Promoting the local economy?

Tweet Now, as a general rule, I'm all for promoting the local economy. And I can understand how any political party would seek to use its conference to "maximise the economic benefit for local businesses".

The Tories have always claimed to be the party of business of course, so when they hold their conference in Birmingham later this month, they will naturally be encouraging their delegates to make use of a range of local companies. They've had a PR firm help them by putting together a booklet full of useful information about the range of 'services' available to delegates locally.

According to this report from the BBC, the booklet, which has been distributed with the official conference literature in advance of the conference, even includes some helpful discount vouchers - for a £10 reduction on the entry charge to a lap dancing club in the city centre.

The club modestly describes itself as "an exclusive gentlemen's entertainment venue". In deciding to advertise in a booklet targeted at Tory delegates, I can only assume that the club is making a skilled and experienced judgement on the potential take-up for its services. But in this case, 'exclusive' presumably means that female conference delegates will be encouraged to seek their entertainment elsewhere.

Another year, another conference

Tweet Our conference went very well in Aberystwyth. The mood was positive and confident, and we're looking forward to the future. I think the media were a little disappointed - although unsurprised - at the lack of controversy and debate. Vaughan Roderick made precisely that point in giving his reasons for not joining us in Aber. There's nothing like a good row to give them something to report.

Actually, I think they're (almost) right. Our conferences have become pretty bland compared to the days when I first started attending them, back in the early 1970's. We used to have some really good rows and debates then, and in one or two of them, I seem to remember being one of the chief stirrers.

Some seem to assume that the lack of argument is somehow due to the party's hierarchy suppressing dissent. I rather like the idea that we could have that much control of course; but the truth is that there simply aren't a vast number of things about which we disagree at present, and we are not getting controversial proposals submitted for debate. I think, though, that the NEC need to work harder to find some controversy for each conference – it would liven things up a bit.

In the absence of any open appearance of dispute, sometimes people go looking for dissent. I was quite surprised at Betsan Powys' suggestion that a straw poll of 15 members suggested that a majority of party members were not confident that a referendum would be held on or before the Assembly elections in 2011. I am entirely convinced that there will be a referendum on the full implementation of the 2006 Act in the agreed timetable.

Although the detail of the promise does include a caveat, the spirit of the commitment given was completely clear, and I am confident that both parties recognise the importance of that pledge to the very existence of the One Wales coalition. If I believed for one moment that the leadership of Plaid Cymru were not intent on delivering that pledge, I would find it impossible to occupy my current role, given the clear statements of confidence which I have given on a number of occasions.

I am sceptical of the commitment of some in the Labour Party, and have expressed reservations about that from the outset. However, I am absolutely certain that they understand that any deliberate failure to abide by the spirit of the agreement to which they, like us, committed would be damaging to 'One Wales' and probably fatal to any prospect of a 'One Wales Mark 2' in the future.

Some of the initial coverage of our conference concentrated on the I-word. Given the nature of the questioning at the opening press conference, I can't say that I was surprised at this. As I have said before, the fact that we have a long term vision for the sort of Wales we want to see sometimes creates difficulties for us. People don't always understand the difference between short term programmes for a single term of office and longer term aspirations.

Those parties (basically, all the rest) who never look beyond the next election and are not at all troubled by any grander vision have no such difficulty, of course. It would be easy to forget, or shelve, the long term vision in order to concentrate on the here and now, and some people urge that we should do so. For me, that misses the point. If my only interest at any point was in what can be achieved in the next four years, I would have joined one of the other parties, not Plaid. It is the vision and the aspirations which set the context for the short term; without that context, what would be the point of Plaid?

Dangerous £s

Tweet I had the pleasure of sitting in the public gallery for a meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council yesterday. My favourite quote of the meeting came from the leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Kevin Madge, who said "The Assembly is dangerous when they get too much money". He does, of course, offer an obvious solution – give all the money to the county council to spend instead; although he did not actually define the nature of the danger – or how much exactly constitutes "too much" money.

I did wonder though whether this was official Labour Party policy. It might help to explain why they've been dragging their feet over reform of the Barnett formula. Just think how much more 'dangerous' the Assembly might become if it had a fairer share of money to spend on services in Wales.

