With respect, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Have you any idea of the amount of debt the crises accounts for? Do you think a tweak of a billion here and there in public sector spending during those comfortable years would have honestly had any impact. For the record debt *was* reduced during those years, and it was done without destructing the rest of the economy.

It did reduce borrowing not increase it. You're talking more crap.

Arguments for or against fiscal policies very much depend on the specific model of belief particular economists follow. Next to no serious economists, however, think that this three year saga we've had from George Osborne has been any success. Remember the economy was out of recession and growing way back in 2009, before George Osborne's policies put us back in the shit. Maybe you should take a look at the Oxford review of Economic Policy warts and all review of the 1997-2010 performance. It's not on the Internet (unless you have an Athens account or something), but it's alluded to in this Observer article from last month. You'll probably claim it's leftie non-sense, because the article's not from some rabid Daily Mail, or some other, more up your street, swivel-eyed loon "journalist", but the report itself isn't from The Guardian Group.

Remember also, that countries successfully negotiating this crises have not followed the George Osborne slash and burn policy, but the Gordon Brown policy.

The fact that this is a global crises, should already point out the monumental stupidity and ingforance of blaming the whole thing on the UK's government. The blame, where it lies, is the lack of regulation. What have this lot done to address that? Nothing.

why not tell us all how much the crisis accounts for with respect to the public debt (which is now around £1.2trn)? In 2009 the deficit was around £157bn and the debt was around £900bn or so. Of that the government invested (via UKFI) around £85bn in RBS, LBG and Northern Rock.

I am not talking about a tweak of a couple of billion. I am talking billions. Labour increased the public sector FTE count by 1m of which 200k were in front line jobs and 800k were in back office admin roles. you don't need 800k to support an extra 200k front line workers. The typical public sector salary was around £26k per annum meaning that the public borrowing requirement was an extra £26bn or so per annum to fund these new workers. That is not small change. That is just salary and doesn't include building costs, pension costs and other benefits or costs associcated with staff such as IT


borrowing increased massively under Labour. you can't increase borrowing but see the debt go down at the same time. arithmetic doesn't work like that. when Labour entered office in 1997 they inherited an economy that was generating a surplus, when they left the office the deficit was £157bn.


really. Are you sure about that. Robert Peston is a very well respected economics journalist and he seems to think, along with Steph Flanders, that austerity has resulted in the UK keeping its borrowing costs down ensuring future tax receipts are spent on services and not debt interest. lower gilts assist us in many ways and not just government borrowing of course


the UK has not been in recession since 2009. Labour were the last government to oversee a recession in the UK.


insults are the mark of a strong mature well though out articulate argument. Have you ever considered that if an article is in the guardian it is going ot have political bias in the same way if the same report was analysed by the daily mail? it would appear that you place credence over the Guardian's journalism because it favours your view of the world but the Daily Mail's view point is rubbished because it is right wing. That's a rather myopic viewpoint you have there.


which countries have negotiated this crisis? which countries adopted Brown's policies? What were gordon Brown's policies during the crisis? Brown was PM and Darling was Chancellor, what fiscal policies did Brown implement?


who has blamed the UK government? I haven't, I said they played their part by not regulating. The main blame lies with society and its greed - the need for credit to fuel an insatiable appetite for consumption rather than working and saving for things you want.

NB it wasn't a global crisis. The financial crash hardly affected the BRICS, Canada and australia continued with growth and the worldwide economy didn't enter recession. it was a crisis for those nations who relied too much on financial services - those nations were the UK, USA and Iceland. Two of which have followed austerity and one has followed austerity lite.

I don't know why I allow you goad me into even bothering to reply to this horseshit, but the fact is that the amount of public sector as a percentage of the total workforce fell under the last government from 23.1% in 1992 under John Major to 20.7 in 2008, and that's after they'd increased due to the natinalisation of the banks.
The absolute figures, rather than % of workface are here, and any increas is < 1 million. Even at 2010, the proportion of public sector jobs remained lower than it was at the end of the recession in the 1990s where 23.1 per cent of jobs were in the public sector in 1992, compared with 21 per cent in 2010. The picture you're painting is a myth.

Furthermore, if you knew anything about Keynesian economics, you'd know about the concept of the multiplier, in that extra public sector employment to an economy doesn't work like a balance sheet where the state has to take up outgoings for the cost, without any incomings. The employees earn wages, they pay income tax on those wages, they buy goods and services with those wages, companies take on extra staff and provide more goods and services, etc. That's how economics works(!). If you think it's all a huge cost, you have to think about what money fundamentally is. The "cost" is merely the opportunity cost i.e. the cost of not doing something else, possibly a better alternative with those resources instead. Tax breaks? Military? Pay off some debt? Which option is likely to be the most effective policy?



