Plaid Cymru and indepenence

I see Plaid Cymru are holding a special conference in Aberystwyth to consider a new constitution. see BBC News

I hope they don't think it necessary to ditch or weaken their stance on an independent Wales, or have fallen for the argument; as trumped by the Conservatives in the Scottish independence debate - it'll be hard and painful so don't bother, a self defeating cry if there ever was one.

In my humble opinion at its heart the central goal of Plaid Cymru should be an independent Wales.

And all Plaid Cymru policies should be driven by that main objective an independent Wales.

Nor matter how hard or painful it is - if it means and ends in a independent Wales.


I see no conflict in this idea - that a truly independent Wales standing on its own two feet, a Celtic beacon with its own identity and beliefs would be welcome in the European Family of Nations.

We need to rediscover our voice, our inner strength and re-quench our desire and belief in a independent Wales. Some say it has not been done before, but with these hands we can if we so desire build that road to independence.

And at the front leading the vanguard should be Plaid Cymru.

Sad Gillian wants to play byelaws.

The first historic bill passed by the Welsh Assembly; following a mandate by the welsh public in a referendum - being the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill, has been referred to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General. This doesn't bode well for devolution in Wales, if such a simple bill can cause London to object.

The story was covered yesterday by the BBC see Attorney general in court challenge to first Welsh Bill.

The bill itself is quite simple, it removes the need for councils to seek confirmation from the Welsh Assembly; or concurrent confirmation of the Secretary of State for Wales, for certain byelaws, thus making it easier for councils to make byelaws.

Seeing that local government is a devolved issue I'm not sure why the Secretary of State for Wales would have had any concurrent function in the first place, and the Government of Wales Act 2006 does say in Schedule 5  "The general restrictions in Part 2 do not prevent a provision of an Assembly Measure removing or modifying, or conferring power by subordinate legislation to remove or modify, any function of a Minister of the Crown if the Secretary of State consents to the provision."

The question therefore is - what objections does Cheryl Gillan have to a bill that makes is easier for councils to make byelaws?

The BBC says "She said the UK government had identified its concerns over the removal of the role of the Secretary of State in confirming Welsh byelaws at both ministerial and official level with the Welsh government."

What!!! - It seems Cheryl Gillan wants to play byelaws and requires all councils in Wales to seek her consent for any byelaws, even for byelaws that need not be confirmed by the Welsh Government.

Even though its clear by virtue of Government of Wales Act 2006 and Section 58 1(c) ".. that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales [or the Welsh zone] is to be exercisable by the Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General."

But that can't be the real reason surely? - there must be something else, and I suspect a darker political game behind all of this. Is this an attempt by London to disturb the legitimate work of the Welsh Government on dubious grounds?

Or has the Welsh Government failed to amended the Bill to cater for legitimate concerns raised by the Secretary of State for Wales?

Whatever, we the welsh public duly voted to have additional powers be given to the Welsh Assembly in relation to matters already devolved to it.  But it now seems that in cases where concurrent powers are to be amended, all the Secretary of State for Wales has to do is object to stop any bill proceeding. And the Welsh Government has no appeal - so much for democracy!!

I suspect that this is about something bigger, something else that London wants to stop in due course, and are using this bill to lay down a marker early on - in other words it's London saying to us in Wales, you can legislate as long as we approve.

I have a feeling that there is an old Whitehall mentality still burning in the background, of an old guard that never really wanted to give Wales greater powers in the first place, and a possible reason why the Welsh Conservatives feel more isolated from the main party than ever.

Of course I'm biased, I've never rated 'Governor' Gillan (she whom brought electricity to the people of South Wales - for which they shall always be grateful)- her real legacy will be a tunnel under her constituency, that'll be in England. Some of us wish the tunnel be built as soon as possible, so that Gillan can enter and never leave, and we can have a Welsh Secretary whom really does care for Wales.

We have been here before: Cheryl - your the Welsh Secretary - just in case you've forgotten.

And Wales not part of Europe shock.

And Conservatives want to take powers away from Welsh Assembly.

And The Welsh Conservatives launch their election campaign

Caernarfon and Bontnewydd Bypass

The preferred route for the proposed Caernarfon and Bontnewydd Bypass has been announced by the Welsh Government, although there may be some time before it is eventually built, especially with a price tag that could reach £100 million, if not more.

