Implausible deniability

It is known that, amongst the unwashed of Grub Street, there are still those who complain how there is little practical difference between the unrestrained phone-hacking regime which prevailed at NoW and some of the low-tech info-gathering antics which existed back in the day.

Many confess in their cups (very loudly) to paying cleaners for the contents of waste paper baskets taken from the town clerk’s office or inveigling information out of government departments. It is claimed that one Daily Mail hack maintained a long-term and mutually lucrative relationship with the firm who held the cleaning & valeting contract for ministerial cars.

“We all did it - and we all know it went on”, goes the chorus line.

As such, the contrived defence mounted on behalf of Andy Coulson by Derek Jameson on the very excellent Gentleman Ranters blogsite seems flimsy at best.

Jameson, himself a former NoW editor, claims the overriding and accepted principle in operation in a newsroom is “Better you don’t ask”. Journalists would insist on their sources and methods being undeclared and this was ‘accepted’ practice. The idea however that a newspaper can be consistently operated on the basis of what an editor doesn’t know can’t hurt him, her or the paper, whilst undeniably attractive, is clearly an unsustainable one. Jameson’s own court experiences presumably tell him the same.

Leaks, honey traps, door-stepping and off-the-record briefings remain the lifeblood of journalism. Given the blurred nature of dividing lines between politics, sport and showbiz, it is inevitable that methods of obtaining information will similarly overlap. As such, the industry is likely to continue to put as much effort into stretching the envelope as in steaming it open - Max Mosley notwithstanding, of course.

Therefore the accepted wisdom shared by hard-nosed journos who earn their livings by looking into other people’s rubbish bins is that Coulson’s big mistake was not getting implicated in phone-hacking or being found out – but actually thinking that he could go legit afterwards.

The biggest losers – Ireland edition

It is one of the acute ironies of the recent general election that, having precipitated the contest in order to protect its own standing, the Green Party in Ireland has been virtually wiped off the electoral map. The Irish Times reports that not only have the former coalition partners seen their six Dáil members dumped from office but a 1.8 per cent of the national vote is not enough to enable them to recoup its electoral expenses.

Activists are now calling for the head of party leader and former minister for the environment John Gormley who had earlier persuaded cabinet colleagues that it was time to jump ship and force a snap election rather than sink with Fianna Fail.

As you would expect, party bosses say that the initial post-election focus “should not be on leadership” but an overwhelming grass roots feeling is that the people who took the party into government but extracted few concessions should now step down for good.

No doubt Lib Dems and Tories will be seeking to manufacture Welsh parallels as they gather for their spring conferences.

Divine intervention

Although it may not be within the scope of the spurious celeb endorsements we mentioned a while back, we are left wondering what is was that prompted catholic leaders in Wales to issue a statement to parishioners that they would welcome strengthening the "democratic legitimacy" of the Senedd.

It may well be that having a Welsh assembly is in line with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (localism) but should approbation from an archetypically top-down outfit – especially one with an overseas headquarters – be the kind of message welcomed by the Yes camp?

More of the same, plus inflation

The few people who tuned in with little enthusiasm to a deadly dull radio phone-in show this morning will have heard the expected disclaimers from Swansea’s Lib Dems that the council tax increase up for approval this week is “lower than wot Labour used to do”. This of course is hardly any sort of endorsement when you consider that it is seven years since today’s entrenched opposition delivered a budget in the city.

Yet the former Masters of the Universe will have taken some cryptic comfort from a tacit on-air admission by Chris Holley that he too would have allowed a leisure facility to fall into disrepair in order to maintain schools. This cringing statement came as a blurted interjection after the Bladder-in-Chief had been repeatedly upstaged by his finance cabinet member Stuart Rice – an earnest sort of chap who many regard as a long-overdue replacement for the hapless council leader. This perception however needs to be put in context since Holley was similarly shown up by an elderly caller who tied him up in knots by some pointed questioning as to why his administration had allowed respite care in the city to become virtually non-existent. (Guess what? It’s someone else’s fault).

But Rice was himself patently unable to satisfy a phone-in regular who wanted an explanation for what lay behind further ‘special payments’ to e-government contractors listed in budget papers. The amount of techno-waffle he produced indicated that there was no actual rationale on offer for sinking yet more cash into a cripplingly expensive project which, five years on, is still failing to deliver the promised level of day-to-day cost savings.