Supercities and human needs

Tweet I don't have any issue with the idea of the towns and cities of South Wales working more closely together, as was suggested by a think tank today. Nor do I have any issue with the idea that sensible economic – and even more so, transport - planning should look at cities and their hinterland as a whole, rather than trying to focus attention on small parts of the area. But I strongly disagree with the underlying thinking behind this particular report.

They seem to be starting from a number of premises as follows:

• Globalisation is not only good, it is inevitable
• Globalisation means that cities have to compete with each other on the world stage
• Competing means that cities have to be bigger and bigger

To them, these premises are not even open to challenge. I beg to differ.

In a way, the subject is one which goes to the very heart of my own political philosophy. I believe that human institutions, towns, cities, transport, the economy – all these things and more – should be shaped and driven to meet human needs and aspirations; and on a human scale. It sometimes seems to me as though many of the cold economists are telling us that we, as humans, must adapt to fit the needs of the market – or rather, the needs of globalised big business.

Now some might argue that the two things are not that different. To meet human needs and aspirations requires jobs and resources; business creates those jobs and resources. I consider that to be over-simplistic, not least because there is nothing contained within the statement that requires globalisation.

Globalisation is the current fashionable trend; but just as generals are always said to be stuck fighting the previous war, I think that many economists and supporters of globalisation are supporting an outdated set of ideas. The future lies with re-localising production and consumption, and it will be forced upon us by rising world populations, shortage and increased cost of fuel, and climate change. Above all, the complexity which is being built into our economic systems by globalisation and long supply chains represents a major threat in itself; the globalised economy is actually becoming more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse as a result of a failure at a single point.

So, by all means let's have integrated and cohesive planning between our towns and cities rather than competition; but let's do it to shape our country to meet our needs rather than because we want to compete with Paris or London. And let's start by deciding what we want from the economy, rather than what it wants from us.

PS – I was a little taken aback by Peter Stead's quoted comment, "One is tremendously attached to the Valleys but certainly in the long term the future lies with the ports". What exactly is the fundamental difference between that and the insane suggestion just a few weeks ago that people should all move from the North of England to places like Oxford?

There's news and there's...

Tweet According to today's Western Mail, it would seem that "senior Plaid officials" are "under fire" for "changing the rules" to avoid releasing the voting figures for our presidential election. Apparently, the "senior party officials" decided not to release the figures "because of embarrassment over earlier leaks".

It's a version of events which this "senior Plaid official" has some difficulty in reconciling with reality.

I could challenge many of the statements made, but I'll content myself with saying that not releasing the figures is a very long-standing policy. (I remember challenging it myself back in the 1970's, and on other occasions since then.) And the justification for it always had a great deal more to do with sparing the blushes of unsuccessful candidates for internal elections than with any embarrassment over leaks.

Just about the only part of the story which I do recognise as true is the suggestion that we will be looking at the policy again. But hey, a story is a story.

Principles and opportunism

Tweet Michael Portillo was not the architect of the poll tax fiasco, although he caught a lot of the blame. Thatcher was the architect; Portillo merely had the misfortune to accept the job of local government minister just after the tax was introduced into England. It was the poll tax which ultimately did so much to damage its architect; and it didn't help Portillo himself a great deal either, despite the fact that he did much of the work on replacing it.

At the time, Portillo told us all how wonderful the tax was, but reading between the lines of his article in the Sunday Times yesterday, I suspect that he knew all along how foolish it was; he just wasn't allowed to say so. It's probably a lot more common that we might think for government ministers to be fully aware that they're doing the wrong thing, whilst saying the opposite in public - what's unusual is the hint of an admission.

In any event, Portillo actually makes it quite clear ("I am convinced that an income tax supplement must be part of any equitable local tax system") that he thinks that a local income tax should be an essential part of the way in which we pay for local government. It's nice to see that he's come round to what Plaid have been saying for many years, which is that a tax based on ability to pay will always be fairer than a tax based on the value of the property in which someone lives.

He makes the statement in the context of the story last week about the SNP's determination to push ahead with scrapping council tax and replacing it with a local income tax. Now I'm not going to argue that the SNP plan as it stands is perfect; proposing to replace locally set council tax with a nationally set income tax supplement is not what I would argue for, since it isn't 'local' in any meaningful sense. But it's certainly a step forward from the council tax, and is probably about the best that the SNP can do within the current framework of powers which the Scottish Parliament has.