This was reported by BBC News on Sunday see: Bontnewydd-Caernarfon by-pass preferred route unveiled.

What confused me was the following from the above:

Caernarfon Town Council had written to First Minister Carwyn Jones, demanding to know why no route has been chosen despite two public consultations.

And there was me thinking they had chosen the purple route?

What's the purple route you may ask, see below I reply (click on image to enlarge):

Above plans taken from Welsh Government website - Annex A (pdf file)

Also I think the purple route became a 'TR111 route protected for planning purposes' as shown on the plan below:

To see the plan in greater detail: Welsh Government website - Annex C (pdf file)

By publishing a TR111 plan, the Welsh Assembly Government protects the route under Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. This means that the Local Planing Authority will refer to the Welsh Government all future planning applications that are within 200 metres of the center line of the preferred route.

Also for any any property being sold within 200 metres of the protected line, the proposed scheme would be declared on any searches carried out, and in certain circumstances any owner having difficulty selling property on the line of the route may apply for blight. In certain cases this might mean the Welsh Government purchasing the property. See Blight and Discretionary Purchase (pdf file). Please note same provisions applies to Wales.

And for those of you wondering what the "Tra34 Net Present Value for the A487 Caernarfon to Bontnewydd Improvement Scheme options" is  - see Welsh Government Disclosure Log 2011.

Barclays and Libor - more than just 'rouge traders'.

I was surprised yesterday that on its main news bulletins a reporter for BBC News seemed to support the 'rouge traders' narrative, when she said something along the lines that Barclays' traders had manipulated the Libor rate for 'personal gain'. Can't remember her name and quite frankly if that is the best she can do, can't be bothered either.

Now whilst this may have been true for the first tranche, it fails to mention what happened in the second tranche of manipulating the Libor rates.

This below is an extract from findings of the U.S.A Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) where they allege:

During the financial crisis period, Barclays believed that the market and media inaccurately perceived Barclays as having liquidity problems in part because the rates submitted for LIBOR by Barclays were significantly higher at times than the rates submitted by other banks. Barclays contended the other banks' submissions were inappropriately low given the realities ofthe market conditions and lack of transactions occurring in the interbank markets. To manage public perceptions that its higher LIBOR submissions meant Barclays was a weaker institution, Barclays' senior management directed the Barclays submitters to lower Barclays submissions in order to be closer to the rates submitted by the other bank, and thus, be a less noticeable outlier from the rest of the banks. The Barclays submitters complied with the management directive by submitting artificially lower rates than they would have otherwise submitted and that were inconsistent with the definition and criteria for submitting LIBOR. As a result, Barclays did not submit rates reflecting or relating to borrowing of unsecured funds in the relevant interbank markets.

I should point that as part of the offer agreement to settle, Barclays did so "Without admitting or denying the findings or conclusions [of CFTC Order]..., except to the extent Respondents admit those findings in any related action against Barclays by, or any agreement with, the Department of Justice or any other governmental agency or office,....."

You can download the full transcript from CFTC website. (in pdf format)



Note: All words in italics are from the CFTC Order.

A fair tax system and Vodafone.

To delay the introduction of the 3p rise in fuel duty the Chancellor needs to find around £500,000,000 from somewhere. But where will this money come from? - we are told over and over by the Conservatives that there is no money left.

Maybe it would help if we had strong and clear tax laws, that clamped down on companies using tax havens or dubious tax avoidance schemes as a means of  reducing their tax liability. After all large companies go out of their way to show how green and ethical they are, but still think it's OK to employ tax avoidance schemes.

At the end of March 2012 BBC News reported - In his Budget speech, Chancellor George Osborne spoke of his disdain for tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, describing both as "morally repugnant".

And what sort of aggressive tax avoidance are we talking about?

An article on Reuters website by Tom Bergin -  Insight: Vodafone in new 1 billion pounds tax "scandal" , alleges that Vodafone has shaved at least 1 billion pounds off  UK taxes over the past decade.

You remember Vodafone whom back in 2010 denied they had a tax liability of £6bn to the UK. A spokesman for Vodafone speaking to  BBC News at the time denied the tax bill reports, adding: "We pay our taxes in the UK and all of the other countries in which we operate."

