On a salary like his, he can afford to call for a cut in the minimum wage.

Professor David Smith, of the University of Derby has recently called for a Cut in the minimum wage for everywhere in the UK apart from the South of England.

The Professor's so-called report claims that the minimum wage in Wales should be cut from the currently low £5.35, to an even lower £4.84, other areas of the UK also should get cuts, acording to Smith, the North-East should only get a pathetic £4.78, Yorkshire should got a lowly £4.94 and Northern Ireland just £4.80. He also claims tha the minimum wage is unfair for Londoners who should get an increase to £6.90.

He is right in one respect, that the minimum wage is unfair, but it's not unfair on just people on the South of England, but for everyone, it is unfair on youngsters, who do not have the right to the same minimum pay as people over 21, and it is also unfair becaue it's not a living wage, and it does not pay enough for people.

However without the minimum wage, many people would be living in a lot more poverty then they do at the moment, and it was a positive step forward, and it should not be the only step, nor the last step, but a progression towards a living wage that is fair for all.

I doubt that Professor David Smith has ever had to live on the minimum wage myself though, and that he earns a lot more then the people living on the minimum wage. Maybe before mking such idiotic statements like he did, prehapes he should go for a month livinge on the minimum wage, or on benifit, or on the wages he proposes, and then see if he thinks it is "too much", because if he had to survive on the merger amount that is paid, I doubt he would think that.

A New dawn for Wales?

Plaid had a very important descion to make today, do they join the All Wales Accord and form a coalition with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, or to form a coalition with Welsh Labour and deliever a strong, centre-left, progressive government. The anwser was that they would form a progrssive coalition with Labour, and the "One Wales" document is a very good one, that offers a real opportunities to improve Wales.

One of the first commitments in the documents is a referendum on a scottish stlye parliament (finally), if public opinion permits it that is, and with a recent BBC poll giving support for a full-law making parliament with power to vary taxes being at 47%, with 44% against, if this poll is accurate then it indicates that there is still a sizable propotion of Wales that wants a parliament,however I believe that they can be won around, and have to be, because if we don't and hold a referendum that fails, it would be disasterous for both Plaid and devolutionists in other parties.

The next big thingis the ideas for the NHS, this document will end any threat and what little Privatisation that had happend in the NHS in Wales (and it was little) and will make sure that the Welsh NHS is fully publically owned, and remains true to the socialist principles, that the great Welsh man, Nye Bevan, founded them on. With no internal market,

The ending of PFIs in Wales, and private sector NHS hospitals is a huge, and positive step for Wales to take, and will greatly improve our health service in Wales, I think, since PFIs have shown to be a waste of public money in England and would have done the same here, Wales must show that an NHS true to it's socialist principles can work, and that it works better then the New "Labour" model, that would might help the centre-left in England win the arguement on the NHS, and end the PFI, privatisation programmes there, with Wales once again, leading the way.

The suspention of the right to buy, in areas were there is housing shortages, is another positive and progressive step, and another example of what the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown, can learn from this "One Wales" document. The housing crisis in Britain vcalls for radical action, and this kind of action might help end the crisis, along with the other actions also promised in the "One Wales" document, which includes more funding for social houses, and more. This again is a quiet a strong, social democratic, move by the "One Wales" document, and something which both members of Plaid and Labour should be proud of, if it is delieverd on.

The Welsh Language also does well in this, with extra funding, a new Welsh language act and more Welsh medium education, all of which will help protect and promote the Welsh language, which needs to be protected since it is a vital part of Welsh society, our culture and pyshe (although it should not be protected at the expense of English speakers, it does not have to be a "Zero Sum Game", as some in both Welsh Labour and Plaid seem to think.)

Even though I haven't gone through that I think is fantastic in this document (and there is a lot I really like), I think that this document is a radical, progressive piece that, if implement, will go a long why to improving Wales for everyone.


The Red-Green coalition is a sign that both Welsh Labour and Plaid has matured as political parties, and that the Welsh Assembly, after 8 years, has finally come of age, and is functioning like it is meant to, as a system of coalition government, of co-operation and that will improve the lives of the Welsh people, and when that starts to happen, and is showing to happen, I am sure that the Welsh people will entrust the Assembly with Scottish stlye, full law making and tax varying powers.

