Welsh Political News

Today I will get my only opportunity to register protest against the comprehensive smoking ban, which comes into effect in Wales on April 2nd, this year. The smoking ban has generated quite a bit of constituency correspondence as well as community discussion in the Rhondda, where I live.
Few have argued that there should be no ban. The politicians from Labour and the Lib Dems in this article argue for a "middle way".  Bill Etherington, Labour MP for Sunderland North sums up my feelings when he says

"I accept the fact that 75 percent of the public do not smoke and do not want smoke around them, but I am also concerned about the 25 percent who do smoke. I do not want to see those people marginalised. That is not necessary. Most pubs have more than one room, and very few public houses, working men's clubs or private clubs could not provide a room for smokers, properly ventilated and properly looked after. That would eliminate the problem."

Smokers are already marginalised.  The propaganda used to back up the arguments for a complete ban has polarised the debate between smokers and non smokers.  Many smokers will undoubtedly give up smoking when the ban comes in, which is a good thing.  But many smokers will only give up when they are ready to, if they want to at all.  Smoking is not illegal, and until it is made so, the government shouldn't make it impossible for people to light up outside their own homes.

As artist David Hockney said "Smokers and non-smokers alike must recognise that by allowing ourselves to submit to arbitrary legislation on the issue of smoking we are opening the floodgates for a whole raft of legislation that will deny people the right to choose their own lifestyle."

The Assembly voted on this issue in 2003, prior to my election.  The regulations relating to the new law are to be passed in the Assembly today.  I had hoped to amend the legislation at the Assembly, which would have allowed licensed premises to apply to the licensing authority for a worker-free, fully ventilated room for smoking.  This would address the concern which has been expressed to me: that fewer smokers will go out to pubs and restaurants, increasing social exclusion and more drinking and smoking at home in the presence of children.

There can be no argument against a ban on smoking in public places; workers have the right to be protected from second hand smoke.  But a complete ban could be counter-productive.

Due to the fact that this is Westminster legislation, it cannot be amended.  The amendment, in my own name,  gives other Assembly Members the chance to register their opposition to a complete ban.  With enough support, we could demand that Westminster amends the act to allow us to have these additional exempted places in Wales.  As the ban has had cross-party support in Wales, it's highly unlikely we'll get to that point.

Dyma fideo o'r protest heddiw yn erbyn is-raddio ysbyty Llantrisant. Ymddiheuraf am ansawdd y darn, dyma'r tro cyntaf mod i wedi trio lan-lwytho fideo.

Here's a video from the protest against downgrading Llantrisant hospital today. I apologise for the quality, this is the first time I have tried uploading a video.

Have been a bit late to the party when it comes to social networking sites ( LinkedIn, MySpace, FaceBook, etc) I’ve been very slack in getting on them and linking up to my real world network online. However, once I started this week I went networking mad. 35 people on facebook, 8 on Myspace and [...]

One of the latest YouGov polls has indicated that people are not satisfied with the Conservatives' stance on immigration.
A sample of 1,225 voters taken in Yorkshire and Humberside (on January 12th) reveals that when asked if the Conservatives "are listening to people on immigration", only 16% agreed, and a majority 40% disagreed. Furthermore, when asked if the Conservatives should "take a tougher stance on immigration", 62% agreed with only 15% disagreeing.

Of course, we cannot eliminate the fact that perhaps some members of the sample were Labour supporters, and hence stated that the Conservatives should tackle immigration more so they would lose alot of support from the "anti-racist" proletariat.....but then again, considering Yorkshire has a large Conservative majority, we could probably say that these stats are around 70% accurate.
Either way you look at them, i think Cameron may want to take note that his party support seems to be indicating that a tougher policy on immigration is required within his manifesto. Fair enough Cameron is trying to achieve Labour support at the same time, but the Conservatives have always stood for controlling the British borders, so in the light of these survey results, it would be stupid for Cameron to ignore these demands, especially at such a critical time where immigration seems out of control within Britain.

I don't usually comment on issues like this, but it appears that Guido has finally got whats coming to him (shown here). Although i dont personally agree with the content of language used towards him, i cant help but feel that perhaps he is now swallowing a taste of his own medicine.

Lib Dem Images

From viewing YouGov's most recent survey on a sample of 1918 people (a very small sample one must say).....a majority of Britains believe that Britain is a much worse place than what it was 5 years to go, and yes, you guessed it, its only going to get worse.

When asked "Do you think Britain is a better or worse place to live in than five years ago", the responses stated that:

• 11% feel it is better
• 62% said it was worse
• [25% said it was about the same]

Furthermore, when asked if they "believed Britain would be a better or worse place to live in 5 years time":

• 11% said it would be better
• 53% said it would be worse
• [25% said it would about the same]

Fair enough that it was only a small sample taken, but i myself also believe that Britain will decline both politically and economically over the next five years.
What is also interesting is that on the same poll, Britons were asked which country they most admired in the world, with a staggering 32% claiming Australia/New Zealand (with Canada trailing right behind with 11%). This should be a useful tool for the government. We have all heard about Australia's lower tax rates, reduced immigration and increased wage rates, so perhaps if we adopted a simular approach to our politics, the future wouldn't look so bleak for Britain.