Although if Reuters is correct whilst Vodafone does pay it taxes in the UK, in 'other countries' such as Germany and Spain they pay more. And before you start saying how lower taxes makes a country more competitive, do read the above Reuters article and their comparison between Germany and  UK and Vodafone investment.

We wait to see details of the Chancellor Treasury's plans to introduce a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), which aims to deter abusive tax avoidance schemes, by reducing legal uncertainty around what constitutes aggressive tax avoidance as opposed to legitimate tax planning. And whether in addition to stronger powers, HRMC will be given adequate resources to make a difference in clamping down on tax avoidance.

But seeing that David Cameron recently said at the G20 summit "If the French go ahead with a 75% top rate of tax we will roll out the red carpet and welcome more French businesses to Britain and they will pay taxes in Britain and that will pay for our health service, and our schools and everything else." I wouldn't put too much weight on the chances of it (GAAR) succeeding. See also the Guardian report  In wooing French tax exiles, Cameron makes a mockery of democracy by Richard Murphy.

Voting rights for prisoners.

On Monday the European Human Rights Court in the judgment  Scoppola v. Italy said that the UK blanket ban on prisoners having a vote was illegal.

A detailed analysis of this judgment can be found in the  Head of Legal Blog.

The judgment in summary says that a blanket ban on all prisoners having voting rights is contrary to human rights legislation, but that Parliament can still decide which crimes would result in the prisoner losing their voting rights. For example say all prisoners who have been sentenced for more than 4 years.

I did post on this subject last year - Voting rights for prisoners.

In my humble opinion a fundamental human right is the right to vote and to participate in the democratic process, which before someone looses such rights they need to have committed a serious crime.

Of course, whilst Parliament can decide what level of sentence would be serious enough for someone to loose their fundamental right to vote, quite clearly it should be for the courts to decide whether such decisions infringe the fundamental human rights of us all, be that national or international law.

Sir Winston Churchill recongnised this fact when back in 1949 he was a founder member of the Council of Europe, which in 1950 agreed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The UK was one of the original countries to sign, with the convention coming into force in the UK in September 1953. The European Court of Human Rights was part of the convention.

I have posted on this subject before - A bit more Abu Qatada & human rights.

How times have changed, and I was sad to read that the current Prime Minister; with it seems an eye on headlines in the tabloid press, on Wednesday and as reported by  BBC News [...] told MPs he will resist a European court ruling that prisoners should be given the right to vote in UK elections. David Cameron said the ban on voting from jail "should be a matter for Parliament... and not a foreign court".'

We can't really decide to ignore rulings from an internationally recongnised court; of which we were a founding member, and expect others to comply, especially on fundamental human rights, nor in doing so should we lecture others on the need to comply either.

We have six months to grow up and amend our laws.

The Queen, Aberfan and the BBC

Did you know that this year Queen Elizabeth II celebrates 60 years of rule over us commoners.

Not that you could have easily missed this fact,  BBC Wales is there to ensure that.

Which brings me to my moan of the day....

On Friday, the Queen on her second and last day of her 'tour' of Wales, visited Aberfan to remember and commemorate the disaster that devastated the village.

And I'm sure she gave comfort to those present, but that is not my moan of the day.

My moan of the day is the fact that BBC News including BBC Wales said, and I paraphrase - Queen Elizabeth visited Aberfan almost 50 years since the disaster.

The tragic man made disaster at Aberfan occurred on 21 October 1966, or just over 45 years ago.

That's 45 years ago, in October it will be 46 years ago, so how you can say that is almost 50 years ago is beyond me.

Or on that basis - did you know I celebrated the Queens jubilee back in 2008, well it was almost 60 years since she was crowned Queen, wasn't it?

And there 'endeth' my moan of the day.

Is the UK's nuclear future in jeopardy?

At the end of March, BBC News reported:

The energy minister Charles Hendry admits that the withdrawal of the German energy giants E.ON and RWE from a big nuclear power project in Anglesey is "clearly very disappointing".

He points out however that "the UK's new nuclear programme is far more than one consortia" and that "plans from EDF/Centrica and Nugen are on track".

However, recent reports in The Times and the Financial Times say that Centrica may be close to pulling out of their joint venture with EDF Energy to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset.

Tim Yeo, chairman of the influential energy select committee, said [to the Financial Times] Centrica's withdrawal would be a “hammer blow to the future of nuclear [power]..