Every time the newest figures are released, it's a revision dancing game, but if you want to argue about 0.1% decline or zero, it's just clutching at straws.

That's slightly hypocritical, if I might say.
However, let me tell you that The Guardian does not necessarily favour my view, either. As for comparisons of journalistic integrity between that and The Daily Mail, I don't think it's any contest, notwithstanding my own views.

Jantra, you did. In response to my claim that Labour's levels of public spending wasn't responisible for the current mess we find ourselves in, you posted....

We know what the spike was for, and it was to bail out the banks, not because Labour pissed the cash away in some sort of jam today, party.

To be a global crises it doesn't have to affect every country equally. I also like it how you've conveniently missed out a couple of austerity following countries who have collapsed in on themselves(!)

Why have you selected 1992 – perhaps that’s when we were in the midst of the last recession under the conservatives and private sector employment was at its lowest. That is very disingenuous. Why not look at total public sector employment in 1997 when Labour came to power and compare it to 2008 when the financial crisis started to truly impact the UK economy. As I have said, between 1997-2008 Labour increased the public sector workforce by 1m people of which only 200k were in the front line. That is not horseshit, that is fact. It is also not being selective with stats to suit.


Keynesian economics is not the only school of thought. The fact there is more than one school of thought indicates that there is no universal truth. Not only that, to claim that the public sector worker pays taxes is not entirely true. The funding to pay the wages that generates those taxes come from taxation itself. The public sector is a cost to the nation and for that cost it provides a service. You cannot have public sector workers paying taxes that can fund their own wages unless taxation is at 100% - which it is not. Hence it is incorrect to say they pay tax. HMT does not deduct tax from public sector workers to pay to itself.

Not only that, the money spent by the public sector worker is already in the economy. It is taken off the wealth creators in the form of tax, or it is borrowed from the holders of gilts, and this funding is given to the public sector worker. So rather than suggesting the government is creating demand, what the government is doing is altering demand.


So when the figures show the UK entered recession bv 0.2% or whatever you become apoplectic with rage at the failed policies of Osbourne, but when the same figures are used to show that the UK last entered recession under Brown/Darling you claim it is clutching at straws. Why does this inconsistency from the left surprise me.


Have you read the Daily Mail? If you get beyond the bluster and jingoistic nonsense on pages 1, 2 and 3 it becomes a good enough journal to read, albeit it with a right wing slant. It is not different to the express, times or telegraph in that respect and mirrors what the guardian and observer do for the left. I prefer the BBC as I have alluded to as they attempt some form of impartiality. You may prefer left wing media but that is your prerogative. But you can’t quote them and expect me to believe they will report objectively because they will not.


I did say that. that is saying why we are now finding it hard to get spending under control. That is not blaming them for the crisis. it would help if you actually read what I wrote.


The spike happened in one year and it cost £85bn. Labour spent at least double that in the preceding years on bloating the public sector. I think I know where the majority of the UK debt comes from and it is not the loans to UKFI


I’ve not missed anyone out. I’ve said it wasn’t a global crisis and it wasn’t. The main nations affected were the UK, USA and Iceland. The Global economy did not contract and the majority of nations noticed a slowdoen but not a contraction.

Some have made claims recently that the NHS is better under left wing governments rather than right wing governments. Since 2010 the total uk public sector budget (if I can call it that) has reduced across the board. The devolved nations have seen similar decreases in budget for devolved areas. One thing that has arisen is that since 2010 welsh labour have reduced their NHS budget by nearly 10% whereas the snp has increased in real terms by 0.1%. Surprisingly - assuming you believe those on the left - the NHS budget in England has increased by more than 3% in real terms. This would indicate the conservatives place greater emphasis on the NHS than their left wing counterparts in office in Holyrood and the senedd.

source

NHS "Budget" vs NHS "Spending". It ain't the same thing.

Channel 4 Fact Check

Don't forgot the reorganisation costs too. Don't forget also, that privatising services that were once in-house is unlikely to be cheaper.

why would outsourcing necessarily be more expensive? you haven't got the ridiculous public sector pension cost for a start, or the insane number of annual days off they have, or the fact that sick leave is about 2 days more per annum in the public sector.

ignoring all that as its candy floss to the main point which was the conservatives are doing more to ring fence the nhs budget than Welsh Labour.

What on earth do you mean? The fact check points out how they budgeted for an increase, but didn't allocate it, taking back all the remaining pot, except for 300,000.

