Assembly agrees on how to spend its pocket money.

While Plaid and the Liberal Democrats congratulate themselves on uniting to secure their own policy snippets as result of the Welsh Labour governments budget we must ask ourselves . Is robbing peter to pay Paul because Paul provides the headlines popular with the electorate and looks god on election leaflets and at debates the right answer.

 The Labour government in Wales has announced an unprecedented deal with two opposition parties to ensure it wins approval for its budget.

Labour, which does not hold a majority at the Welsh assembly, is promising to spend £100m on priorities close to the heart of the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist party Plaid Cymru. It is pledging to set aside money to make sure more people in need can access health and social care within the community – a key Plaid issue.

It is also promising to boost grants to schoolchildren from deprived backgrounds, which the Lib Dems have long campaigned on.

The deal was announced before the publication of the draft 2014-15 budget on Tuesday afternoon. The budget is expected to combine commitments to protect the NHS and invest in new infrastructure projects with potentially severe cuts to local authorities.

In recent years Labour, which has half of the assembly seats, has made deals with one opposition party to get its budget through. This time the Lib Dems and Plaid teamed up to strengthen their bargaining position.

All this proves a major problem with the Assembly budget . Not that Labour do not have a majority but the government can't raise its own money and must be reliant on the "Pocket Money" via the Barnett formula.

This means that the two spending departments Health and Education (Health takes over 40% of the budget) and who constantly need more investment to the extent that it could be political suicide to consider cutting their budgets will always be the big winners to the and that .money has to be diverted from equally important though less viable areas.

Plaid and the LibDems  were right to combine together rather than enter a separate  bidding war  with Labour.

But as long as we go on like this Health and Education will carry on getting increased investment and cuts will have to carry out elsewhere year in year out.

And Political expediency will mean that Health and Education win or in this age of curs do not loose so heavily.

We need a sensible debate on the Welsh Budget and how it is raised the "Pocket Money" system can't go on as it is.

Sorry isn't enough David Davies

The Tory MP for Monmouth David Davies courts publicity so its no wonder he took part in Last mights BBC Wales "Week in Week Out" programme went behind the scenes with Bron Afon Housing Association, which has 509 properties in Blaenavon but only 23 one-bedroom flats.

One woman is losing £21 a week due to the changes and now faces having to leave Blaenavon where her family has lived for generations.

Gail Harris has rented the same three-bedroom house for 25 years and now faces the prospect of having to leave the town if she cannot find a smaller property.

Though where she can go is anyone's guess because areas with a high number of one bedroom flats would probably is where landlords want to rent them to single employed people.

She has more than £400 arrears and said the changes were "really crue".

Mr Davies told the 59-year-old he was "sorry" that she may be one of the people who could lose out.

"In other words there are some people who will lose out who don't deserve to lose out - and I believe you could be one of those and I am really sorry for that."

"That doesn't mean we can reverse the whole thing or change it, because there is a wider issue.
"With limited housing stock and very limited money you can't have a situation where large numbers of people are under occupying - people living on their own in social housing with two or three bedrooms.
"That situation couldn't be allowed to continue."

So that's all right then Mr Davies is sorry there are people who don't deserve it loosing out  

Mr Davies also provoked anger when he spoke to a young couple.

"You are not going to like what I have to say to you," 

he told 17-year-old Amy Evans and her partner Lloyd Mulry.

"The government have brought this in because we are in a terrible financial situation - absolutely unbelievable.

"And the days when we were able to fund people in your situation are gone."

He told Amy he would move back home if he was in their position and that Lloyd should leave Wales for somewhere like London if he could not find work in Blaenavon.

What planet is this man on?

Does he really believe that simply saying sorry or encouraging 17 year old to move to London allows him to shake off responsibility .

Even the dumbest Member of Parliament must have realised that there would be a huge problem in the amount of one bedroom flats and the number of people who would be forced to move under this new policy.

Is there a single area in the UK where the number of one bedroom flats outstrip those who will now need them?

Even if you think 17 year olds  are to young to be giving social housing.or helo in the  private sector. We must realise that sometimes it is impossible for them to live with their parents".

We can't simply throw them on the streets of London .Prey to exploitation by drug pushers and pimps.

