Throughout the entire Welsh Assembly election campaign, it was obvious to just about everyone that the best chance of a stable government, assuming no Labour majority, would be some sort of deal between Labour and Plaid Cymru. But there is a world of difference between stable government and good government.

Plaid Cymru have spent much of the last five years, and especially the campaign period, lambasting Welsh Labour, entirely justifiably, for their complacency, lack of imagination and shocking record in areas of key services like health and education.

“No deal” (Fingers crossed behind back)

Leanne Wood repeatedly said that she wanted no deals with anybody and that she wanted a Plaid Cymru government. That was always a pipe dream, but more realistically, and one of the main reasons I ended up up voting for them, she also has repeatedly said that as the main party of opposition, they would provide the robust opposition so patently missing when the Tories were the main opposition party.

All this make the shenanigans of the last week hard to fathom.

Plaid Cymru took a calculated risk in standing Leanne against Carwyn last week. It almost led to Leanne becoming the First Minister – which would have been an embarrassing car crash – no way could she form a government – and had Kirsty Williams to thank for saving her from that mishappenstance. As it turned out, Carwyn got his bloody nose, and Plaid Cymru had to deal with the shame of having the full support of both Tories and the devil-incarnate, UKIP, tarnishing their public image before the new Senedd had even got started.

With both these gifts pocketed, Tories and UKIP could now manipulate things further by offers of support to Welsh Labour (with strings attached, of course) and by undermining any need for Welsh Labour to do any bargaining with Plaid Cymru by, as the Tories have done, declaring the intention to abstain in the next First Minister vote and thereby rubber stamping Carwyn RT Jones as First Minister, after a week’s fun and games.

“What do you want from me?” (through gritted teeth)

At this point, both Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour should have realised their proper places and had the maturity to take those roles more seriously going forward. There was no need for any deal at all, let alone a cosying up behind closed doors. Both will claim it was in their best interests, whereas in reality it undermines them both.

Welsh Labour will presumably have been seeking assurances that Plaid Cymru will not continue to pull stunts to undermine the government process. With Kirsty Williams

Kirsty puckering up for Carwyn?

likely to be largely co-operative, and UKIP likely to be absent increasingly often as they get bored with provincial minutiae, I am not sure they really had much to worry about. That was very much their thinking before last weeks stunt. They have now made themselves publicly beholden to Plaid Cymru. Whatever has been agreed, that will be the perception.

Plaid Cymru will presumably have been seeking pledges to give them a few snippets from their manifesto. This will be held up as justification for the farce they have made of the first week of the new Senedd (following on from the Health Bill farce they enacted in the last week of the last Senedd before the election). However, as the lead opposition party against a minority government, I find it hard to imagine that they have been given any concessions from Labour this week that would not have been able to achieve on a case-by-case basis anyway. Wrapping up such concessions in a secretive deal behind closed doors now is going to reap more negatives than positives in terms of positive perceptions of the Party in the eyes of voters next time around. Regular public concessions as time goes by in the Senedd would have a more positive impact. It is the difference between a strong opponent putting in regular telling blows that might eventually lead to knock out, as opposed to a virtual coalition where partners prop each other up because they are both too weak to stand tall and strong.

Will we ever find out exactly what they have agreed? I somehow doubt it as they will probably both feel a bit embarrassed about all the fuss over what I suspect amounts to very little.

And where does all this leave Bridgend’s Green Leftie? Having given up on a largely clueless Green Party, I had been hoping to join a largely ecosocialist Plaid Cymru that might actually be on the verge of achieving major positive things in Wales. Their manifesto was pretty impressive overall.

McAvoy – the ‘Bluebird Bruiser’

However, they still seem to lack the maturity and guile to convince people that they are fit to govern. I can’t be doing with such nonsense when there is so much pressing work to be getting on with immediately (e.g. Port Talbot steel in particular). Those that know the ‘marmite’ Neil McAvoy, one of PC’s new AMs, will also understand why I expect an increase in petty, immature squabbles going forward.

Many of my ecosocialist friends have been tempted to join the Labour Party in support of Jeremy Corbyn‘s vision of the way forward. I would be sorely tempted by that too, but I am struggling to find any sort of socialist in Welsh Labour (other than Mick Antoniw) and Carwyn RT Jones local branch would be my branch here in Bridgend – and a more Blairite mafia you would struggle to find.

So I guess that leaves me here sniping from the sidelines. I will continue to try of offer constructive opinions to anyone (is there anyone?) prepared to listen, and when I eventually, if ever, see evidence of a Party that actually has a clue about how to put the world to rights, not just on paper, but in practice, then I will sign up and try to do my bit.

In the meantime, although it was pretty immature in itself putting this out as an election broadcast, this Green Party video sums up British politics at the moment pretty well (a Welsh language version featuring Carwyn, Leanne, RT, Hamilton and Kirsty anybody?):

(Click image for the video)

ADDENDUM

I was wrong about them keeping the details of the deal deal quiet – Plaid Cymru have been keen to brag about what they have achieved. They have summarised it thus:

Looks impressive – but on closer analysis, especially in the context of the Welsh Labour manifesto for these elections,  what exactly have they extracted from Labour that was not likely to happen anyway? The answer is very little.

Looking at the lists above and starting with the left hand column:

• 30 hours of free childcare is in the Labour manifesto – nothing gained.
• National Infrastructure Commission is something gained – but commissions and commissioners are no assurance of change on the ground (e.g Electoral Commission and Police Commissioners) – it is potentailly a low cost quango offering some jobs to some mates and corprate connections, if we take a cynical view of it.
• A new Drugs Fund is in the Labour manifesto – scope may be slightly different now, but no significant gain.
• Welsh Development Bank – another quango gained. Labour’s manifesto pledges £2billion in devlopment investment. Overall then, a gain of dubious value.
• Recruitment and training of GPs is too vague to have much meaning. Recruitment and training of GPs goes on all the time. The Labour manifesto cites other strategies for relieving pressure on GPs that may help stem the loss of GPs that are quitting under the strain. This may well be more effective overall. Thus, a gain of dubious overall value.
• 100,000 new apprenticeships – exactly as in the Labour manifesto – nothing gained.
• Support for the steel industry – surely a given and therefore, without specifics, nothing gained.
• Campaigning to ‘Remain in EU’ – an already declared given – nothing gained.
• Anti-smacking legislation – a gain, but not really contentious to most Labour AMs, so not a hard fought gain. May prove more contentious in wider circles.
• Additional Learning Needs Bill and Autism Act – takes Labour manifesto pledges a little further (into legislation). Probably the most significant gain, but not a huge stride forward.
• Strengthen Welsh Language Measure – in the Labour manifesto – nothing gained.
• New Public Health Bill – a given after the debacle preciptated by ‘Cheap-date-gate’ in the last session of the last Senedd. Removing the e-cigarette element was a ridiculously late change of heart by PC to justify their petulance. It’s removal is a mistake in my opinion – thus I rate it a step backwards rather than a step forward.
• A review of Health & Social Care – assuming a presumption towards better integration of these services – is in the Labour manifesto. Nothing gained.

