Hughes, to be somehow deselected. Residents feel that Cllr Hughes, who did not attend last night's meeting -- or indeed any of the public meetings held in his ward to counter the biodigester -- is no longer acting as their representative and they do not want to have to wait two more years until the next local elections to get rid of him. They are also irritated that he lives in Trefor -- some distance from both Bodffordd and its future biodigester.

The ability for local residents to be able to recall non-performing county councillors strikes me as just the sort of measure which could help focus the minds of some of Anglesey's more intransigent councillors. Unfortunately according to my reading of the Anglesey County Council's constitution there is no way local residents can force such a recall. Or is there? Perhaps some of my learned readers could let me know whether there is another way of achieving the same aim?

Also, if you're reading this Prof. Closs Stephens (and I've heard you are an occasional reader), please let me urge you to use your current power as chair of the recovery board to have the constitution amended so as to include a recall clause -- and in so doing improve the chances of a sustainable recovery once the board has decamped.
In the meantime, I'll be adding a recall mechanism clause to our People's Manifesto for Ynys Môn.

UPDATE: There seems to be some confusion regarding what a recall actually is. It does not allow a small number of dissatisfied people to remove a democratically elected representative -- it merely allows for a by-election to be forced if a sufficient percentage of local residents sign a petition. The incumbent is then freely able to campaign for his or her re-election. As such a recall should be seen as a measure which ensures that democratically-elected politicians are kept on their toes. For those who say a recall is somehow undemocratic, let me remind you that a recall mechanism was included in Aristotle's Constitution of Athens.

North Wales Police Authority: no response (updated)

Actually we do: 45% were in favour and 41% opposed

Just over a month ago I wrote about the North Wales Police Authority's shameful misrepresentation of the results of an statistically invalid internet survey which they conducted together with the South Wales Police Authority to supposedly gauge the Welsh public's opinion on elected police commissioners. Despite only 884 people taking part (and only 82 of them coming from North Wales) the NWPA then released their interim findings to the Daily Post, stating categorically that residents of North Wales didn't want a elected police commissioner -- except that they actually did, with 45 percent either in favour or somewhat in favour, compared to 41 percent who were against. In so doing the NWPA were clearly guilty of wilfully misrepresenting the results of a sham public consultation in order to oppose the new policy and protect both the status quo and their own sinecures.

In response a regular commenter to this blog then contacted both the NWPA and SWPA by letter asking them to comment on why they had released the results of a survey which breaks so many elements of good practise on polling, namely:

"(1) The sample is not representative of the population because it is self-selecting. In other words, only those who feel they have an opinion on the topic will trouble themselves to respond. There is some background information gathered about respondents, but this is not complete, and crucially lacks information on socio-economic background. There is therefore no robust means of correcting for the sample that you do gather.

(2) The poll asks for the respondents' sex, but the responses are not broken down by sex. In contrast, and perhaps in a nod to political correctness, the fraction of 'ethnic minority' backgrounds is quoted (but not how they 'vote' on the poll).

(3) The response rate per head of population is exceptionally low; Anglesey (population ca. 70,000), has only 7 respondents - 1 in 10,000. Even as a total, 884 responses is well below the accepted minimum representative (which it anyway is not) poll size of about 1000 respondents.

(4) You do not provide the margin of error (the confidence intervals) for the poll. If it were quoted, the confidence in the results would appear to be low.

(5) There may be bias in the questions asked, and so stray into a 'push-poll'. It is not clear who drew up the poll, but it is clear why it is was drawn. From the general content of the report so far, there seems to be a bias against the concept of elected commissioners within the NWPA."

The response almost one month later?

NWPA: no acknowledgement, no response.
SWPA: acknowledgement received, no further response.

So there you are: you can choose between (a) a number of unelected appointees/quangocrats who clearly do not feel they have to respond to reasonable questions from members of the general public; or (b) an elected commissioner who will be held directly accountable to residents for police priorities and performance. I know which option I would choose.

On a side note, the acknowledgement from the SWPA said that the letter would be passed on to the Chief Constable -- which begs the question of just how independent the Police Authorities really are. Why would the chief constable of South Wales need to be informed about a complaint regarding the methodology of an internet poll carried out by a body supposedly at arms length from the Police?

"The pong is awful"

John Craven at the Ludlow biodigester

Those are the words used on yesterday's edition of the BBC's 'Country Tracks' by veteran presenter John Craven to describe the stench made by the methane biodigester plant in Ludlow -- the model for the planned biodigester to be built in Bodffordd. In fact Ecoparc Môn, the company pushing the plans, organised a trip for councillors and some residents to see the very same Ludlow biodigester back in 2009 in order to allay their fears about smells -- and now John Craven has confirmed what was long been suspected by Bodffordd villagers: that such a plant will produce an 'awful pong'.

