Basis of Selection

Tweet The idea of holding debates between the leaders of the parties at election times has been mooted for many years; I can't say that I'm surprised that it's finally going to happen. That doesn't mean that I'm exactly happy about it either.

It works well in the US because the people are actually electing a president when they vote; in the UK, we are not. We are electing a legislature from which a government is subsequently chosen, and the number of people who can actually vote directly for any of the leaders is very limited.

I'm quite open to the idea of holding separate elections for the government and the legislature. There are a whole series of details which would need to be resolved (not the least of which is that it would make changing a prime minister without a new election rather more difficult), but the idea has a number of advantages. However, simply grafting on a presidential style debate to a legislature based election brings a series of problems of its own.

Clearly, the choice of UK prime minister at the next election boils down to only two people, and if we were able to vote directly for a prime minister, I could see that benefit of having a debate between those two. But what is Clegg doing there? He has, to be blunt, no more chance of being the next UK Prime Minister than does Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid's parliamentary leader. I know it, the broadcasters know it - and even Clegg knows it.

It might be argued that the Lib Dems are fighting enough seats to be able, theoretically, to form a government if they won enough. But what if the Greens, or the BNP or UKIP then field enough candidates - do they get to be included?

It might also be argued that, in the event of a hung parliament, the third party would have a degree of influence beyond their numbers, so that people should know where they stand. But there's no reason to assume that the Lib Dems will be the third largest group. It's perfectly plausible that a 20-strong Plaid/SNP group would have just as much influence; everything depends on the final numbers of MPs.

In short, I can see no rational justification to include Clegg which could not also be used to justify the inclusion of a number of other possible leaders. And conversely, the basis on which others have been excluded could also be used to exclude Clegg.

The whole thing is a stitch-up by the broadcasters and the establishment parties. Nothing new there, then.

Investing in Skills

Tweet This week, I've had cause to read another of the Welsh Assembly Government's many consultation papers. This time it's "Investing in Skills", setting out how the government intends to prioritise spending and support.

Much of it, as with so many government papers, is motherhood and apple pie; but the section on targeting sector priorities raised some concerns in my mind. It was the sentence "The limited evidence available suggests that most learners make broadly rational choices of learning, given the wage returns to different qualifications." which first raised my eyebrows.

The meaning is not immediately clear; it's the sort of sentence which on a quick reading might not have registered at all; but what it actually seems to be suggesting is that 'rational' choices of learning are those which lead to the qualifications which in turn give the highest earnings power. The corollary of course is that choices not based on that criterion are irrational. This interpretation is confirmed by the helpful footnote referring to exceptions with the words, "health and beauty therapy courses are popular despite evidence of relatively low returns".

It underlines a very utilitarian approach to training; and indeed that theme runs through the document, with its proposals to effectively ring fence part of the spending allocation to FE institutions for those courses considered to be most immediately useful by the Sector Skills Councils. One consequence is that courses which are currently fully-funded but which are not in the priority categories may no longer be fully-funded in future; learners will be expected to contribute to the costs. The potential consequences, for learners, FE institutions, and the range of courses available are obvious.

Now there's nothing wrong with employers (and the SSCs are largely composed of employers' representatives) setting out their training needs, and there's nothing wrong with those training needs receiving a degree of priority. That could be seen as a means of promoting the needs of the Welsh economy. But there are two aspects which concern me.

The first is that employers, by and large (and there are always exceptions to every rule), tend to take a pretty short term view of training. That is, they're good at identifying, and often providing, training to meet their own narrow immediate needs; they're rather less good at identifying future needs, let alone the needs of replacement industries.

The second is the assumption that training only benefits the economy directly if it is immediately relevant to today's economic needs. A point which I picked up in a meeting I attended recently is that tomorrow's NEETs can often, sadly, be identified at the age of 5. There are some key factors which identify the likely future employment status of children when they are at the beginning of their primary school years – and one of those factors is the educational attainment of the parents.