The statistics watchdog also rebuked the government at the end of last year, for falsely claiming that spending went up in real terms during 2011/2012 when it actually dropped slightly. This is all while the multi-billion pound reform costs are happening.

i mean what I mean. that the Welsh government has reduced the NHS budget by nearly 10% whereas the 'English' government has seen a rise of 3% or so. That 3% or so is more than enough to cover the cost of the reforms even if they do come in at billions.

I'm not due of what to make of this really. I appreciate that we can't expect house builders to build houses for no return, I'm also aware of the benefits of sprinkler systems and other such measures. But has the welsh labour government now become so bureaucratic and controlling that house builders are no longer going to build houses north of Pontypridd? If that's the case then this is going to cause serious problem long term. The quality of housing stock will diminish rapidly.

It's all well and good have idealised socialist intentions, but when you don't have the wealth or economic output to match those ambitions you'll end up with not a great deal to show for it. It would appear once more we have an ill thought out policy from the welsh labour government and this policy is now beginning to bear fruit

Good, perhaps now they'll stop building nasty red brick houses on the nice green mountains that I have a birth right to gaze upon as I stare dreamily out of the kitchen window of my 1970's house.

Out of interest, the article gives an example of sale prices of 160k vs 120k, but surely land costs are substantially higher in the more desirable areas, which thus also eats in to profitability. So the picture painted by the article of some 40k profit loss in the valleys is somewhat misleading... anyone know the relative cost of land in the areas, and what the effect this has on profits? Failing that can Jantra pluck some figures from his arse?

EDIT. this is not to deny Jantra's main point that red tape and regulations are clearly stifling house builders in parts of Wales, but I think there is more to the argument than just this one aspect.

I’ve heard it is upwards of £1m per acre in London whereas a farmer client of mine has said land is about £6-8k per acre in Wales. I’m not sure how reliable those figures are and they’re purely anecdotal. I do wonder how much the cost of land makes up the final cost in a house. I imagine the cost of infrastructure is also more due to Welsh topography. The main point is thought that a developer is now pulling out of an area which probably needs newer housing stock than anywhere else.

jobs could help as this could drive up house prices but other than coal mining, the Valleys aren't really set out to allow for industry so we're not going to get major employment there. Perhaps this is just another indicator that the Valleys does need a period of managed decline shifting the population further south towards where the work is.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there actually. If there are no jobs or prospects in the valleys, do we even really need new houses being built up there? Prices are low because demand is low, demand is low because there are no jobs in the locality so no one wants to live there.

Could the answer be to promote self build in these areas? Dedicate areas of land for individuals to build their own homes (perhaps with a range of plans and plots pre-drawn for example). This would require a lot of work to reduce planning obstacles, mortgage lending on self builds, and also who pays for infrastructure costs etc... ok, so perhaps not going to happen...!

Trend in NHS spending levels drastically down nationwide when a Conservative government in power, and Jantra finds a special way of looking it at, to pretend that left wing governments are the ones squeezing the NHS. I congratulate you on your delusion.

Simon

Look at per capita spending on health in 1979 and then look at per capita spend in 1997. I refer to the adjusted for inflation figures of course. In real terms health care spending increased on a per capita basis across the 18 year period. It is incorrect to say healthcare spending reduces when the Conservatives are in power. The simple undeniable facts are that the English health care service has had its budget ring fenced by the Conservatives whereas the Welsh NHS has seen its budget slashed by nearly 10% by Welsh Labour. This is against a backdrop of both governments having reduced budgets. The Conservatives have decided that health is a priority in England whereas Welsh Labour have decided health is not a priority in Wales. They are the facts.

What is also alarming to see is that since Carwyn the caring has come to power, the number of people waiting to be seen in the Welsh NHS has increased by 85% to around 420k people. Labour is not good for the NHS. It is a complete lie peddled by the left.

Thanks to the CWM forumers who attended our conference on Banking and Economic Regeneration in Wales at the Wales Millenium Centre last night. We hope that all attendees enjoyed the night as much as we did. We overran on the time; this was because of the level and intensity of debate between audience and panel! To have two world-renowned experts on banking such as Mark Armstrong and Ann Pettifer speaking in Cardiff was an enormous coup for us.

Leanne Wood and Pippa Bartolotti left with resolve to push the plan for a public bank for Wales within the parties that they lead.

We will be holding another conference in a few months and hope to see even more interested people come along.

seems interesting. for those of us who couldn't attend due to other commitments, can you confirm if any right wing parties were in attendance as their inclusion would obviously give the political angle of the debate some balance? also, were there any experts in attendance who have actually worked in UK banking rather than those who have written academic papers on the subject or have a vested interest in public banking? i'm sure you'll agree written theory and banking practice are two completely different topics.

those who are cynical would suggest that Mark Armstrong was invited to promote Leanne Wood's state agenda and Ann Pettifor was invited to promote Pippa Bartolotti's green agenda. i'm not cynical so this doesn't include me.

