Tweeting

Stephen Fry that arbiter of all things tasteful and the nations leading guide to IT etiquette has now left Twitter denouncing it as base. No longer will the world have the benefit of his 48 character erudition, apparently someone took issue with one of his posts. It was such a relief to discover that Twitter is now passé. I would have hated to have joined and discover that it was just so last week. Oh joy, oh bliss. So now I can mock the Council twitterati as yesterday's men and women.

Mr Forgetful

So let's see, this damned Council meeting and the deleted blogs.

The blogs included reference to the Estyn Inspection. I suggested that the generally good outcome was a bit of a surprise to the LEA as they were expecting just the opposite and that the outcome may have had a lot to do with the charabanc of advisors who allegedly arrived from the WLGA (a coachload of coaches) to school staff in how to pass the inspection. It wasn't all good news as the Inspectors did report that Swansea was the amongst the worst authorities for young people leaving education with no qualifications at all. (see my earlier posts about SHYP).

I referred to the debate on this item showing the incompetence and partiality of the Presiding Officer, Cllr Wendy Fitzgerald. That her lack of any detectable sense of humour or knowledge of the rules of debate (whether ours or anybody's. A Christmas present note to her family – a second-hand copy of Citrine would be very welcome) led to a cranking up of the temperature in the Chamber and simple matters turning into acrimonious major tests of will. This is not helped by Cllr F unwillingness to accept advice from officers on the few occasions that she is offered any. Although I get my share the bulk of the opprobrium descends on Rene Kinzett. The fatuous debate on his supplementary question to the Estyn Inspectors was a case in point. She prevented him, he argued and this went on for some minutes – when she gave in and allowed his question – as she should have done at the beginning. Later on in the meeting she was giving advice to councillors on when and why they should 'stand', i.e. intervene in a debate and when to put up their hands (she failed to see the irony in her offering anyone advice on procedure). However, she omitted one and I stood up, helpfully intended, to advise on this. I was met with an exasperated sigh and the most negative body language. She didn't want to let me proceed, there was some argy-bargy and the Monitoring Officer (after being drawn to the correct part of the Constitution advised by one of his staff) finally advised that I was correct. All utterly pointless.

The entries made reference to Cllr Peter May's abject performance in public & members questions when he seemed unable to answer anything without a prompt from the officers sitting behind him. And then there was the challenge by a member of the public who had the temerity to remind Cllr May of the inconsistency in his answers compared to something that he had said at some previous meeting. Ouch! Who would expect someone to remember and quote it at you in public. Ouch again!

I also described the ridiculous situation where the Council was allowed by the Monitoring Officer to vote on going straight to a vote on complicated changes to the procedures for the Pensions Panel without a presentation on the changes, despite the fact that the item was deferred from the previous Council meeting for precisely that reason. And then after the vote the Monitoring Officer said that we had to have the presentation after all! You couldn't make this stuff up. Well you wouldn't want to. It's all very wearing.

Later on the report on a radical and totally undemocratic change to the way Notices of Motion were to be dealt with was withdrawn before debate for further work. I wondered who had signed it off in the first place, if it was so flawed. (It's coming back to the Constitution Working Group this week – but there doesn't seem be any major changes. I have no idea what's going on). The changes mean that the Presiding Officer (the aforementioned Cllr Fitzgerald) would have the power to prevent any motion getting on the Agenda – she can currently kick them into the long grass by referring them to an Overview Committee which are run by her own side. The new rules would mean that embarrassing or other unwanted motions could be prevented from ever seeing the light of day. This from an Administration allegedly committed to – what was it – "Openness, transparency & democracy".

I also referred to Labour's motion on the redundancy of the Arts Co-ordinator in the Education Department and that the response to this revealed that it seemed little thought had been given to how the outstanding work that she had done in involving children (and schools) in the arts, especially from areas of deprivation, was to be continued. There have been howls of protest at this small-minded redundancy. The Administration offered to look at it again when they considered the budget for next year. It's pathetic really.

That's the best I've got. Sorry. It's not as good as the originals – but there we are. I'll try to not let it happen again.