Another scandal concerns the Immigration and Nationality Department who are answerable to, yes you guessed it, the Home Office.

I was told nearly a year ago that the IND have paid out vast sums of money to Asylum Seekers and the lawyers who lodged spurious compensation claims against it.

Keen to find out if this could be true a tabled a question on the matter last June. After some fudging I was told in October that a Minister would write to me soon.

Needless to say I never heard another thing.

The House of Commons library rang and asked for the statistics but were told they could not have them so in December I submitted a Freedom of Information request which has not even been acknowledged.

I shall update readers on my progress.

It would be easy enough to regurgitate the news of the latest Home Office scandal brought to you by the government who were going to be tough on crime etc. Instead I shall draw attention to some more scandals which have not yet come to light.

The hundreds of escaped prisoners who the Home Office can't find (last week's scandal)are not living out in wilds like nineteenth century Australian outlaws. I predict that most are back in their old haunts claiming the full range of benefits which the government makes available to those who don’t wish to work. How could this be you ask? Surely when National Insurance numbers are handed over by someone seeking benefits a check is done to ensure that they have not escaped from prison?

At the very least the authorities would have thought of checking the NI numbers of escaped convicts to see if any had re-entered the system as benefits claimants wouldn’t they?

I have written to Ministers to ask this obvious question. I believe the answer is that checks are not made.

Stand by for headlines about a captured prison escapee who was found to be openly living at his old address and claiming a wide range of benefits whilst doing so.

More law and order blunders on the next blog.

An amusing story reached my ears today. Last Saturday the Conservative Party in Wales held a conference at the Metropole Hotel in Llandridnod Wells in Mid-Wales. Delegates arriving at the hotel were greeted with a sign welcoming members of the Conservative Party and the “Chopper club.” It transpired that a motorcycle gang had also booked an event in the hotel for the same day.

I am told that this led to some unlikely scenes in the bar in the early hours with leather clad bikers and besuited Conservative activists putting the world to rights over a few ales.

The BBC has published an article today questioning where Cameron's political allegiances really are, and although i never take anything the BBC says at face value, i do wonder myself where Cameron is basing his political support. Does he go Thatcherite all the way (and lose the Labour support he could possibly attain), or stay on both sides of the fence and be known as a political appeaser? Difficult one...so it will be interesting to see which one he chooses in the future.

Tory this....Labour that. Which side is Cameron on?

When i found out that the Daily Politics Show were doing a poll on the countries greatest political hero, i couldnt help feeling that it was obviously going to bias. As it so happened, my theory was bound to be proven soon enough, due to the final competitors battling for the title, being our very own Margaret Thatcher, and the far left winger, Tony Benn.
For some reason (still unknown to me), i decided to write in the comments box beneath the poll, claiming that the results were bound to be bias in favour of Benn because of his left wing stance. However, i didn't expect the comment to escalate into a full debate with myself, and the Daily Politics show's deputy editor, Mr.Gareth Butler. A copy of the debate is shown below:

James Skinner: Considering this is being held as part of the BBC, im gonna go out on a limb and say Tony Benn will win. Did someone say bias?

Gareth Butler: It isn't being held 'as part of the BBC'. It's a vote by viewers and users of our website. Of course, there's nothing to stop supporters of any of the candidates voting multiple times or circulating sympathetic blogs trying to whip up votes - I know that both Thatcher and Salmond camps have done just that, and I'd be very surprised if the Bennites didn't do the same.
Presumably the Hutton Report passed you by entirely. In case you hadn't noticed, relations between No10 and the BBC have not been particularly friendly in recent years. On the other hand, I understand users of Iain Dale's Conservative blog have just voted the Politics Show their favourite political programme - so we must be doing something right.


JS: You must be forgetting the incident that occured with the BBC back in May 2005, where the BBC personally assigned 3 people to heckle Michael Howard during an election speech. Doesn't sound like the BBC is very independant to me.


GB: If I remember rightly, that was a stunt for a BBC3 programme about heckling or something. It was certainly not a news programme.


JS: Still goes to show what a bias organisation the BBC is though. Then again, what do you expect for a broadcast network that is owned and funded by the government? Obviously its programmes are going to be bias in favour of Labour.......with the politics show being no different.

GB: You are quite wrong. We have excellent relations with the Conservative Party. Occasionally we get a complaint from them, just as we do from the other parties. Sometimes they have a point; mostly they don't. There really never has been an issue of bias concerning the Politics Show.