Were the questions answered about how such a bank would be financed?

finally, thanks for your update. I must say it has totally shocked me that Plaid would come away from this with the approach that we need a state bank for Wales.


edit: interesting fact. despite being totally unrelated organisations, if you google 'Arian Cymru Plaid' you return 184,000 results. that is quite impressive and extremely coincidental of course

In May 2013 this article appeared on Wales Online. The author is Dr Ian Jenkins of Arian Cymru. The author proceeds to tell us about the benefits of BND. The article is self explanatory and argues the case that Plaid wish to see a state owned Welsh bank.

the following quote is taken from Arian Cymru's website

it would appear that despite being independent, Arian Cymru write articles promoting the Plaid point of view and invite members of Plaid and other left wing parties to their events but omit to invite speakers from the right or those who understand banking in the UK far better than anyone present. It could be argued that Arian Cymru is not truly independent, but a think tank for Plaid to promote their ideology through non partisan channels

It actually increased massively, before healthcare was devolved (which destroys your premise that healthcare is better served under right wing governments), and this trend increased post-devolution (which destroys your premise that it's just Welsh left wing governments that are bad for the NHS)


The "ringfencing" was circumnavigated and healthcare in England (in real terms) has also been cut. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. This, during a time of the greatest reorganisation in NHS history. Your theory that Labour are not good for the NHS can be debunked by the entire Labour government period from 97 to 2010, which also covered periods of devolution. Basically your argument is devoid of any sense or logic.

All you can basically say, is that due to heavy central government public spending cuts, Wales, being more reliant on the public sector, was not able to ring-fence healthcare spending to the same degree as England. That's got nothing to do with this "Labour are not good for the NHS" baloney, you seem to have an agenda about pushing. You really have to twist things something crazy, to arrive at that! I congratulate you.

I know it increased massive. I was the one that suggesting it did. I don’t need to point out that during this time (1979-1997) the conservatives were in power. So not only was health spending increasing, but it was under the conservative government. That really doesn’t destroy anything as you have claimed. It merely suggests that the claim by the left that healthcare cannot be trusted under the conservatives is actually nonsense.

You’re going to have to run that by me again. Basically between 1997-2008 Labour increases the size of the public sector by 1m people but only 200k were in front line roles. The rest were admin staff. Just because we see more people entering healthcare doesn’t mean we see an improved service. Labour and the left are all about the state and ensuring there is control. You don’t need the bureaucracy that Labour brought. It was false economy as we in Wales are about to find out.

I’ve touched on why Wales is more reliant on public sector work – that is the fault of Labour. Rather than try and grow the wealth creating private sector Labour went for the easy route of high taxation and push people into the public sector. Wales ended up with a ratio of 1:3 public sector/private sector workers compared to the UKs 1:4 ratio. This was to buy votes and nothing more. So when we need to reduce the size of the state and make choices on how we spend our budget we have to look at who is responsible for setting the budget and how we got here. In both cases the causes are a result of Labour.

Your petty insults are the mark of a weak argument. As a Labour supporter you clearly believe your party can do no wrong but as it stands waiting lists are nearly double in the 4 years since Carwyn the caring came to power, the NHS budget has been reduced by 10% and the English budget has actually risen by 3% in the same period despite much needed organisational restructure and reform (from HMT). It is all well and good having party bluster but you need to try and support it with facts, something that is in short supply from Labour supporters these days

The leaders of Labour, Conservatives, LibDems, Plaid, Greens and Ukip in Wales were invited to attend last night.

Arian Cymru is independent of any political party.

A benefit of devolution is that more powers may be devolved. Hopefully the power to set up a public bank in Wales will be devolved.

The UK, Canada, Cyprus and Latvia are the only states which don't have any public banks.

We believe that a public bank will improve Wales' economy.

Sorry you couldn't make it Jantra. You seemed to be quite busy last night on CCMB! Vital work obviously and clearly more important to you than asking your questions in person. Many real bankers attended last night along with prominent figures from academia and business. Each to his own though!

Maybe you could attend the next event if you aren't too busy arguing about politics and economics on a football forum!

just to clarify:-

May 2013 Arian Cymru release an article promoting Plaid's desire for a state run bank of Wales

Sep 2013 there is a debate (term used in its loosest sense) held by Arian Cymru which is attended by Plaid but not by the Conservatives or Labour despite assurances they were invited to come along.