Proponents of biodigesters have always been at pains to point out that the anaerobic digesters themselves do not produce any smells as they are completely sealed -- however this appears to be a red herring. As was made amply clear from yesterday's 'Country Tracks' programme (view it here, forward to around 20m15s) it is the 'staging area' where the food waste is delivered and shredded before being fed into the biodigesters which actually produces the smells.

As the council has granted planning permission and the campaigners against it have been refused a judicial review, there seems little more that Bodffordd villagers can do to prevent the scheme going ahead. That notwithstanding there will be a public meeting this evening from 7.30pm at the Bodffordd Community Centre, which is part of the primary school building. All interested parties are asked to attend.

The issue at stake here is not that people are opposed to the concept of turning food waste into energy; people are opposed to the frankly stupid decision to site the plant at Mona Industrial Estate, where prevailing winds will blow odours over the nearby village of Bodffordd. It would have made far more sense to locate the plant next to either an existing council tip, next to the abattoir in Gaerwen (where the proponents of the scheme plan to acquire most of the food waste anyway) or on the edge of the island where the smells could be safely left to waft over towards Ireland. As Anglesey County Council struggles to regain the trust of residents, it is foolish decisions like these which will continue to prove that the council is not being run in the best interests of Islanders.

Meet Ed Miliband's 'New Generation' for Wales...

...they're the same as the Old Generation:

Peter Hain, despite not being voted for by his colleagues, returns as Shadow Secretary of State for Rwanda Wales. Neil Kinnock obviously wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said he's got his party back...

Carwyn Jones and Alex Salmond choose the easy path

The first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have issued a joint statement attacking the UK government's spending plans. The following is the important part of their joint declaration:

"The proposals to cut public spending to such an extent run the risk of stalling any recovery.

Private sector demand remains fragile and access to finance continues to be constrained.

The current plans for fiscal consolidation could therefore have a significant and lasting negative impact on the economy, including people's jobs, which would undermine the very efforts to address the UK's fiscal position.

We believe that promoting economic growth is the best way to restore the health of our public finances and this must be our overriding priority."

Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, has been spearheading today's announcement and has taken every opportunity to lampoon the coalition's spending plans on TV and radio news programmes. I would remind him of two things:

• Firstly, according to the Holtham Report, whereas Wales is underfunded by the Treasury to the tune of £300m a year compared to an equivalent English Region, Scotland by the same calculations is currently overfunded by a whopping £4.2bn per year. This means that as we move into the belt tightening phase, Scotland starts from a better supported position than any other region in the UK.
• Secondly, if Alex Salmond thinks that the coalition's programme to reduce spending is too severe he has recourse to a very simple means of offsetting the effects of those the cuts in Scotland: he can use the tax-varying powers granted to the Scottish Parliament to increase income tax in Scotland by up to 3p in the pound in order to fund a reduced pace of cuts. Unfortunately Mr Salmond doesn't have the balls to unilaterally adjust income tax in Scotland as he knows the Scottish electorate wouldn't tolerate it -- therefore he's content to demand that the elected Westminster government (which is already overfunding Scotland by £4.2bn) should abandon their much telegraphed plans and instead raise taxes throughout the UK so as to protect the Scottish public services which Mr Salmond himself is too politically cowardly to take action to protect.

Of course unlike Scotland, the Welsh Assembly has no such tax varying powers and therefore Welsh first minster, Carwyn Jones, is able to make the same argument as Mr Salmond safe in the knowledge that he is not in anyway accountable to the people of Wales for the amount of tax they pay. However he is responsible for how efficiently that public money is spent -- and if WAG was a paragon of efficiency and cost-effectiveness I would have great sympathy with Carwyn's position. However we know that public money in Wales has not been well spent and the recent problems highlighted by the leaked McKinsey report into the running of the Welsh NHS are a case in point, as was the decision to maintain for ten years the £50K+ salaries of hundreds of NHS executives who were found to be surplus to requirements following the last Welsh NHS reorganisation. Therefore, although I fully support any calls for the Barnett Formula to be amended as per the Holtham recommendations, I would argue that the first task of the Welsh Assembly Government is to prove that it can manage public money more efficiently before taking the easy option of simply blaming the coalition government's spending plans.

On a related note, I have argued previously (here and here) that the Welsh Assembly should have tax varying powers in order to, amongst other reasons, make our Welsh politicians more accountable to the Welsh electorate. However as per the example set by the Scotland Parliament, which has had such tax varying powers since it was formed but has chosen never to utilise them, I suspect that a Labour/Plaid Cymru-controlled WAG also would probably just take the politically cowardly route of not using them either. The fact is if you continue to do the same old things, you will continue to get the same old results -- its time for some new and radical thinking in Wales if we are to radically improve our economic situation.