NHS should be "Free at the point of us....just as long as you are entitled" saids ex-AM David Davies

Former Conservative AM, David Davies MP for Monmouth (Not the one that stood for leadership of the UK party), who is infamous for his speeches against gypsies (here and here)as well as his outbust against homosexuals being allowe to adopt and education on homosexuality in schools. (here and here)

In his blog, he has recently stated that he thinks that foriegners shouldn't get NHS treatment without having insurance. This clearly bring up all sort of issues.

One of the first is, what if someone fleeing pesicution from another country arrives in Britain and either hasn't gotten or cannot afford insurance? (Or don't have insurance for any other reason) Are they meant to be turned away from having healthcare if they are ill?, just because they are "freeloading" as Monmouth's David Davies MP (the ex-AM one, not the cabinet one) has put it on his blog. If so, then that would be a very immoral and deeply wrong, this is because healthcare should be a human right for everyone, not matter were they come from, no matter how much money they got, no matter what illness or injury they have, nor anything else you can discriminate by, everyone single person should have the right to have good quality healthcare. It is unjust to leave someone to die, or suffer, just because they do not have the money, nor the documents, to show that they are "entitled to it," because that is not important, what is important is that the paitent gets treated for their illness.

Even if they can afford to have healthcare, then surely if it is under and insurance system, then they will only be entitle to the healthcare they can afford. This would mean that if they, while in Britain, suffer an injury, get serious ill or anything else which is outside the insurance they have, then they would be refused treatment and have to suffer. That is of course, if they even have insurance.

Then there is the issue of immigrants that have come to Britain to live, how long would they need to pay taxes before they become eligable for free treatment on the NHS? one week?, one month? a year? 2 years?

Another issue with this, is that this will create more bureaucracy, something which I thought Tories such as David Davies, were against? This would mean that they would have to have people checking that this insurance and verify that it is A-okay, and the key word in his blog I feel is " verifiable health insurance document.."
To verify it, would mean more work and bureacucracy, for both the NHS and the immigrant offices. This of course would mean that funds would have to be diverted from paitents (be them British or not) or immigrants and too chasing up to see if they health insurance document is "verifiable" or not. How does this tie-in with the Tory agenda on bureaucracy? I don't think more paperwork would decrease the "red tape" that the Tories want to remove.

Personally, I am glad that Britain is a compassionate nation that values our free healthcare service, and believes that everyone should have free healthcare no matter who they are, or were they come from. The problem is also not as widespread or as bad as David Davies has made it seem to be, because it is quiet costly and time consuming to book a flight, fly to Britain, get a hospital appointment, get treatment and so on, I don't think that all of that would happen within a day, not in any country. However it does go to show the mentality of some Tories, especally the most right wing ones.

Gordon Brown Meme

I been tagged by Normal Mouth to do this, so here it goes.

Two things Gordon Brown should be proud of

1)The record investment in public services, the investment has led to improvements in health and education, the evidence of improvement is there, if you look at what it was like in 1990s and what it is like now. Waiting lists are lower then what they were, and state schools are now in a better state than in 1997.

2)Dispelling the myth that the Tories are the only party that can run the economy. Under 10 years of Gordon Brown being the Chancellor (longest time anyone has ever been Chancellor) we have seen economic growth, and have had a strong economy. Showing that Labour can be trusted with running the economy.

Two things he should apologise for.

1) The gap between rich and poor. It is too big and has grown under him, this is a big disaster and failure for a Labour government, and something which they should be ashamed about.

2)The lack of council housing. The housing crisis is something which has come about under this government, due to the sale of council homes and not enough being re-build to meet demand. The government should have invested more money into tackling this problem.


Two things that he should do immediately when he becomes PM.

1) Be himself. He should not try to act different to try and attract votes, because it is firstly what Cameron is doing, and if Brown tries to do it too it would make it more difficult to attack him and also the public are fed up with spin, and I believe that Gordon Brown can win votes by being himself.

2)Look again at the policy of PFIs, and if they are really improving education and health, and how they can be reformed so that they do work to imrpove services instead of being the black hole they are at the moment, or if they can be abolished without having a serious effect on services.

Two things he should do while he is PM.