We’re tempted to suggest that the pair should try to be a bit more prepared before the budget meeting, but why should they bother? Past experience tells us that they could deliver their proposals in silent mime and the usual outcome will happen, i.e. opposition groups will nullify each other’s alternatives as their respective leaders try to prove how stunningly clever they are and the administration’s donkeys will just follow the carrot. We also predict that whatever is actually said, the local paper’s political reporter will regurgitate a cut-and-paste version as dictated by the council’s spin-machine.

Ethical arms trade?

Full marks to William Hague for his spirited defence of government non-policy as seen on Andrew Marr’s show and which should have left Johnny Foreigner in no doubt about what to expect of the UK in future.

Close your eyes and it all sounded very much like a more strident remix of the Blairite ethical & commercial messages blended with just the right touch of patronising neo-colonial trade overtones aimed at fostering the “international betterment” espoused by the PM during his tour. Even Lord Mandelson was impressed.

The slight credibility problem however is that Cameron has not been swanning around the mid-east with tractor manufacturers and desalination experts in tow – has he?

Babies and bathwater

Welsh Lib Dems want voters to punish Labour and Plaid for their economic shortcomings, claiming that the One Wales government has failed the people and wasted European funding intended to boost growth. Ministers meanwhile insist that PROACT, REACT and a host of other acronyms are doing the business in employment terms against the backdrop of a flat-lined global economy.

Jenny Randerson is unconvinced and wants a different approach. However, and we’re sure that it is more of a problem in presentation, but the alternative idea of “an innovation fund to boost research and help to transform that research into new businesses and patents” does sounds an awful lot like the Technium concept which fell so badly out of favour six months ago.

The woeful lament to be heard from the back of the bandwagon is that “a lot of public sector projects are unsustainable". Strangely, this uncompromising view comes from Swansea council leader Chris Holley who has lately become better known for his whingeing rather than any kind of actual leadership.

We cannot be sure if he includes his multi-million pound boulevards proposal in this dire assessment but it is an admission that is sure to piss off many Welsh local authorities of Powys who have long argued that Swansea has had a disproportionate share of structural funding in the past. No doubt they will now expect his backing, in his capacity of Welsh local government EU spokesman, in their latest calls to redress the imbalance of targeted investment.

Green shoots - but scoring is more difficult

One of the reasons that Lib Dems are in power at Westminster is that the majority of them have managed to shrug off the popular depiction of anoraked worthies who can be seen crunching on a carrot sticks whilst they peer critically at cracked pavements. The problem for the Greens is that they are still very much perceived in this light - and in some instances it represents an improvement in their public standing.

Regardless of any stated Assembly ambitions, “progressive” and “green” are not readily identified as politically synonymous descriptions and party leader Caroline Lucas is going to have serious trouble proving otherwise in Wales. As activists gather for their spring conference in Cardiff today, the reality is that they are regarded by press and voters as dominated by conservationist, anti-development elements whose candidates crop up from time to time to oppose something, rather than a proactive force in Welsh politics.

Lucas and her party are fully aware that her election in 2010 was an aberration rather than the beginning of a trend. Polls consistently show that the Green vote is going nowhere with candidates often polling less than UKIP in by-elections - even when the occasion favours the alternative and/or protest platform.

As for making inroads in South Wales Central, not only is there is a world of difference between Butetown and Brighton Pavilion, the Greens will find that Plaid hold ambitions – and believe they hold the necessary green credentials – to be a significant force in any future coalition.

Who’s in charge?

Having failed to get its act together over the emergency repatriation of Britons caught up in the Libyan crisis, the government faces media scrutiny over who was responsible for what whilst the PM is off on his mid-east tour.

Sky News picks up on how Nick Clegg offered the aside that he had forgotten he was in charge. Apparently he was only joking.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph focuses on how the government had to borrow a jet from oil giant BP in order to stage evacuations. The original plane waited on the runway at Gatwick airport for 10 hours before taking off late on Wednesday night.  Overall its seen as a wretched poor performance that augurs badly for UK preparedness in a state of emergency anywhere else in the world – especially since HMS Cumberland, which is preparing to pick up trapped British ex-pats, is scheduled be scrapped in the next round of cuts.

What continues to amaze political onlookers however is not so much the deadbeat performance the coalition is delivering in terms of crisis management – be it snowfall or whatever – but how former PR kiddies Cameron & Clegg seem unable to extricate themselves from the impending shit-storm. Expect a re-shuffle soon, say the insiders.

Smoking out action plan funding

There is no faulting the patent ambition displayed by the Welsh Assembly Government in its plans to cut the number of smokers by a third within a decade. The issue which arises however is whether their published action plan to reduce Wales’ smoking rates from the current 24% of adults to just 16% by 2020 is either practical or achievable.

