Anglesey, UKIP, the RAF and Johnny English

I know better than to question the judgement of Professor Richard Wyn Jones, election and governance guru: as far as I can tell his work is based on impeccable research. So when he tells us that UKIP “is surfing a wave of existentialist angst about England’s place in the world” it’s time to sit up and listen. His research tells us that UKIP’s supporters express the strongest sense of English identity, most dissatisfaction with the constitutional status quo in the UK (for which, read ‘devolution’), and unsurprisingly, strongest support for withdrawal from the EU. And when asked “which party best stands up for English interests?”, the answer – from a random set of the English public, remember – is as follows:

• UKIP – 21%
• Labour – 19%
• Conservative – 17%
• Lib Dems – 6%
• None of the above – 16%

So what’s this got to do with Penarth?

It turns out that you can interrogate the 2011 statistics to ward level (and beyond). And nationality is one of the variables you can probe. It’s actually not too difficult once you know which site to use. For the purposes of this post I was interested in those people who class themselves as “English only”, “English and British only” and “Other English”. And the results for Penarth wards?

• Llandochau – 8.0%
• Stanwell – 8.0%
• Cornerswell – 8.1%
• Sully – 11.3%
• St. Augustine’s – 11.4%
• Plymouth – 12.0%

There’s been plenty in the news quoting UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farrage, saying “we are getting over 25 per cent of the vote everywhere we stand across the country”. Now as we in Wales know, the country Nigel’s talking about is England. Because in elections on Anglesey UKIP polled just 7% of the votes (although this was more than the Conservatives (6%) and Lib Dems (5%) polled).

But it does raise some interesting questions about UKIP’s tactics in the next local authority elections in the Vale of Glamorgan (in 2017). Given that it’s viewed as the party that best stands up for English interests, perhaps Kevin Mahoney should be looking at the parts of the Vale with the highest proportion of people identifying themselves as English. That means another set of figures, this time for the remainder of the Vale (likewise in ascending order of English).

• Illtyd – 7.0%
• Court – 7.8%
• Buttrills – 8.2%
• Baruc – 8.3%
• Cadoc – 8.4%
• Dyfan – 8.5%
• Gibbonsdown – 8.8%
• Dinas Powys – 8.9%
• Castleland – 9.6%
• Wenvoe – 10.1%
• Peterston-super-Ely – 10.3%
• Llandow/Ewenny – 12.4%
• Rhoose – 12.7%
• St. Bride’s Major – 14.1%
• Cowbridge – 14.2%
• Llantwit Major – 17.9%
• St. Athan – 26.9%

In my previous advice to UKIP I suggested that:

In the wider Vale there are key characteristics of certain wards that UKIP could exploit. Multi-member wards with a strong Conservative showing would look most vulnerable, so they should look to target Cowbridge and Rhoose, and they could probably have a pop at Llantwit Major to test the water.

The census would suggest that I neglected St. Athan (admittedly, single-member) from the list. If I was a betting person, I’d suggest that a UKIP candidate in St. Athan could really put the cat among the pigeons. In fact, the three wards I recommended back in October 2012 plus St. Athan are far more appealing from the perspective of winning seats than anywhere in Penarth. Does that mean that in 2017 we’ll be looking at just the one UKIP candidate in Penarth, or will results in 2014, 2015 and possibly 2016 act as recruiting sergeants for UKIP in 2017?

And a final note of general interest. It appears that there’s a background level of ‘Englishness’ in the Vale, bubbling along at 7-9%. Then there are areas of elevated Englishness of 9-13% – in the Penarth area those wards are St. Augustine’s, Plymouth and Sully, and elsewhere it’s the rural Vale. The next cluster of higher Englishness is from 14-18% in St. Brides Major (which includes the plum coastal settlements Southerndown and Ogmore-by-Sea), posh/boutique Cowbridge and – for some less easily identifiable reason – Llantwit Major. And then top of the pile, with probably one of the highest proportion of English identifiers in south Wales, we have St. Athan. No prizes for guessing which RAF base is responsible for propagating a level more than 3 times the background level.

This is the same RAF of course that used to offer forces families in Anglesey special provision:

for the education of children of Service personnel based in North Wales who would otherwise be disadvantaged, academically and socially, by the bilingual teaching policy adopted within the Gwynedd and Isle of Anglesey Local Education Authorities

Given the anti-Welsh attitude of the RAF in Valley, perhaps it’s not surprising that UKIP fared as poorly on Anglesey as they did last week.

Barking on Parking

I’ve locked horns with two of our Penarth councillors on a number of occasions in relation to their obsession with increasing the tax burden on residents for no good purpose. That’s how I put it anyway – they might class it as “Reintroduce traffic wardens to deal with parking problems in Penarth” and “Fight against car parking charges for Penarth town centre”.