We always need to be careful of the distinction between a causal relationship and a correlation; but there is strong evidence to suggest that low levels of educational attainment and training beget low levels of educational attainment and training. If we assume that a reduction in the number of NEETs is itself economically beneficial (quite apart from the obvious social advantages), then addressing the factors which are creating tomorrow's NEETs has a direct economic advantage.

In short, providing training and qualifications of any level, even if the immediate economic benefit of that training is not obvious, will help to improve the level of educational attainment of the next generation and therefore have a delayed economic benefit. A skills strategy which over-emphasises meeting today's needs, on the other hand, may be helping to perpetuate a deep-rooted problem. Joined-up government means taking a much wider view.

Old news

Tweet And while I'm on the subject of Carmarthenshire County Council, I have today received my copy of their latest edition of Community News. There is comment elsewhere on the blatantly political attack which passes for an editorial, including a direct threat against local newspapers who dare to be unsycophantic in their approach.

However, it's the council's take on the idea of 'news' that struck me. Delivered today, the front page contains a story about events which people are encouraged to attend - on November 27th, December 4th, and December 12th. Really useful stuff. An inside page tells me about the consultation on closing care homes - which was scuppered two weeks ago.

Just because they use recycled paper, it doesn't mean that they need to recycle the content as well.

Council contortions

Tweet In trying to 'sell' the proposals to close four residential homes in the county a few weeks ago, Carmarthenshire's Independent Party council leader was at great pains to try and explain that it wasn't really about money at all; it was about the changing nature of the demand, and the need to help people to stay in their own homes.

Her tune this week is rather different. According to both Cllr Gravell and her deputy, Labour Cllr Kevin Madge, the choice is a stark one - close these four homes or sack a thousand staff. The message is primarily aimed at the 'back-benchers' on the council, telling them that they have no choice but to support the council's plans. It's not true, of course; but will it work?

Actually, it's not really aimed at all the backbenchers either. The Executive Board know full well that the Plaid opposition will not support their plans, but as long as all their own members vote with them, that doesn't matter. And that's the real nub of the issue - they can no longer depend on Labour councillors blindly following the Independent Party's lead on the council. Four Labour members - including the chair of their group - voted with Plaid at the scrutiny committee; they simply couldn't bring themselves to vote to close care homes. There are eight backbench Labour Councillors on the council, and if they all vote with Plaid at a full council meeting, they will defeat the administration's plans once and for all.

This week's alarm story is little more than an attempt to bully and browbeat those eight Labour councillors into supporting the closure of these homes; in a very real sense, the future of these homes now depends on those eight members. Will they have the courage of their convictions, or will they buckle under pressure? This is a critical moment for Labour in Carmarthenshire, and it could represent a turning point for the council. The challenge to Labour is simple - do they paper over the cracks, or do the cracks turn into a chasm?

Incidentally, this is not the only sign of panic breaking out in the council's administration. As Plaid's councillors have pointed out on their blog, the Executive Board has resorted to taking key decisions in 'informal meetings'; meetings where no agenda is issued in advance and the press, public, and other councillors are not even notified that they are happening. Highly irregular, and almost certainly illegal. This is an administration on the ropes.

Robbing Hood

Tweet I've never been a great fan of hedge funds. Buying things they don't want using other peoples' money and selling things they don't own in order to redistribute wealth from the many to the few has never struck me as being either a socially valuable activity, or a sound basis for an economy.

I've taken more interest since it became clear that these funds are donating large sums to the Tory party nationally, and that one of them is almost entirely funding the Tory campaign in this constituency.

Many people, myself included, have long harboured doubts that the people involved in some of the more complex financial instruments do not themselves fully understand the nature of those instruments, let alone the risks involved. If they were only working on the fringes of the financial system -- and if they were the only people taking those unquantified risks -- it might not matter. But it does matter -- firstly because their habit of shortselling directly contributed to the financial collapse, and secondly because it became clear that it was us, rather than them, who were taking the risks.

Wrecsam Plaid drew attention a few days ago to the massive payment being made to one hedge fund manager who admits that he made a great deal by short-selling the banks, including Bradford and Bingley. It seems that the people behind funds like this will completely escape the additional tax which is being imposed on bankers' bonuses.

