S4C future does no lie in English language programmes.

The recent YouGov poll, commissioned by S4C programme Y Byd ar Bedwar , found 53% agreed the channel should show English programmes, with 18% disagreeing and the rest not expressing a view. Welsh speakers were more evenly split, with 36% backing English-language programmes on S4C and 35% against.

However this do show why people would want English language programme on S4C.

• They may think that this this only way S4C could survive.
• They may be fed up with the piss poor Welsh productions of Independent TV companies and the haphazard way BBC covers Wales.

Labour MP Chris Bryant said: “I want S4C to serve all of Wales, not just part of Wales.”

But the poll did not ask as far as I know “would you like more programmes with a Welsh context onS4C but simplerly more programmes in English".

However those of us who can remember what Welsh Language programmes were like before the creation of S4C (and I suspect neither Chris Bryant or Peter Black ,who expresses similar views do) know what it was like 

 Programmes (what there were) scattered all over the schedule, and often in the afternoon or very late at night. and when they were shown English speakers complining thet could not watch their shows.

If English language programmes were to be included on S4C, how long before demands were made that should take up the prime-time spots?

I have argued  here  that f we need to increasase S4C's audience by attracting  Non-Welsh speakers to S4C then they should look at European productions and subtitle them in Welsh and English.

In the meantime Synidau points out the problems of existing English Language programmes on the BBC which relate to Wales and this would be multiplied if S4C was to fail but in a digital age but why do we have this problem?

I for one believe that when we only had five or six terrestrial channels that this always one programme that I wished to watch . Now with freeview there numerous channels there is all to often not one programme of quality I would wish to see. More choice seems to have left me with no choice.

If the future of S4C and its quality are to be discussed why single it out ? Can it be that this is merely an excuse for those who are opposed to the Welsh language to attack it through cutting S4C funding so that it becomes increasingly lees viable so they can abolish it all together.

The spurious call for the likes of Chris Bryant for English language programmes on S4C is an attempt to use a valid argument about English Language broadcasting  about Wales.Is just attempt to attack the Welsh Language, which they see as furthering Nationalism.Of course in reality they would be quite content that monoglot English speakers in Wales remained ignorant of Wales . They most certainly would not like to see a series like Pen Taler now showing on S4C or any series that gave the impression Wales was not anything but a subordinate part of the British State.

The future of Broadcasting in Wales is to vital for those who wish to divide Wales and its people (whatever Language they use) to win through.

Oldham East and Saddleworth election was a disgrace but what now.

It's not often I post in support of the  Lib-Dems, but in the case against Phil Woolas , I feel they were right.

Woolas  beat Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins in Oldham East and Saddleworth in May by just 103 votes. But Watkins challenged the result, claiming the Labour incumbent had lied about him in campaign literature. Most candidates would perhaps make such a claim after a defeat but Woolas' campaign literature was particularly offensive. One of which I've reproduced right. Other you can see here.


If the BNP had produced  a similar leaflet . I would not have been surprised, and simarly disgusted and I'm sure Labour would have condemned it outright. 
Of course I have not seen the leaflets produced by the Liberal Democrats in Oldham East and Saddleworth so we are tending to see only one side of the story and there may have been some very unpleasant literature from them during this campaign, and for the Lib-Dems to complain about unfair tactics is akin to a Wasp moaning that it had been stung by a Bee. Netherless this looks exceptionally bad and a rerun of the election is the right verdict.


Of course Phil Woolas  is not the only guilty one the role of his election agent should be investigated and it would be wrong to fight any Byelection with a different candidate but the same agent.

But what does this mean for the future of elections? Does it mean that prospective candidates will be reluctant to attack opponents who are engaging in dubious activities? I hope not but it does mean that we should look at the way elections are conducted.

I believe the returning officer should have a roll in vetting campaign literature and should have the power to suspend a leaflet from being distributed or force parties to rebut and produce corrections at they own expense.

For the Lib-Dems however this victory may well be a pyrrhic one as in theory they should romp home in any By-election irrespective  of who the Labour candidate would be. But if they fail then It will confirm their unpopularity in the UK following their betrayer of principles in the joining the coalition government So far the wind is with them in this constituency but I suspect they too might come under investigation and one wonders if we have not seen the whole nasty business  of the 2010 election in Oldham East and  Saddleworth  totally exposed.