Back in April 2012 this was my take on the issue:

To me it makes perfect sense for the Vale to be raising revenue from people who can afford to drive into town. We know that 21.5% of Vale households have no access to a car or van, and we also know that poor households are disproportionately represented within this sector. Why poorer people should be effectively subsidising richer peoples’ use of cars is beyond me – this seems to be a fabulous example of a regressive ‘tax’ regime. It seems that Gwyn and Lis are siding with the people who are best able to kick up a stink about things that disadvantage them – the thrusting middle class – rather than those who are less able to voice their concerns – older people or people just about scraping a living who haven’t got the time or inclination to trouble politicians.

And 10 days later I said:

Could it just be possible that we could do away with both parking problems and traffic wardens by a simple system of parking charges or meters? But don’t just take my word for it, see what Professor Donald Shoup has to say on the subject.

Followed a fortnight later by:

Lis and Gwyn know that I have a much simpler suggestion to deal with the ‘problem of parking in Penarth’ which would actually raise revenue for the council. Hopefully traffic wardens as the solution to parking issues isn’t something they’ll be dogmatic about just because it’s one of their pledges, should they receive the blessing of the electorate next week.

The only argument I’ve ever heard in favour of free parking in Penarth is one voiced by local businesses – that charging for parking would kill their businesses because customers would decide to shop elsewhere. So perhaps Penarth businesspeople might be surprised to find out that in one Bristol suburb, for example, 2/3 of shoppers cycle and walk to shops and just 22% come by car. Businesses typically overestimate by double the proportion of people driving to go shopping.

But there are some deeper societal issues at stake here, aside from the usual arguments about accessibility to shops. ’Free’ parking has a cost. It wastes money, degrades urban design, increases the area of impervious surface, it makes town centres less hospitable for pedestrians – and who buys from shops if not pedestrians? – and encourages overuse of cars. And then there’s the additional costs associated with driving, for which pursuit free parking is the principal beneficiary – air pollution, traffic congestion, collisions, wasted time and wasted fuel. These are the costs that society pays for not charging for parking in Penarth town centre. Who pays for ‘free’ parking? Everyone.

Now Lis and Gwyn would probably snap my hand off if I told them I had an invention that could help  wean us from our vehicles and make Penarth’s streets less dangerous, congested, and polluted. The funny thing is, it’s not my invention. It’s been around for 80 years or more: the parking meter. And the parking meter hasn’t stood still for 80 years either. Technology has enabled parking meters to change the rates charged in order to facilitate the most efficient take-up of parking (85% occupancy seems to be the ideal). San Francisco has just such a scheme, in which parking charges vary from $0.25 to $6.00 per hour. And as you’d expect, payment can be made by mobile phone, and you can download an App that will not only tell you the going rate but will help find you a vacant slot. Meanwhile Oklahoma City has come up with a novel idea it calls “Pay and Display”, although perhaps the novelty here is that the units are solar powered.

Charging for parking spaces can increase revenue in businesses. It might seem counter-intuitive – after all, people could just as easily vote with their feet – sorry, tyres – and pop over to Barry, Cowbridge or Cardiff to do their shopping, where they can find plenty of free parking. But over the pond in Seattle, restaurants’ takings and profits both increased when car parking charges were extended from 6pm to 8pm. This finding is hardly surprising if you look at the history of parking meters. When they were first installed, in Oklahoma City, shops fronting parking meters reported increased sales, and streets without them begged the city authorities to install them.

And the rationale? When you charge people to park cars in busy areas, you get a higher turn-over of vehicles, meaning more potential customers. And in quieter areas, lower parking rates can attract additional patronage. The idea is that parking spaces in the town centre should be used by people doing business there, going shopping and eating in local cafes and restaurants, not by workers or other long-term parkers. Short-term parkers are less sensitive to the price of parking than to the length of time it takes for them to find a space.

I don’t know one person who doesn’t think that parking in Penarth is a problem, especially at busy times. But it’s not a problem of lack of spaces, it’s a problem of insufficient turnover. Turnover that can be improved by charging for parking. It’s well worth checking out the experience of Old Pasadena in the USA to see the difference that can be made to civic space by charging for parking. Clearly there are three areas of Penarth that would benefit from a car park charging arrangement: Penarth Station car park, the pier, and the town centre (Glebe Street, Windsor Road and Ludlow Street past the Royal Mail depot).

Finally, I can’t be the only one to have noticed Sustrans Cymru’s moving campaign “Where have all the children gone?“. Their excellent 4-minute video is most definitely worth watching. In a Penarth whose streets are absolutely dominated by cars and traffic, I challenge any of you to not regret the passing of the possibility of playing in the street.

So it’s time for Gwyn and Lis to recognise that there’s no such thing as free parking. Parking without incurring a charge has a cost to all of us. Society pays it, and people driving their cars are free-riders on the backs of the rest of us. If our local councillors are truly concerned about social justice and equality, they’ll run the traffic warden scheme for a year as a pilot that enables them to tick the manifesto box and then get Vale officials to examine the case for parking charges in town. And I haven’t even mentioned that parking meters actually generate revenue for the council, revenue that could be put towards, for example, installing free wi-fi throughout Penarth town centre, making it the first fully wifi-capable town in Wales. Or towards making sure that the street furniture is spick and span, the streets litter free always and the paving of the highest quality. The trick is to spend the money where it’s generated. And let’s bear in mind that everyone would benefit from these public improvement measures, so there’s a good chance the electorate might smile on it too.