Thee are two reasons for that. The first is, as Wrecsam Plaid points out, that they are not, in the strict sense of the word, 'bankers'. (Although some people may still consider them to be 'merchants'.) The second is that this company operates as a Limited Liability Partnership rather than as a limited company, as do a number of other hedge funds.

LLPs pay no corporation tax at all on their profits. Instead the profit made by the LLP (as opposed to the growth in the assets managed) is treated as the personal property of the partners, who can take it out of the partnership any time they want. And, whilst I don't know the details of the tax status of the particular company involved here, in most cases with companies like this the profits extracted are treated as coming from the purchase and sale of assets rather than as income - so they are subject to capital gains tax rather than income tax. This is an extremely beneficial arrangement - for those involved. It means, in effect, that they can pay themselves millions, but pay tax at a lower rate than the office cleaning staff.

Hedge funds do make some people wealthy, but they don't generate wealth, as some of them claim. The two things are quite different. They actually redistribute wealth - to themselves. They perform no useful function for the many, and the sooner they are closed down the better.

The Toryside Alliance

Tweet A link to an interesting letter found its way into my inbox this week. It's a letter from our local Tory candidate, in his guise as Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, providing a briefing to Tory candidates in marginal seats. It's a novel way for the Chief Executive of an "all-party" campaign to behave.

The "all-party" campaign has itself, it seems, been conducting "extensive and detailed polling" in some of those self-same marginal seats asking "whether the Conservative Party's position on repeal is likely to alter voting patterns". The boundaries between the CA and the Tory Party seem to be becoming a little blurred here, to say the least.

One of the other points made in the letter is a suggestion that the League Against Cruel Sports may have abused its position as a charity, since its activities might be perceived as being 'anti-Conservative'. The point of principle - i.e. that a charity may not get involved in party political activity - is correct. It's a serious allegation, but it is a matter for the Charity Commission and the law to determine whether LACS have actually breached the law.

I note however, from the CA site that all donations made to them, as well as the greater part of membership monies, qualify for Gift Aid as charitable donations. Most of the work of the CA is, it seems, regarded as coming under the remit of 'charity'. So clearly, if that organisation were to be caught out undertaking activities aimed at benefiting one party, wouldn't that fall to be dealt with under the same rules?

Do try and keep up

Tweet Interesting that Nick Bourne states today that he has written to Carmarthenshire county council opposing the proposals to close four care homes.

It seems that the proposals he is opposing are the same ones which were thrown out on the motion of Plaid's councillors a fortnight ago.

Maybe he's just been on a stable-door bolting course.

Float like a bee

Tweet Myth has always been a powerful element of human culture, and that's fine in its place; but it should surely not displace science when it comes to matters of public policy. Mathematics is something that not everyone finds easy; some of us are very comfortable with numbers, others less so. But when it comes to taking decisions, it's surely important that numbers are properly interpreted, rather than completely misinterpreted.

It is in that context that I return again to the magic magnets which Carmarthenshire County Council has decided to fit to its fleet of vehicles "where appropriate". The subject came up again at the full council meeting last week, where one of Plaid's team challenged the decision, given the complete lack of scientific evidence for their efficacy.

The response he got was, basically, that it doesn't matter a jot whether anyone understands how they work; the only important thing is that they do. One councillor suggested that sometimes things happen and we only understand why much later; another memorably trotted out the hoary old urban myth that scientists have 'proved' that bumble bees can't fly, so what do they know about anything. (That particular myth has been well and truly debunked on a number of occasions – here's an example – but still seems to have an amazing degree of traction in the public mind).

In principle, "as long as it works" is a good response – but it does rather assume that the magic has been proved to work. And that's where we move from the unscientific to the unmathematical.

The council actually tried the devices on 22 vehicles, and after analysing the results, came to the conclusion that the devices worked on "some" of them, without having the foggiest notion why that should be.

What their figures actually showed was that 5 of the 22 results had to be disregarded because they were 'outliers' - i.e. so far removed from the sorts of results being achieved on the majority as to be not credible. As for the rest, they showed that in 9 there was a 'negligible' effect, 1 actually showed an increase in fuel consumption, and the remaining 7 showed an apparent improvement of between 3% and 9%.