To summarise, behind all the spin is only ONE gain that genuinely excites me – regarding legislation to improve services to those on the Autistic spectrum and with additional learning needs. As an educationalist, I fully recognise just how important this is, but it is, sadly, a measure of limited mass appeal across the general public.

There a few gains of dubious and/or uncertain benefit, but at least 8 things listed here that are either in the Labour manifesto or that were going to happen anyway.

And where is anything on fracking? On fossil fuels and climate change? On scrapping the Black Route option for the M4 relief road? Plaid Cymru are supposed to make the Greens irrelevant in Wales, aren’t they?

Thus my overall feelings are not changed. The whole thing has been a convoluted stunt that, when the dust settles, will have achieved very little. Indeed, I still think the negative impacts on public perceptions will prove more costly to both Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour in the long run. We knew they had areas of common ground already. Cosying up together behind closed doors to do deals does not constitute the robust opposition I expected from PC, despite Leanne Woods trying to say otherwise. The best that can be said of the whole affair is that Welsh Labour may have learned a bit more humility, but that did not necessitate them choosing to kowtow to just one of the opposition parties. That takes humilty into the realms of humiliation.

An inauspicious start to the new Senedd!

The new Senedd has only been back a few days and yet the toxicity of UKIP’s presence is already being felt.

Witness the vitriol aimed at Plaid Cymru for having UKIP AMs backing Leanne Wood‘s candidature for First Minister. Witness UKIP AMs also making unwanted overtures towards Labour. Any association with them, invited or not is pure political poison.

As someone who has supported Greens and Lib Dems at times in the past, and knowing the true values of those parties and the hard honest toil of many of their members, to see UKIP come from nowhere to claim not just a token seat, but a 7 out of 60 seats simply appals me. Lib Dems and Greens have one between them.

Some will say that this is just democracy at work, but democracy comes in many flavours. Or more specifically, it comes in many configurations. What we have in Wales is the Additional Member version, a fudge between the notoriously unrepresentative FPTP and the allegedly too representative truly proportional representation.

Only truly proportional representation ensures no place for tactical voting. With 60 seats available, truly proportional representation would give a seat for even 1.7% of the vote achieved. Under FPTP, Labour won 27 of the 40 constituency seats – 67.5% of the seats for 35% of the votes cast. Even under Additional Member hybrid system, Labour still achieved 29 seats , or 48% of the total, that still significantly overstates the level of support they actually have.

Working with what we’ve got, there is still a crucial role for tactical voting, not just in the established manner in FPTP votes, but also in the top-up list system used in Wales, the system that provided us with all 7 of The new UKIP AMs.

The crucial thing to grasp here is that due to their dominance in the constituencies, they can generally achieve little in terms of extra seats through the top-up lists (achieving between 0 and 2 at best in the 5 elections using this system).

This time around, the idiosyncracies of the system gave Labour 2 additional seats in there weakest region re constituencies – just one constituency AM out of 8 inMid & West Wales, despite poling less than Conservatives (0 top up seats due to winning 3 constituencies, and Plaid Cymru, 1 top-up to go with their 3 constituency wins). It also allowed Neil Hamilton to squeak in here with just 1500 more vote than the Lib Dem.

The point I am getting to is that with the exception of this region, where 45,000 Tory top-up votes were a waste, in every other region, votes for Labour were a waste, nearly 280,000 Labour votes, the most in every region bar Mid & West, achieved precisely zero AMs, while these regions yielded 6 colleagues for Neil Hamilton.

It would have been perfectly legitimate for Labour voters to have looked for better value from their vote – and for their party of choice to have helped them do this with some guidance.

In fact, Welsh Labour have influenced the outcome by deciding not to provide such guidance. Given that the polls were clear enough, then failing to head off the UKIP influx has to be interpreted as Welsh Labour being content with that outcome. And indeed, I believe that they are quite happy with it. Having the oddball collection of chancers, sleaze bags and uber-Toris in the Senedd can only make Labour look moderate and reasonable in comparison. From their perspective, that can only be preferable to having more eco-socialists in the form of PC and perhaps the odd Green present. This would only highlight the red-Tory truth of Welsh Labour under Carwyn Jones. Even extra truly-moderate Lib Dems would have done this too.

Thus, I for one, hold Welsh Labour responsible for this tainting of the Senedd. They could have done something about it. However, the sobering fact is that with 13% of the popular vote, that translates, under a truly proportional system, to …….. erm…. (big sigh) EIGHT seats. So perhaps UKIP are the only ones who actually got close to what they deserved!!

This means the battle to expose UKIP’s ideology and unsavoury under-belly has to be rejoined (Stand Up To UKIP) . Just don’t expect any help from Welsh Labour in doing so!

What an interesting start to the new Senedd term!

The selection of the First Minister is usually a formality, being at the bequest of the largest party when they have a working majority. But on this occasion it has become anything but a formality.

Let me start my analysis by stating that what I’m about to say is my reading of events based, in no small measure, on conversations that I have had today with 4 AMs from 3 different parties. So what happened?

Firstly, it appears that Plaid Cymru suggested to Labour that the selection of First Minister be postponed while inter-party talks were undertaken to work out the working relationships in the new Senedd. I am not at all surprised that Labour saw little point in this as they were always going to work on the assumption that they were going to form a minority government with Carwyn Jones at its head.

It was equally unsurprising that Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, who both aspire to leading the government of Wales one day, would jump on this as the arrogance of Welsh Labour exercising their sense of entitlement to govern in Wales, irrespective of what sort of mandate they are given from the electorate.

Having had talks with Labour rebutted, Plaid Cymru decide to stand Leanne Wood against Carwyn Jones in the First Minister selection process. From what I can gather this has never happened before. The Labour minority governments of Rhodri Morgan saw him selected unopposed, or when in coalition, saw him selected as first minister with a coalition partner as Deputy (LD Mike German in 2000 and PC Ieuan Wyn Jones in 2007) thrashed out in the coalition agreement negotiations. PC’s move seems to have been a response to Labour dismissing any discussion of a possible working relationship. I think this was very ill-advised on PC’s part. I said earlier in the week that they should stay well clear of a coalition with Labour and focus on being an effective opposition force, with a possible confidence and supply arrangement over matters of policy that PC would want to support. I think they will be regretting this strategy as the implications of what has emerged from it sink in.