I look forward Gwyn and Lis’ Damascene conversion.

Electoral Strategy for Labour 2017

In many ways this is the easiest electoral strategy of the lot. Man the barricades and fight like dogs! All the winnable seats in Penarth have already been won by Labour in Penarth, so it’s simply a case of keeping hold of them.

But hold on – since when has my ambition for any political party been so limited?! And most importantly, how about the irrelevance effect. That is, the total ignorance of Welsh elections (particularly local authority elections) by the UK media that I referred to extensively here.

So let’s start off by examining once again the issue of broadcasting and how it affects elections in Wales.

The fate of members in the Vale is entirely bound up in the relative popularity of [the Labour and Conservative] parties in Westminster…

Does that make depressing reading? I think so. It means that in Penarth, no matter how hard you try to be a good councillor, the effort is irrelevant. All that counts – at least, for candidates from the Labour and Conservative parties – is how well your party is faring at Westminster. What a fickle bunch we are!

Part of the reason for this is that local elections in Wales are viewed with total irrelevance by the British (read English) media. And since it’s from the British media that most people in Wales derive their news, it’s hardly surprising that turnout in local elections here is so abysmal (39% in 2012). So what does that mean for councillors? The answer to that question depends on whether you’re a ‘good’ councillor or a ‘bad’ one.

So as with the Conservatives, those ‘good’ Labour councillors should be casting one eye forwards to 2017 and influencing their party to push for devolution of broadcasting. And parties committed to ‘good’ governance – at least insofar as it relates to broadcasting and the influence of broadcast media on the day-to-day lives of people in Wales – should likewise be demanding devolution of broadcasting.

It just so happens that we can now see exactly what the various parties in Wales think about devolving broadcasting, because the responses to the Silk Commission have just been published.

The Labour Party didn’t make any representation to the Silk Commission. Some commentators have suggested that this failure was more to do with the horrific internal schisms in that party than because Labour could theoretically dress the Welsh Government’s response up as their own.  But a little bird also tells me that the Conservative Party is badly riven by similar pressures, with the Welsh Conservative Party by and large wanting more powers for Wales and the UK Conservative Party – top dog always – quashing any hope that the official Conservative submission would represent the desires of the Welsh Conservatives. Confused? Me too.

But let’s give Labour the benefit of the doubt and assume that the Welsh Government submission can be taken to be representative of the Labour Party (which would of course be a misuse of public funds – but never mind). This is the full extent of Labour’s thinking on broadcasting:

Culture should remain central to the Assembly’s legislative competence, but the Welsh Government does not agree with those who argue that, within this field, Broadcasting should now be devolved. Television and radio now form just one element of a much wider range of platforms for digital communications. In a rapidly evolving digital environment we do not believe that it would be sensible now to attempt to devolve responsibility for broadcasting or certain elements of broadcasting. The vital role that broadcasting institutions play in creating a common
cultural citizenship for people across the UK would not be strengthened by any attempt to divide responsibility for broadcasting institutions among its constituent parts. However, we acknowledge that the broadcasting landscape is changing
rapidly. There is no guarantee that the structures currently in place will remain in the future, and the Welsh Government will respond according to developments. We do however believe that this vital UK role can in the meantime be reinforced by measures aimed at strengthening the particular contribution which the broadcasters make in each of those constituent parts. We also believe that it is essential to improve the accountability of UK broadcasting institutions to the National Assembly and to Welsh viewers and listeners. This improved accountability can best be
delivered by strengthening the position of Welsh Ministers with regard to appointments made to the regulatory bodies governing broadcasting in Wales. We make specific proposals about this below.

Others have already remarked on the appropriateness – or otherwise – of the purpose of national broadcasting being “the creation of a common cultural citizenship” for the UK. And there’s an element of cognitive dissonance here too. If a common cultural citizenship is so important, why would you want to strengthen the contribution that broadcasters make in the constituent parts of the UK? What does that even mean?

But the truly disappointing element is the belief that the “best” way to ensure that broadcasters are fully accountable to Welsh viewers and listeners is to shove a few  Welsh appointees onto the bodies regulating broadcasting. Hands up who thinks that this – even if it were granted – would result in full coverage of local elections in Wales by UK broadcasters?

So how about the Conservatives? How strong is their commitment to the development of local democracy in Wales? 