1) Tackle the growing gap betwene the rich and the poor in Britain. This is one of the biggest crisis facing the UK today, and it is something that must be addressed, if Labour is to retain it's reputation as a caring party and a social democratic party.

2) Show David Cameron for what he really is.

Tag others

I meant to tag some other people, now so I hereby tag Ted Jones, Tom Miller. and new blogger, Owen Jones

Do we really want this man and his party running the country?

David Cameron, and the so-called "Modern" Conservative Party have, over the last few weeks, have again been proving themselves to be nothing but a party even more obsessed with spin, the polls and focus groups, then New Labour, with Cameron being the most guilty politican of the lot. The recent grammer school row is just one in a long line of flip-flops, U-turns and David Cameron being unable to make a solid decision.

Cameron's most recent flip-flop over muesum charges, the Tories floated ideas by Dave's Old Etonian friend Hugo Swire MP (Culture Spokesman) to abolish free entry to muesum entries (abolished under this Labour government), which was then said to be "under review" before being thrown out. Either that was a pretty quick reivew, or it is yet another example of the inability of Cameron to make any decisions and stick by them.

David Cameron's only belief is getting into Downing Street, he has no agenda, no principle and no ideas beyond spin, and saying what he thinks people wants to hear, instead of trying to be principled, and showing that he does have the ability to make the difficult decisions. Cameron does not have the ability to do that, if he becomes Prime Minister, he would not be able to run the country effectively, since he is a big political jelly fish.

Even if Cameron is sincere about shifting his party towards being a more liberal, caring and compassionate party. There are many on his back benchers and in the front bench that do not believe in it, and with the polls slowly getting worse for the Tories and better for Labour. How long before his party's right wing start speaking out more then they have already done with Grammer schools, or before they influlance his policy decisions even more.

It is also important not to forget that the this is the true face of Conservatism (demands to abolish the NHS), and that there is a serious threat that if the Tories get back into government, that Cameron would be too weak, and would make a total mess of the country, or would be too weak to deal with his troublesome back benchers, and if he is too weak to deal with those, imagine how he would be with dealing with more serious crisises, and making serious political decisions that will effect the future of Britain.

Beware of the German.

With the Plaid-Labour/Red-Green coalition still on the cards, any messages from the Lib Dems need to be taken with a serious health warning. Mike German and the Lib Dems will say anything and do anything to try and kill off the Red-Green coalition, and his recent message of "If the Rainbow fails we will look for a Coaltion with Labour" is a clear example of such an obvious attempt to try and kill off any deal between Labour and Plaid. As pointed out by another Lib Dem AM, that Mike German does not have the authourity to do such a move.

Labour and Plaid must not be sucked in by Mike German's words, which is nothing but an attempt to try and drive a wedge between Labour and Plaid, playing on the feelings of both party members. The Lib Dems have no intention of forming a coalition with Labour, they are playing Machiavellian politics, so that the Lib Dems get their feet under the cabinet table with a Rainbow Coalition.

The only choice for Labour, is that we go into coalition with Plaid for the next term of the Assembly (obviously after every Assembly election, all options should be re-opened), it be disasterous for Wales if the Tories got their hands back on power, and it would be a massive victory for David Cameron and would help him in the next Gerneral Election since he be able to point to Wales and say "Look, we have changed, look at Wales, and what we are doing there."

We must push ahead with the Plaid-Labour coalition, and do everything we can to get it up and running, and if we are to go into oppisition, it should be because we are forced into it, and not because we walked away, or allowed the Lib Dems to drive appart Labour and Plaid. However, the main goal of the talks needs to be a Red-Green coalition, that will last the full term of the Assembly.


(On another note, Labour's sister party, The French Socialist Party has lost the election, hopefully it only be for a short period.)

Question Time, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party debate

I've decided to blog on the deputy leadership of the Labour Party debate on Question Time. I will blog on what I think of each contender. My second blog of the day.

First Question is on Tony Blair's biggest Failure.

Hain: Affordable House, because of the priority on Health and Education during the first few terms. Lesson learn on doing more on Houses. Very good arguements by Hain there, and I do think Social housing is a key issue for Britain today.

Harriet: Tony Blair's been sucessful and gave us a strong economy. Biggest Failure is Iraq. WMDs were a mistken believe.