As soon as they resolved to stand Leanne against Carwyn, they notified the other parties of their intent. This is a far as it went – and I am very confident that this is the fact of the matter. It was, however, a clear invitation for the other opposition parties to give Carwyn a bloody nose at the start of the new term. But it provided an opportunity for them to wound PC into the bargain. And with UKipper familiarity with the dark arts of politics in particular, it was an opportunity too good to miss. They thrive on chaos.

Leanne Wood, and all her PC colleagues, had taken very opportunity possible during the election campaign to stress that they would not work with either the Conservatives or UKip. What happened today was not PC so much working with them, but it was a opportunity to be seen to back Leanne in way that would have no adverse consequences for them , but would effectively tar and feather PC for being seen to even associate with and talk to them.

Initially, I was pretty disgusted that Kirsty Williams, the lone Lib Dem, chose to support Carwyn. It smacked of supporting the establishment party yet again. However, I now think she has done everybody a favour. Had she backed Leanne, Leanne’s bluff would have been well and truly called and she would have become  First Minister without a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being able to form a government. It would have been a complete farce. Why so?

Firstly, attempting to form a coalition of all the opposition would be completely untenable as well as political suicide of the most absurd kind. It would be even more unforgivable than the LD coalition with the Tories in Westminster. I suspect at least two thirds of the membership would resign immediately. Secondly, not only have Labour already effectively ruled it out, but a coalition with Labour would also not go down well with the PC members. Relationships between the parties, especially in Cardiff, and especially after ‘cheap-date-gate’ are at an all time low, and set to drop even lower after this episode. Again PC would likely haemorrhage members and support if they went down this route. It is all nonsensical.

So what happens next?

I presume they try again, next week I am guessing. If it is not resolved with 28 days, Welsh Secretary, Alun Cairns (if not forced to resign over his bloated election spending), will have the option of dissolving the Assembly and calling another election. This would certainly be an interesting prospect.

If PC decide to put Leanne up against Carwyn again, I expect the Tories and UKip to do as they did this time. This would give Kirsty an interesting casting vote scenario. Would she be tempted to call Leanne’s bluff, perhaps in a deal that saw her offered her a ministerial position? Would Labour then feel forced into some form of coalition with PC? They may not want to risk another election so soon having seen so many supposed safe seats become marginals now last week’s election.

I hope this is not what happens. I cannot see it ending well for anybody. It is a political stunt that is danger of back-firing badly on PC, but what has been done cannot be undone. I would like to see PC take a step back and re-assess what is the best way forward from here. Carwyn has had his bloody nose; let’s move on. I am assuming that it was never the intention for PC to try and force their way into government, with or without Leanne as first minister. It may have been the intention to try and force a new election and capitalise on the Rhondda result and host of near misses. However, given that mud sticks, the ‘working with UKip and Tories at the first opportunity’ mud would remain far to fresh and sticky for that to really stand any chance of working.

The best way forward is for them to do what they probably should have done in the first place. That is, do not stand Leanne against Carwyn but abstain from the vote for First Minister if there is a contest. A minority Labour government with Carwyn at the helm is a recipe for continued mediocrity, which may not be the best thing for the welsh public, but does allow other parties and PC and the LD in particular some leverage on policy making irrespective of formal agreements. It is the best way to maintain the Party’s identity – which this episode is sadly in danger of seriously tarnishing and blurring – and given a spell of effective opposition, is the best way of building support come the next election.

And so nothing will change once again.

LABOUR – get away with it. Labour lose around 50,000 votes and drop from 42% of the vote to 35% of the vote and yet still have a workable minority government position. On the basis of a 45% turnout, that means we all have to suffer another 5 years of Welsh Labour’s Blairite red tory complacency on the back of just 19%, less than one in five, of the electorate voting for them. If that doesn’t highlight just how far away we are from any form of truly proportional representation we are still, I don’t know what would. It seems that they were saved by the fact that the FPTP constituency element saw them lose votes everywhere, yet with big majorities for the most part, they were still safe as houses with just a few exceptions.
Of course, losing Leighton Andrews so spectacularly was a big blow. His Assembly career has been a bit chequered. His surplus places policies and school banding crap tarnished his time in charge of education – contributing nothing but anxiety and doing nothing to address Wales dismal performance in PISA comparisons. He oversaw an alarming decline in performance in all core subject areas.And yet this appalling legacy probably didn’t do for him as much as his pathetic “cheap date” quip against Plaid Cymru in the last session of the Senedd before it was dissolved for this election. Boy, did Leanne Woods capitalise on that in her constituency (even if the reaction in the Senedd, blocking the Health Bill, was poorly judged). His belligerency may be missed by some, but as a potential leadership challenger, I doubt if even Carwyn will be too gutted he is history.

PLAID CYMRU – the bare minimum necessary progress made. Leanne Wood’s trouncing of Leighton Andrews was a ringing personal endorsement of Leanne on her home patch. Leighton Andrew’s contribution to his own downfall aside, it showed how Leanne is capable of connecting with people and persuading people when they get to know her. That her good TV debate performances were not enough to spread the ‘Leanne effect’ far and wide (a la Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland) tells me that this is not the format she should be relying on.
This map is hugely telling. That blob of yellow surrounded by red is Leanne’s Rhondda seat right in the very heart of Labour’s South Wales heartland. It should be seen as the first domino to fall. For Plaid Cymru to ever sweep to government (like the SNP in Scotland) they have to connect with Labour voters. Some of the neighbouring seats saw decent PC progress (Pontypridd and Aberavon, both +5% and second place; +9% in Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney and a spectacular +31% and a very close second in Blaenau Gwent.) Add to this a whole raft of other second places, some much closer than others, and there are plenty of places for Leanne to spend increasing amounts of time, not too far from home, where she needs to sprinkle her magic dust.
They also still have issues with their messaging. It was clear from a whole raft of messaging boards and from comments made in response to things like the political compass indicating that Plaid Cymru should be their party, that the language issue remains a barrier. I know that this is controversial, but it is also incontrovertible. Just a glance through the names off their candidates highlights their their over-riding Welshness . Leanne Wood is the least welsh name among them! So another priority for them has to be in addressing greater diversity in their candidates (even their only openly gay AM is called Price!) and finding ways to ensure that the vast majority of Labour voters, especially those of relatively low educational attainment, feel perfectly comfortable voting Plaid Cymru despite having no welsh and/or no desire to learn or embrace the language. That this is a message that will be resented and resisted by many members will simply prove my point.
Overall then, very disappointing, but with enough encouragement to foster the belief that major advances are tantalisingly close still. They need to resist any deals with Labour, continue to press the ecosocialist agenda that is way forward for developing a Welsh economy and Welsh society that succeed and stand strong in the face of neoliberal assaults from Westminster, Brussels and, indeed, Cardiff Bay while Carwyn and his Red Tory crew remain in charge.

Ouch!