Well, the Welsh Conservative Party’s hefty submission weighs in at a full 2 pages and doesn’t mention broadcasting. But more interesting is the “Welsh Conservative Group” (which means their Assembly Members). This is what they say about broadcasting:

Key political decisions in relation to broadcasting in Wales continue to be made at a UK level by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). However, public service broadcasters
have an obligation to meet certain requirements in relation to output, much of which relates to competencies which are already devolved (such as the Welsh language, education and the
economy). The Group feels this provides an anomaly which the Commission might address as part of this Review.

It is the Group’s belief that broadcasters should be accountable to the Assembly for their work in these devolved areas. To this end, we are supportive of a mechanism for joint accountability
to both the Assembly and the UK Parliament. The principle of joint responsibility is in existence already in relation to cross-border issues, so the Group deem this a practical approach.

The Group is mindful of the strength of arguments which exist against devolving broadcasting. We feel our suggestion addresses an anomaly regarding accountability, whilst building a body of evidence, based on practical experience, which can inform the debate on whether further devolution of broadcasting is valuable.

My reading of that is that the proposal for ‘joint accountability’ is stronger than Labour’s pleading for an appointment here or there. And there’s also a stronger sense that broadcasting could be devolved in the future, depending on the evidence. Not that basing devolution on evidence has necessarily been the Conservatives’ strong point.

For completeness let’s look at Plaid’s submission:

Broadcasting is of crucial economic and cultural importance. However, responsibility is centralised at Westminster. This has created a democratic deficit between the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh media. We believe that this deficit can best be remedied by the full devolution of broadcasting to the National Assembly for Wales. [Further details follow].

And here’s what the Lib Dems have to say:

Given the traditional UK-wide remit of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, current financial arrangements for BBC Wales and S4C, and the inability to retain broadcast signals within Wales, we do not support the complete devolution of broadcasting to Wales.

We would prefer to see…

A single ITV licence to be created which covers all of Wales and no other area and the Welsh government to be involved in licensing decisions.

Community Radio licensing to be devolved to Wales, given that
these are predominantly local in nature and that the Welsh
government has already established a Community Radio Fund.

Perhaps it doesn’t need stating that the future of devolution in Wales is irrelevant to UKIP and the Greens.

As you’d expect, given the thought process I’ve gone through on our local elections, I’m with Plaid on this one. The Liberal Democrats have a more devolutionist stance than the the Conservatives, while the Labour Party is moving almost nowhere on this issue. Is that an indication of the importance that the parties attach to local elections? Impossible, given that local councillors are the bedrock of the Labour Party. Is it an indication of the desire (or lack of) to reward ‘good’ councillors and reveal the shirkers? You decide.

I said at the start that I’m going to be ambitious for Labour and assess how they can win all the Penarth/Sully seats. Top of the list needs to be putting up a full slate of candidates. I was as surprised as anyone that they only managed to put up one candidate in Sully last time round.

And how about a bit of campaigning and door-knocking in the posher parts of town (do send your electoral material to penartharbyd[a]gmail.com to highlight your activity)? With 6 councillors already being paid by the good burghers of the Vale to do their business in and around town, surely asking them to knock on a few doors once a fortnight isn’t beyond the pale? After all, Labour can’t have conceded that there are genuine no-go areas in Penarth?

An Anti-Welsh Diatribe

I don’t ordinarily go in for this sort of article. But this story has relevance for two reasons. Firstly, it relates to Natural Resources Wales, which is a topic I’ve covered before. Secondly, there’s a juicy element of hypocrisy, which I like to root out wherever it rears its mendacious snout. It happened across my desk on St. David’s Day, too, and I think that the big man himself would be happy for me to raise this issue. So it’s thanks to GC for alerting me to this story and passing on the details.

Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is currently consulting on a Welsh Language Scheme. And someone I’ll call BL has made a number of assertions in her response to the consultation:

Assertion 1: The proposed Welsh Language Scheme discriminates against the English language.

Firstly, the paper states two guiding principles that I believe are unbalanced:

“• In Wales, the Welsh language should be treated no less favourably than the English language

• Persons in Wales should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so”.

While I agree with both of these principles, it is clear that you have omitted the same principles that would balance Welsh with English. Principles such as: ‘In Wales, the English language should be treated no less favourably than the Welsh language’, or ‘Persons in Wales should be able to live their lives through the medium of the English language if they choose to do so’. Alternatively, ‘In Wales, the Welsh and English language should be treated equally’. Even though you are supposed to be treating them equally according to the Welsh Language Act (1993), this oversight clearly fails to establish equality of language, and it is obvious by these two principles that the Welsh language is being favoured and English discriminated against.

The clue’s in the title. This is a Welsh Language Scheme. Not an English Language Scheme. In fact, if BL wants to get really excited, she should pick a fight with the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. Because that piece of legislation gave Welsh “official status in Wales”. But not English.

Assertion 2: Staff who are not bilingual would be “devalued” and “discriminated against” under the terms of the proposed scheme.

Secondly, your paper states that Welsh will be encouraged even for those not requiring it for their post:

“Where fluency in Welsh is not essential for a particular post, Natural Resources Wales will follow a proactive policy of encouraging staff to learn and use Welsh in order to promote a bilingual ethos throughout the organisation”.