I am convinced that local income tax in some form is the way forward, and the SNP have obviously come to the same conclusion. So, it seems, has Portillo. It is a pity that, on that basis, Portillo based his article on the suggestion that the SNP move is a cynical ploy to provoke a row with London. Why is support for the idea a sincere statement of belief when Portillo (a man who seemingly admits to telling us the council tax was wonderful when he knew it to be a disaster) expresses it, but 'opportunistic' if it comes from a Scottish nationalist?

No nukes is good nukes

Tweet The phrase 'dictatorship of oil' has at least two meanings, and when Gordon Brown pledged to end that dictatorship, I'm not entirely sure which of the two he meant. I'm afraid, though, that I suspect it was the wrong one.

If he wants to end our dependence on oil because of a recognition that the world has to move from an economy based on hydrocarbons to a low-carbon future, I'd agree with him. But, although he used the words 'low-carbon', I suspect that he's really reacting more to the way in which oil prices have a lock on our economy, and is looking to free us from that. That's not an unworthy aim in itself; it just isn't the same thing as a recognition of the real problems we face over future energy policy.

His – and others' - continued stress on nuclear energy as part of the future energy mix is something that I just can't accept. It's not that I am opposed to nuclear energy on principle – as I know that some are – I'm just not convinced that it makes economic or environmental sense.

There are a number of arguments for and against nuclear energy, not all of which are purely environmental issues. I know that there are some in the environmental movement who believe that we should now be ready to embrace nuclear energy as the least bad alternative. And almost two years ago, I heard Sir John Houghton speak at a meeting organised by FoE in Narberth, where, as a small part of a very well-made case on man-made global warming, he supported a move to nuclear power. Amongst his other arguments was the suggestion that we have enormous stockpiles of plutonium for nuclear weapons – wouldn't it be better to turn those stocks into electricity and use them peacefully?

It's a strong argument, and disagreeing with one as eminent as Sir John in the field of global warming is not something to be done lightly. But for me, there are still too many unanswered questions over the nuclear option, and without those answers, I am unable to make a sensible judgement as to whether nuclear power is really as low-carbon as some claim.

The fact that the plants themselves are very low-carbon once in operation is only part of the story. The carbon cost of constructing a nuclear power station is significantly higher than the carbon cost of a conventional power station, and then there is the carbon cost of decommissioning the station and dealing with the waste. The problem with this is that we still don't know how we are going to deal with the waste, and without even knowing how, it is impossible to know the cost either in pounds and pennies or in carbon terms. And then there's the carbon cost (and the human cost) of obtaining and processing the fuel to take into account as well.

Whilst I remain willing to listen to the facts and consider the options, I'm simply not convinced at present that the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the disadvantages. One thing of which I am certain however, is that deciding whether or not to go nuclear is something which affects us all, not just the areas around power stations, since we will all have to face the consequences of disposing of, or simply guarding for thousands of years, the waste produced.

One of my biggest concerns about energy policy is that governments continue to see it as a question of how we obtain vast quantities of energy to carry on as we are. As a consequence, they always seem to be looking for 'big technology'; whether that be nuclear or massive barrages. I think the real issue is how we reduce our demand for energy to a level which can be supplied in a more appropriate fashion.

Is 'absolute' good enough?

Tweet How good is an 'absolute guarantee'? On face value, it should be very good indeed, but there are guarantees and there are guarantees.

Hywel Williams MP has been doggedly pursuing the implications of the contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, the US Defence contractors, to process the next UK Census. His concern, which I and many others share, is that Lockheed Martin is covered by the Patriot Act in the US, which means that the US Government can force the company to disclose any data they process.

In response, the director of the census has said that he can "guarantee absolutely" that this will not happen, because they have a "very strong contract" in place, and the data will be processed by sub-contractors who are "outside US law". I'm sure the census director is a very sincere man, and I'd like to believe him - but I can't. It's not that I don't trust him – it's more that I don't trust the US government.

The situation is quite clear under existing law, but in recent years, the US has developed a propensity for changing the law retrospectively. Worse than that, they have changed their laws in ways which enable them to act in their own courts against non-US citizens and organisations for events which have happened outside US jurisdiction. If they decide that they want this data, I simply do not have the confidence that they won't try and get it, and by appointing a major US defence contractor to run the census, the UK government have given them an opening which they can use.