The debate that was to be had was open with no preconceived ideas such that only a representative from a public banking institute was invited with no one on the panel to argue against it? Likewise an expert in green issues around banking was invited along but not someone who say has an interest in energy (such as Peter Mandelson)

not only that, whilst you were attending this meeting, you were also taking an interest in my posts on another forum. Were you actually paying attention to what was going on at the forum or were you reading what I had to say?

Out of interest, who exactly from the conservatives were asked to attend and when did the invite go out?

The UK does have a state bank - it is called the Bank of England owned 100% by the UK government. If you think the BoE doesn't lend then you're mistaken.

Hi Jantra.
We are Cardiff City supporters mainly. Some of us are season-ticket holders! We look at CCMB and can't help but notice your many threads and posts. We noticed your 'economy' thread this morning. We certainly weren't thinking about you or CCMB last night. We were out celebrating our successful conference til the early hours!

Carwyn Jones, Carl Sargeant, Edwina Hart, Andrew R T Davies and Kirstie Williams were all invited.

The Bank of England is a Central Bank. The UK doesn't have any Public Banks. We can sense that you are struggling with understanding the difference. A Public Bank doesn't issue currency, control the money supply or set base rates.

Hope this helps.

i am well aware of the difference between a central bank and a public bank. just because the boE is a central bank doesn't mean it doesn't lend in the same way a public bank does. for reference the Boe does lend. its remit is not just fiscal and monetary policy, interest rates or inflation.

perhpas you can explain why retired bankers such as geoghegan, crosby and daniels weren't invited. i'm sure they'd all have a lot to offer a forum such as this being former CEOs of banks.

not for want of repeating myself, was it explained how such a bank would be financed?

Nb when you say 'we viewed your posts' does this mean you sit around and colelctively read internet forums?

We invited many prominent bankers and ex bankers. We are hopeful of getting a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee to attend a future event.

Our proposed Public Bank would be funded in exactly the same ways in which all of the Public Banks around the world are funded. With your expertise I am sure you don't need it explaining to you.

Yes we do look at CCMB as a group.

No. My point was that it increased massively *after* the Conservative government. But, hey, we don't just need that evidence to set the record straight. There is the release of minutes that showed that Thatcher only shied away from cutting the NHS to its bare bones because it was electorally disastrous, so had to be tolerated. The other evidence is what Oliver Letwin bragging about the fact that the NHS not existing after a Conservative government.

I see, so when Labour massively increase healthcare spending (both in real terms and a proportion of GDP), it's all being pissed against the wall, anyway. But when the Tories almost (but not quite) manage to keep the spending constant, at the same time as a massive reorganisation costing billions is happening, it's a proper increase? Lunacy!


My petty insults? "Carwyn the Caring" is his real name then is it?

And let's get one thing straight. I do not believe the Labour Party can do nothing wrong. I detested Blair, and all he stood for. That doesn't mean that the current shower we have are better. As it all appears to be a matter of pragmatism for the parties, it's also a matter of pragmatism for the voters. Worst case likely scenario is a Tory government next time, best case likely scenario is a Labour government next time. That's the binary choice we have under FPTP, albeit this time slightly better prospect than the last scenario, because at least the Labour party is heading the right (or should I say "left"?) direction.

So we’ve established that Arian Cymru is totally independent of any political party and being independent it has a completely open mind on the public/private banking situation here in Wales. Dare we also suggest that Arian Cymru wishes to foster debate on the issues around how we can stimulate economic growth in Wales and not just discuss these issues with the closed shop that attended last evening. With that in mind would you mind explaining:

how such a public bank would be financed and assuming such a bank did exist, where this would leave Finance Wales?

I am also interested to know how a state owned bank lending to business would differ from Finance Wales which is also a state owned lender to businesses in Wales?

For any public bank to offer banking services would require it to be competitive against the existing banks in the market. Considering no one from the major banks attended yesterday evening, what experience, if any, will this public bank be able to call upon to ensure that it can provide a competitive service in an already difficult to enter industry?

How would this public bank circumvent EU rules on state subsidy?

Would the bank be operated at an arms length and would all financing be raised on the open market or would the state invest directly in to the bank thus creating a situation that contravenes the aforementioned EU rules on state subsidy and market distortion?

i also note a touch of sarcasm in your closing comment. Is this how you propose to encourage debate around the issue?

It increased from 1979-1997 as a result of spending on the front line. It increased from 1997-2008 because Labour massively increased the number of back office staff. It is well understood that the public sector staff numbers increased by 1m in that time and only 200k were in front line roles. Spending on back office does not mean a better service despite you spending considerably more money.