It is clear again, that Welsh is being promoted even for staff that are not required to speak fluent Welsh for their job. While I can understand a bilingual ethos being desirable between post-holders that are required to speak Welsh in their work, staff should not be devalued when they do not require Welsh in their post and choose not to learn Welsh in their spare time. Otherwise, again, being able to live life through the medium of English would be discriminated against.

BL obviously feels that it is not desirable for use of Welsh to be promoted “even for staff that are not required to speak fluent Welsh for their job”. Whatever. But I can’t determine in which way staff would be “devalued” or “discriminated against” for not speaking Welsh. And BL doesn’t provide us with any evidence that that could happen – by design or default – through the proposed scheme.

Assertion 3: The scheme will discriminate against “English speaking Britons”.

Thirdly, the paper states that increasing numbers of Welsh speakers must be employed among senior staff:

“Natural Resources Wales will also seek to ensure an increasing proportion of Welsh speakers among its senior managers and team leaders, with the aim of enabling the public, other organisations and Natural Resources Wales staff to communicate with senior management and team leaders through the medium of Welsh or English according to their choice.”

While it is crucial for Welsh-speaking public and professionals to have the option of communicating in Welsh, with some jobs entailing Welsh fluency as essential criteria, it is not an equal language policy to be prioritizing ‘an increasing proportion’ of Welsh speakers. A more balanced approach would entail staff numbers that reflect the language demographic in Wales, with sufficient staff on hand to speak Welsh, rather than continually and exclusively increasing bilingual staff only. This would significantly reduce the pool of applicants and therefore has the potential to lessen the expertise or ability of the successful applicant to do a scientific / management job well. This approach will clearly discriminate against English speaking Britons, greatly reducing the choice of potential staff for posts at NRW, and make it harder for experts in the field to gain work in Wales.

Firstly I should say that all bilinguals speak English too. As do many people from all over the world who are permitted to work in Wales. But BL’s making a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of communication. Bilinguals are better equipped to work in Wales than monolinguals. Full stop. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons they get an 8-10% premium on their earnings. Because any time the media or some conference or meeting wants a comment they can do it in either language. And any time there’s a discussion to be had with people from any part of Wales whose preferred language is Welsh, the bilingual isn’t busily putting her conversation partner to an inconvenience like the monolingual.

BL thinks it’s ok to palm someone off on the Welsh language audience who isn’t an expert or hasn’t got the experience to discuss a matter (“sufficient staff on hand to speak Welsh”). But that approach  erodes confidence in the ability of an organisation to do a decent job because you end up with non-specialists and media officers communicating with the outside world. Effectively, a second-class service for the bilingual population.

Assertion 4: The scheme discriminates against non-bilingual graduates.

Lastly, the paper states that courses will become available for Welsh-speaking environmental graduates:

“It can be difficult to recruit suitably qualified Welsh speaking staff into some posts, particularly scientific posts. Natural Resources Wales will address this in several proactive ways by:-

• contributing to the AmNawdd scheme for sponsoring Welsh speaking students following environment-related courses in higher education, and providing work placements for the students taking part in the scheme

• playing a lead role in the Welsh Language Environmental Partnership, which draws together representatives from across the environmental, higher education and voluntary sectors

• providing trainee posts for Welsh speaking graduates to increase their opportunity to start a career in the environment.”

This policy would even make it harder for many Welsh graduates, as most Welsh graduates don’t speak Welsh. In order to treat the Welsh and English language equally, courses and trainee posts should be available to both Welsh and English speakers by merit of their career goals and attainments. To prioritise or favour Welsh-speaking graduates over English-speaking by ‘providing trainee posts for Welsh speaking graduates’ is to discriminate and to devalue academic and professional ability, passion and hard work. If work placements are available in the environment sector they should be available to English-speaking students as much as Welsh-speaking students, to avoid discrimination, and to establish language equality.

BL’s already accepted the business case for bilingual jobs: “While it is crucial for Welsh-speaking public and professionals to have the option of communicating in Welsh, with some jobs entailing Welsh fluency as essential criteria…”. And NRW have told us that “It can be difficult to recruit suitably qualified Welsh speaking staff into some posts, particularly scientific posts”. So for some jobs for which bilingualism is essential, recruitment is a problem. That seems to me to be a fair basis for providing a leg up to bilingual graduates. Say an organisation had a problem attracting staff with certain in-demand skills. It might provide a “market factor” pay bonus. I have it on reliable information that the Environment Agency does just this for certain jobs that it finds difficulty competing with the private sector for, like lawyers and accountants. It’s a similar situation with a different metric. If it’s difficult to recruit someone with essential skills, then an organisation needs to find a way to improve its chances of getting those skills. That’s what NRW appears to desire through this scheme. 

BL finishes off by requesting to remain anonymous in the consultation process. Whooah! Did I just say anonymous? So how on earth did I get hold of BL’s submission?