Rhodri’s boots

I am probably going to regret the next post but I cannot really ignore the contest within the party at the minute – what contest? – you know the political X factor, who's going to become the new First Minister? (If I knew more about the X factor I could probably suggest various contestants for the candidates for this race – but I don't so I can't. Politicians always make pratts of themselves when they try to appropriate popular culture. I remember Harold Wilson claiming the Beatles (he represented Huyton and that's near but not in Liverpool – you can't become a Scouser that easy – I'll bet he never knew the words of a single song, like TB claimed he liked heavy metal). So I won't try. As I've got older this means that I become more and more like a High Court judge querulously asking who this or that is. Mind you that isn't new – my sporting credibility never really recovered from having to have explained who Gareth Edwards was! I was being shown photos by his uncle George Edwards (clue 1), of him and 'Gareth' at the Arms Park (clue 2), at Hamden (clue 3) and in Paris (clue 4). I said nothing at the time, but after, I asked my colleague – "Who's Gareth?" – and was met by a dumbfounded silence. In my defence I plead that although I did play rugby it was in England and I was never a spectator, but!!!!! Anyway.....

I listened to Edwina Hart on Kevin's phone-in this morning. She cannot be claimed to be the greatest media performer in the Party – I don't think she claims this herself – but the lack of surface polish allows her transparent honesty to shine through. Even an old cynic like me can admire a politician who actually seeks to engage with the question, she also has that 'common touch' that makes Rhodri so good face-to-face. As a blunt Northerner I appreciate directness – but I can imagine that it's not always popular with civil servants – particularly ones not used to being held to account. I'll bet, to use Thomas Beecham's expression about Sadlers Wells ballet, that she makes them jump about a bit. And they probably need the exercise.

Erm...in suggesting that Edwina has no surface polish I wish to make it clear that I do not refer to her appearance as she is always nothing less than immaculate. Well, I guess she wouldn't have appreciated a photo at a recent early morning picket line – but there were extenuating circumstances, it being some unconscionable time of the morning!

Edwina & Carwyn Jones are both extremely bright. The difference between them being 'down to earth' Edwina and the professional politician of Carwyn. I read somewhere that the media prefer Carwyn Jones' smooth presentation – and there is no doubt he is very good at it – that he is a sort of Welsh Tony Blair! (Do we need another one of them?) I am sure that Carwyn must be hating that comparison, because Tony Blair he aint – and that's a sincere compliment! He clearly has other qualities that he brings to 'job', I've known him for some years, and we spent some time together in various selection meetings in the run up to the first Assembly elections – but he was never going to do as well locally and didn't expect to.

The Labour Group and the Swansea constituency both unanimously backed Edwina in the contest. Perhaps neither of these are surprising, you should certainly be blowing your own local trumpet – but this being the Labour Party one can take nothing for granted! The Labour Group had a very wide debate on the candidates, in arriving at their decision members were influenced not just by their local experience of her (as they would be), but her personal qualities and experience and delivery in Wales, especially in Local Government.

We have our local hustings meeting tomorrow when we will be meeting all three candidates and hear more about their policies. I, of course, as the Group Leader will have to work with whoever is elected so (standard caveat) I am keeping my own council on where my vote will be going and nothing should be deduced from the foregoing.

The Brilliant Comrade

I was disappointed that the usually reliable Inside Out Blogsite had got it wrong about the Labour Group defectors. The authors normally seem to know more about what's going on inside the Council than I do. I know that no-one believes me when I deny knowing who writes it – but its true nonetheless.

The councillors who left, left! They were not expelled by the Party. They left the Party, the Party did not leave them. In fact the Labour Party put in much effort locally and nationally to keep them in. During all these discussions they always maintained that they were never going to form another Group, notwithstanding the cynics who believed that this was always the intention for at least one of the defectors. So when the public announcement (typically) came on Kevin John's Sundayline, it was a bit of a non-surprise. I understand that many of their constituency supporters now feel betrayed. Although there were mucho chuckles when it seemed that Pyongyang had come to Clydach when its putative Kim Jong-Il sought to have us believe that he had had to be reluctantly persuaded. Oh yeh – bite yer hand off more like.