Can Federalism Work?

Yesterday I commented on both Peter Black's and Synidau's  Blog on the proposal to reduce the number of MPs particularly in Wales.

 On Peter Blog I commented,

"But the question we should ask are Wales, Scotland,Northern Ireland and England equal members of the U.K as countries are equal members of the European Union.
If you are a federal party as you claim, shouldn't you bee arguing for more Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs?
If English MPs are able to simply dominate policy on non-devolved issues, how are we equal partners and how is this a fair union"?

Peter's reply was,

"That makes no sense whatsoever. As a Federal Party we should and are arguing for equal representation at a Federal level and more powers at a Welsh level. If English MPs can dominate on non-devolved issues, and I have seen no evidence that they act as a block at all, it is because England is bigger than the other countries. This bill is entirely consistent with our Federalism"..

And of course Peter was right.My comment makes no sense but only if you do not recognise Wales as a Nation but only as a region of the UK.

The Lib-Dems may be a Federal party but they don't exactly promote this very effectively and there must be a question of what is meant by federalism?

If they mean that that the Union should be a Federal Union of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England then my argument would holds firm and that in the Westminster Parliament that deals with Non-devolved issues then there should be more Welsh,Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs on a line with the allocation of member states of the European Union, and Ministers from Wales for Instance should have Veto powers.

If the Lib-Dems mean that power should be devolved to English Regions then this would mean Wales and Scotland will be regarded as mere UK regions and not Nations and they equality would be the same as say the South West of England and what would that mean for the claims of Cornwall?.

There could be different measures of Devolution in the "Regions" of course as there is Spain. The Basque country for instance operate s its own police force.

But a grat deal of power would still be operated by MPs from England and they would as they do now control the purse skins.

I remind everyone that only 23 members of the current Lib-con government come from Wales,Scotland  and Northern Ireland and only 9 of these are Tories.

We still are being ruled by a government which as a Nation we did not vote for.

So I accept Peter argument that my proposal does not make sense because if we are a Nation then the only thing that makes sense is Independence. Perhaps those Labour members and supporters who are complaining that Wales is being badly treated by an Alien Westminster should now realise this.

It will not be the Welsh Region of the UK who play Australia on Saturday.

Peter's B(l)ack

In aside to a previous posting, I wrote that I was worried that Peter Black had not blogged for some time. I needn’t had worried he has returned with his fair and balanced (just like Fox news in the U.S..) insight into the political world.

One of his latest comments has been on plans by   Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg’s to launch a campaign to encourage people in Wales to boycott the TV licence. 

Peter is not impressed and writes with Cymdeithas claims that this undemocratic and a “Stitch Up”. And he writes, 

“How exactly an elected government acting within its remit is being undemocratic is difficult to fathom but surely the important thing here is the outcome not the way that it is reached. If at the end of this process S4C remains independent and delivering Welsh language programmes mostly commissioned from outside companies as has been promised, then surely we are all winners”. 

So that all right then. However one can’t help wondering what his Parties reaction would have been if his Westminster Colleagues were not  acting as bag carriers to the Tories r. If the Lib-Dems were not in coalition there then Peter and La Pasionaria in particular would be screaming from the Assembly rooftops and questioning the Heritage  Minster  in the chamber on what he was going to do about it? 

But Peter really comes in to his own when questioned on the Legality of the Lib-con government proposals. In response to a comment on the legality of the government acting within his remit with regards S4C  of this he writes.

"It is within its remit because it is a non-devolved issue and therefore their responsibility. The fact that legislation is required is immaterial. Presumably the intention is to legislate so making the Government's plans lega"l.

This is the Humpty Dumpty Defence

   “When I use a word, …..“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Peter also responds to arguments about the legitimacy of our democracy. With the response.

"That is the nature of representative democracy. You cannot argue that a party has to get more than 50% of the vote or seats before they government  because that is not always possible. Also manifestos lay out a party's programme but cannot take account of the unexpected or of changes in circumstances. It would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. As for the present Government, the combined votes of the two parties amount to more than 50%. That is the first time since I was born that a Government has secured more than half the votes".