CONSERVATIVES – On the one hand it always good to see Tories take a kicking, but that they lose 3 seats to the ultra-Tories of UKIP is not really any good to anybody. However, it was still good to see them drop below Plaid Cymru’s contingent into third place overall. It means that we Leanne does at least become the leader of the opposition in every sense.

Private Eye, April 1997

UKIP – I’ve little more to say than WTF!!!! It just goes to show how you can fool some of the people much of the time. The worst thing about their ‘success’ is that with their awful track record of attendance at any institution they get elected to, partly because they have no friends and nobody is interested in listening to them anyway, it hands Labour a working majority to all intents and purposes. Hamilton and Reckless will quickly get bored and I’ll be surprised if any other than those living locally are seen much at all. It will be interesting to see how all those egos get on together. Gill better keep watching his back methinks.

LIB DEMS – Woeful. Sad. Good people lost. The end.

GREENS – I told you so. If you are ready to listen, you know where to find me. Stick the fivers you owe me in the party kitty – it must be desperately bare by now.

And so it goes on. The Senedd should become a bit more lively, with a few loud and brash characters added to the mix (try to calm down a bit now, Neil McAvoy) and nothing having an easy ride through, but the Welsh people have had their say. They haven’t changed enough and so they can’t expect any real change.

Perhaps another 5 years of mediocrity will shake them from their stupor.

A timely tale from close to home.

Today saw a special meeting of Bridgend CBC’s Planning Committee to discuss the mess (both figuratively and literally) that is the former Margam/Parc Slip opencast site, just outside Bridgend.

Oggy Bloggy Ogwr covers the saga well, but things are coming to something of a head. The two relevant councils , BCBC and NPTCBC, have long since given up on seeing Celtic Energy restore the site fully, as was a condition of their planning consents, in no small part because of Caerphilly-based Celtic Energy pulling that classic capitalist con trick of transferring ownership of the sites to a transferred ownership of the opencast sites to a British Virgin Islands registered subsidiaries, namely Oak Regeneration, Pine Regeneration, Beech Regeneration and Ash Regeneration, none of which appear to have the assets required for restoration. Five senior executives at Celtic Energy walked away with benefits worth more than £10m… according to George Monbiot.

Oak Regeneration (etc.) have proven typically slippery customers. With inadequate assets to do the work, they tried ‘twisting the arms’ of planners to grant them more opencast licences (towards Pencoed I believe) to pay for the work. Both councils fanned about, not attempting to enforce conditions straight after mining stopped and giving Oak encouragement to squirm further. This squirming eventually led to attempted fraud charges being levelled and then dropped for lack of evidence, but the overall picture remained much the same – the company only had £8m to its name to do work expected to cost £157m.

Thus we have something of an impasse. Any attempt to enforce compliance on Oak Regeneration will bankrupt it and under the Tory-inspired planning system, the corporate bosses walk away scot-free, while our Councils and Wales Government are left to pick up the pieces and do the work from public money.

Plaid Cymru AM, Bethan Jenkins, has been at the forefront of attempts to raise this issue in the Senedd. Labour minister, Carl Sargeant has been just as evasive and ‘careful’ in his language over this issue as he has over fracking – i.e. uninspiring and untrustworthy. Carwyn Jones has had notably little to say – even though it impacts on his constituency.

So where do we find ourselves today?

The most pressing issue regards the 600 by 400 metre water-filled hole, up to 108 metres deep in places.

Parc Slip lake

Oggy cites a report on the dangers this feature presents which includes this chilling scenario:

“It predicts within 2 hours of a breach, 1.75 million cubic metres of water would flow into the River Kenfig, resulting in floods – between 2 metres (6’6”) and 4 metres (13′) deep in some areas – downstream at the Crown Road area of Kenfig Hill, North Cornelly and the Kenfig Industrial Estate which would be, in the report’s own words, “potentially catastrophic and life threatening”.

The only plan on the table from Celtic/Oak involves using an overflow channel to slowly drain this lake into the River Kenfig. It is just about the only option within Oak’s manipulated budget. But having seen the water in Ffos-y-fran this week, that is a scary enough proposition within costly monitoring and remedying of water quality going into a river that flows into the Kenfig National Nature Reserve!!

The interesting development this week, again echoing the fracking issue, is that apparently a request has been made for the application(s) to be “called-in”. That means a full public inquiry could be held, while the incoming Welsh Government minister (please, please, not Sergeant!) with responsibility for planning would decide the application themselves.

It is to be hoped that the next Wales Bill will devolve sufficient autonomy to Wales Government to allow them to address this wilful dodging of responsibility. Only when directors are held personally liable for the decisions they take on behalf of their corporations are we going to see these appalling attitudes change.

As fellow local blogger, Oggy Bloggy Ogwr has virtually invited my observations on the coming elections in Bridgend and Ogmore, I guess it would be rude not to do so.

Oggy has no declared party affiliations, but is essentially a good ecosocialist according to he his published political compass positioning, but a remarkably balanced and unbiased commentator on the local and Wales-wide political scene. I am, of course rather more partisan (although Oggy sounds like he is unaware that I quit the green Party a year ago now), making no bones of my distaste for Tories of all colours (red Tory-light, blue Tory-regular, purple Tory-ultra).

Having said this, I really cannot disagree with anything Oggy has said in terms of predicting the forthcoming polls in Bridgend and Ogmore constituencies.

It is pretty obvious to everybody that these two constituencies remain shoe-ins for Welsh Labour. It would take upsets of Leicester City proportions for any other result to happen. However, knowing a lot of the candidates as I do I would like to make a few observations.

With Conservatives and UKIP running second and third in the last election, it could indeed be plausible for a pact between them to run Carwyn close enough to give him at least mild indigestion. But that presupposes that UKip voters (if not their candidates) have more affinity with Blue Tories than Red ones. Carwyn diminished majority will be on the back of (struggling not to stick an insulting adjective in here) Labour voters switching to Ukip. It would have been nice to see a bit co-operation between the relatively left parties of the Lib Dems , PC and Greens in Bridgend working together to try and at least relegate UKIP to 4th place, but that won’t happen, and it will actually be a quite interesting scrap among the minor places to see if the Lib Dem meltdown is reflected in Bridgend or whether Plaid Cymru can get the ‘best of the rest’ tag off them. The Greens so at least have a solid local candidate this time around, but sadly the last I heard was that the local party had folded, or rather merged with NPT Green Party.

As for Ogmore, it is a similar story, but with Plaid Cymru in good shape to hld onto 2nd place with a good local candidate, Tim Thomas, who I know well, and am happy to endorse. The Greens really shouldn’t have been wasting deposits on either Bridgend or Ogmore, but their candidate in Ogmore is the wonderful Laurie Brophy. He a charming ma of advancing years, but he was arguably the fittest member of Bridgend Green Party throughout my time with it. Awkwardly, I would still rather ecosocialist-inclined voters opt for supporting Plaid Cymru, just to try and ensure Tim isn’t ambushed by a UKIp surge, should it emerge.