The Inside-Outers suggest that one of the reasons for the formalisation was an 'oddball' Council requirement that they had to be in a political group to take their seats. I don't know where they got that from – it simply ain't true. Ray Welsby managed very well on his own, as did Trickie Dickie (for a while at least – until he felt lonely). It probably had more to do with the fact that the Great Leader was comprehensively rebuffed by both the Lib-Dems and the John Hague True Independents (the latter in the most robust language!) when he, allegedly, offered his own fealty in exchange for some bonbon or other fairly closely related, so 'tis said, to a uniformed organisation that meets in Carmarthen. What is causing speculation in the People's Palace by the Sea is how much his two colleagues knew of these machinations.

The stated reasons for the new group was that their communities needed a strong voice and proper representation in the Council Chamber. Er...were they not already the members for these communities? Was the Great Leader's announcement therefore not a criticism of himself. And is there not another member representing his community of Clydach, one rather closely related to him? Did he forget? No doubt, he was reminded when he got home?

Missing blogs

It's been suggested that the evil hand of censorship and legal threats lay behind the removal of two missing blogs about the shambolic handling of the last council meeting. But I have to reassure what few readers I have that this is not so - much as I'd like to be seen as a threat to the comfortable way of life enjoyed by the Administration and some Council officers.

I know that just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you – but this was entirely due to my own incompetence. I deleted them by accident (trying to be too clever in inserting photos in the later entries and reaching beyond my skill set!) and had maintained no copies. I have also reached that age when yesterday is another time and another country and I have no idea what these witty and erudite entries actually said – if there is any saddo (sorry, that sounds disrespectful to someone I am seeking a favour from, so perhaps I'd better say that any connoisseur of good writing) out there who actually saved them or printed them off, please send them back to me and I will re-install them.

Latest activities – Bus Station/SYHSP/Planning

1. I was invited to visit the new Bus Station site. Not a great deal to see of course – it's a building site like many other. But like most blokes, I always find them interesting. Although I'd be the first to admit that I probably wouldn't if I'd ever worked on one!
   

   Anyway Alun Thomas, the Authority's man on site, our man with clipboard and hard hat, showed me around. I like Alun, I got to know him when he was the Clerk of Works of the Constitution Hill refurbishment. And he delivered a good outcome there with lots of consultation with residents. He's a straightforward guy, no messing, and no bullshit. Unfortunately he had his work cut out with me on this project – I arrived unconvinced and left in much the same state. It's just like the old bus station – but...er...new! To be fair, that was not Alun's fault – I think it's in the wrong place and that it's the wrong design. I consider that it should be by the station, I cannot see how we can aspire to be a major European city and have our bus and train stations on opposite sides of the city centre. I've thought that since Labour were in control pre the 2004 election. I also think that it should be a drive through bus station, as many other cities' stations are – I consider that this great bus pad reversing area to be a waste of space. But that's an argument lost – well it would have been, if there had ever been a discussion about it.
   

   Still it is going to have seats (proper ones – not bum recliners) and a waiting room for the long distance buses and a cafe, which are clearly good and overdue ideas.
   

   I was also very interested at the relics of Swansea's past that were 'unearthed' or exposed in the works – for example the cellar of a pub – complete with cases of beer, barrels and so on, just abandoned when the original building were pulled down.
   

2. I went to the SYHSP (Swansea Young Single Homeless Single Person Project - at least I think that's what it stands for) event in the Grand Theatre. This is the organisations Annual General Meeting, with a presentation of certificates to the young people for the achievements and a showcase of their performing talents. I went last year – when it was in the Liberty Stadium. They have learnt the lessons from then as the AGM was moved to a separate session – rather than subject all of us to it. Necessary and all, but as someone who goes to lots of similar things I'd be the first to admit that they're not the most exciting way to spend an afternoon. Indeed, Kev Johns was suggesting that those who misbehaved would be made to attend – and those who really misbehaved would be made to go twice.
   