It turns out that BL sent her submission round the houses, initially to 29 of her contacts, with the following message:

If you are interested in voicing your opinion on this I have pasted my email to them below so that you can get a quick idea of the some of the problems I can see with the policy. If you agree with my points, perhaps you would like to email a brief statement summarising, or your own interpretation. Even a short statement would be worthwhile… all you need to do is email to the following address… Please forward this to anyone who you think might be interested (BL’s emphasis)

And at least one of those contacts sent it to a distribution list for Marinet - a mailing list with hundreds and hundreds of people on it.

So we end up with a self-publicist chastising NRW for their Welsh language policy, while trying to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. BL, here’s a tip for you. If you want to remain anonymous, try keeping things to yourself.

So who is BL? And could it be that BL’s tried to get jobs in the environment sector and failed? Could it be that she’s been passed over for promotion because of a lack of skills?

And could it be that one of the skills she could acquire that might enhance her prospects of employment in Wales would be Welsh language competence?

Electoral Strategy for Conservatives 2017

My word, it’s been a while since I focused on the local authority elections! What with the excitement of the Penarth and Cardiff South by-election, some other election and the census, the poor Conservative and Labour parties must have thought I’d clean forgotten about them. Not at all. It’s about time they benefited from the same level of incisive electoral advice I’ve already given the Greens, Lib Dems, Plaid, Independents and UKIP.

The Conservatives took a beating in the 2012 local authority election. Prior to the election they held 8 of the Penarth/Sully seats, with Labour on the remaining 2. And after the election, the only 2 seats they kept hold of were the 2 Plymouth seats that I’ve previously described thus:

Plymouth will keep its two Conservative councillors forever.

Why did they take such a hammering?

I’ve become convinced that local elections in Wales are as closely related to the abilities and competence of councillors as they are to the fortunes of the Norwegian cheese industry. That is, not related at all. Or at least, that’s the case in authorities (such as the Vale) where the battle is principally between Labour and Conservative.

The fate of members in the Vale is entirely bound up in the relative popularity of those two parties in Westminster.

What’s that you say? You want proof?

• Poll May 2004 – Labour 35%, Conservative 34%. June election Penarth + Sully seats Labour 5 Conservative 5. Vale seats Labour 16 Conservative 20.
• Poll April 2008 – Labour 31%, Conservative 40%. May election Penarth + Sully Labour 2 Conservative 8. Vale Labour 13 Conservative 25.
• Poll April 2012 – Labour 41%, Conservative 32%. May election Penarth + Sully Labour 6 Conservative 2. Vale Labour 22 Conservative 11.

So when the two big parties are evens in the polls, the seats are split evenly. A 9% lead for either party in the UK polls spells catastrophe for their opponents. Incidentally I stand to be proved wrong, but I’m assuming that in the 1996 and 2000 elections the results were 8 seats for Labour both times, with 2 for the Conservatives (if anyone can send me the details that I haven’t been able to find online I’d be very grateful).

Does that make depressing reading? I think so. It means that in Penarth, no matter how hard you try to be a good councillor, the effort is irrelevant. All that counts – at least, for candidates from the Labour and Conservative parties – is how well your party is faring at Westminster. What a fickle bunch we are!

Part of the reason for this is that local elections in Wales are viewed with total irrelevance by the British (read English) media. And since it’s from the British media that most people in Wales derive their news, it’s hardly surprising that turnout in local elections here is so abysmal (39% in 2012). So what does that mean for councillors? The answer to that question depends on whether you’re a ‘good’ councillor or a ‘bad’ one.

If you’re a good councillor (Conservative or Labour) you’ll want your record of hard work and success to be rewarded with electoral victory. But how can you achieve that if your fate is exclusively tied to that of your mother party? The answer lies in where the editorial decisions are taken for the news that most people receive. Currently those decisions are taken in London. But they could be taken in Cardiff, which would presumably mean a much greater focus on local elections in Wales, if broadcasting were devolved. So the sensible strategy would be for good councillors to push within their respective parties for devolution of broadcasting to Wales.

But let’s look at this from the perspective of a bad councillor. You get paid handsomely for doing next to nothing. The last thing you want is to actually be accountable to the electorate. In that case the very best tactic for you is to ensure broadcasting remains the preserve of London. That gives you a 50:50 chance of being elected at any one election, which is surely better than a close to 0% chance if people are better informed as a result of increased press and media scrutiny.

And if you’re a victim of circumstance – or voter, as some people like to call us – then have a good think about which of these two options serves your interests best.

There’s not a tremendous amount I can add to supplement this electoral strategy. The Conservatives were the only party to run a full slate of candidates in Penarth so they can’t do any more on that front. Perhaps they might be well advised to get candidates from within the wards they’re standing – after all this little incident didn’t go down too well last election:

I’ll save my most severe opprobrium for the incumbent Cornerswell councillors. What an unconscionable dereliction of your democratic duty to defend your constituents. I suppose it’s difficult for someone living with the fresh Bristol Channel breeze on their face to empathise with people choking on car fumes.