The census director can and has given a good guarantee about what he and his team will do – but I don't believe that he is in any position to guarantee what other people will do, whatever his contracts might say. I believe that the obsession with outsourcing and privatising work which has led to the granting of the contract to Lockheed Martin has also led to a situation where the confidentiality of the census has potentially been seriously compromised. Hywel is right to be concerned.

Keep taking the tablets

Tweet The Lib Dems' Health spokesperson took a lot of space and words in the Western Mail on Monday to fulminate against the policy of Free Prescriptions, but she actually said very little. (The Tories' Assembly leader was making similar noises just a week or so ago as well.) Specifically, she once again totally failed to explain why Lib Dems and Tories believe prescriptions should be singled out for charging, whilst other aspects of the Health Service remain free.

Their main lines of argument seem to be:

• We should not have to refuse some treatments on cost grounds when there are other people who could pay for their prescriptions and don't;
• Providing free prescriptions diverts funds from other areas of the health service;
• People don't appreciate something (such as prescriptions) which they get for free.

But suppose we substitute 'appointments with the doctor', or 'minor surgery', or 'hospital accommodation' for prescriptions in those three points? The statements all remain just as 'true'. There is no particular rationale for picking on prescriptions other than the fact that people have been accustomed to paying for them; but the fact that something has been so for a period of years is never in itself an adequate justification for it to continue.

I suspect that the Tories and Lib Dems actually believe that a wide range of health services should be means-tested; with those who can afford to pay being charged for the services they receive. Prescriptions is just the tip of the iceberg for them. Just think of all the money that that would free up for other parts of the health service (or would it just go on tax cuts, I wonder?).

Actually, I welcome the way in which the Tories and Lib Dems won't let go on this one, because it helps to draw a clear distinction between those of us who believe in a free health service, and those who have simply never understood the underlying principle of 'free health care for all'.

The £ in your pocket?

Tweet Inevitably, a number of politicians have seized on the news that the pound has hit a new low against the Euro, largely as a result of the Chancellor's extremely gloomy assessment of the economic prospects. A government which attempted to build its whole reputation on the basis of sound economic management can hardly complain if its opponents make political hay when things go wrong.

Fluctuating exchange rates may seem a bit academic to most of us – except when it comes to buying our holiday money – but they can cause real problems for all of us. A low pound makes it easier to sell our exports, but increases the cost of our imports – which will make the fuel price crisis even more acute as winter approaches. Fluctuating exchange rates can also give massive opportunities to the speculators in the money markets to bet against one currency or another – often making the crisis worse than it needs to be.

Whilst any business involved in importing or exporting has its own view of what the exchange rate should be, most business people that I talk to want stability even more. Instability makes it hard to plan and invest for the future.

The arguments against joining the Euro were always at two levels – the economic and the political. When we last discussed this inside Plaid, it was the economics which we were debating mostly. There was clearly a belief that the Euro would succeed, and a feeling that we should be part of it; but there was also a fear that the exchange rate at the time would be relatively unfavourable to us. So, with the pound at a new low, is it time to reconsider the question?

Entering the Euro at or around current exchange rates would be a lot better for what's left of Welsh industry than it would have been at the higher level which pertained at the time that the Euro was created. And for as long as I can remember, the European interest rate regime would have been better for Wales than the regime under which we have been living, with interest rates set in London, often as a reaction to overheating in the housing market in the SE of England. For businesses trading across Europe, joining the Euro-zone would provide the benefit of stability against which they could plan their investment and strategy.

I've always felt that the real reason for the UK's reluctance over the Euro was more to do with a Little Englander mentality than with the economics. For the separatists of UKIP, 'keeping the pound' is axiomatic, but many LabourTory politicians are also afraid to support 'scrapping the pound' - either because of a fear of losing ground to the separatists, or else because, deep down, they harbour some pretty separatist views themselves.

Plaid doesn't suffer from those hang-ups. Being a full part of the European project is an essential part of our vision for Wales. To me, the damage to the government's economic reputation looks like a good opportunity to set aside blinkered British nationalism and start a sensible debate about the economic advantages of joining the Euro.