See also: burnham-on-sea.com

Welsh council elections and some poor manifestos.

In May, the rest of Wales shall vote for the councillor of their choice. Meanwhile, we on Ynys Môn will wait patiently until next year, before we decide whom we want. Hopefully by then, together with multi member wards, we can get rid of those disgraced Councillors whom have made the island such a laughing stock.

However, we can still take an interest in what the main parties are saying to the rest of Wales in their manifestos.

I think we can all agree that in order to encourage people to participate in democracy you need transparency and accountability. Take voting for a councillor, first of all their should be a genuine choice of candidates.  Then that choice should be based on a clear understanding - what a councillor says will be their priorities, what their aims and aspirations are, what their fundamental beliefs are.

This is why a manifesto is important, it is where candidates can spell out what they stand for, be that a national or local manifesto.

If we look at the Welsh Conservative Manifesto 2012 we have things like:

We are committed to abolishing business rates for small businesses. This will allow firms to expand and hire new staff,stimulating local economies. To further boost the economy, Welsh Conservatives are committed to the introduction of enterprise zones in Wales, to offering tailored support for the unemployed and to freezing Severn Bridge tolls.

Now do remember this is a manifesto for local Council elections, and whilst the Welsh Conservatives maybe committed (Thesaurus - bound or obligated, as under a pledge to a particular cause, action, or attitude; "committed church members"; "a committed Marxist") to do many things, what it does lack is details on how it hopes to achieve them. Take the commitment to freeze Severn Bridge tolls, surely that's a matter for the UK Government, unless they wish to have responsibility devolved to the Welsh Assembly. If so why not spell it out, and even then, what has that to do with election of councillors, especially to ratepayers in North Wales?

At least their coalition partners at Westminster, the Liberal Democrats, can in their Manifesto make claims (if disputed) about actions and results of Councils i.e Wrexham and Cardiff, where they have been the ruling party.

For me Plaid Cymru's  Manifesto is the most comprehensive.

As an example their manifesto says: The transport system in Wales is the main source of air pollution. Local councils have an important role to play in ensuring we have a transport system in Wales which meets our economic and social needs but also reduces our carbon emissions. Plaid Cymru-run councils will build on Plaid Cymru’s successes as part of the previous Welsh Government in ensuring that more money is spent on public transport than on road-building. In Cardiff, Plaid Cymru has more than doubled spending on cycle infrastructure, created new park and ride schemes and a bike hire scheme.

A manifesto for local council elections that actually mentions local councils - surely not?

As for Labour, the least said the better. According to BBC News: Labour is not publishing a national manifesto, saying it will not offer voters "blanket promises" - yes go figure.

See also:
Welsh Ramblings - Not fit for purpose
Insideout Swansea - Back on the stump.

Water is essential to life, and not some commodity to be traded to the highest bidder.

At a basic level there are many things we can do without and there are some things essential to life. Water for instance, without which none of us would be here.

So the idea that we should profit from this essential natural resource is in my opinion wrong.

But why are we talking about selling water for profit? - that'll be down to a perceived shortage of water in Southern England. Now you could blame a lack of rainfall for this current crisis, however I'm more inclined to blame to privatisation of  water companies.

It's a simple equation after all - spend on infrastructure or pay a dividend to share holders?

Now we know that water companies in South England have being spending a lot improving their network - but I ask you would they have done so if it weren't for Ofwat, and should they have spent much more?

Take Thames Water as an example, which as reported by Metro newspaper:

"Thames Water, one of seven companies imposing a ban from Thursday, loses 665million litres of water a day.

The country’s biggest supplier, with 8.8million customers, tops the first leak table of British water companies based on figures from industry regulator Ofwat. Its 25.7 per cent leak rate is five times higher than the five per cent that will be saved by the hosepipe ban.

Thames’ leaks would fill Wembley Stadium every 36 hours.

The other six providers banning hosepipes – Southern Water, South East Water, Anglian Water, Sutton and East Surrey, Veolia Central and Veolia South East – had an average leak of 17.7 per cent.

The total amount of water leaked by water firms in England and Wales – 1,226billion litres – would fill Lake Windermere, England’s largest lake, four times a year."

In other words a lack of forward planning, a lack of sufficient investment in infrastructure and a simple case of profits and shareholder dividends trumping all other considerations.