They certainly need to beef up their number of female candidates.

And while I’m thinking of it, the Conservatives would benefit from ensuring that each and every one of their electoral missives is printed in south Wales, if not the Vale itself. After all, we wouldn’t want any future embarrassing posts like this or this, would we?

Torfaen Syndrome

I mentioned in my last post that people in the Vale had been suffering from Torfaen Syndrome. I think it’s worth exploring this issue in a little more depth.

My definition of Torfaen Syndrome is the propensity for parents of children attending non-Welsh medium schools to assume that because their children are attending schools in Wales they are necessarily going to be bilingual. This manifested itself particularly during the 2001 census (41.5% of children aged 3-15 in Torfaen were recorded as having some level of Welsh language competence (page 64 of this report)), and part of the reason for the apparent decline in bilingualism in Wales in the intervening decade is the recognition that a non-Welsh language education does not produce bilingual citizens. Even in Torfaen. Not that this characteristic is confined to Torfaen alone – Blaenau Gwent’s equivalent figures in 2001 were 34.9%, Newport reported 36.4% and Monmouthshire rated 36.0%. The Vale of Glamorgan was positively restrained in 2001, stating that just 29.4% of children were bilingual.

So what happened in 2011?

Unfortunately I need to use a slightly different set of figures in order to make an exact comparison. Blame the statistics people, not me. But here are the results for local authorities in south east Wales – in each case, the percentage of children aged 5-15 speaking Welsh in 2001 is listed first, then 2011:

• Bridgend:                              27.6%,  27.1%
• Vale of Glamorgan: 32.5%, 32.0%
• Cardiff:                                  27.9%,  29.2%
• Rhondda Cynon Taf:       31.5%,  32.7%
• Merthyr Tudful:                26.6%,  24.5%
• Caerphilly:                           36.4%,  36.3%
• Blaenau Gwent:                  38.8%,  34.0%
• Torfaen:                                46.6%, 40.3%
• Monmouthshire:               40.6%, 42.0%
• Newport:                              41.3%,  38.6%

Now you know why it’s called Torfaen Syndrome!

I referred in my last post to the proportion of children receiving Welsh language education in the Vale. At primary level it’s 13% and at secondary level 9% (the difference is largely a result of increased capacity at primary level feeding through into a growing secondary school).

I’ll accept that perhaps 1% of children attending English-medium education will end up bilingual. Perhaps I’m being a little generous, but some of my acquaintances are bilingual having received education through English in Wales. But we’re still left with the chasm of reporting between a maximum 15% of children realistically being bilingual and the reported level (by parents) of 32%.

What impact does this have on the Vale statistics? Well, the total number of children in the age category 5-15 was 16,499 at the census date. So we need to subtract 17%  (32%-15%) of this total (2,805) from the Vale’s population of bilinguals (13,189). Which leaves 10,384, or 8.5% of the 122,018 population. That’s a significant drop. Am I worried about the accuracy of the census? A little, but then what holds for the Vale presumably holds for all authorities in the grip of Torfaen Syndrome, so the relative place of the Vale (16th in Wales) is probably reasonably sound.

Perhaps one thing revealed by the census is  the desire among parents in Wales for their children to speak Welsh. Little do they recognise that that desire will  only become realised if they send their children to Welsh medium schools.

On this, I’m more than a little surprised by the 2009 Estyn report for Ysgol Pen-y-Garth, which suggests that:

About 29% of the pupils come from homes where Welsh is the main language

Given that Welsh speaking skills are at their highest in Stanwell ward of Penarth, with 11.8% (less if we accept the existence of Torfaen Syndrome), unless bilinguals are reproducing at more than double the rate of monolinguals, something is amiss. But as to the Welsh medium system’s ability to churn out bilinguals, as the latest (2009) Estyn report for Ysgol Bro Morgannwg points out:

All pupils speak Welsh as a first language or to an equivalent standard within the school.

Despite the fact that just 9% of pupils come from Welsh-speaking homes.

So here’s a message for parents, and future parents, who could be seized by Torfaen Syndrome. You can hope that the English-medium education system will work miracles. Your chances of one of your children ending up bilingual are substantially less than your chances of having 6 children all of the same gender.

The only way to guarantee bilingual children is for them to receive Welsh language education.

Where Can I Find Bilinguals?

There’s been a fair amount in the news recently about the number of communities in Wales where the proportion of bilinguals is >70%, >50% and so on. But I’ve been thinking about these figures. Why are 70% and 50% such important figures?

Then it struck me.

If you assume that conversations between individuals take place at random, then 70% takes on tremendous significance. Because it’s the level of community language competence at which you’d expect the number of Welsh-language conversations in the street to dip below half. How can that be?, I hear you ask.