So far the stated actions include:

·       Continuing to deliver the ASSIST smoking prevention programme to over 40 schools per year;

·       Putting Public Health Wales in charge of intervention training for health care professionals to support smoking cessation;

·       Lobbying the UK government on non-devolved issues such as price increases through taxation and reducing young people’s exposure to tobacco imagery;

·       Encouraging local authorities to introduce smoke-free playgrounds;

·       Looking at the possibility of amending the smoke-free legislation to ban smoking in areas of hospital grounds where volumes of smoke may be high and where patients, visitors and staff congregate.

California is cited as the role model for applying a smoke-free agenda across Wales but the Sunshine State initiative also included putting up the price of a packet of cigarettes to help fund the cessation package. Such tax raising abilities are not available here and diminishing health budgets add to the challenge.

The imposition of 5p on the price of a plastic carrier bag was viewed as a sufficient deterrent by pro-environmental ministers – and that was without the need to go asking Westminster for permission. So it is worth examining what measures a better constitutionally equipped Assembly could achieve in safeguarding community health.

What is strange is that no-one seems to be asking.

Grim reading

As demands and direct action heat up over planned cuts in state funding at S4C, a cold blast of realism can be felt in more poor circulation figures for Welsh regional newspapers.

All five main titles report a further decline with the Western Mail & Echo seeing the largest percentage drop – WM is down a further 2000 average daily sales since figures were last published. The fall reflects an ongoing national trend with only 3 out of 87 UK regional titles registering an increase in circulation.

The totals also put a further question mark against government plans for new national and regional television channels to be broadcast via the FreeView platform and financed through advertising. Ministers insist the idea is viable but the industry is less enthusiastic. Their scepticism is reflected in a lacklustre bidding process which has seen very few big names showing an interest.

ABC Circulation Data – Feb 2011

South Wales Echo 33,725 ; -8.7%

Western Mail 27,495 ; -8.8%

South Wales Evening Post 40,999 ; -6.1%

South Wales Argus 23,738 ; -5.2%

Daily Post 31,946 ; -2.8%

A blunt instrument of policy

Ask a group in any pub if they’ve heard of Atos and among the references to musketeers or one of Jupiter’s moons, someone just might recognise the name of an early government privatisation “success”.

Atos is the French-owned firm at the forefront of the ConDem government's reform of the disability benefits system. It is also becoming the focus of growing anger over testing and coarse assessment methods.

Writing in the Guardian, Amelia Gentleman, points out that people who have had no contact with the benefits system are unlikely to have heard of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Yet anyone with disabilities or serious ill-health will probably already have a detailed knowledge of the test's workings and its many alleged disturbing idiosyncrasies.

Over the next three years, one and a half million people will have to undergo an automated assessment in which a complex computer program will help a team of "disability analysts" to rule on who is sufficiently fit for work. The concern among health practioners and disability pressure groups is the fitness of a computer-led assessment and that it consigns people into categories on a permanent basis.

The protestor waving a banner from his wheelchair outside the Atos offices put the issue into perspective by saying, “the system makes no allowances for deterioration or development of therapy to cope with a disability. The effect of this blunt & unsophisticated tool is that it makes you instantly worthless or work-shy.”

Claimants are asked if they watch EastEnders or Coronation Street on the basis that a positive response means they can sit and concentrate for 30 minutes whilst a woman with mental health problems had been found ineligible for the benefit because she "did not appear to be trembling . . . sweating . . . or make rocking movements".

Employment minister Chris Grayling stated that the new process is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money. Needless to say, few believe him or his cabinet colleagues. What remains to be seen is whether the rest of the coalition goes along with this ill-considered and potentially disastrous policy shift.

No such thing as a free event

Although Sticky Dick has used his stint as Swansea’s first citizen to endear himself with the local press through a blend of bonhomie and bullshit, his latest publicity gimmick is set to backfire, according to critics.

Never short on self-importance or self-promotion, Lewis has temporarily morphed from Lord Mayor to Baron Hard-up by announcing the cancellation of the annual Mansion House evening traditionally held for councillors, chief officers and their guests.

The austerity move has clearly surprised council leader Chris Holley, who thought that it was his job to make that kind of corporate decision. He insists that the annual bash will go ahead – but only, it seems, if he can get enough support from his Lib Dem colleagues to be able to face off against the loud-mouthed LM.

The talk among admin staff is that a petulant Lewis decided to pull the plug on the freebie civic evening after learning that the majority of councillors would be boycotting his charity ball to be held next month. They claim that less than a handful have bought £45 tickets with no opposition councillors planning to attend.