Blaers: Biggest Failure is not convincing Public that the criminal justice system is working. Arrogant and obnoxious are usual. Saids it's a top issue but not raised in hustings...hmmm.

Cruddas: Straight forward anwser, first of the night, simply Iraq.

Benn: Not closing the gap between rich and poor fast enough and good enough. Very good anwser there, very social democratic. Good anwser by him, a real serious Labour issue. Tackling poverty is a key issue for Labour, and for British society, as he rightly said.

Johnson: Tackling the issue of children in care. Statistics on all the problems caused by the failure on children in care, saying they are most disadvantaged.

Some good anwsers there and indications that some of the cannidates are interested and do believe in social justice.

Some questions for the aduience now. One on Iraq, why they not tackled it then.

Blaers: More or less avoided question. Said it was a First time the hosue had debate and vote on war. The same arrogance from her like on Newsnight.

Hain: Said he believed in the WMD arguement put forward, should strengthern international insitutions. Proud to be a progressive and internationalist.

Cruddas: Voted For it and regrets it, admits he made a mistake in voting for the war, Believed there was WMDs, but he knows it was wrong now.

Harriet: Wouldn't have voted if she knew then what he knows now. She saids she believed in WMDs, but said it has been a disaster for Labour, with many people leaving it. Mistake of good faith.

Johnston: Wouldn't made any other sdescions, first time debate and vote on war in the house.

Benn: Not asked, sadly.

Honest anwsers there by almost all of the contenders, Iraq is one of the biggest crisis facing the Labour government today, and a lot needs to be done by Labour to sort out the problems in Iraq, and also to attempt and regain the trust of the British people, which was lost over the WMD failures.

Had you been deputy leader, how things would be different:

Johnson: Not done anything different from Prescott, been discret and loyal to the leader.

Harriet: Pushed women agenda further up the political agenda

Hain: Re-connect the government to the grassroot, and stop bouncing policies on the membership out of the bklue. Bind leadership closer to the membership. Need to win back the 4 million votes lost at the last election.

Cruddas: Stop the hemeraging of membership, not taking any ministeral posts. Just deputy leader of the party.

Blaers: Connect the prime minister to communities. Every single cabinet minister seeing what works and don't work. She is one to talk about arrogance and out of touch, that is her to the parr.

Benn: Prescott has been a great deputy leader. Need politics that listerns to people, to deal with problems, restore conifdence in politics.

Again good anwsers there, and it is good to acknowledge that Prescott has done a good job, which he has done, and he did the job of keeping the party together internally, and seems to me to be quiet approachable.

Question from Audience: Jon Cruddas is popular with his principles, should the others take a leaf out of his book

Benn: Hopes the debate continues, not a "lurge back to the left" because these are issues people are concerned aobut.

Hain: Job of the deputy leader is to listern, increasing taxes is part of listerning to that. No label of New Labour or Old Labour, just Real Labour. Gordon Brown is furious with him, acording to the "feral" media, but Peter dismissed it as nonsense. Speaking for the grassroots.

Cruddas: Talks about the issues that people want to address, not "Old" Labour, need to build social housing, look the PFIs in the NHS, Conempary Labour, need to articulate needs of working people more.

Johnson: Jon is not "Old Labour", however party not broke with tradition, moved centre ground to the left.

Harriet: A Radical team that is realistic, basically her and Gordon should lead. She thinks Gordon and her has boardest support, and she and Gordon can deliver it. Got into government for being progressive, dealing with high unemployment, public services that were staved of funds, and a wrecked economy. We need to have radical polices, but we need to make changes to carry on shifting political centre ground to the left, and progressive.

Blaers: Concerned that moving away from the so-called centre ground is dangerous, strong economy and social justice combined. Keep taxes the same, against Peter Hain on this issue. Her arrogance shining through again here.

Benn: Election is not like the apprentice, but not given a chance to anwser it, thanks to Harriet interupting.

Good again to see some very good anwsers there form most. It is good to see that Labour cares about centre-left politics of social justice, inequality and progressive, social democratic politics, despite the lies and spin from rivial political parties. We have done a lot on these issues over the 10 years and have imrpoved Britian, and improved the lot of for the poorest of Britian, like it or not, that is the honest truth. It is good to see that the deputy leadership canidates want to see this carry on and have put out their stalls to carry this on, Labour is still a party of the centre-left, of democratic socialism and social democracy, and is the party of social justice and equality.