Not that consumers can exactly escape the blame, no doubt we could all do things to reduce our water consumption, but a hose pipe ban is rather silly. A recent test on Radio 4 showed that when washing a car, a hosepipe if used with an attachment, actually used less water than someone using a watering can.

But back to Wales, and the idea that we should profit from water by selling it to those in need. Apparently we should treat water the same as we do oil, and profit from the very simple fact that because Wales is on western side of the UK and hence has more rainfall than counties to the south and east of England.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't supply water to them counties in need of water; to make up for the water that leaks from their system, or to wash cars or water gardens, however it's not as easy as that.

There's the cost of doing so, Nigel Annett, Welsh Water's managing director, told BBC Wales it was possible but the cost was "truly prohibitive".

And this also assumes that we in Wales have sufficient storage of water. Alun Attwood, water resources manager of Environment Agency Wales speaking to BBC Wales, said the idea of whether there was enough water in Wales to support a national water grid, or large-scale transfers across the border, was something that needed to be considered in much more detail. Mr Attwood said: "Our recent forecast suggests that because of the limited water available in Wales - and already some rivers are at their sustainable limit in terms of how much water can be taken from them without affecting the environment - it means that there might not be enough water to provide surplus water, or further water to England."

In other words it would cost too much and we haven't enough water storage or any sufficient spare capacity to supply others, without our needs and that of the environment being put at risk.

Of course the logical conclusion to an argument that Wales should make the most of this natural resource is too maximise potential, and to do that you'd need more storage, either by increasing the size of existing reservoirs or by building new reservoirs. And I doubt anybody is really suggesting that are they?

Wylfa B - now far too costly to make commercial sense?

With hindsight maybe we should have foreseen the announcement; that RWE Npower and E.On, would not proceed with the building of nuclear plants in the UK.

After the tragic accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, Germany decided to abandon nuclear power, and their electricity companies faced massive decommissioning costs. See Reuters - Nuclear shutdown costs mount in Germany.

In the UK it was recently re-confirmed by the UK government that new nuclear operators will have to cover their waste and decommissioning costs - see DECC.

Then are the concerns about the new build costs of the third generation nuclear plants. In July 2011, Damian Carrington in his Guardian environmental blog said:

"Time is money, they say, and the new nuclear power plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in France is now at least four years behind time and €2.7bn over budget. EDF blamed the delay on two fatal construction accidents and dealing with safety analyses prompted by the Fukushima disaster."

Maybe some other investors will invest in Wylfa B, but with the world and the UK seeing very low growth; according to the OECD the UK is in recession (see BBC News) - the uncertain costs, the likely project overrun and problems raising the necessary finance what realistic chance is there of that happening?

As an aside, I'm sure there is no truth in the rumours, that the Conservative led Coalition Government talked up a possible strike by delivery drivers, to boost sales of fuel to boost the GDP and tax revenue?

But let me return to the islands problems - the plans of Leanne Wood, leader of Plaid Cymru for a clean energy revolution for Wales with Ynys Môn at it's heart; which was heavily criticised by the islands Tories, may now be worth looking at seriously?

After all with the prospect of a Wylfa B if not dead in the water, its delay will mean many years of waiting, in the meantime we need to find ways of stimulating growth on the island and hopefully some meaningful jobs.

Unemployment - a price worth paying?

Norman Lamont famously said on 16 May 1991, "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."

In 1992 a young Conservative named David Cameron was his special advisor.

Yesterday, the latest unemployment figures published by the ONS estimates that UK unemployment rose by 114,000 between June and August to 2.57 million - a 17-year high.

A main plank of the Conservative led Coalition Governments austerity plans was a belief that jobs created in the private sector would more than make up for the jobs lost in the public sector.

Stephanie Flanders, BBC Economics Editor says in her blog: "For some time, we were able to say that employment growth in the private sector was outweighing the loss of jobs in the public sector. That is no longer true. The public sector lost 111,000 over the three months to June (97,000 excluding temporary jobs for the census), while the number of jobs in the private sector rose by 41,000."

The official government line: The Employment Secretary, Chris Grayling, said [to BBC News] that what the UK was now seeing was "the impact of the international financial crisis".