As for saving money, the same sources reveal that the Right Worshipful One had no qualms about using public money to host a reception at the Mansion House a few weeks ago which was attended exclusively by staff & management of the South Wales Evening Post, Swansea Sound and the Western Mail. Councillors and council directors were also invited along to what is said to have been a most convivial media evening that included a three course buffet meal, table wine and a free bar.

Delusions of competency

Swansea Council’s ruling regime continues to screw up the local planning process - whilst attempting a spot of obvious blame shifting.

As you would expect, Lib Dems insist that the “abominations” that exist in the city are all the fault of officers rather than themselves. So be it, but if (as yet unreported) events at a recent planning meeting are an indication of the maturity exercised in their decision-making then the council tax-paying public  could be excused for holding a very different opinion.

According to observers, cabinet members continually fell out with the chairman and her unique style of deciding who spoke on what. Proceedings then descended deeper into farce over the near forcible ejection of a one committee member for demanding the right of reply to some slur, real or imagined. Such dysfunctional behaviour is unfortunately nothing new. An earlier meeting had to be abandoned because so many councillors had pushed off beforehand; meaning that decisions on applications could not be taken.

A Lib Dem councillor is quoted in the local paper as saying that greater pride needs to be taken in the city’s appearance. Maybe so, but it seems to us – and the Wales Audit Office – that the root cause of any low esteem issues clearly stem from the council chamber.

There you go

Of course it all depends on whether you view the existence of a “state monopoly” over schools, hospitals and council services as a good or bad thing, but devolutionists will doubtlessly be pointing out this morning how Wales is presently safeguarded from Cameron’s pro-privatisation vision.

At this rate it might even make sense to switch the tool booths around on the Severn Crossing so that people can be charged to come in - or is that too much of a market driven philosophy?

Wait for it

Colourless Ed was engaging but did not exactly inspire his conference audience with his slightly condescending personal insights and careful phrasing. Despite the ovation, it was a speech only made remarkable by an impromptu rebuttal appearance on the Llandudno seafront later in the day by heath secretary Andrew Lansley.

And yet the Labour leader continues to successfully occupy the safe ground, much to the increasing irritation of his opponents.

Welsh Lib Dems and tories are fairly typical of the whining to be heard from wrong-footed strategists who had convinced themselves that Ed Miliband’s election would be a deeply unpopular move. Their projections foretold key strata of electors being instinctively put off by fears of a leftward-lurching puritan Labour party snatching candy off middle-class kids and cancelling Christmas. They were however confounded in their predictions and it is the bleakly focused ConDem coalition, who once heralded such optimism, who have since been transformed into joyless wheel-clampers of hope.

The silent but deadly approach of the Miliband Tendency does not have universal approbation among sections of Old-New Labour where neutrality is considered an alien concept in centre-left politics. But the applause kept coming from delegates nonetheless.

The consensus among journalists who closed their notebooks with an air of unsurprised dissatisfaction at the conclusion of his speech was that - sooner or later - the Labour leader is going to have to say something other than his present stock of anti-government epithets. They also agreed however that he appears to be in no rush at the moment.

The wrong front man

When Nick Clegg told the Independent in April last year that he was “pushing it all the way” to secure a deal on electoral reform, he described Gordon Brown’s offer of AV as a “miserable little compromise”. He insisted that his party would only ever settle for a truly proportional system for electing MPs.

Of course, that was when polls briefly suggested that Lib Dems would take second spot in the general election, even under the damnable FPTP system, thereby providing a future foundation for further gains under PR. The other prevalent delusion was that Clegg and fellow MPs might actually stay people of their word over a number of pre-election pledges. Now we know different.

In fact, a recent AV projection which linked their current dismal but deserved 9% popularity average with the proposed cull of 50 constituencies came to the conclusion that the Lib Dems would end up losing seats overall.

Despite recent attempts to re-ingratiate the deputy PM with the public by giving him a string of good news announcements to deliver, opinion ratings still put Clegg somewhere on a par with sheep worriers in the trustworthiness league table. Tory strategists, who purportedly dominate the No2AV camp, are convinced the Yes team has made a tactical mistake by letting Clegg front up the campaign.

A key political advisor to the No camp told journalists, “Many voters will see this as the coalition debating with itself. They will disengage”. Like others, she thinks that considerable ground can be made by capitalising on negative feelings about Clegg which will defeat the miserable little compromise – and possibly the Alternative Vote as well.

The question facing the Yes contingent, who are doubtlessly getting the same message, is what they can possibly do about it.

