Conservative dogma flies against facts

Manchester International Airport

The Welsh Conservatives; at the Welsh Assembly this Wednesday, will hold a debate on the current bid by the Welsh Government to purchase Cardiff International Airport. A private company would then run the airport on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, on what I take it would be a not for profit basis.

The Conservative following their long held dogma against anything in public ownership oppose the purchase. Conservative transport spokesman Byron Davies said to BBC News "I don't believe nationalisation is the way forward," [....]

"There is no current reason to believe their ownership of Cardiff airport will be anything but another financial calamity."

Although facts really don't hold up that argument, as most of the worlds best airports are in public ownership.

In 2012 in the World Airport Awards the top 5 where, with majority shareholder shown:

1. Incheon International Airport (Government of South Korea)
2. Hong Kong International Airport (Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
3. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (Dutch Ministry of Finance)
4. Beijing Capital International Airport (Chinese Government)
5. Munich Airport (Free State of Bavaria)

And the winner of the Europe Regional Award was Hamburg Airport with the City of Hamburg being the majority shareholder.

And as we have discussed before the award winning Manchester International Airport is another good example of a public/private partnership see.. The Thursday Quiz - Regional Airports.

Also as argued by Neil Clark writing for the Guardian in December 2010 'Why we should nationalise our airports', 'the failure of BAA to deal with recent snowfalls has exposed the price we pay for having our infrastructure in private ownership.'

And the private ownership of Cardiff International Airport cant be said to be a success can it? - surely if we are to encourage international business to invest in Wales we need an international airport to be proud of, something we don't have currently, and as we know public/private run airports can be successful as proved throughout the world.

Finally some airport trivia - did you know that a major shareholder in Bristol Airport with approximately 49% is Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.

Really - the answer is borrow more?

Somewhat puzzled by the 'big announcement' yesterday that Welsh Government is to be given powers to borrow money, but only if the Silk Commission recommends giving them tax raising powers also.

Rather a premature and pointless announcement then, until we find out what the Silk Commission recommends. Unless that is the Conservative led Coalition Government have already decided to give the Welsh Government tax rising powers....which begs the question how much has the Silk Commission cost and what was it for?

I think its rather strange, that we are told on one hand the blame for the current economic crisis is down to the public sector borrowing to much, and on the other the answer to kickstart the economy is to borrow more.

Now as far as I can remember the Welsh Government or the previous Welsh Office have always been able to borrow money through the Treasury at London. But the ability to raise or lower its own tax and borrow without London strings, does on paper seem to make sense.

After all and as we know there are many infrastructure projects in Wales in desperate need of cash. Though that shouldn't include the electrification of the North Wales mainline as Ken Skates AM says in todays Daily Post. There are far more important projects we should fund and it's not even a devolved issue.

And when shadow Welsh secretary Owen Smith says 'borrowing is vital to kick-starting infrastructure projects and the economy...this is to be welcomed' you really need to question whether Labour has learnt any lessons at all from their time in power.

Lets make it plain and simple....the answer is - do not borrow any more money that we cant afford to pay back.

Having said that, one sector that has suffered in the current downturn is the construction industry, and as we know on Anglesey our public buildings are either falling to bits or not fit for purpose. We need to build some new schools and a new acute care home to name just two projects that could held local construction companies (if they where allowed to bid that is) and boost the economy.

But as we know the Council has already the powers to borrow money to pay for infrastructure projects, it just cant afford the payments currently.

All in all, even with Peter Black AM boasting like the idiot he really is, the announcement yesterday amounted to bugger all - and why Welsh Labour fell for this London trap beggars belief.

We need a balanced debate about organ donation.

In Wales, nearly 300 people are waiting for an organ transplant, many through no fault of their own.

Which brings us on to the "controversial" issue of organ donation. Let me be clear as an atheist my thoughts on the matter are very simple.

When I die I'll no longer need my body or any of its parts. Therefore after my demise, if any of it could be used to enhance the lives of others, what's the problem? - especially if I'm to be cremated, isn't recycling the done things these days.

And that is why I'm a supporter of the "soft" opt out system. But what exactly would a "soft" opt out system of donation mean?

There would be a presumption that a person consented to organ donation on their death, unless they had indicated otherwise (opted out), or their relatives objected.

Which brings me on to some ill thought out comments made yet again by Rob Davies (The Daily Post's Outspoken columnist)

Putting aside the frankly ridiculous statement of "I suspect the drive to introduce presumed consent for organ donation in Wales is fuelled in part by the separatist agenda of Wales-isn't England' lobby".....he goes on to make factually incorrect statements, take for instance in his column of today in the Daily Post he states:

Take this scenario: a young man is fatally injured in a crash. His is not on the organ donor list but lives in Wales and so is presumed to have given consent to the removal of his organs. His distraught parents are duly informed that doctors are to take out his heart...etc...What will haunt them for ever more...that their son had never actively agreed [to organ donation].

But the above scenario is wrong, it would not happen.

In the first as is the practice today, their next of kin would need to be consulted before a decision could be made. As reported in the Telegraph: The new laws would still require doctors to consult with the relatives of the bereaved as part of a "soft" opt-out system.

Whereas today the relatives could agree to organ donation, even though the deceased person when alive objected to do so, it would be similar in a 'soft' opt out system. The relatives could object to the donation of organs, even if the deceased when alive had no such concerns. Or if they had any 'doubt' which would haunt them for ever more they could just say no.

In reality you are more likely to take action if you object to something, as opposed to those who don't think it matters. Let's be honest the vast majority of us are far more concerned about what's happening now, than whats occurring when were dead.

The Christian Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan says it has to be a choice "that is freely embraced".

Surely, if you decide not to opt out of the organ donation system, you have so to speak "freely embraced" the idea that on your death your organs could be used by others.

There could be a number of safeguard built in, your doctor, health nurse etc could easily explain to those who have not opted out the consequence of not doing so. I'm sure the church could also have a role.

At the end of the day it will still be a personal choice, you could always opt out.

Above all what is important is that we have a balanced debate, and using emotive language or spurious arguments, will not help at all.