So there you have. Very uninspiring elections, with depressingly predictable outcomes. The real interest on Thursday will be elsewhere. I am hoping for a big surge towards Plaid Cymru. There has been some evidence of them picking up some momemntum, but we will have to see if it amounts to serious progress. It won’t manifest itself in the constituency votes in Bridgend and Ogmore, but I is especailly vital that Plaid Cymru gets your top-up list vote everywhere (bar perhaps Mid Wales, where Alice Hooker-Stroud is lead candidate and perhaps a better prospect than the Pc alternatiove there).

I was thrilled and proud to take part in the biggest occupation (between 300 and 400 people) of a UK mining operation, that effectively closed down the opencast mining operations for around 12 hours today. It was the first of a series of protests around the world, moving to Germany next week, before moving across at least 4 other continents.

For those wanting to understand more about why it is time to end coal production, check out the Coal Action Network.

Ffos-y-Fran, near Merthyr Tydfil, was selected for the UK protest, as it is the UK’s biggest opencast site, one of the biggest in Europe. It’s pernicious effects on the local environment, local residents and their health has seen locals battling the company responsible, Miller Argent, every step of the way. Their United Valleys Action Group (UVAG)has also successfully organised opposition to another opencast operation nearby at Nant Llesg. This has seen Caerphilly CBC turn down the planning application in an historic decision last year.

The action was planned, co-ordinated and executed brilliantly by the truly inspiring Reclaim the Power team.I saw Reclaim the Power take their first mass action at Balcombe in 2013, but this is the first time I have gotten directly involved in their direct action. To say I have been impressed would be an understatement. Most of the organisers and facilitators are under 30, educated, articulate, passionate people with all the right values. The attention to detail ensures inclusivity, democracy through consensus, health and safety, and quality in everything from food provision (via the awesome Veggies “…probably the best vegan catering outfit on the planet”) to the music (e.g. the brilliant Seize The Day), even down to good local beer in the bar.

The mass trespass proceeded without any real opposition from the mine owners. Mining was suspended and both Police and private security just maintained a watching brief. There was a bit of tension when the local chief inspector briefly attempted to address us and ‘lay the law’ down, but he was simply drowned out and ignored and he pretty much gave it up as a bad job. There was never a whiff of aggression from anybody and even though those more agile than me clambered all over the big machines, everyone was very careful to do no damage, and in fact, with conscious efforts to clear not just our own litter, but to clear flytipping and other rubbish from across the common, I am confident that the whole area will be left cleaner and tidier than when we arrived. Full marks, once again, to Reclaim The Power for actually having that as a stated objective.

I’ll finish with a selection of links to media coverage of the weekend – which at the end of the day is the main purpose of such direct action – to put the issues before the public gaze and to raise awareness of the issues.

• BBC News
• ITV News
• The Guardian
• WalesOnline
• The Ecologist
• South Wales Argus
• Caerphilly Observer
• Premier.
• Energy Voice
• RTP flickr album

Why ‘nonsense on stilts’?

BENTHAM – quite  a character!

The phrase was coined by one of my great philosophical heroes, Jeremy Bentham. Living from the mid 18th century and well into the 19th century, Bentham defined as the “fundamental axiom” of his philosophy the principle that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. He became a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights. Though strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them “nonsense upon stilts“.

His influence has therefore been a profound one and I don’t feel that the political left give him enough credit for that influence. He does, however, continue to influence philosophical thought today, and this is why Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, chose “Nonsense on Stilts” for the title of his book examining the ambiguity surrounding science today. It looks at how science is conducted , how it it is disseminated, how it is interpreted and what it means to our society, in this age of rampant capitalism and social media. The book is very accessible and should be a read by everybody with a genuine interest in understanding the world we live in. David Shenk, acclaimed author of the book/film “The Forgetting: Understanding Alzheimer’s“, describes the book thus:

“This is such an important book and a great read. It is not an overstatement to say that our future survival may depend on the public’s ability to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. With patience, precision, and humour, Massimo Pigliucci charts a careful course for all scientists and communicators to follow”.

Why am I writing about this today?

Someone that I have come to know quite well and hugely respect through the anti-fracking movement turns out to be an anti-vaxxer. That huge respect is therefore being severely challenged and I am hugely saddened by this. I am struggling to come to terms with the reality that hugely intelligent, passionate campaigners, inspirational and influential personalities can be so right on some things and yet so wrong on others.

Before anyone starts accusing me of having the arrogance to assert that I am never wrong, or the like, this would be to miss the point entirely. I have not done the research to establish the scientific truth of anything. I know nothing other than what my own senses and intellect have told me and I have come to realise, with ever greater frequency, just how fallible both those things are. What I do have is a half-decent grounding in science and philosophy. With the tools these have provided me, it allows me to discern sense from nonsense; the credible from the incredible; the reasonable from the unreasonable.

This is not always an easy thing to do, and there are many issues where I remain unconvinced one way or the other, either because the science itself remains inconclusive, or more likely because I simply cannot get my head around what the science is telling me. However, in the tradition of philosophers like David Hume, Thomas Paine and Jeremy Bentham, I do believe we have a moral duty to do our best to distinguish sense from nonsense. As Pigliucci points out, however, this can be a difficult task that is patently beyond many people. It requires an understanding of the nature and limits of science, of logical fallacies, of the psychology of belief, and even (perhaps especially) an understanding of how politics and sociology impact on all this.

I am often accused of being closed-minded and intolerant. This reflects flaws in my personality rather than the truth of my disposition. My mind is always open to sound evidence. I have changed my position on many issues in the light of newly revealed evidence. I do not change my mind just because forceful personalities encourage me to do so. As a professional teacher, I have always been tolerant with people willing to learn. I am also very tolerant of ignorance that is the result of circumstances beyond a person’s ability to control or do anything about. On this basis I can respect most people who hold all manner of religious beliefs, as I understand how indoctrination of the young works and how hard it can be to break free from its controlling influence on your mind and your daily life. It was a difficult journey for me to make myself, being brought up in the Roman Catholic church. I am, however, increasingly intolerant of the mindful ignorance in those that have the intellect and education to do better than be conned into anti-scientific crusades. The get out clause there is the word ‘conned’, as this is what they have been. Pigliucci’s book does a fine job of explaining how this comes about.

A good starting point is Karl Popper’s famous “demarcation problem”. The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and conscience, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs. The debate continues after over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method. Essentially, Popper believes that fields like psychoanalysis and sociology are unscientific because they are “unfalsifiable”, while true sciences, like physics and chemistry, are never absolutely proven because they are always open to the possibility that new evidence will falsify them. It is often categorised as either ‘hard science’ or ‘soft science’. The latter may well use the scientific method, but the nature of the subject matter and the evidence involved results in the demarcation problem. This does not mean soft science is not science, but just that they have additional problems in terms of their degree of certainty (which, remember, is never 100% for any science).