Quote of the week

"You only need five GCSEs to be a train driver"

Alun Cairns MP commenting this evening on a threatened rail strike by Arriva staff

A falling out among the fascists

We’ve been sent a note highlighting a local BNP resignation. It seems that one of their dwindling number has hoofed it in protest at the lack of official action taken against fellow fascist Roger Phillips after his conviction for assault. Forgive us though if we don’t applaud this 'principled' stand by a former soul-mate.

Phillips, who likes to relax by shouting abuse at Neath MP Peter Hain or sending threatening emails to Muslim peers, was investigated a few years ago for issuing death threats to an anti-BNP activist. Yet he remains one of their organisers. Charming, eh? You’d never see tories tolerating such a dubious character.

The rising cost of Cable TV

The BBC reports that Vince Cable’s claim to be at war with Rupert Murdoch is costing taxpayers £300,000 as civil servants associated with the bid to take over BSkyB now have to be relocated. The move which mainly seems to involve IT changes will cost an estimated £280,000 plus £20,000 for materials, says the government in response to an FoI request.

Cable lost responsibility for media competition issues after his gaffe and the Lib Dems have since reported the Telegraph to the Press Complaints Council for their sting on the Business Secretary. Meanwhile Culture Secretary Mr Hunt has given News Corp more time to make alterations to their bid for full control of BSkyB after the media watchdog Ofcom recommended it be referred to the Competition Commission.

Do you really solve a problem by having fewer deckchairs?

The frequency of ministerial denials and/or references to joint working arrangements signals to the rest of us a restless intent within Cardiff Bay – or more probably Cathays Park – to slice and dice Welsh local authorities into something more manageable efficient. After all, that's what real governments do, isn’t it?

Another argument however is that the presence of icebergs on the radar is usually a good indicator that it's time to stop rearranging the euphemistic deckchairs and start considering how they could be made seaworthy.

Collective hindsight agrees that Welsh LG reorganisation of 1995 was a pig’s breakfast. As ever, ministers claimed it was all about accountability (it always is) and greater efficiency (which never happens). The initial stages were boycotted by councils & trade unions who convinced themselves the worst would never happen. By the time they engaged, the sole strategic consideration was making sure you got your own office or at least a desk by the window. Things haven’t changed much.

The emergence of 22 all-purpose unitary bodies is said to be related to the procession of MPs who slunk into Welsh Secretary David Hunt’s office to raise no objections provided their own constituencies were left untouched. No-one’s memoirs have ever actually quite confirmed this story but the near-coterminous nature of local government and parliamentary boundaries does lend it some credence.

So here we are sixteen years later and still the machine doesn’t seem to work as well as predicted. You could say it’s all thanks to financial straight-jacketing or successive loading of duties & statutory obligations ranging from waste management to well-being. Then again, you can argue that “executive arrangements” brought about by the Local Government Act 2000 have entrenched political hierarchies so that any real structural change from within is unlikely (and unacceptable). Either way, a perception widely held by the outside world is that local authorities in Wales have never been so complicated, so cumbersome or less relevant to the day-to-day needs of the communities they serve. An unfair assessment perhaps, but does it matter?

Ministers are said to be increasingly convinced that the answer is to take another crack at making local government cheaper (and therefore better) without the gimmicky addition of a directly elected mayor or police commissioner.

Their favoured solution is to match up with a template based on the current health board structure. Unfortunately there is no evidence that the LHBs work any more effectively than the hospital trusts & 22 health boards they replaced and the proposal smacks more of a desire for contemporary neatness than any proven demographic necessity.

A counties comeback?

Of course, an alternative suggestion - if it all comes down to achieving economies of scale – is to simply reinstate the eight county councils that existed prior to LGR. It makes greater logistical sense and would entail far less re-organisational angst among staff (although the councillors would probably go ape-shit).

Yet, and while it is probably too much to ask, it must be said that the nettle which needs to be grasped by Assembly officials, and the politicians they advise, is that it is the scope, as much as the size, of local government that needs to be addressed.

A local Swansea radio presenter is fond of posing the query why the city needs 72 councillors when New York only has twelve. In fact, the Big Apple has fifty-one city councillors but it’s a damn good question nonetheless. Especially when you consider how only ten people in Swansea actually make the decisions and the others are essentially onlookers but can get paid a handsome allowance for the privilege.

New York is a one hell of a role-model when you think about it – and it is run by committees. Of course, the city also has a directly elected mayor and the interrelationships, both in party politics and turf disputes, can be interesting. But can we afford to discount the real difference that eight professionally managed councils with effective budgetary controls, governance systems and joint constituencies of interest could actually have upon public service delivery in Wales?

