BlogCymru.com

Ydych chi’n berson brwdfrydig ac yn gallu siarad Cymraeg? Mae Canolfan Cymraeg i Oedolion De-orllewin Cymru yn gyfrifol am holl ddarpariaeth Cymraeg i Oedolion ar draws Sir Gaerfyrddin, Sir Benfro Abertawe a Chastell-nedd Port Talbot. 31/7/2009

21/6/2009

22/6/2009

5/7/2009

23/7/2009

Last Saturday night two young acts were chosen to represent the Celtic and Scots languages at the Liet International song contest for European lesser used languages. Ten acts from the various Celtic and Scots languages travelled from far and wide to Eden Court Theatre, Inverness, Scotland, to perform in front of an enthusiastic audience. The event was also broadcast live over the internet.

On Sunday Greenland ushered in a new era of self-governance that may lead to eventual independence from Denmark, its ruler since 1721. Kalaallisut, also known as Greenlandic, a traditional Inuit language, is the country’s official language, and Greenlanders are now recognized under international law as a separate people from Danes.

A new survey launched in Galicia indicates that 50.3% of the inhabitants of Galicia have the Galician language as their mother tongue. Also, the survey shows that only 3% of those living in Galicia consider themselves as Spanish only.

On Tuesday, 30 June, the Slovak Parliament passed the amendment of the Slovak Language Law. The new version will enter in force in September 2009. Members from the Party of the Hungarian Coalition expressed their conviction that the new law will hinder the enforcement of the linguistic rights of national minorities.

There are some things that are the responsibility of the individual. If conservatives can be accused of forgetting that society shapes the individual’s experiences, it is also true that we socialists can often forget that the individual also responsible for many choices that define their life. This is a problem caused by getting swept away by our own ideology, common to all political schools of thought; to the point where some conservatives can deny that society exists; to the point where some socialists abrogate the individual of all responsibility. The trouble is that when socialists do this, it leads to the diminishing of the importance, and even the existence, of the individual.

Socialism is defined by its recognition of societal responsibility. This is what unites all strands of socialism – from the social democracy practiced across Europe, to market socialism, to Marxism, to communism. The mechanics of socialism varies – from absolute state control, a role for the state in the economy, or an anarchic or collectivist system – with these various idea advocating different means to allow each individual a share in the ownership and administration of the means of production. The end goal of these ideologies is a society characterized by equal opportunities and means for all individuals, together with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

Difficulties arise when society feels that the mechanism through which it operates is forgetting about the responsibility of the individual. Society, the collective of individuals, is generous by nature and happy to support people. But it grows unhappy when individuals do not reciprocate with individual effort to match this social effort. Our outlook as socialists often forgets that socialism did not begin with Karl Marx. Many of the earlier socialists placed a great deal of importance on the responsibility of the individual – a relationship between society that must be maintained by both parties. What is Jean Jaques Rousseau’s The Social Contract but a treatise describing the responsibilities of society to the individual, and the responsibility of the individual to society? Many other early socialist, and some post-Marxists, have argued for the reciprocal notion of human need and identity, emphasizing humanity's interdependence in lieu of atomized individuality.

Why then do we socialists seem to insist on the preeminence of societal responsibility? As usual, a passage of The Simpsons says it all.

Gabriel, the Social Worker: And Homer, your problem is that you’re a lazy, drunken, man-child.
Homer: Which is society’s fault because…
Gabriel: No Homer, it’s your fault.

And, to fans of the show, we know that is true! So when did it become the case that we socialists forgot about the other half of the social contract? Take our penchant for universal benefits over targeted help for those on low incomes. The argument for such benefits is that universality ensures that all those who need it get it – targets are not perfect. Many people eligible for means-tested benefits don’t claim them. But a sensible counter-argument is that if you haven’t bothered to find out about, can’t be bothered to claim, or are too embarrassed to claim your entitlements, that is your own problem and not that of society. There is an argument for universal benefits for children of course – in that it is the children who get punished if parents do not take responsibility. But wider universal benefits, such as the Assembly’s flagship policy of free prescriptions, have few advantages over a targeted scheme but costs a lot more. How about the way in which we socialists demand opportunities and incentives to train and “upskill”. Are we letting our better instincts run wild if we do not recognize that there are some people who can’t be upskilled, or have no interest in being upskilled? Or in our attitudes to public health: how much money is spent on warning of the dangers of binge drinking? If anybody dies of liver failure due to excessive alcohol intake, surely it is their own responsibility.

Take the millions thrown at the “Foundation phase” in Wales. Will it enable a great many low income children to fulfill their potential? It seems doubtful that we will magically see an end to struggling children for low income households just because of this scheme. We hear about middle-class children being advantaged – private tuition, access to books, equipment, and so forth. But middle-class, in the sense of middle-income, may mean anything from a person earning £20,000 upwards. We seem to forget that tuition and good equipment often means some sacrifice for the parent, and that books do not read themselves. Many working class parents want so spend on conspicuous consumption – the birth of “chav” culture – rather than buying a good book and putting aside time to read with their child. I am not advocating the complete dissolution of the Foundation phase – but I am saying that there is no way it can work if we do not ensure that everyone understand that they have a responsibility to play an integral role in their child’s education.