Except of course that people who voted didn’t vote for the Liberal Democrats in order that they back Tory Cuts, building Nuclear Power stations and I’m sure many Liberal democrats didn’t vote for them in order that S4C should be cut so it will become increasingly unviable e and eventually be abolished as independent Television company which is where his Lib-Dem Westminster friends are leading us.

Chris Huhne denies U Turn on Nuclear Power But only on Subsidies

I'm partly recycling a Blog, because the Liberal Democrats in the guise of Chris Huhne attempt to rebut accusations of a U-turn in on Coalition Nuclear Policy. Aberavon & Neath Liberal Democrats in fact brought my intention to this by pointing to a post on Liberal Democrat Voice where Huhne attacks “Myths” about his coalitions Nuclear Policy.


And he does rebut some myths but it reality all he is saying is that Nuclear Power Stations will not be built with government subsides.

He writes.

"First, the energy national policy statements, which are part of the new planning process, setting out the policy framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure. They create the need, in planning terms, for energy infrastructure to be built, thereby avoiding holding public enquiries on each individual project. The overarching energy statement estimates that about 60GW of new electricity generation will be needed by 2025, largely to replace existing power stations. It sets the aim of ensuring that just over half (33GW) is renewable, and as much as possible of the remainder is low-carbon: nuclear or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. The nuclear national policy statement limits the sites where new nuclear stations can be built to eight locations, all with existing nuclear stations.

Second, the ‘regulatory justification‘required under EU legislation whenever there is a possible of exposing the population to radiation. The government is required to examine new nuclear reactor designs and decide whether the possibility of exposure to radiation is justified by the benefits, in terms of, for example, energy security and low-carbon generation. We have decided that it is.

Third, the regulatory framework for ensuring that operators of new nuclear stations put aside enough money when the stations are operating to pay for the full future costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. There’s more detail to come on this topic later this year".

But this is the man who said

My  argument is that he has made a complete U turn on Nuclear Power and that what he has written about claiming to "debunk myths"is a red herring and is frankly ridiculous. It is the plan to build New Nuclear Power Stations that people mainly object to who pays for it is secondary.If he has  changed his mind then OK, but if has adopted a policy that he still believes is a “Dead End” then he is being hypocritical and dishonest with the public and by the same logic Aberavon and Neath Liberal Democrats are as well, if they believe that passing of such attempt to delude us is justifiable.

Labour betray R.C.T. workers.

A union claims about 10,000 council workers face losing their jobs unless they accept worse pay and conditions under new contracts.

The GMB accused Labour-run Rhondda Cynon Taff (RCT) council of threatening staff with a "lock-out".

Council Leader Russel Roberts appears to be acting like Pontius Pilate in washing his hands of the issue. For as Grangetown Jack points out

“The Labour controlling group in RCT hinted that they would do this last week, when they transferred responsibility of the decision to the Chief Executive, in a pathetic attempt to not take responsibility. When Labour did the same with Neath Council, the trade unions affiliated to Labour fell strangely silent as far as public criticism was concerned, even though their members were being dragged over the coals by their Labour controlled employer.”

There seems a deft silence from Rhondda's Labour AM Leighton Andrews but I am sure he will condemn his colleagues action a will his Westminster Colleague Chris Bryant who impressed us all with his attack on Nick Clegg and his Lib-Con coalition's plans to cut housing benefit.

You surely can't condemn one attack on the vulnerable and support another (or stay silent) purely out of political expediency?

It is interesting to note that this plan to attack the workforce on Rhondda Cynon Taf has come only a fortnight after Labour took a seat of Plaid Cymru  in a by-election for the Treherbert ward on Rhondda Cynon Taf council . I wonder what the result would have been if people had been aware of these plans?

And if it's carried out will the GMB union still give backing to the Labour Party in the next Assembly elections or will they support candidates who backed their members whatever party they stand for?. All unions must wake up that their duty is to represent the interest of their membership and are not simply there to finance Labour who all to often have betrayed the very same members.

P.S Peter Black has not posted a blog since Sunday I do hope he's not ill.

Tim Williams

Many of you will remember Tim Williams. Who was one of the leaders of the Just Say No campaign during the last assembly referendum.
I have been informed that he and his wife will be emigrating to Australia tomorrow. Despite our differences I had a reasonably close relationship with Tim as his sister was married to my brother at the time. So I wish him and Michelle all the best in the future.