 Davies argument that  this attack on those in need "The government have brought this in because we are in a terrible financial situation - absolutely unbelievable". would hold water if we were indeed "all in it together",  but the Con/LibDem reaction is to attack the poor and vulnerable when those who caused the problem carry on receiving more in bonuses in a week  than people like  Gail Harris above receives in benefits in a year.

The movement have gone for the easy target shifting blame and punishment from those who have caused the problem to those on welfare . Popular with their supporters but so very unfair. 

The US and Humpty Dumpty.

Imagine that during that in 1986 British Commandos crossed over into the Republic of Ireland and captured a key IRA figure. 

Imagine the reaction in the US Congress to this. Would they support the uK government or denounce it as a illegal act

I am posing this question  because Libya has demanded an explanation for the "kidnapping" of one of its citizens by American special forces, hours after a separate US military raid on a terrorist target in Somalia ended in apparent failure and retreat.

In Tripoli the US army's Delta force seized alleged al-Qaida leader Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Abu Anas al-Liby and wanted for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people.

Libya's government refused to say whether its forces were involved in the arrest and claimed it had not been informed in advance. A statement from the prime minister, Ali Zaidan, said: "The Libyan government is following the news of the kidnapping of a Libyan citizen who is wanted by US authorities. The Libyan government has contacted US authorities to ask them to provide an explanation."

It seems that a a similar action in Somalia had the support of the Somali government  wbut failed in its mission  when they launched an amphibious assault to capture an Islamist militant leader said to be Ahmed Godane, described as Africa's most wanted man and the architect of last month's attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya. The elite Seals were beaten back by heavy fire and apparently abandoned equipment that the Somali militants photographed and posted on the internet.

 US Secretary of State John Kerry s aid the operations in Libya and Somalia showed that the US would never stop "in its effort to hold those accountable who conduct acts of terror".

Those who attacked American interests "can run but they can't hide", he said.

 and that  Anas al-Liby would was a "legal target and face e justice in a court of law".

one can sympathise with the US when it sees known members of a terrorist operating in another country, but the rule of law  and can they say really  something is legal just because they say so.

There is a clear fealing amongst those in the US Government  that they are justified in any action they like and that they can do this in any part of the world.

They should  learn from the British Empire and that a Pax Americana is no more real or stable than a Pax Britannia was and the more you tried to impose it  the more it was resented .

When the UK introduced interment without trial in Northern Ireland  it saw an increase in membership of the IRA from those who had not previously had any enthusiasm for violence.

The US in behaving as they are may in the short term by  arresting  prominent wanted terrorist but in the long term it is building up resentment throughout the Middle East.

I suppose some may accuse me of Anti US rhetoric but the trouble with the "If you are not with us , you are against us." statement of George W Bush  is that you should listen to your friends when they tell you that you are wrong not shun them.

If the US wants to defeat terrorism this is not the way to go about it.

Irish vote to keep Seanad Éireann

Ireland voted to retain its upper house of parliament on Saturday, rejecting Taoiseach  Enda Kenny's call to scrap a chamber where the likes of William Butler Yeats once sat but the government saw as redundant.
In a campaign backed by some of the opposition and not seen as a chance to punish the government for austerity policies imposed as part of an EU/IMF bailout,

The Fine Gael Labour coalition government proposal was supported by Sinn Féin and was lost by a narrow margin, with 48.3% voting in favour of abolition, with 51.7% against.

Total turnout in the election was higher than expected at nearly 40%.

With his party still in front in most opinion polls at the midway point of a five-year term, analysts said there would be no immediate damage for the prime minister as the country prepares to complete its bailout later this year.

Kenny had argued that the 75-year-old institution was elitist, undemocratic and promised its abolition would save money. Advocates for the senate, including the main opposition party Fianna Fail, accused the government of a power grab.

The 60 members of the senate only have limited powers such as temporarily delaying legislation.  But during the campaign Kenny's Fine Gael party said the last time it did so was in 1964.
Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach (prime minister).

