Andrew Mitchell, the Tory Chief Whip who was recently in the news for calling police officers in Downing Street plebs, has been making more headlines for dishing out £16 million to the increasingly despotic president of Rwanda against the advice of his civil servants (here).

President Kagame is accused of fomenting war in neighbouring Congo, suppressing opposition parties, gagging the press and targeting dissident Rwandans living outside the country. An all-round decent sort of chap, therefore, and much of the British aid budget to Rwanda is paid straight to the government there.

Nothing out of the ordinary for the Nasty Party, but there is more to this than first meets the eye.

One of Mitchell's pet schemes is Project Umubano, a programme of social development projects in Rwanda led by none other than local Tory boy Stephen Crabb, MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire.

Lucy Kinder, now a journalist working for the pinko-lefty Daily Telegraph, also incurred Mr Mitchell's wrath when she wrote an article that criticised the way the project was being run. Ms Kinder, then just 21, accompanied the MP and a group of other Tories to Rwanda in 2009, and he was so incensed by what she had written that he sent her father a text message saying that "they [other members of the party] are threatening her with physical violence and I can't say I blame them".

Not exactly the sort of message any parent wants to receive about a young daughter thousands of miles from home, although apparently Mitchell felt that his threat was "figurative", and could not be taken in any other way. Just like those figuratively plebby coppers. Here is the Torygraph's take on the story.

You have to wonder what it is that attracts the Tories to Rwanda, a country only slightly larger than Wales, with no historic links to Britain. Perhaps they see it as laboratory where they can try out their theories before implementing them back home.

For example, the young Ms Kinder was somewhat taken aback to find that she was given one day's training to teach teachers English in less than two weeks.

Back in Britain this sort of fast-track education could save billions of pounds, and have children done with school while they are still small enough to shove up a chimney!

Northcliffe Media, the publishing group whose titles include the Carmarthen Journal, Llanelli Star, South Wales Evening Post and Swansea Herald of Wales, is rumoured to have been sold for £90 million. The identity of the buyer is not yet known, but is said not to be one of the "usual suspects".

The group is a division of the Daily Mail and General Trust, and is understood to have been looking for new owners for some time. Earlier this year, Northcliffe was said to be valued at £150 million, which was roughly a tenth of what it was estimated to have been worth five years ago (see article here).

The plummeting value of the group, which publishes more than 80 local papers, shows just how desperate times have become for the local press as titles haemorrhage readers and advertising revenue. That in turn has made them all the more vulnerable to town hall bullies, with Carmarthenshire County Council leading the field.

Watch this space. Who knows, perhaps we could soon be reading the Carmarthen Journal courtesy of the Xinhua News Agency? Now that really would be something for County Hall to celebrate.

Hat tip to Alex Smith for this.

One swallow doesn't make a summer, and the Carmarthen Journal's recent warts and all report on the county council's debate on the case of Mr M sadly appears to have been an isolated case of good journalism.

We are back to normal this week with two reports on the row over Sainsbury's plans for a supermarket in Llandeilo. First up we have a report from a roving reporter who spoke to a few people in the town to gather local opinion. And, guess what? Some people are against it, some are for, and some are not so sure.

One woman interviewed is reported as saying, "there are a lot of unemployed people here and there are a lot of mums here to". Did she really make elementary spelling mistakes while she was speaking?

Another woman is identified as coming from somewhere called Ffawrfach.

The average 8 year-old could have done a better job.

Next we have one of those contrived stories clearly set up by the council and the paper.

"Jobs under threat because of supermarket delays," yells the headline over a large picture of a glum-looking council leader Kevin Madge standing next to Labour councillor Kim Thomas and a handful of unidentified individuals.

The snap was apparently taken outside a former Kwik Save store in Llannon, which the paper says is 8 miles from "a supermarket development". According to the AA, Llannon is 3.4 miles from Cross Hands and 12 miles from Llandeilo. Take your pick, but you would at least expect from a local paper that (a) it can spell local place names correctly, and (b) know the geography of its area.

The paper says that "following opposition to the Llandeilo development, both projects will now be referred to the Welsh Government".