JS: But what i am saying is that the BBC has shown to be tied around Blairs little finger (as most of the nation will agree), so quite blatently, the politics show (being broadcast on the BBC) is going to be bias against the conservative party as well. You may have excellent relations with them, but that doesnt mean to say you dont favour the interests of the Labour government more.


GB: The BBC has not been shown to be anything of the sort; and opinion poll evidence suggests that a large majority of the population believe the BBC is fair and impartial. Since you clearly cannot produce any evidence for your accusations, I don't propose to continue this exchange.


Despite we had differing opinions, i did enjoy listening to Gareth's point of view regarding the BBC. In my opinion however, i hope he one day realises the spin and pro-labour broadcasting that the BBC is guilty of promoting.

Its been quite a popular issue in the news recently......that being Tony Blair's opinions to the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Finally, he has broadcast his opinion of the penalty as "completely wrong", and that his execution should not excuse the crimes he committed.
Personally however, i wish Tony Blair would just swallow his pathetic hypocracy. He drags along with George.W.Bush's every will, claiming that he wants Iraq to reap the benefits of democracy, but as soon as Iraq achieves its democratic independance, he feels he has the superiority to criticise their political decisions. Yes Tony, im sure Iraq is deeply sorry just because you say the death penalty is wrong, but at the end of the day, you gave them the power to make their own political decisions, so dont criticise them just because they practice a policy dissatisfactory to your dying ideologies.


You gave them the power, now deal with it...

A few things have crossed my mind this week, mostly regarding the future of our very country. There are so many problems that exist for us (as shown below), that it becomes hard to believe that our future will remain secure. For instance:

• We have no written constitution, therefore we have no structure which to base our laws upon and deem certain laws "unconstitutional" for the best interests of the public.
• The House of Lords is practically useless, which gives parliament the ability to pass any law it wishes without secondary consent.
• We have a multi-cultural society, which even our own Prime Minister has admitted not to be working, because of factors such as "ghetto-isation" and cultural isolation.
• We have accepted far too many immigrants and asylum seekers over the past 50 years, that a future problem cannot be avoided.
• We are apart of the European Union; a group of countries who not only have no common interest or language, but who are only associated with us for their own self benefit.
• Our Health Service is declining each and every day, with job losses and ineffective spending, let alone rising cases of MRSA.
  
• Education standards are falling each year, with social engineering allowing unsuitable students to enter university courses that they are simply not skilled enough to handle.
• Our police force are hindered from carrying out their duties because of red tape and human rights laws.
• Our own government (and indeed the opposition) would rather lie and decieve to the public just to attain votes, rather than give the public the dignity of being told the truth.
• Laws such as the Anti-Terrorist Act and the Legislative/Regulatory Reform Bill now prohibit us from exercising natural rights that we used to hold.
• Our government seems obsessed with a Big Brother state, which infringes our natural rights as British citizens (such as ID cards).
• There is no unity for a Great Britain anymore, just devolution and seperatism.

I could easily go on, but i hope i have made my point clear. I personally dont think that Britain has a future......and political bloggers such as myself are debating a lost cause. Perhaps its time we should seriously start to consider this very prospect, otherwise, we are all residing on a time bomb known as the UK.


Does Britain really have a future?

The other night, I was fortunate enough to be invited to a friend’s apartment to watch a couple of movies with a few friends. What was most eventful about this evening however, was that one of the people who resided at this apartment was a native of Palestine, and had witnessed many incidents throughout the conflict between Israel and his country.

Of course, the night was good fun, but I couldn't help myself asking the Palestinian about his experiences in Israel. So naturally, be began talking about the situation (discussing America's involvement also), and by the time I thought we had talked about every detail possible, he showed me what appeared to be a 74 page document. Little did I know that this document was not supposed to be read by the public, as it was for political use within the White House only, and to my surprise, it was a detailed description of how the alliance between Israel and America is influencing wars in the Middle-East more than we know.

For example, the war in Iraq did not begin (mainly) because of the search of nuclear weapons...it began due to Israel's demand for the US to overthrow Saddam. Why? Because during the gulf war (1990-1991) Saddam was the only Arab leader to launch missile attacks against Israel...and as a result, it appears the Israeli’s want their fellow allies to occupy Iraq to limit the hostilities made towards them (especially now by Iran and Syria). Today, the US occupies Iraq.....tomorrow, the US will occupy Iran (and eventually Syria), to prevent any further conflict towards Israel, and in doing so, they will make every excuse possible to justify their actions.

The bottom line is though, is that Israel has America's foreign policy wrapped round its little finger......and in the end, both achieve the benefits. Israel will have no more hostilities from surrounding Arab countries, and America will benefit from the vast quantities of oil that the Middle-East has to offer. Not a bad outcome for a corrupt bargain.

So here I state my bets: For now, it is Iraq. Then Iran, then Syria, then Lebanon. It will be interesting to see if this comes true in the near future.

How much of America's forgeign policy is influenced by Israel?