Special Relationship with US

Benn: Trancsends whoever is in power in America (Democrats or Republican) serves Britain well int he past and future

Johnson: ditto Benn

Harriet: We should be critical when we disagree with them, but not anti-American for the sake of it.

Hain: Need to deal with whoever is in the White House, our sister party, the Democrats are likely to get into presidency, something Hain is thrilled about. We need a progressive internationalist politics.

Others not asked.


Education question from the aduience, for over the doctors education "not working".

Johnson: Sure Start and 25% imrpoved in GCSE, more investment in education. Claims the question is not about education, but saids that the problem is in with the education system. We now have enough domestic doctors now.

Others not asked.

Accusitions of Big Brother State from adueince.

Blaers: No 1984 state, international terrorism means we need to make these changes, to protect our society from criminals and terrorists. Balance is needed. No real anwser on what balance now. Just why it is go good. Arrogrance again.

Harriet: Villiange and balance is needed for civil liberties, balance is there with Human Right Act, introduced by this government. The courts can say that we breached human rights. It's about making people safe. Good points raised by her there. However she also opposed Guantanimo Bay, and thinks that it should be closed down, and a Security Council resolution over it. (which the yanks would veto) disclose prionsers being transported.

Others not asked.

Which law should be removed from the last 10 years.

Cruddas: Change renewing tridant, and also allowing asylum seekers working. Too good ones there, great cannidate for the deputy leader.

Johnson: 17p on state pension was a mistake, should have been higher. Big mistake. Which is a pretty "left wing" point for him.

Blaers: Should implement more. Arrogrance again. Trying to be honest? I dont think she is.

Benn: Should look forward to the future, tution fees should stay because it broke back the mantainance grant and has helped more people get into education (which is correct) because it got rid of upfront fees.

Hain: Too many regulations, school trips is an example, since the paper work and hunt after wards, makes people too scared. Need a balance between protecting people, but pull back compostation culture. Which is correct.

Harriet: About if the legalslation address the problem is there, where is their too much legalsation. Disagreed with premiss of the question.

Good anwsers again, but in my opinion, pretty much a non question.

Will the deputy leader's have influlance over Brown?


Hain: We will have influlance, Worked with Grodon Brown over N.Ireland and he listerned to him. Can't do the party jsut as a party job but needs to be in the cabient. Sounds like a massive dig at Jon Cruddas there, who said he won't be in cabinet.

Blaers: Gordon has a clear idea over what his policies is. However been influlance over localism.

Harriet: Worked with Brown and been deputy with him before. She influlanced him over her time in the treasury. Was accused of being a patsy by David, which she slammed him for, and rightly so.

Johnson: He will listern and be influlanced. Aslong as arguements right and perserve to him.

Benn: Making the arguements and setting up the stalls, and Brown wil weight up the arguements for and agaisnt and will decide what is best.

Cruddas: Mandate to artiulate the view of the party to leader. Need to forcus on articlating party views to the government. That be the full time job.

A very important question to ask, due to the media and Tory Spin that Gordon Brown doesn't listern. Labour must prove that Brown is a listerning politican and someone who is willing to hear and act on what he hears. However that does not mean being too scared of taking the tough descions and flip-fliopping, like David Cameron.

Greatest political achieve by their co-runners.

Hain: Benn done a good job on international developement.

Benn: Harriet for argueing over childcare and women's issues.

Harriet: Cruddas, for putting the question of social/counciling housing on the agenda.

Blaers: Johnson, for bring in parentity pay and more wokrer's rights.

Johnson: Blaers, been a good chair of the party.

Cruddas: For being a skillful politican.

Hain not mentioned over N.Ireland, suprisingly.


End of programme, now. However many intresting issues raised there, and I think that the way I been intending to vote has been confirmed. All 6 cannidates put in strong showings, mostly. However I think that Cruddas came out on top of it, with Hain and Harriet both very close seconds.

However I be happy with almost any of these cannidates becoming deputy Leader, because they are all pretty strong. The only one I don't want to see is Hazel Blaers, whom would lead us to a Tory Government in 2009.