This is completely misleading, of course. Yes, there is opposition to the proposed store in Llandeilo, and very few have objected to the proposals for Cross Hands, but the Welsh Government called both plans in not because of any opposition, but because it felt that the County Council's planning committee had not given proper consideration to the proposals before approving them.

No mention is made of that, of course.

The resulting article bears all the hallmarks of another County Hall Ministry of Spin production, as dictated to the Carmarthen Journal.



The Labour group on Carmarthenshire County Council, propped up in power by the closet Tory Independents, has several colourful characters on its benches, but probably none more so than Cllr Keri Thomas, who represents Tyisha in Llanelli, the town formerly famous for its saucepans, pots and kettles.

Cllr Thomas has got himself into hot water by blaming an "influx" of Polish people into Llanelli for a rise in outdoor drinking in the town. You can read the story here.

This very negative picture of the Polish community will certainly come as a surprise to most of us whose experience of Polish people in Wales is entirely different.

Earlier this year a Labour candidate in the Amman Valley got himself into trouble for a string of highly offensive messages on Twitter. Despite that, he remained the Labour Party's official candidate and received the backing of Kevin Madge, who put most of the blame on Twitter.

Cllr Thomas made his comments in a public forum, and so cannot blame it on the evils of social networking.

Regular readers of this blog may recall that Cllr Thomas was absent on long-term sick leave through most of 2011 and half of this year. It came as some surprise when despite this prolonged absence he gained the backing of the Labour Party to stand again in the council elections in May, although he was apparently not well enough to campaign.

It is good to see that he made a full recovery, although his comments about the town's Polish residents are an utter disgrace.
The agenda for next week's meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council has now been published, and there is no reference to the notice of motion submitted by Plaid Cymru calling on Kevin Madge to withdraw the statement he made accusing MP Jonathan Edwards and Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM of "deliberately sabotaging" the Sainsbury's planning applications in Llandeilo and Cross Hands.

It seems that the Chief Executive is sticking to his guns that the motion submitted by Cllr Darren Price was invalid because it was not correctly dated.

A different motion submitted by another Plaid councillor deals with education.

At the risk of contradicting two determined red-heads (Caebrwyn and Cllr Siân Caiach), the council's constitution does not appear to give the Chair of Council or the elected councillors any say in any of this. If the Chief Executive rules that a motion is not valid, then that is that.

On this occasion, the reason given for rejection is particularly mind-boggling in the light of the following provision of the constitution:

The Chief Executive shall record the time and date at which every such notice is delivered to him. That record shall be open to the inspection of every member of the Council.

Councillors may propose motions without notice during a meeting, and the constitution gives a list of the types of motion which may be moved (e.g. suspending the meeting, appointing a chair, going for a wee [made that bit up] etc.), but Cllr Price's motion would not seem to fit any of them.

The Chair may decide to add an urgent item to the agenda, but the new item would only come up after all of the items on the published agenda have been dealt with. And, of course, it is the Chief Executive alone who determines the agenda. Whatever it is that is so urgent will have to wait until all of the rubber stamping is finished.

If the peculiar timestamp clause is not sufficient, then the motion may well have fallen foul of the following catch-all clause:

The Chief Executive shall not accept any notice of motion which, by reason of any enactment or any provision in these Procedure Rules other than paragraph (12.9) below could not be considered at the meeting for which is given.

Which in plain English means that it means whatever the Chief Executive decides it means. The Chief Executive gets to decide, and that's that, although just to make it all look a bit more convincing, a red herring in the form of (12.9) is chucked in - a paragraph dealing with motions that are not moved and therefore lapse.

The chances that next week's meeting will see any discussion on the subject of the Sainsbury's applications are therefore roughly those of a snowball in the Pit of Hell.

In the past, the Chief Executive has shown no hesitation in kicking out motions submitted by non-aligned councillors, often on completely incomprehensible grounds, but his decision to block a motion submitted by the official opposition and the largest party on the Council marks a new departure. 

It is nothing more than a two finger gesture to the 39% of voters in Carmarthenshire who put their cross against a Plaid candidate.



It seems that Plaid Cymru has now also fallen foul of Carmarthenshire's Putinesque constitution. A motion calling on council leader Kevin Madge to withdraw the claims he made about the Sainsbury's planning applications in Llandeilo and Cross Hands has been ruled inadmissible because it was not correctly dated.