They also noted that "some results have been skewed by the effect of operating conditions". This was intended to explain why some of the results were so low (after all, they 'know' that the devices work, and were only trying to measure how well). They don't seem to have realised that it could equally be the explanation for all of the apparent improvements. A more corrrect interpretation of the words would be "we haven't been able to exclude an effect from other factors so can't really be certain that any of these figures prove anything".

And in fact, on the basis of their own trial, they have proved precisely nothing. They haven't a clue how the devices might work, or why they might appear to work on some vehicles and not on others. But they have concluded that urban myth and scientific bunkum carries more weight than objective analysis and research.

On that flimsy basis, they are going to fit more of the devices – at taxpayers' expense – on other vehicles in their fleet, presumably based on sheer guesswork as to where they will 'work', since they have no objective basis on which to make such a decision.

And the council's endorsement of the product, showing a saving of 14% (which bears no relation whatsoever to any figures which they have published), remains on the company's website, where it will help to encourage more people to buy into the magic. The particular result on which this wild claim is based actually shows that the vehicle in question achieved fewer mpg with the magnets fitted than did other trucks of the same type without the magnets - a point which no-one seems to have questioned.

I understand that the salesman for invisible clothing is eagerly anticipating his visit to the council.

Rewriting history

Tweet During the days of the Soviet Union, one Russian historian was reported to have said, "In my country, only the future is certain. The past is always changing." It was a neat allusion to the way in which the history books were forever being rewritten, and photographs doctored, to play down or delete the influence of those out of favour whilst exaggerating the role of the current leader.

The allusion came to mind yesterday when I read these words "I argued against independence while a Plaid member. I was in a minority and my view was defeated." They are the words, of course, of an essay in the name of former Plaid AM, Mohammad Asghar, in yesterday's Western Mail.

I chair meetings of Plaid's NEC, National Council, and Conference (the clue is in the job title), and I can categorically state that his view on this issue was never 'defeated' in any meeting of any of those bodies. The main reason for that was that, on the few occasions where he was also present, he never raised the issue in any of those fora.

I can understand, of course, why the author of the piece would want to try and present the defection as being based on issues of policy and principle rather than personal advancement. But attempting to re-write history, even on a small scale, completely undermines the effort.

Planning and the language

Tweet I've referred previously to the Carmarthenshire Draft LDP. Another aspect of this which deserves more attention is its objectives in relation to, and potential impact on, the Welsh language.

Carmarthenshire still has a majority of Welsh speakers – just. Notwithstanding the apparent determination of the county council, aided and abetted by the Welsh Assembly Government, to reduce the commitment to the language in the field of education, there is no obvious reason why the language should not be able to hold its own, or even recover, in the county.

Planning is one of a number of factors in this, but in this respect, the proposed LDP is weak in three aspects.

Firstly, it refers to "language sensitive areas" where "Linguistic Impact Assessments" will be required. It does not, however, spell out which areas are to be regarded as "language sensitive", nor even what the criteria for defining them might be. And in a county which is on the tipping point for Welsh ceasing to be a majority language, it is not immediately obvious to me why any part of the county would be other than "language sensitive".

Secondly, the council's favoured option for development is to concentrate new developments in the major towns. Real support for the language must include enabling our young people to stay in their own communities where they wish to do so, and that involves a degree of development – both residential and industrial – being dispersed rather than concentrated, since the language tends to be in a stronger position in more rural areas. In short, the favoured option does not seem to me to be the one most likely to help retain and promote Welsh as a community language.

Finally, their proposed indicator for assessing the success of their policy in relation to the language is "the number of planning applications determined where a Language Impact Assessment has been required". For me, this misses the point entirely. I don't really care how many assessments are carried out which is what they are proposing to count. I'm far more interested in what those assessments say and what is actually done in response to them.

In the field of planning, as in the field of education, Carmarthenshire County Council is displaying a complete lack of any real commitment to the future of the language. In an area like Carmarthenshire, that is not just a lost opportunity – it is little short of a tragedy.