• Three by graduates of the University of Dublin.
• Three by graduates of the National University of Ireland.
• 43 elected from five special panels of nominees (known as Vocational Panels) by an electorate consisting of TDs (member of Dáil Éireann), senators and local councillors. Nomination is restrictive for the panel seats with only Oireachtas members and designated 'nominating bodies' entitled to nominate. Each of the five panels consists, in theory, of individuals possessing special knowledge of, or experience in, one of five specific fields. In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates:
• Administrative Panel: Public administration and social services (including the voluntary sector).
• Agricultural Panel: Agriculture and the fisheries.
• Cultural and Educational Panel: Education, the arts, the Irish language and Irish culture and literature.
• Industrial and Commercial Panel: Industry and commerce (including engineering and architecture).
• Labour Panel: Labour (organised or otherwise).

Kenny, who surprised many of his colleagues when he first raised the idea of scrapping the senate while in opposition, was criticised for refusing to take part in television debates, just as he had been during the last election campaign

Taoiseach  Kenny  may be damaged but his Fine Gael Party still be ahead  in the opinion polls .But its it and its coalition partner partner Labour have slumped since the last election.



2011                                               2013

Fine Gael       36.1%                      27%
Labour           19.4%                      10%
Fianna Fáil    17.5 %                      23%
Sinn Fein        9.9 %                       17%
Others            11.4 %                      23%




As we consider the governance of Wales and whether in the future  as powers for the Assembly or future Welsh Parliament . We will need to consider  if we need a second chamber if only to prevent the constant referral to  to judicial review that is currently happening to bills passed by our assembly.

Most legislatures have a second chamber but that is no reason why we should follow suit but if we do serious consideration in how it is elected and how representable it is of the people of Wales should be carefully considerd.

What has the Daily Mail editor have against the Tory Party.

I can't see Ed Miliband giving a victory speech after winning the 2013 General Election thanking Paul Dacre and Lord Rothermere but they could well prove to be responsible for him entering No 10


It as all but  demolished any publicity the Conservatives may have had  during their conference by it  attack on Ralph Miliband   the father of Ed and the claim that he  "Hated" Britain

Ralph Miliband attacked as anti –patriotic yet he escaped from  Fascist Europe and enlisted in the Royal Navy to fight Hitler. Whilst the Mail and Rothermere father  had previously cheered Oswald Mosely Blackshirts



As many have pointed to be accused of being anti-patriotic from a paper that was pro-fascist and sympathetic to Hitler, Mussolini and advocated appeasement takes  to a new level.


It was compounded after it emerged that the Mail on Sunday sent a reporter to a memorial service for his late uncle seeking reaction to the Daily Mail's earlier attack on Ed Miliband  Father

Mail on Sunday editor Geordie Greig took the rare step of issuing an "unreserved" personal apology to Miliband on Tuesday, conveyed personally to ED Miliband, came within an hour of Miliband dragging Rothermere, the Daily Mail & General Trust chairman, into the row by writing him a letter urging the proprietor to mount an immediate investigation into the conduct of his titles.

But the most notable thing about the apology was the speculation that Dacre, the Daily Mail editor and editor-in-chief of both Mail titles, had initially insisted that it should not be made.

If Ralph Miliband hated Britain it was the Britain of Class and privilege illustrated by the then Mail editor Rothermere.

Mind you to read John Redwood and the comments placed on his take  on the story I doubt if Tory supporters will only be angry that its eclipsed their conference not the attack on Ed Milibands father.

But one final word . The attack on Ralph Miliband  was disgraceful but no less disgraceful was Labour Scottish Leader  Johanne Lamont delivered an attack on the “politics of nationalism”. in which she appears to have linked the SNP with European Fascism  

She described 

a “virus that has affected so many nations and done so much harm”

Perhaps Ed Miliband can apologise for this slur conducted by senior member of his party on democratic and peaceful Nationalist in these Islands.  

Andrew R.T. Davies Leader Or Spokesman?

Is it just me or is there a hint of suggestion in the Wasting Mule that the Conservative Assembly leader Andrew RT Davies has suggested the time may be nearing when the Wales Office should be scrapped is as a result of fit of pique.

The Mule says  .

In an interview with ITV Wales, the South Wales Central AM said: 

“I think as we go forward there is a debate to be had as to do we need all the offices of state?

“As a Conservative, I’m a big believer in small government and we shouldn’t have institutions [or] offices staying in place for the sake of it. That’s a discussion and debate to be had further down the road and ultimately I’m comfortable with having that debate and the consideration has been put out there, an office of the countries and regions of the United Kingdom would be a sensible proposition to consider.”