I’m not saying anything of the sort – you are! All I’ve said it that the Conservatives have ring fenced the NHS budget whereas Welsh Labour have decided to slash it by nearly 10%. What they do with that budget is up to them but the fact is Labour have cut the budget by 10% and the conservatives have not.


He is a politician. All leaders throughout history are given monikers. It’s par for the course. William the conqueror, Catherine the Great, Carwyn the Caring....


Why is it a worse case scenario? The Conservatives are doing a decent enough job. Not as good as they could have been doing but that is life. I also like the fact the lib dems are sharing power as it tempers the total swing to the right which means the cycle starts again (build up the state, knock down the state, build up the state, knock down the state). More stable economies such as German and Switzerland have had coalition governments for years and it shows in the stability of their nation. If only we could be so lucky in the UK.

Here is a sobering thought for you, if Scotland were to leave the union we could permanently end up with a conservative government in Westminster. Now that would be disastrous and give you cause to complain.

The benefits of Devolution - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24288018

Seems like the Welsh governments changes to building reg's are having a side effect. I remember the warnings at consultation stage but hey they had new powers so just had to do something. Its all well and good doing gimmicky, populist crap such as sprinklers in houses and free hospital parking but the country ends up in the slow lane in a very competitive race.

Useless

Just to add something on sprinklers, the policy is ridiculous. But the WG have committed to it and aren't going to change their minds. (to be fair, the rhetoric would be 'government decide against fire sprinklers' which makes it sound like they would be for housefires).

The vast majority of deaths in house fires (and I would speculate the majority of serious house fires without fatalities) are in old housing stock. New builds are more likely to have smoke alarms and possibly fire doors and better means of escape and a sprinkler in new homes is going to make very little difference.

As for Persimmon pulling out of the area north of Pontypridd, most volume housebuilders have no interest in buying/taking options on new land north of the M4 at the moment.

Sprinklers are not a "gimmick". Neither is free hospital parking if you have a seriously ill relative in hospital and you're being charged £8 an hour to visit them.

Persimmon are not complaining about sprinklers, they're arguing against the higher insulation and fuel efficiency regulations introduced in 2009. Sure, let's relax the regs and build poorly insulated homes in Brynmawr, Rassau and Hirwaun! What could possibly go wrong?

This story is just spin from Persimmon. The real reason they are pulling out of the Heads of the Valleys is that there is very little demand for new housing up there.

This article is good news for the socialists. After all, we’re not all of equal capability when we are born but the socialists like to make it clear that we are. In this respect those who can achieve much in life are derided. The Socialists intention is to pull back down the overachievers. It seems odd that some would rather pull the most able down rather than wanting to drag up the least capable but that is left wing thinking for you. so what has 14 years of devolution, Welsh Labour and left wing thinking brought Wales? An economy totally reliant on English subsidy and UK state sanctioned jobs, a failing healthcare system, an education system that is failing our children and lower living standards compared to the rest of the UK. Still, we're all equal so that is all that matters.

The single biggest investment in Wales in the next few years will be by the right wing conservative led UK government investing in our rail infrastructure. The Welsh government and Welsh Labour with their left wing approach has done nothing for Wales. We are seeing the effects of a single party state finally come home to roost. Left wing thinking doesn’t improve living standards – you cannot create wealth by dividing it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24469695

it certainly doesn't make good reading. despite growth, we are forecast to fall further behind. that is not good news and no matter how the politicians try and dress it up it makes us ever more reliant on English funding. we still have 1:3 public:private workers compared to 1:4 in the UK as a whole. To claim that public sector employment growth is less here is disingenuous - we are oversubscribed on that front.

It is good news that investment is being made but I find it hard to believe that the proposed investment of £62m over 3 years and £600m overall is going to create 11,000 jobs.

If the WG also think that attracting call centre jobs are high end jobs then they really are aloof from reality

FAO Lyndon et al

Genuine question - are plaid pro business? If so are they committed to removing bureaucracy and red tape in Wales? It was a bold claim to say they are going for a majority in 2016 but Leanne wood is coming up with some decent policy ideas (doctors and sugary drinks tax). But to convince be to vote they need to explain how they plan to grow our economy.

My genuine concern is that plaid are left wing and as such policies tend not to be business friendly. Not by design Im sure but that's how things end up. If plaid can convince the business community that they are on their side then im sure they could make real ground in the election. I'm only giving my perception of how I see plaids approach to business so if its wrong then I'm happy to be corrected.