David Cameron at Question Time also defended the Governments Plan A, and as reported by the BBC:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, rejected the criticism and said he would stick to his plans to reduce the deficit of nearly 10%.

"These are very disappointing figures that have been announced today and every job that is lost is a tragedy for that person and for their family and that is why this government is going to do everything it possibly can to help get people into work."

One worrying aspect of the latest unemployment figures has been the increase in the number of young people out of work. The BBC highlights today a survey by the Association of Colleges which claims, almost half of England's further education colleges have seen a decline in student numbers - with the drop blamed on the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

Whilst the Department of Education defended the more closely targeted £180m bursary scheme, which replaces the EMA, which had cost £560m per year. It says that under the new scheme students who would have been eligible for free school meals could receive up to £800 per year.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said,"These findings are underlined by today's devastating figures on Youth Unemployment which show their failure to have a strategy for growth which will start remedying this."

Returning to the Conservative led Coalition Government, they say 'another reason why we need to stick to Plan A, is to keep international confidence in our economy, which has resulted in record low interest rates. This will benefit us all in the long term.'

In other words "Rising unemployment and a recession will be the price that we have had to pay to keep interest rates low, cut the defecit and get inflation down. That price is well worth paying"

In logic a pure neoliberal statement, but in these days of media savy politicians not one you will hear any of them declare soon.

RBS to be nationalised?

It hard to know what to make of the news these days, one thing for certain its about to get much worse, as the world seems to be heading towards recession.

This morning Moody's Investors Service downgraded the senior debt and deposit ratings of 12 UK financial institutions and confirmed the ratings of one institution.

The Chancellor, Mr Osborne said [to the BBC] he was confident that British banks were well-capitalised. "They are not experiencing the kinds of problems that some of the banks in the eurozone are experiencing at the moment."

However in his blog, Robert Peston, BBC Business editor says:

If the minimum stressed capital ratio were set at 8%, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Lloyds would all be forced to raise new capital.

Among the British banks Royal Bank of Scotland is most vulnerable to being forced to raise new capital, because under July's health checks its stressed capital ratio emerged relatively low at 6.3% (compared with 7.3% for Barclays, 7.7% for Lloyds and 8.5% for HSBC).

So if the new minimum capital bar were set at 7% (and we have no idea where it will ultimately be set) RBS would seem to need to raise a few billions of additional capital.....

.....I would therefore expect the chancellor to argue pretty strongly to his eurozone counterparts that RBS has quite enough capital for now.

And if he were to lose this battle, he might well be better off launching a takeover bid to acquire all of RBS - to nationalise it fully - than recapitalising the bank through an exercise of the existing rescue mechanism.

TATA to build factory by Wolverhampton - the Enterprise Zone wat did it?

If only the Welsh Government had got it act together and followed blindly the policies of the Conservative led Coalition Government on enterprise zones, the new engine factory could have been built in South Wales. Or that is what the Conservatives and some in the media want us to believe.

TATA the Indian owned car manufacturer, had decided that rather than buying engines from Ford plants including Bridgend and Dagenham, they are to build their own engines. What affect this will have on the viability of the Ford plants is not known.

There was some speculation that TATA would build the new engine factory in India, were it already has a production plant for it's Freelander 2, but seeing the local difficulties they have had over there (see:Indian state to return Tata factory land to farmers) maybe the UK was a more appealing prospect.

As reported by Reuters:

Mike Wright, executive director at Jaguar Land Rover said they had considered building the facility in a number of locations within the UK and outside the UK.

"One obvious location would have been India," Wright told journalists.

"There are a whole host of factors that go into these decision ... but on the balance of all of those factors, we determined with the support of Tata Motors, in this instance, the UK was the best option," he said....

"Clearly, situating it almost equidistant between our Halewood, Solihull and Castle Bromwich plants does have efficiency benefits," said Wright.

As part of its growth strategy and investment, Jaguar Land Rover is targeting 40 new products over 5 years, as it eyes emerging market growth.

"(The site) will enable us to accelerate our new products to penetrate new markets," said Wright.

"Our latest investment decision follows a period of rising sales, rising demand and rising profitability," he said, adding that the business is performing in line with expectations...

...Jaguar Land Rover already employs more than 19,000 people in Britain and supports up to 140,000 jobs. It has been boosted by strong demand from emerging markets such as Russia and China for its cars.