   However, the young people were great. It just shows that there is potential in everyone – and in some a great deal. All it needs is the time and the dedication to see it and get at it. I have great respect for people who work in this field, it must be really hard work – but when it succeeds it must be really rewarding. But is it not a mark of failure on those of us who are responsible for providing services and support to these young people? How do you motivate a young person who has, to all intents and purposes, been abandoned by the system that is supposed to help them? Against the odds these young people came through – not for any but themselves. I was full of admiration for their achievements.
   

   I had similar thoughts when I was at the recent Adult Learners Awards. This is to recognise the achievements of adults who had learnt to read and write and become numerate after years (and in some cases many many years) of being unable to do so. Again admiration for them, not only for recognising their 'deficiency' but then their doing something about it. I was also impressed at the support that many of them were given from their workmates and employers – but especially for those who were doing it on their own. I was very moved by this event.
   

   I am a great reader and have always been so, my father was keen on books and my brother and I were always encouraged to read. I have lots of books, thousands probably. But I take the skill, the facility rather for granted. I don't really understand what it must be like not being able to do it. I don't mean just the pleasure denied but the lack of opportunity. Also how do you deal with what other people just take for granted like I do and assume that you must be able to do it as well? Two stories, one lady of certain years – she was older than me anyway – who had learnt to read and found that she really liked ghost stories and from which she was getting great pleasure and a young/middle aged man, holding down a job, relying on his mates to help him out, but who had always looked on with envy at people on trains etc who were reading books. It was something he had always wanted to be able to do. The visible pride he had in himself when he got his certificate – perhaps the only educational certificate he had – was incredible, he was feet taller! But how did we fail these people this way, how did we fail these obviously intelligent people? How did they fall through the net? If there's any 'deficiency' it's not theirs but ours. We should be shamed by it. But what's worse is that the current council Administration has cut this programme and it's unlikely to continue in its present form. Now that really is something to be ashamed of.
   

3. I was going to write about the Panning Task & Finish Group last Friday. But I can't really bear to. It's not the fault of the people on the Group who are all well intentioned and motivated – but I've being discussing this stuff with the Leader of Council for years already and nothing's ever changed. So it all feels a bit Groundhog day-ish to me, but to their credit the Group has achieved progress. Aargh!!!!

Earlier Posts Council 1 & 2 – now lost

Ah well it seems that I have made a proverbial. Somehow or other (technical ignorance) I seem to have deleted the two earlier posts about the Council meeting and I hadn't saved a copy!

Well if you've read them you don't need them and if you haven't you should have done. No1 was about the incompetence of the Administration and No2 about the inability of the Presiding Officer. No doubt I'll have further posts on these issues – matters being unlikely to improve significantly in the near future.

Council Meeting (4) Sterilisation or contraception of parents with children in care

We (Labour) had put down a question that required Cllr Alan Robinson to explain what was the "awkward and difficult question" (to use his own words) that he had asked at the Councillors Forum on the 17^th July and which resulted in the public row about the sterilisation of parents with children in care. This would have happened at the previous Council Meeting at the beginning of September – but our questions were excluded because the submission deadline had been moved!

We had already tried to get an explanation at the Council meeting at the end of July – but Cllrs Robinson and Fitzgerald had run away. No let me be accurate, they didn't run, they left the Council Chamber at a brisk walk – allegedly as a result of legal advice. Who this advice was from or what it said, only they know.

Anyway we know what Cllr Fitzgerald believed as she had helpfully written to Cllr Paxton Hood-Williams stating that what she was talking about was long term enforced contraception.

Cllr Robinson had held his tongue. It had never been suggested that he had used the words "compulsory" & "sterilisation" together (no-one did) – but that forced sterilisation was the clear meaning of what he was proposing. However, as this was a matter of great public interest (not least given the responsibilities of the Cabinet Portfolio he holds), we considered that we should give him another opportunity to put the record straight.

We had asked him "for the avoidance of doubt",

"Would (you) now...unequivocally advise Council what (your) views are on compulsory sterilisation (whether permanent or temporary) of parents with children in care?"

He replied,

"To the best of my recollection, the discussion was in relation to the very sensitive issue of the situation with Looked after Children whose mothers were drug addicts. During this discussion I said that "I thought mothers, who were drug addicts, and who had had children taken into care, should be offered some form of contraception or reversible sterilisation.