How this all stacks up with other proposed changes to the political map is anyone’s guess. Our guess however is that a local government re-alignment rather than a renaissance will be the primary consideration for a Welsh government. Too bad.

Losing our religion

It is to be expected that bloggers Alwyn ap Huw (MOF) and Paul Williams (Druid) would have a markedly different take on the Welsh Assembly Government’s worth. Not for any political or partisan reason, but simply because of the nature of their experience and expectations.

The “language of priorities” may no longer be “the religion of socialism” in Wales but it still manages to speak volumes.

Time to go indoors

Welsh Lib Dems patently think they have education minister Leighton Andrews on the ropes over his smoke & mirrors reform package. Lady Randerson (aka “Gaga” among detractors within her party) says the minister wants “all the power and none of the responsibility”.

Her claim is that a ‘suggestion’ made by Andrews on Monday about reforming the range of A levels and vocational courses offered in Wales has “caused concern in local education authorities” who have only just finished re-gearing themselves in order to meet earlier revised course requirements.

Today, the minister continues his extramural approach to education policy by outlining his vision in the Western Mail. It is a frank assessment but it is essentially a third speech which follows others also made outside the debating chamber.

It can be argued that the validity of statements, or their intent, do not depend on the venue but with so much attention presently being paid to scrutiny and all it entails, it makes sense for these policy exchanges to be made in the Senedd building – if only so those taxpayers who paid for the building can feel they’re getting their money’s worth.

Snapshot

It’s a busy day in Westminster and a number of press stories cast a sidelight on the pinball nature of politics as purposeful ConDem ministers get into their stride.

Having backed off from selling England’s green and pleasant woodland, the government is said to be considering plans to partially privatise the NHS blood bank. The Telegraph reports that private companies are in talks with the Department of Health about taking over the storage and distribution of blood under proposals to make the service more “commercially effective”.

Meanwhile, their Lordships appear to have conceded that the AV referendum will proceed – and without a 40% turnout threshold – following a 221 to 153 vote by MPs. According to the Guardian, the latest ComRes poll for BBC Newsnight puts the two camps neck and neck.

IDS will today set out how he intends to overhaul the welfare system and tackle the "benefit culture". His plans include a new "universal credit", sanctions for those turning down jobs and a cap on benefits paid to a single family. The changes are to be outlined in a welfare reform bill on Thursday. Departmental aides have dismissed mitigation measures over benefits claimed by Nick Clegg.

But lest anyone think that the government is only picking on the poor, a story appears in the Independent of how market-driven ministers are strong-arming private firms over PFI repayments. Companies have been told that unless they agree to "co-operate" to reduce the £8bn running costs of PFI they will risk losing out on future government business.

Not working

As today's headlines announce rising unemployment, a news story that managed to slip off the radar before fully registering with the press is an accusation that ConDem plans for its new dynamic “Work Programme” will actually help less claimants than the scheme it is intended to replace.

Figures show that around 850,000 people went through the previous government's help programmes in 2009-10. These are to be scrapped due to “systemic inefficiencies” but officials now admit they only expect 605,000 people to go through the scheme in 2011-12 and 565,000 in 2012-13.

Whitehall sources came up with confusing and contradictory reasons for the drop and claimed there would be more intensive help for people at Job Centres – although this is disputed by programme managers.

Graham Hoyle, the chief executive of the Association of Learning Providers - who represents more than 100 firms and voluntary organisations bidding for Work Programme contracts - says "there is no question" that some of them will go out of business, and community groups or voluntary groups hoping to get contracts are particularly vulnerable.

He added, “Any enthusiasm [for the new system] is being held back by some considerable fear that the whole package doesn't stack up”

It's the stupid economy

The unsurprising news that inflation has become the enemy of economic recovery, largely thanks to the not-so-neutral effect of this year’s VAT hike, has seen the last 24 hours bring about a gradual softening up of press and public for an increase in the base bank rate.

The general view is that putting up the rate to 0.5% should strengthen the pound in order to tackle another key inflationary factor of ever more expensive imports. Any impact felt from increased lending costs would be countered by falling prices, thereby seeing a largely neutral but nonetheless stabilising effect on inflation, or so say the experts.

Of course, the main problem with this particular theory is that most commodity prices take as long to reflect adjusted exchange rates as banks employ in passing on an increase in interest rates to savers (as opposed to borrowers). So things are likely stay bad for the average punter for some considerable time to come. Which, in turn, which means that ConDem ministers will need to devise something more imaginative than a diversionary attack of council fat cats. Especially when a smirky financial sector continues to take the piss over bank bonuses.