"As we invest 1.5 billion pounds a year for the next five years on new product developments, expanding our engine range will help us realise the full global potential of the Jaguar and Land Rover brands," said Ralf Speth, JLR CEO.

In the last few years, TATA through growth in sales in Russia and China have managed to turn around a loss making company to one with growing profits year on year. In 2009 there was speculation that TATA would have to close one of it's plants in the UK. (see Jaguar Land Rover to close factory)

Sky News reports that Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the Conservative led Coalition Government, said he was "delighted" by the decision.

He said: "Growing our economy has to be the number one priority for Britain, and the Government is not sitting on its hands. With initiatives like the Regional Growth Fund, putting up to £10m into this new plant and Enterprise Zones boosting growth across the country, we're making the UK a better place to invest and do business."

Enterprise zones will benefit from:

• A business rate discount worth up to £275,000 per business over a five year period


• All business rates growth within the zone for a period of at least 25 years will be retained by the local area, to support the Partnership’s economic priorities and ensure that Enterprise Zone growth is reinvested locally


• Government help to develop radically simplified planning approaches for the zone using, for example, existing Local Development Order powers


• Government support to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out throughout the zone, achieved through guaranteeing the most supportive regulatory environment and, if necessary, public funding.

The Regional Growth Fund which is giving £10 million to TATA is a £1.4bn fund operating across England from 2011 to 2014. It supports projects and programmes that lever private sector investment creating economic growth and sustainable employment. It aims particularly to help those areas and communities currently dependent on the public sector to make the transition to sustainable private sector-led growth and prosperity.

The second round of bidding to the Regional Growth Fund ended on the 1 July 2011. 492 bids were received with a combined total value of £3.3 bn. The Government welcomed this positive response to the Fund.

And that fact is quite interesting, the bid for the £10 million for TATA had to have been made by 1 July 2011, before the Conservative led Coalition Government announced the 21 English enterprise zones on 17 August 2011.

There is no equivalent regional growth fund in Wales or Scotland.

To conclude TATA decided to open a new engine factory outside Wolverhampton, because it's a logical decision and the proposal was being discussed with local Councils and Government well before the new enterprise zones had been announced.

Also in order to match the offer, the Welsh Government would have needed to find more than £10 million pounds.

Welsh Business Minister Edwina Hart recently announced the five new welsh enterprise zones, and is initially making £10m available over the next five years.

Don't get me wrong, the decision by TATA to open a new factory by Wolverhampton is good news, but I have a feeling that enterprise zones, or lack of them, had little if anything to do with the ultimate decision.

The cornerstones of a good education

Today it seems education has taken center (or is that centre?) stage in the Welsh assembly election. You can read all about it at BBC Wales News.

This blog is a strong supporter of the Finland education model, and the main political parties will need to persuade me that they can deliver the cornerstones of a good education system.

The following is from an earlier post - The cornerstones of a good education [in Finland] are:

Same nine-year basic school for all. Finnish children start compulsory nine-year basic school in August of the year when they turn seven years old.

Good teachers. The teaching profession has always enjoyed great public respect and appreciation in Finland. Parents trust teachers as professionals who know what is best for their children. Teachers therefore have considerable independence in the classroom in terms of choosing appropriate pedagogical methods

Sustainable leadership. Education sector development in Finland has been based on the continuous adjustment of schooling to the changing needs of children, families, and society.

Recognition and appreciation of existing innovations. During the last 30 years, the culture of innovation has taken root in the education system.

Flexible accountability, i.e. focus on deep learning, not testing. Finland has not followed the Anglo-Saxon accountability movement in education that believes in making schools and teachers accountable for learning results. Traditionally, evaluation of student outcomes has been the task of each teacher and school in Finland. The only standardized high-stake assessment is the Matriculation Examination at the end of upper-secondary school before students enroll in tertiary education. Prior to this Matriculation Examination, no external national tests or exams are required. This has helped both students and teachers to focus on learning in a fear-free environment. At the same time, creativity and risk-taking have also become common features in Finnish schools.

The culture of trust. The culture of trust basically means that the system, that is, the Ministry of Education and the National Board of Education, believes that teachers together with principals, parents, and their communities know how to provide the best possible education for their children and youth.

See also:

Education, Wales and Finland
Education in Wales - some suggestions