Another issue is that of quasi-science – i.e. ‘almost science’, if you like. On the one hand, it happens around the fringes of the acknowledged ‘hard’ sciences like physics. When physicists start philosophising about things beyond their ability to currently apply the scientific method to, such as multiverses and the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, often based on little more than mathematical modelling, then we begin to see “the potential mathematical elegance being far removed, or even alien to, physical reality” (Lawrence Krauss ‘Hiding in the Mirror‘).

Quasi-science is not the same as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. Pseudoscience is often characterised by the things listed to the left. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. It is, either innocently or corruptly, the product of faulty thinking. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterisation.

As Pigliucci concedes, everyone has the right to be irrational, but rampant irrationality is, at best, highly wasteful, and at worst, highly destructive and harmful. Pigliucci takes particular look at the following areas of pseudoscience:

1. AIDS denialism in Africa
2. Astrology
3. UFOs
4. The paranormal

The list of pseudoscientific topics is mind-bogglingly extensive . Most are harmless. Some are almost certainly beneficial to some extent (things don’t have to be scientific to be beneficial – some people even derive benefits from religion after all).

Pigliucci then goes on to discuss the role the media plays in advancing pseudoscience and assorted bunk. Newspapers, television and social media lap it all up (although, surprisingly, he overlooks social media, which I think has a hell of a lot to answer for in terms of giving bunk traction with intelligent people). He follows this up with the role of ‘think tanks’ and ‘public intellectuals’- much beloved of the media to give all sorts of bunk a veneer of supposed credibility. This is not to say all think tanks and public intellectuals are corrupt or heretics. But we all have our favourites that we take to be reliable and therefore rarely question. For me, I much love Noam Chomsky and Carl Sagan, along with the work of Compass and the New Economics Foundation, but on the other hand, Newt Gingrich, David Starkey, the Centre for Social Justice and Adam Smith Institute can all go to hell. But therein lies the problem. One person’s intellectualism is another person’s spindoctorism! (Pigliucci’s prosaic term, not mine).

In dealing with the interplay between science and politics, the classic example simply has to be global warming. Most reading this will not need me to go into this topic, there simply is no scientific debate on the realities of global warming – merely some minor debate over rates of change and extrapolating the complexities of the causal factors. Dissenters use pseudoscience and blatant corruption to give the illusion of a debate as this suits the interests of corporate paymasters.

Some absurd bunk serves nobody’s interests, yet can be so passionately subscribed to that it raises questions of where we should draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable to society as a whole. The example that Pigliucci focuses on is the battleground between evolution theory and intelligent design theory that ended up in American courtrooms to ascertain their relative merits on the science curriculum of american schools! I have dealt with issues of christian fundamentalist schooling elsewhere. Current Conservative education policy opens up the prospect of us having to fight similar battles here, although currently creationism is not allowed to be taught as part of the science curriculum (in theory at least).

This resurgence in ‘Dark Ages’ mentality links in with the section of Pigliucci’s book that looks the history of scientific thought from the Egyptians and Babylonians. For me, it was the Socratics of Greece, and Lucretius in particular, that demonstrated just how lost humanity, in Europe at least, became after the fall of the Roman Empire with all its great applied science/technological achievements. While acknowledging that medieval times were not entirely without their achievements – ironically enough especially in Islamic countries – the role of the christian church in undermining rational thought and consigning much science to the status of heresy cannot be ignored. Indeed, another prompt to this article is witnessing another friend of mine ‘finding’ religion and openly professing biblical fundamentalism of the creationist and ‘flat earth’ variety. It is bewildering and sad to witness in an otherwise intelligent, creative and articulate person. That may come across as patronising, but only to those that think such views are acceptable. I find that attitude far more patronising. As an educationalist, the peddling of nonsense can never be acceptable and we owe it to all involved to be steadfast in challenging it.

There are, of course, legitimate questions as to whether we have grown to trust science too much. Pigliucci examines this in detail. I think the bottom line here is that good scientists never trust that they have the final definitive answer. In many cases there can often be more than one correct answer, for a start. Furthermore having scientifically correct answers is not the same as having the best solution to a problem. This is one reason for ongoing friction between scientists and philosophers on some issues. The problem is among people that do not fully appreciate the scope and limitations of science. Nonetheless, science remains by far the most effective way of gaining knowledge (and power, as Francis Bacon famously pointed out) over the natural world and improving the human condition. This is why we simply have to rein in the extreme versions of science criticism that have developed over the last few decades.

Thus the question that we now need to pose is whether we have come to trust science too little. Pigliucci tackles this issue by focussing on the impact of postmodernist scepticism. He focuses in particular on people like Paul Feyerabend, who he cites as “the quintessential example of what goes wrong when science and the humanities collide”. In essence he demonstrates how Feyerabend deliberately created controversy by stating outrageous things that he didn’t really believe for the express purpose of selling some books. Controversy, per se, is an important element in any form of intellectual discourse, and I agree with Pigliuccis that we ought to respect people who have the guts to to say what they think regardless of how popular their positions may be, irrespective of whether they turn out to right or wrong, but spouting things that are are demonstrably untrue for personal gain is an intellectual travesty and pernicious fraud.

For me, it saddens me to see people being taken in by these charlatans. In the left wing circles that I tend to spend a lot of time, I see a lot of people rightfully mistrustful of “Big Pharma” and the distortion of science by corporate interests. However, this seems to have a created a propensity to be taken in, all too easily, by the quackery of what I now call “Little Pharma” peddling all manner of supposedly naturalistic approaches and remedies. It appeals to Earth loving souls, pagans and avowed hippies in particular. Kindly, gentle souls with their hearts very much in the right places; it can be a painful experience trying to point out how it is they are being conned and fleeced in much the same way as big pharma cons and fleeces governments and health professionals, but with even less hope of successful outcomes.

So taking a look a the anti-vaxxers in particular, examination of a typical Facebook thread – one that has appeared on my timeline just this week for example – is illuminating. It starts with the eye catching headline:

Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers

taken from the ‘Circle of Docs’ website – a chiroprac website (chiropractice being an ‘alternative’ therapy to the somewhat more rigorous and sound ‘osteopathy’, but neither of which have any expertise in vaccines). The study that supposedly proves without doubt that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated peers consisted of a study in New Zealand that was merely a questionnaire survey of 245 families, with a total of 495 children – 226 vaccinated, 269 unvaccinated. Its conclusion:
“While this was a very limited study, particularly in terms of the numbers of unvaccinated children that were involved and the range of chronic conditions investigated, it provides solid scientific evidence in support of considerable anecdotal evidence that unvaccinated children are healthier that their vaccinated peers.”