I'm not business at all costs I just appreciate we need to foster a business friendly environment where outsiders want to invest and where our entrepreneurs are encouraged and developed. I was with a client last night and she said she was put off from doing business in wales because of the extra overhead due to language. I corrected her but that's the perception some have so plaid need to address that as clearly the message is muddled. I'd also say perhaps language needs to be right down the agenda for the time being - a spratt to catch a mackerel. Again I am not sure where it sits but it is a very real perception

since nobody was prepared to answer whether Plaid are pro business i will assume that it is a no and that they are anti business.

in other news, it is good to see the Welsh Government are doing all they can to keep wealth in Wales

how can the Welsh Government expect the Welsh economy to grow when they themselves don't even use Welsh firms preferring other businesses from around the UK.

Jantra, here is a quote from the article you linked to:

"The information emerged following freedom of information requests by Plaid Cymru.The party accuses the Welsh government of failing to "practise what it preaches" by allowing some businesses to be "cut out" of some contracts.North Wales AM Llyr Gruffydd dismissed the claim that much of the work was sub-contracted back to Wales."They take their top slice, they pocket that and they sub-contract Welsh companies to actually deliver large parts of the work , but at a fraction of the cost," he said."So the key issue here is that the Welsh economy is in effect a leaking bucket."There's a hole in the Welsh economy with all this potential money for Welsh businesses flowing out of Wales. We need to plug that leak.""

So, yes, Plaid Cymru is pro-business.

We are pro-Wales, unlike the London parties.

preferring government money was spent with businesses in Wales over business in England is not being pro business. it just means you wish to see the Welsh government spend its money with welsh business rather than English business.

I asked the question earlier and it would appear that no one thought of answering. that for me says an awful lot about Plaid's approach to the business community.

I wasn't sure where to put this so I thought it best to put it here.

I think it is a great article from Dic mortimer and articulates the shortcomings of Carwyn the Caring and Welsh Labour (the people's party) very well.

Here is one benefit of Devolution. (although not for the taxpayers)

£1,677 on an telephone/answering machine!!


MemberVaughan Gething
Financial Year2013-2014
Claim MonthJune
Allowance TypeOffice Costs Allowance
Expenditure TypeOffice Equipment - Purchase - Other
PayeePinnacle
Amount£1,677.00
Fees Reference93631
Date14/06/2013
Invoice Reference
Additional Information1 x telephone system/handsets/answer machine May 13

I think that's case of assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You and Dic may have a dislike for Carwyn Jones and his political abilities/principles in common but I think it is for very different reasons....

Here's a logic puzzle:

If today's pupils are working harder than ever to achieve their grades

AND today's teachers are working more professionally than ever to educate the pupils

AND GCSE results are as difficult to pass in 2013 as they were when introduced in the late eighties (hence the fair comparison with then and now and the genuinely impressive improvements in real terms in success rates)

AND the WG have been prioritising our nation's improvement in the PISA performance league tables (to avoid the regular roll call of shame)

AND 'Wizard's' punctuation is not up to scratch because he went to a comprehensive

then which,if any,of the following statements are true?

A) Many of the teachers in Wales are clearly deluded about their skills
B) Many of the kids in Wales are thicker than we would like to think but we're in denial about it
C) The rest of the world are just improving in developing their 'PISA performance skills' at a faster rate than us, hence the slippage
D) Welsh Labour are not fit to run the education portfolio in the WG
E) 'Wizard' really should stop wondering about these things
F) None of the above because I don't care and I'm on facebook anyway with more important stuff to discuss like Miley Cyrus, Strictly and clothes shops


Enough flippancy. It's another shocking set of results. Whilst it sounds a bit ridiculous, one wonders whether there should have been measures within the Devolution Act which threatened that portfolios could be withdrawn if performance is not fit for purpose (not that it's that much better over the border - but the whole idea of devolution was surely to IMPROVE services - else why bother?


 LEANING TOWER OF WELSH PISA RESULTS 

It does make you weep that is for sure. My honest assessment is that in Wales we have a party that is trying to ensure that everyone is treated the same despite the varying degrees of ability. This is the wrong approach and almost always results in lowering of standards rather than raising them. Despite the empirical evidence showing that treating each child as having the same ability will result in lowering standards, the left always follow this policy as following anything else is just not equitable. the results are clear to see.

We need an education policy that allows for individuals to develop at different speeds depending on their capabilities. There is nothing wrong with this approach at all. It ensures those who can learn will learn and those who need more help get that help.

it does make you wonder if devolution is worth it. some will try and argue that it is better to have a lower education and living standards if it means being told how to live your life by a Welshman rather than an Englishman. Personally I think that is a little backward and insular looking.