Unless there is a last minute surprise, the council will not now get an opportunity to discuss the issue until November, assuming that nothing else can be found in the constitution to prevent it.
The infamous press release recently issued by Carmarthenshire County Council in collaboration with Sainsbury's has been described variously as misleading, blatant lies, an abuse of power, defamatory and a misuse of public resources.

The council has shown what it thinks by leaving the press release in place on its website.

Members of the public who have written in to complain about this may have expected to receive a reply from the council's Press Office or the Chief Executive's department, which is where the Press Office resides. Given the political nature of the attack, they may have half-expected a response from the Leader himself or the ironically named Democratic Services department. For those worried about the planning aspects or the disturbingly close relationship between the council and J Sainsbury plc revealed in the joint statement, a response from the Planning Department may have been in order.

However, when it comes to dealing with spin, complaints about misleading statements and political propaganda, the department tasked with responding is, believe it or not, the council's Service Improvement office. For a council which recently published a report stating that complaints to its Education Department fell by 563% last year, while cross departmental complaints fell by a mere 329%, this tells us something about what the council means by Service Improvement.

It is worth reproducing the reply to one recent complaint in full:

"As I am sure you will be aware, the work of officers of the Council, is determined primarily by Members of the Council, in particular, those members who are in control politically.  In this case, Cllr Madge as leader of the Council, leads on Administration and has chosen his Executive Board in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and legislative requirements.

On occasion, press releases are prepared by officers of the press team at the behest of departments and sent out.  However, the majority of press releases would be requested by Executive Members and would relate to their portfolios or the Council generally.  This is one such occasion. The Press Office issues around 1500 press releases each year. Most of them are straightforward and simply relate to events or services that we provide.

The Leader of the Council is quite entitled, to make comment on what he perceives to be against the interests of the Council or County. It is very clear that the press release expresses the opinions of the Leader. These are major developments concerning many hundreds of jobs which also have a direct bearing on projects that are important to the Council, including school facilities or health and social care facilities, and it therefore does seem appropriate that the Council could issue a statement as to the impact of the delay or loss of the investment."

There is so much wrong with this response, quite apart from the peculiar punctuation, that it is difficult to know where to start, but here goes:

1. "It is very clear that the press release expresses the opinions of the Leader". 

Here are the opening paragraphs of the press release:

"Plaid Cymru’s AM and MP are trying to stop a £60million investment with the creation of around 1,200 jobs in the Tywi and Gwendraeth Valleys, it has been revealed.

MP Jonathan Edwards and Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM have asked for the Sainsbury’s planning applications to be called in, which has now jeopardised the developments which mean major investment in Carmarthenshire".

And so it chunters on for two more paragraphs. The Council Leader, Kevin Madge, does not make an appearance until the fifth paragraph, when he begins by saying that he was shocked to hear that the MP and AM had asked the Government to call the plans in (something which we now know is not true).

Kev gets two paragraphs to himself, before the baton is handed to a spokesman for Sainsbury's, who is given the remaining 4 paragraphs.

2. "Opinions"

The press release is laden with details about the proposed development, the value of the project and (spurious) claims about the number of jobs to be created, all of which Jonathan Edwards and Rhodri Glyn Thomas are "deliberately trying to sabotage".

Is that opinion and fair comment? Or does the piece dress itself up as a statement of facts?

Here is a handy definition of fair comment: 

Opinion which is based upon correctly stated facts and does not allege dishonourable motives on the part of the target of the comment.

3. To what extent did the release reflect the Council's views?

Here the officer who penned the response tries to have it both ways. It was a statement of opinion by the Council Leader, but at the same time it was appropriate for the Council to issue a statement on the impact of the call-in decision.
Jonathan Edwards hit the nail on the head when he said in a recent statement that the political neutrality of [council] staff had been compromised.

As Plaid and possibly the Ombudsman for Public Services seek to get to the bottom of what happened here, the paper trail leading up to the publication of this press release will be very interesting.

Who was involved in writing it (we can be pretty sure that it was not Kev), who had sight of it before publication, and who approved it?

There may well be several smoking guns in this case.


 

Popular Posts

Blogger templates

Blogger news

Blogroll