Update: Bank downgrades growth forecast.

A question of attribution

Cambria Politico leads with news of how a survey has determined that West Wales businesses will be voting NO in March. Whilst we have no evidence that would make us doubt the veracity of these findings, we are also aware that the West Wales Business Initiative who make this claim, remains an outfit with significant attribution issues – including the continued lack of a website or e-mail address.

Snowfall?

The story of how senior auditor Anthony Snow “self-authorised” the use of chauffeured transport to take him to a conference on cost-cutting techniques has grown legs, so to speak. However the account in today’s Telegraph appears to be pretty much lifted from what appeared in Western Mail - not that further details would add much to the article.

No matter. It is far more likely that the former WAO man’s new bosses at the Financial Reporting Council will spot this version sometime today.

According to its website, the FRC is the UK’s independent regulator responsible for “promoting high quality corporate governance and standards”.

A quiet night in Aberystwyth

Given that the alleged purpose of last night’s referendum debate on BBC Wales was to gather views and gauge opinion in West Wales about the Big Question, it was remarkable to note how many of the panel, or indeed the audience, did not hail from that particular region. Putting the parochialism on hold for a moment though, it has to be said that it was a lively and informed event with any partisan excesses or the usual diversionary stuff getting quickly stamped out by a sternly focused Betsan Powys.

Under her heavy insistence upon factual accuracy, the two YES proponents were constrained to depicting the matter of obtaining the unrestrained ability to legislate as nothing more exciting than a constitutional technical adjustment – a bit like re-tuning your FreeView box to get a better signal. Meanwhile the NO (or unconvinced) pair were backed into a corner murmuring dark warnings that it was all the thin end of the wedge.

All in all a watchable event and one that managed to put both sides on their mettle. Let’s hope the other debates planned by the Beeb are just as effectively conducted as they re-familiarise themselves with the expected role of a public service broadcaster.

Update: BBC Wales On-line describes the encounter in Aberystwyth as a “clash”. What did they expect – communal chanting?

All's fair

Although it must irk Rockin’ Rene Kinzett to have lost out on the Conservative nomination for Swansea West to a relative non-entity, he is enough of a politician to know that these things happen.

But what probably offends the PR professional most is that the new guy apparently thinks the way to do things is to write a letter to the Western Mail claiming that the tories are the party of fairness - compared, that is, to right-wing groups like the EDL. Oh dear.

Even when they're right they're wrong

ConDem ministers would have found very little in the way of good news in the YouGov poll commissioned by the Sunday Times.

Besides the party standings, over 55% of those asked disapprove of the government’s record to date. Just over 51% think David Cameron is doing badly, although he should take what comfort he can from the news that Nick Clegg is doing even worse. Some 60% give the Lib Dem leader a negative rating. A staggering 78% say the economy is doing badly and only 37% think the government is able to cope. Nearly two-thirds expect things to get worse.

One of the few "upsides” is that 63% agree with the prevailing political view, as expressed in a recent parliamentary vote, to limit the role & remit of the European court on issues such as votes for serving prisoners. Unfortunately though, the government’s official position towards Strasbourg is (by necessity) somewhat different. So no luck there, either. 

Horses for courses

Cynics might claim that there is no accident of timing in how today’s re-launch of the Big Society initiative coincides with press coverage that 200 council chief officers earn more than the Prime Minister. The Daily Telegraph is fairly typical in its proclamation of findings by independent researcher Income Data Services who report how almost half of councils pay their chief executives more than the £142,500 awarded to David Cameron in 2010.

Whether this revelation is supposed to spark a backlash against council fat cats and engender a new innate sense of altruism among us mortals is debatable. Just as unlikely however is that there might be a reasoned comparison of the capabilities and responsibilities involved in the respective roles.

Perhaps it's slightly whimsical but we find ourselves pondering what kind of professional job Gordon Brown would have done if he had the task of managing the complex relationship between council tax benefits, housing benefits and employment advice at his local town hall. Could Tony Blair have evolved an effective local economic development strategy without illegally invading a neighbouring authority? And would Nick Clegg even know where to start in formulating a statutory plan which safeguarded the rights of vulnerable people and met social care imperatives? Probably not.

Then again, how many council chief executives counted a personal photographer as a prerequisite for doing the job before taking up their posts?

Are we misinformed?