So 70% of the population is bilingual, and 30% is monoglot English speakers. The proportion of conversations in this hypothetical community is as follows:

• 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49 (49%) between two bilinguals – which for the most part means they will speak Welsh to one another.
• 0.7 x 0.3 = 0.21 (21%) between a bilingual and a monoglot (conversation in English)
• 0.3 x 0.7 = 0.21 (21%) between a monoglot and a bilingual (conversation in English)
• 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09 (9%) between two monoglots – conversation in English

This shows the power of deferring to English as the common language. People have commented for donkeys’ years that the willingness of bilinguals to defer to English has been (at least partly) responsible for in-migrants not bothering to learn Welsh. Perhaps here’s a statistical demonstration of why that might be detrimental to bilingualism in a community – because all of a sudden more than half the conversations in an overwhelmingly bilingual community are in English.

As it happens, conversations don’t just happen at random. According to bilingual friends of mine, it’s common for bilinguals to tend to preferentially socialise with other bilinguals – and to do so through the medium of Welsh. The scale of that preference varies according to the level of bilingualism in a community, so I’m told. But I can’t help thinking there’s something in this simple statistical model that should ring warning bells in communities in the west and north.

And the significance of 50%? Well, this is a bit easier. Clearly if you’re one of the 50% who is bilingual then where you live in a community of majority bilinguals it makes sense for you to start conversations with unfamiliar people in Welsh. As soon as it dips below 50% then the hassle of more often than not being told that the recipient doesn’t speak Welsh means that you’re unlikely to bother starting conversations in Welsh. Which leads to Welsh not being heard on the streets and an increase in the perception that it’s not a community language. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the apparent failure of the (former) Welsh Language Board’s “Start all conversations in Welsh” campaign.

But back to the Vale. Ward-level results have been published for Welsh language competence. So let’s delve into the data…

• Llandow/Ewenni – skills 23.6% - speak 14.8%
• Baruc – skills in Welsh 19.8% – can speak Welsh 13.4%
• Wenvoe – skills 18.6% – speak 13.3%
• Peterston-super-Ely – skills 18.8% – speak 12.6%
• Cowbridge – skills 19.1% – speak 11.9%
• Stanwell – skills 17.4% – speak 11.8%
• Buttrills – skills 17.0% – speak 11.8%
• Plymouth – skills 16.6% – speak 11.4%
• Illtyd – skills 16.4% – speak 11.1%
• Cornerswell – skills 17.0% – speak 11.0%
• Dyfan – skills 16.2% – speak 10.9%
• Cadog – skills 15.1% – speak 10.9%
• St. Augustine’s – skills 16.8% – speak 10.8%
• Court – skills 15.3% – speak 10.7%
• Rhoose – skills 15.8% – speak 10.5%
• St. Bride’s Major – skills 18.0% – speak 10.4%
• Dinas Powys – skills 15.2% – speak 10.0%
• Gibbonsdown – skills 14.2% – speak 9.7%
• Llantwit Major – skills 15.2% – speak 9.6%
• Castleland – skills 14.0% – speak 9.4%
• Sully – skills 13.6% – speak 8.7%
• Llandochau* – skills 14.1% – speak 8.4%
• St. Athan – skills 12.8% – speak 8.0%

*I will call Llandochau by its proper name henceforth (reasoning by Dic Mortimer)

So for the many people who are thinking of moving to the Vale (4,400 annually) but who want to live in as Welsh-language a community as possible, the answer appears clear. In Llandow/Ewenni ward in rural western Vale a shade under one in four people has Welsh-language skills, and more than one in seven people speaks Welsh. The chance of a random conversation in the street being bilingual? Slightly greater than 2% in Llandow/Ewenni – although of course for people who are bilingual it’ll be 14.8%.

But if someone is dead set on Penarth and wants to find fellow bilinguals, their preference should be Stanwell where 11.8% of people are bilingual. Throughout Penarth town the proportion of bilinguals is greater than 10%, although it’s disappointing to see Sully and Llandochau in single figures, scrabbling around for last place with St. Athan.

Given that the average proportion of bilinguals in the Vale is 10.8%, it’s nice to see that Penarth town is either at or above that figure. Why do I consider that a good thing? Because even if the chance of random conversations in the street being in Welsh is little above 1%, it adds to the recognition that we live in a country blessed with two languages.

Finally, it’s worth the recap that far and away the highest proportion of bilinguals is in our young people. So while just 4.2% of people aged 75-79 in the Vale are bilingual, that figure is more than eight times higher among the 10-14 cohort (35%). This figure is surprisingly high given that 13% of Vale children are in Welsh medium primary schools, and 9% in Ysgol Bro Morgannwg. It seems likely that parents in the Vale are suffering from Torfaen syndrome.

And a final note of disappointment that the Welsh Government has decided to pull all funding from Menter y Fro today.

This post has been modified to rectify my error that indicated Baruc to have the highest proportion of bilinguals. My thanks to IJ for pointing out this error.