If it is not clear to anyone reading this that this is a million miles away from proving anything “without doubt”, or that indeed these findings are absolutely riddled with doubt, then you may as well stop reading now.

After a bit of ding-donging from mothers wrestling with what they perceive to be a difficult decision, we come across a very telling contribution that says: “I just thought I’d share I never vaccinated [daughter] when she was little. Before we went to India last year I had a couple of precautionary vaccinations given to Her. She was almost 9 at the time. She was then and remains one of the healthiest children I have ever met.” I guess there is nothing like hedging your bets! I could not resist: “I am curious as to why you thought it was a wise precaution to have vaccinations before going to India, but not while in this country. Is it, perhaps because virtually everybody in this country has been vaccinated and largely elimianated the threats whereas the lack of a comprehensive vaccination programme in India means that the threats are much greater?“ No response from this mum as yet!

Having been accused of being patronising and intolerant, I simply posted a quick barrage of articles highlighting the resurgence of many diseases in response to the undermining of vaccination programmes by people opting out. This was met by the another resort to supposed authority in the form of Kelly Brogan, MD. She describes herself as ‘a holistic women’s health psychiatrist’. Mind games very much to the fore and, of course, she has books for sale with all the answers and you can even have your own personal consultation in her Madison Avenue office suite – for a price of course! ($1000 for the initial hour, then $450 per 40 minute follow up appointment). Nice work if you can get it. And it appears that a bit of brazen tenacity and a lack of a conscience is all that is needed. She is neatly dissected here, and the discussion thread at the end makes interesting reading too.

Even when more credible experts are brought in by the anti-vaxxers, there are problems. The Facebook thread follows up Brogan with a reference to an acknowledged expert in HPV vaccines, namely Dr Diane Harper, under the headline “Chief HPV Scientist Admits Vaccines Are A Deadly Scam”. Which scientific journal was breaking this news? It was YourNewsWire.com, who make a speciality out of running with conspiracy stories.  However, a little digging reveals the extent of the mis-reporting going on here. The concerns raised were not over vaccines in general, but Gardisil in particular. And the concerns were not that Gardasil is ineffective, not that it’s dangerous, but that its benefits might be oversold, which is not an unreasonable concern in this capitalist world of ours. Indeed Harper is quoted as saying: “I remain a vaccine supporter; and am grateful that GSK and Merck have developed the vaccines”.

Of course Kelly Brogan is just one of a wide array of charlatans preying on the vulnerable and gullible. Pigliucci offers a guide for helping discern a real expert from a phoney. He presents Alvin Goldman’s five point checklist which can be summarised as follows:

1. Examine the merits and quality of the arguments presented (being especially alert for logical fallacies and non-sequiturs I would suggest)
2. Look for evidence of agreement from other experts (who pass the same analysis of their credentials as an expert – charlatans endorsing other charlatans is not uncommon)
3. Look for some independent evidence that the expert is an acknowledged expert (sound qualifications and peer-reviewed papers in their fields of expertise)
4. Look for potential biases and vested interests at work that may undermine credibility (political and religious biases; corporate connections, products they market etc.)
5. Ideally a proven track record in their field – which may be hard on young prodigies, but their time will come.

On this basis, Pigliucci demolishes Deepak Chopra, supposed expert in ‘quantum mysticism’, and Michael Behe, supposed expert on ‘intelligent design’. George Monbiot nominates Christopher Booker as the ‘patron saint of charlatans’ for his efforts in undermining asbestos science and climate change denialism. I expect we can all offer up our ‘favourites’. Con artists can often be viewed as loveable rogues for their audacity and charm – but they all leave trails of victims in their wake, and many of the issues I have alluded to here have the potential for deadly consequences on a large scale.

Flat earthers can be pitied and/or ridiculed for there are few if any consequences to their stupidity. What is the worst that can happen, even if they are proved right? A crash in demand for round the world flights and cruises is about as far as I can imagine.

Climate change denialists have probably already condemned us to a future full of catastrophic consequences. It remains just a question of how soon and how severe the worst of consequences hits us. Related conspiracy theories, like chemtrails, leave me with some unanswered questions, but I remain very sceptical that there is anything going on a global scale as some would have us believe.

GMO crops is an interesting one. I remain in the anti-camp despite firmly believing the technology offers great scope to advancement, but I simply don’t trust the people an corporations involved to do the science rigorously enough to mitigate the potential risks.

At the end of the day, we all have to make our own judgements on what we believe to be true on all manner of issues. A belief in the rigorous application of the scientific method as the best way we have of getting as close as possible to the truth. The challenge before us is how to ensure that this is properly understood by in a world full of mischief, deceit and ignorance.

And if all else fails …..

P.S. The anti-vaxxers have a new focal point for their campaign in the form of a film called Vaxxed, which opened in New York three weeks ago, featuring the work of the discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield – barred by by the GMC and now to be found making a very comfortable living in America.

Review of film by an autism parent: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/04/02/movie-review-vaxxed/

An interesting approach to presenting the case against Dr Andrew Wakefield can be found here (screenshot below): http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

In both cases read the discussion threads that follow the main content.

Organised by: Cynnal Cymru, Wildlife Trusts Wales, Hub Cymru Africa, Wales Environment Link, Christian Aid Wales, Tearfund, Love Zimbabwe, WWF Cymru, Renewable UK Cymru, Stop Climate Chaos Cymru, NUS Wales, Sub-Saharan Advisory Panel, Welsh Centre for International Affairs, Sustainable Places Research Institute: Cardiff University, Wales Council for Voluntary Action, National Federation of Women’s Institutes – Wales, Size of Wales, Fair Trade Wales, Disability in Wales and Africa, Friends of the Earth Cymru, NUS Wales, and Cardiff University People and Planet student society.

The hustings, chaired by veteran political broadcaster Glyn Mathias, aimed to address some of the biggest long-term global issues affecting the lives of people in Wales and around the world and how the different political parties propose to address these if they were to form the next Welsh Government.

The hustings brought together representatives from the main political parties in Wales to discuss, in particular, how their party would work towards developing their vision for the implementation of the Future Generations Act in Wales.