Which lets face it is a reasonable argument.Though perhaps there are still not enough powers devolved to the Assembly (in contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland) for it to happen yet.

Andrew R.t.Davies little more than a spokesman?

And the Mule manages to find that elusive creature  " a senior party source" to  dismiss the suggestion, saying: “It’s not happening. Party policy is to have proper representation of the UK.”

But there a hint in the Mule that the real reason that Andrew RT Davies  wants the Welsh Office scrapped is that he was almost ignored at the Tory Party Conference.

For as the Mule points out the BBC reported claims that negotiations as to whether Mr Davies and Welsh Secretary David Jones would both appear on stage at a conference event this morning went “unbelievably went close to the top of the party”.

A "party source" ( maybe the same one as above ) claimed that the Welsh Secretary had intervened personally to ensure that Mr Davies had a speaking slot after an administrative “cock-up” meant that AM had not been slated to take part.

It would have been a incredible snub if Andrew  R.T. had been ignored 

The BBC story claimed that 

Before the conference commenced, Conservatives in Cardiff Bay had expected Mr Davies to participate and the official conference agenda described this morning's event as one in which “the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister for Scotland, Leader of the Welsh Conservatives and Leader of the Scottish Conservatives lead a discussion on the countries of the UK.”

In contrast, an online version stated that  “the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Wales” would take part.

Before the event, a Conservative insider expressed concern that if Mr Davies did not take part it could give the impression that “London is dictating to Cardiff”.

However, both men participated in the discussion about the future of the UK.

But it could well be that the Party still regard the Secretary of State (or Shadow when out of power) as the sole leader of the Tories here and that the party leader in the assembly carries very little weight. Little more than a spokesman in reality.

Indeed it may be that we can we can judge how the London Parties regard devolution in Wales by the prominence of the leader of the party at their annual conference .

Very little it seems from the last three weeks  In Glasgow,Brighton and Manchester it appears.

Long Term Unemployment to be (virtually) a criminal offence.

George Osborne is announce at Conservative Party conference in Manchester that 200,000 benefit claimants who have been out of work for two years will be placed on a new "Help to Work scheme", where they will be made to either work 30 hours a week for six months doing community work, attend the jobcentre on a daily basis to look for work, or undertake a mandatory regime for dealing with the issues causing their unemployment, such as mental health problems or drug addiction.

So how different is Community Service for people n the United Kingdom ,convicted of crimes who are required to perform community services or to work for agencies in the sentencing jurisdiction either entirely or partly in lieu of other judicial remedies and sanctions, such as incarceration or fines. community service is now officially referred to by the Home Office as more straightforward "compulsory unpaid work".Compulsory unpaid work includes up to 300 hours of activities, such as conservation work, cleaning up graffiti, or working with a charity. The Howard League for Penal Reform (the world's oldest prison reform organisation) is a prominent advocate for the increased use of community sentencing in order to reduce the prison population and improve the rehabilitation of those sentenced for criminal activity.

Convicted Felons or Long term Unemployed. Can you see a difference?

Are the long term unemployed going to wear similar "uniform" and will it distinguish them . Will they be open to abuse from the public who assume that they are convicted criminals.

Assuming they get help in travel costs does this mean that they will have to paid much more a week in order they can attend a Jobcenter on a Daily bases.

The new scheme will cost £300 million a year. As yet, there is very little evidence to suggest it will deliver a return on that investment.


The whole Workfare Programme has been a complete failure  where those finding work on the scheme have fallen far less on expectations

And less face it . What future employer faced with the CV of a person spending 30 hours a week picking up litter will be impressed to offer that person a job?

Of course this announcement trailed well before Osbourne speech was there to distract from the Governments economic failings and the fact that there was no real good news..

It was there to say "We are not out of this economic mess and its all the fault of that huge number of work-shy people who are doing nothing whilst "Honest decent people are going to  work each day"

Actually Aside from the fact that,he 200,000 long-term claimants of unemployment benefit targeted by Osborne make up just 5 per cent of JSA claims and only 2.5 per cent of the overall benefits bill and only a small percentage of these are actually work-shy the majority are victims of circumstance 

Demonising the unemployed plays well and helps to give the impression that its not the failure of government policy thats the problem.

But is treating them in the same way as criminals the answer?