Clearly the results need going over with a fine toothed comb. However the headline figures don't look good. I'd be interested too see how we do do in comparison to specific English regions. I think it's fair to say there's been a significant brain drain from Wales for many years. What's so dispiriting is that the results from England, Scotland and NI all look very similar with a major gap between them and us.

Wales is far more socialist than the other three home nations. One of the obvious side effects of socialism is that you actually reduce standards overall as you can only ever achieve as good as the weakest link in the chain. You hold back those who could excel but are not allowed to due to political dogma. it is criminal and is yet another reason why all sensible people disassociate themselves from left wing thinking. reasonably equal wealth distribution is one thing, but making sure we have a one size fits all education and health policy is something else altogether.

I think Wales' failings in education reflect:

a) The lack of choice and competition in Welsh education. We have schools with geographically defined catchments and little movement between. In some rural areas such movement would be impractical. Thats not the case in our more urban areas - certainly not in Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and parts of the Valleys. Lack of competition and choice means schools don't face the pressure of having to be good or lose students. Estyn hasn't been heavy handed enough to offset this lack of competitive pressure.

b) Linked to this is the lack of information available to parents. There is evidence that league tables help empower parents to make decisions. Yes they are 'crude' but they are better than nothing. It helps competition. It gives schools drive. Does it mean they may focus on tests rather than other things? Perhaps. But it gives a sense of urgency that seems to be lacking in Wales complacent schools.

c) Linked to this is the lack of testing and regular assessment that allows inter-school and inter-national comparisons of Welsh children until age 16. And even there we are moving away from comparability with England, largely for political reasons.

d) There is also a lack of innovation in school funding, school organisation, school ethos and school teaching methods. Too much in Wales comes from the centre or is driven by nice cosy corporatist thinking.

e) All of this relates to the hold teachers unions have on policy-making in Wales. The links between the unions and Labour (always stronger in Wales than in England) mean that the unions in areas like health and education have been treated as "professional bodies" who can be trusted to do what is right for the services. But instead the unions, and especially the teachers unions, are "producer interests" acting in the interests of their members rather than their pupils. The leader of NASUWT saying that we shouldn't be worried about this, that its only a "small thing".. a small thing that Welsh students are substantially worse in English, Maths and Science.. around 6 months behind the standards in the other home nations. Scandalous.

f) Money. Money may play a small role in this. School funding per student is now well over 10% less in Wales than England. The unions will say this is THE cause. But its not as Scotland and NI also have lower funding per student than England, I think. And the top performers aren't those spending the most!

I believe I read that the UK as a whole spends around £59,000 per head on education compared to an average of £50,000 yet results are significantly lower than average. That suggests there isn't necessarily a direct link between spending and results, so while lower funding in Wales may play a part it doesn't tell the whole story.

I'll be honest - I'm not particularly informed on educational techniques etc. but I'd like to see more applied teaching of science and maths. If students could actually do some experiments, deconstruct/create basic algorithms etc. they might be more interested in learning. I'd also scrap compulsory second language Welsh - it's a complete waste of time. I'd rather see it replaced with Welsh history giving further opportunities to develop reading/writing skills through research projects while giving students the opportunity to learn more about their country and how it has developed. If they'd like to learn to speak Welsh properly that should be their choice and it should be taught in a far more constructive way.

Finland, the most consistent high performer, has the least selective, most comprehensive system in the world, and it has no inspectors, no exams before 18 and a national curriculum that is confined to broad outlines.

Any public school system is a "socialiist" system and Sweden really has gone downhill in this league since it introduced the free schools that Gove has imitated.

In my very short time in teaching I would honestly say that things have not really changed much in three decades and that one of the very biggest handicaps is the number of children who start school and cannot dress themselves, cannot listen to a story or who do not know basic things, for example what a cow looks like, which may only be half a mile down the road but no-one has had the interest in the kid to walk them down to a field. A child who is 6-12 months behind at 5 holds the whole class back and that group is then likely to be always behind. There are areas in Wales where this is very prevalent. This is not so much a political problem but a society community problem. I am not an apologist for the Labour Party who have failed but it was no different under John Redwood or during the Thatcher period.

Society has to value education and that is something that has slowly been lost in Wales in some parts of society.

This is what the PISA 2012 notes for the UK said:

When compared with PISA 2006 and PISA 2009, there has been no change in performance in any of the subjects tested. (The PISA 2000 and 2003 samples for the United Kingdom did not meet the PISA response-rate standards, so the observed higher performance in 2000 should not be used for comparisons.

So as usual we get our knickers in a twist over very little, a dubious league table and statistical manipulation.

PS Victor you are right about Welsh language teaching in English language schools especially after 14.