There is less than three weeks to go before the referendum and the absence of an “official” campaign for either side is beginning to tell in terms of content and quality of debate. Few of the YES arguments go much beyond imagery. Plaid bloggers clearly think the symbolism of a green tick mark is enough to motivate a nation. The NO camp meanwhile continue the apocryphal pitch that more powers will end up in the hands of a faceless political cracach.

If either side takes exception to these particular depictions then that’s too bad because our [more or less] impartial opinion is that both camps are on the verge of allowing the media to turn a debate on a crucial constitutional question for Wales into a packaged TV reality game show that depends upon celeb endorsements to encourage audience participation.

The activists and academics are not exactly helping matters either. Whilst one side insists that voting “yes” is somehow a natural expression of our nationality, the other patently views events as an opportunity to begin the process of rolling back a failed devolution experiment altogether. Yet neither scenario is accurate - and what both camps clearly have forgotten is that no-one is more critical of the Welsh than the Welsh themselves.

Accusations of being un-patriotic do not really carry any weight here. After all, what supporter has not booed the team off the pitch at the Millennium Stadium after a shocking performance? As a people, our collectively naive but fixed view, evolved by a combination of community influences and having to work for a living, is that we are entitled to always get something better from our leaders and role-models; sporting, cultural or even political. Surely the question therefore is whether a new empowered Assembly can live up to similar expectations of excellence.

The empirical evidence is that devolution has neither improved Wales’ position from its earlier economic baseline nor given the nation an advantage over its neighbours in terms of health or education. The external perceptions of Wales are also mixed. Whatever positive image has been generated by scenes of Cardiff Bay in Torchwood holds less excitement for funding programme managers who occupy economic directorates in Brussels.

Wales is a small nation and it is natural for its representatives to be closer to its people, demographically speaking. But there is a nagging feeling that WAG’s proximity to the media who dwell near the fifth floor at Crickhowell House, and especially the BBC, is an over-familiarity which has bred swift contempt. Something more is needed to supplement official leaflets that read like microwave instructions and if this referendum does nothing else it has exposed poor research and fingered badly briefed presenters who are unable, so far, to ask the right questions of politicians too accustomed to communicating by sound-bite.

For ourselves, we have no doubt that the concept of self-determination for Wales works at an emotional level but things are less straightforward when the question arises as to just what are the practical differences between a process of law-making that involves 60 politicians in Cardiff Bay instead of 650 legislators at Westminster? Among the specifics we raise is what are the checks and balances involved? Is the competency of the civil service in Wales to the same level of their Whitehall counterparts in drafting legislation? Does the absence of an upper chamber leave opponents of bills with no recourse other than the courts? There are more but these will do for now.

Like many in Wales, our inclination is towards having our own government but we nonetheless have questions. Despite his inestimable qualities, we doubt that Shane Williams is the best one to provide the answers.

Update: MOF ventures onto turf that we dare not tread.

New politics, old school

Times and politics are changing, just ask any North African despot, and nowhere more than in Westminster it seems where the concept of collective responsibility has broadened beyond ministerial parameters.

Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Commons Public Administration select committee, said the treatment of Dr Sarah Wollaston, the newly elected MP for Totnes, showed that Cameron's claim to be ushering in a "new politics" was a sham.

The Observer reports that Wollaston has concerns about specific elements of the NHS bill which ministers are pushing through at pace. While broadly supporting its overall aims she has upset a few colleagues by publicly revealing how party whips have attempted to enforce her silent compliance and that she would need to “shut the f*** up” if she was asked to serve of the committee that will scrutinise the Health and Social Care Bill .

“I was not prepared to accept that", said Wollaston.

Older hands who are vaguely bemused by this whinging have since thrown up their arms at the spectacle of Jenkin, who has plenty of form as one of John Major's “bastards”, rushing to the Devon MPs defence.

His attack however is not too surprising as the man who gave the 92-97 government a few wobbles has since been voicing criticisms of David Cameron’s willingness to indulge Europe to the extent that the PM’s aides are digging deep to uncover rumoured connections between the former "Maastricht rebel" and another former europhobe party vice-president, Lord Ashcroft. But even if evidence is found, few think that Cameron would have sufficient backing (or bottle) to strip the outspoken Jenkin of his committee chairmanship.

Conservative party managers are understandably worried that health professionals connected to the party are sceptical of key aspects of planned reforms and a succession of compromises are expected. For the time being, and whilst “new politics” may be thoroughly damned, we can expect the whips to endeavour in their task of explaining to Dr Wollaston how sustained contact with the likes of Bernard Jenkin and Bill Cash could be hazardous to her health.