I can unequivocally advise Council that, at no time during the meeting did I mention "compulsory sterilisation" and I am totally opposed to compulsory sterilisation".

The question and Cllr Robinson's answer (which is reproduced here in full) can be seen in the Agenda for the Council Meeting of the 22^nd October 2009.

So we do now know at least, that he considers drug addict mothers should be offered contraception or reversible sterilisation. However, he won't now go as far as Cllr Fitzgerald. Curious that! She at least was prepared, to some extent, to be up front.

Readers should note the weasel words of "to the best of recollection", which unfortunately (no doubt due to the passage of time) does not match either my notes of what he said (which I made at the time) or the recollection of other members present at the Forum.

For the record what my notes record Cllr Robinson (and myself) as saying is the following,

AR (He began by committing a breach of confidence which could aid identification of a child of his acquaintance who was in foster care. I won't repeat it here to avoid the danger of identifying the child, whose parents were well known to Social Services. I do have a record of what he actually said.)

AR "These parents aren't fit to have children, we end up looking after them..."
AR "Something should be done to stop unfit parents from having children".
DP "So what are you proposing...?
AR "If they can't look after them, they shouldn't be allowed to have them"
DP "So you're proposing forced sterilisation....
AR "If they can't look after their children, we should stop them having anymore, we should..."
DP "So sterilise unfit parents?
AR "We end up having to look after them. I'm entitled to my views......"
DP "Forced sterilisation – this is simply outrageous, it's disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself. I can't believe I'm hearing this"

Readers will note that he did not deny my accusation, which would have been the simplest course, he could have said that I'd misunderstood. He didn't.

I put the above conversation to him as a supplementary question at Council. He didn't specifically dispute my record, he wouldn't engage with the question at all. He did allege that I had arrived at the Forum late. True – I'd been at a school governors meeting. But I arrived in time to hear what he said – indeed it was difficult for me not to as he was sitting next to me!

Council Meeting (3) Cllr Peter May

(With apologies for the delay in getting back to this)

I now return to Cllr Peter May's performance at the meeting. When I used to write film criticism or book reviews, my general policy was not to review bad films or books (unless they were really bad, wrong or deceitful). There was no pleasure in it – so I'd just ignore them. I apply those criteria here as well. I take no pleasure in it, but I consider that it is in the public interest to be open what went on. What was that poncy expression I heard the other day – 'speak truth to power', a bit 'High Falutin' perhaps, but nonetheless seems true here at least.

Well to describe what he did as 'performance' would be to make it more than it was; as it would suggest that there was some degree of intention, practice or rehearsal. There wasn't any of that. It was almost as if he was the understudy – but one who hadn't bothered to learn the lines. But he's had near enough eighteen months. Given his educational qualifications, he clearly can't be stupid, but it was a shockingly poor show. Abysmal really. As an ex-Cabinet Member myself I know that you can asked really complicated left-field questions, but he was unable to answer the simplest questions without prompting from the officers behind him. He seemed shaky about the most basic information - even stuff he might have reasonably been expected to know something about (and seemed indeed to be literally shaking – fear?). It was almost as if he had been ambushed, he was so unprepared! He was so far out of his depth that I almost felt sorry for him. Almost!

I refer to this, not because, he is a political opponent, but because it is a matter of concern. Achieving the Welsh Quality Housing Standard is a significant issue for the City & County of Swansea. Since the Authority's tenants comprehensively rejected stock transfer, Cllr May has seemed bereft of any credible ideas as to what he and his Lib-Dem/Independent colleagues could do. When he wasn't blaming the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), [they had rejected as unfeasible what proposals he had come up with] he seemed to be suggesting that it was the tenants own fault for voting the way they did. Frankly they deserve better, they deserve someone who could at least appear to engage with the problem.

Compare this dismal showing with the confident and knowledgeable performance regularly delivered from Cllr Mike Day. Disagree with him or not – he is clearly a man on top of his brief – Peter May seemed imprisoned by his.