The rest are willing to listern to the membership, and are willing to speak up for what the membership believe in, and they all made pretty centre-left wing, social democratic points, which just goes and show that the Labour Party is the of social democracy, social justice, fairness, democratic socialism and of progressism.

More radical policies needed to tackle Child Poverty

A report today by former welfare minister Frank Field, has critised the government's policies on tackling child poverty, however not the sentiment, nor the ambitious and progressive targets set by the government.

The biggest problem with the system, the reprot argues, is that it discriminates against two parent families, especally those working, and it claims that levels of working poverty for children have returned back to 1995 levels, and that the government is set to miss the targets it set for itself.

The government must take a more radical approach to tackle and eradicate Child Poverty, which is a long term and one of the major goals of every Labour govenrment since the creation of the Labour Party. The progress that has been made so far has been very good, with the government lifting millions of children out of poverty.

However the targets are ambitions, and we need to have ambitions and radical policies to meet them. Labour must make sure that two-parent families and working families are not left behind in the welfare state, that they get the money, the help and the ability to get out of poverty.

This doesn't only mean increase the money they get, of course not. It requires more programmes to give families living in poverty help to climb out of it, it requires investing in education and also giving children living in poverty an equal chance in education, and making sure they start on even footing with the peers. It also means making progreess in changing the minimum wage to a living wage, ensuring that everyone can survive on minimum income, making sure that everyone gets a decent income for their work.

Free child care is also a must to help fight child poverty, this would allow more people to get into work if they have young children, of course they should not be forced into work, and forced to sue the free child care. However it should be there for those who do want to work.

As I said earlier, the progress that has been made so far is good, however the ambitious goals set by the government, mean that ambitious and radical policies are needed, if this Labour government is to eradicate child porverty, which would be an amazing legacy for any social democratic government.

Labour must re-offer Plaid a formal deal

Adam Price the Senior Plaid Cymru MP has called upon Welsh Labour to re-offer Plaid a Red-Green Coalition (here and here) and there is a serious case for Welsh Labour to offer such an agreement to Plaid Cymru and go into a red-green coalition, and the reasons for which are the following:

Firstly the current minority government, going along with 'progressive agreements' is unsustainable, Labour cannot keep saying to the opposition, "here we will do this for you, by the way here is our backside give it a kick while you at it" because sooner or later they will kick it hard enough to get Labour out of the door and into opposition, and would end up damaging how electable Welsh Labour is for quite a while. It is also even more important that we get a working consensus in the Assembly, Wales cannot cope with an unstable government that could fall at any moment, it would not be good for the people of Wales, nor will it be good for Welsh democracy. A struggling government trotting along for months with an opposition just waiting to get the boot in, is very, very bad for the governance of Wales, and would be the fault of both Welsh Labour and the current opposition parties, and the Welsh public shouldn’t forgive any of them, if they were to allow this farce to go ahead, like it is at the moment.

Another reason why Labour needs to team up with Plaid, is because it would be the best thing to get a radical, centre-left and hopefully socialist agenda on the cards. This would have to include getting a full-law making parliament, like the one Scotland has. This is because the current Assembly’s powers is too limited to make any real impact on fighting poverty and inequality in Wales. A full-law making parliament however would give Wales the ability to make serious measures to bring more social justice, fairness and equality to Wales. However a full-law making parliament in Wales should only be an ‘end to a means’ (more social justice), rather then Plaid’s means to a end (independence). Plaid should no-longer be seen as the enemy, or as an reactionary nasty nationalist party, but as an ally in the cause of making Wales a progressive nation.

There is also the case that, if Labour attempt to conduct a coalition deal with Plaid, in an open, honest, serious and fair manner, willing to listen and concede on many issues with Plaid, all talks must be done as openly as possible. This way we could put the ball in Plaid’s court. Plaid would have to show their hand, they would either have to come into a coalition with Welsh Labour, or turn around and admit that they want power for themselves, and don’t even want to listen seriously to what Labour have to offer (if the latter is indeed what Plaid want.) However if that is to work, Welsh Labour would have to give Plaid no real excuse to turn down the deal, and do anything reasonably possible from Labour’s end.

The way forward for Wales is Red-Green coalition with Plaid, that would give Wales what they really voted for in the Assembly elections, and would bring Wales forward into a modern and mature democracy, with the radical ideas and progressive values to improve the value of life for everyone in Wales.