Representatives attending:

William Powell – Welsh Liberal Democrats
Alice Hooker-Stroud – Wales Green Party
Llyr Gruffydd – Plaid Cymru
Anna McMorrin – Welsh Labour

Ross England – Welsh Conservatives
UKIP did not respond to the invitation

With the focus very much on the Future Generations Act and its implementation, this was a key hustings event from the perspective of Frack Free Wales and Egnio Cymru. My main objective was to seek out the candidates views on these group’s main objectives and try to gain their signatures for their ongoing petitions to Welsh Government. In summary:

BAN ON FRACKING IN WALES

• William Powell – LD – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Llyr Gruffydd – PC – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Ross England – Con – not in his constituency!! Refused to sign the petition
• Anna McMorrin – Lab – ‘isn’t our moratorium great?’ Refused to sign the petition

MOVING TOWARDS 100% RENEWABLES

• William Powell – LD – yes in principle – reservations over large onshore wind farms – signed the petition
• Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP – unequivocal support, including for large scale projects, and signed the petition
• Llyr Gruffydd – PC – unequivocal support and signed the petition
• Ross England – Con – yes to more renewables if cost effective and part of a mix that includes fossil fuels etc. Refused to sign the petition.
• Anna McMorrin – Lab – yes to community renewables in particular, BUT refused to sign the petition.

I’ll cover a few points in more detail below, but the basic divisions were consistent and clear:
To the left, we had Plaid Cymru, Greens and Lib Dems all largely singing from the same song sheets, but with subtle differences in emphasis, as we would all expect and indeed hope. Most importantly of all, they were all singing the songs we want and need to be hearing, if there is to be any substance to the potential for change embodied in the Future Generations Act.
To the right we also had remarkable harmony, but in terms of shallow, meaningless pap. Both Tory and Labour candidates were happy to mutter greenwash platitudes, and cite achievements that are anything but when scrutinised, but when pushed to put their names to the meaningful change embodied in our petitions, they had nothing to say but a point blank refusal.

I have to make special mention of Llyr Gruffydd’s performance. I cannot ever recall a politician saying exactly what I wanted to say, and even in very similar manner to the way I would have wished to deliver it. It was almost as if he was my mouthpiece. He completely demolished the Labour pretence that there is a moratorium on fracking in Wales . He also demolished Labour claims to have done anything meaningful to support Community Energy to date, despite McMorrin citing it as a glorious achievement of the Labour administration. Even on other issues, he took my own position regarding the M4 relief road; that something has to be done, but that the Black Route is incompatible with the essence of the Future Generations Act, but that the Blue Route could be an acceptable compromise. When I first encountered Llyr, probably about 5 years ago he did not convince me that he could handle the Sustainable Communities, Energy and Food portfolio he was given. He has consistently grown into the role and clearly worked hard to improve his understanding and knowledge base. This in turn has made him a much more relaxed and assured performer. He helps to allay my fears (a little) that Plaid Cymru do not have enough talent to form a competent government.

I also have to make a special mention of Alice Hooker-Stroud’s performance. I have to say that the more I see of her, the more impressed I become. She has the calm assurance of someone who actually understands what she is talking about (ain’t that a refreshing change after the PB years?!). She does however have a rather academic, almost school ma’am manner, that is fine with a educated audience but unlikely to engage the disaffected. I have no hesitation in saying that she would make an excellent Assembly Member. There is a small chance that all the stars may align and let her squeak in. That would be real bonus for all concerned. Sadly, the Greens have not done enough on a consistent enough basis to make it happen this time around. As good an AM that I think she could be, I don’t think she has what it takes to be the effective leader that the Greens in Wales desperately need in order to become an election force. Until they sort out their priorities for the use of their limited time and financial resources, they will continue to fritter both away on vanity projects that impress too few, rather than doing the hard graft needed to win elections.

Enough of personalities, to conclude, here are a few collected soundbites from the evening that give a little food for thought:

• RE says Tories voted against the Future Generations Act in part because they were concerned local authorities were being given extra responsibilities without the extra funding to enable them. (Hmm…… whose fault is that then, Ross?)
• Both AM and LG highlighted the important role that the Future Generations Commissioner will have in helping implement the Act. The first Commissioner took up her role on 1st February this year. What do we know about Sophie Howe? There appears to be a distinct lack of environmental strength in her background, which does not augur well, but she is also a former Labour councillor and Deputy Police Commissioner (for Labour), and seeing FoTEC’s response to her appointment as possibly ‘compromising’ the role, is not a good start!
• There was general consent that the survival of the Welsh steel industry was important, if for no other reason that steel has a crucial part to play in just about all major infrastructure projects, be if renewable energy generators, or railway lines. Attitudes towards protectionist tariffs however took typical party lines.
• The best idea that came from RE for the Tories (and therefore I doubt it is their actual policy!) is a proposed annual review of progress with carbon emissions to monitor and hopefully ensure the desirable direction of travel with these.
• AHS made a slightly unusual (in the sense of not a typical Green position) case for big scale renewable projects, citing figures I did not quite get about logarithmic efficiency gains.
• WP raised legitimate concerns over TAN8 guidance on renewable energy projects and its inadequacies. A review and rewriting of TANs (Technical Advice Notes) is something that LG also supported. The lack of any TAN appropriate for fracking activity will not be a problem, of course, if we get it banned.

So, for what it’s worth, my marks out of 10 for the candidates before us at this hustings:

1. Llyr Gruffydd – PC 9/10
2. Alice Hooker-Stroud – GP 7/10
3. William Powell – LD 5/10
4. Ross England – Con 4/10
5. Anna McMorrin – Lab 3/10
6. DNS – UKIP 0/10

Most will be aware of my long involvement with the fight against fracking and my involvement with Frack Free Wales. I am pleased to report on my growing involvement with a new and growing campaign that focuses on the other side of the energy coin. If fracking is the downside or tails, an energy self-sufficient Wales using 100% renewable sources is the upside or heads. Egnio Cymru is a campaign focussed on achieving this within 20 years.

The Egnio vision is laid out here and the roadmap to achieving is being laid out here. The website is still being written and prepared, but I am not the only one involved who is currently focussing on the more immediate priority of engaging with the politicians in the run up to the 2016 Welsh Government Elections, and will do so over the next few weeks.

In this respect, we have a “Fr-action Plan” that tackle both sides of the coin over the coming weeks – and which you can all contribute as well! If you look at the fr-action pack section you will see the three-pronged approach laid:

• Digital Eco Warrior section for those able to help out from home
• Street Teams section – for those, either independently or through linking up with others, able to spend a little time in High Streets and the like
• Elections Hustings section – for those able to get to any of the elections hustings events going on all over the place in the next few weeks.

The packs contain advice on what you can do to help us ensure that our twin goals of a Frack Free Wales and safe, secure, dependable energy future are achieved, or underway to being achieved by the next Welsh Government.

Personally, I will be focussing on hustings and other opportunities to directly petition as many candidates as possible. I will post regular reports on the main hustings I get to, and we will collate candidate responses in time to help everyone make a properly informed choice by election day. Watch this space!

In fact I’ve been to my first big set-piece hosting at Cardiff University this evening – focussing on the Future Generations Act. It was high quality event and there is a fair bit to report on – I’ll try and do just that tomorrow.