The NHS, in most cases, is an example of socialism at its best. Even David Cameron admires it, and wishes to brand himself as its saviour. The idea of universal healthcare, free at source, is a beautiful one. We have all depended on it, or know of a relative or friend who has, in many cases to a degree which we could not afford through private healthcare. If healthcare were not free, how many sick, chronically ill, disabled, or accident victims would be unable to cover their costs. But the NHS has grown far beyond its original remit, and is now a giant mess of bureaucracy together with treatment options that are strains on the public purse. Are we ignoring the possible benefits and efficiencies of the social health insurance used throughout Europe because of our ideological attachment to the NHS? This question is essentially the same as the on regarding universal benefits and free prescriptions. That is, we have a duty to ensure that benefits make efficient use of public money. Doesn’t that place on us a duty to expect that the individual should take some responsibility for their own healthcare?

I recently wrote an article with Leanne Wood AM which stated our complete opposition to Labour’s “Welfare to Work” policy. It is, basically stated, a policy which makes benefits conditional on work. That would seem to be a policy of the sort that is being advocated in this article. But Welfare to Work is a policy that punishes everyone for the sins of a small minority. Neither Leanne or myself are under any illusions – we both recognize that there are a minority of benefit claimants who just do not want to work, making claiming benefits a lifestyle choice. But a policy aimed at hurting “benefits scroungers” and everybody else as well is wrong. There are those who are genuinely unable to find work, those who are physically unable to work or are mentally unfit to work, or who have other genuine reasons for not working. It is not right to aim at all including the honest majority, however strong your desire to force the dishonest minority into work.

This does not mean that we should give up on the idea that if you are able to work and can find a job, then you should be working and contributing to society if you expect society to take responsibility for you. Socialists need to revisit the idea that the social contract works both ways. This article is argues that modern social democracy is not just about throwing money at social problems – it is also about stressing the individual’s responsibility for themselves and their families, and about making sure that people understand that they can’t take from society without the intention to contribute. I am writing this article in the hope that it will prompt socialists in Wales, and elsewhere, to reexamine our priorities. Recently, there is undeniable evidence that people are turning from the left across Europe. This is not because people are becoming more conservative. I believe that the root of this trend is an anger that society must support people through recession when they have never shown responsibility for their own well-being. We need to address this problem because, as public budgets are squeezed in the UK over the next decade, people will become ever more reluctant to support those who do not give something back.

I am not arguing for savings to cut taxes. I am talking of spending money efficiently, enabling social responsibility to go further. I think many people still believe in socialism. Any time we use the NHS, and any time we receive a benefit or tax credit, we see that the ideal does benefit us personally. The challenge for socialists is to reformulate the idea that social responsibility and individual responsibility go hand in hand.

Rhydian Fôn James

When Assembly Members came together in the chamber this afternoon to discuss the Enterprise and Learning Committee's report on the way the government has so far handled the economic downturn, they expected to see the man in charge of the economy standing up and standing his corner.

He is Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Deputy First Minister, a man who "comes across like a good country solicitor" according to fellow Plaid member Adam Price , a man who came across like the Scarlet Pimpernel this afternoon, according to his fellow Assembly Members.

They seek him here, they seek him there ... or more appropriate after this afternoon's events perhaps, now you see him, now you don't.

The Deputy First Minister was in the chamber earlier, answering questions and facing flak. There's growing cross party pressure on him over the alleged delays in the scheme to dual the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. At economy questions today, he faced the wrath of Huw Lewis, whose increasingly vociferous campaign on the issue is reaching new levels of anger. He was joined by Mike German from the Lib Dems, and William Graham from the Tories - both reflecting deep unease that there are still no confirmed start dates for several key stretches of the road.

And as the rhetoric gets stronger, the positions become more entrenched. Mr Jones' opponents claim that precious capital resources are being sucked into improving north-south routes - at the expense of east-west, particularly the A465, the dualling of which is seen as vital to the economic regeneration of the Heads of the Valleys area. It's claimed what amounts to a Plaid Cymru nation building exercise is holding up much needed help for one of Wales's most deprived areas.

Not so, says Mr Jones. I've told you and I'll tell you again. I inherited the reprioritisation programme from my (Labour) predecessor in the job, who in turn made his decisions on the basis of expert advice on the complex issue of programming trunk road improvements. All I'm doing is sticking to a time table set by a Labour Minister.

The conflict derives from the four yearly cycle of announcing priorities for trunk roads - which means when it "crosses" ministers - 2004 report under Andrew Davies, then 2008 report under Ieuan Wyn Jones. There's no obvious way of divining who made which decision and when.

But having faced down the barrage of criticism in the chamber, Mr Jones then decided to hit the road himself.

He was gone.

Who stood up on behalf of the government to respond to a heated debate on the way they've handled the recession? John Griffiths, a deputy Minister in the Education department.

Where was Mr Jones, AMs demanded to know? The Minister for the Economy had "urgent ministerial business" to attend to, ventured Mr Griffiths. In fact his own appearance showed that there was joined up working between their respective departments.

They didn't buy it. The urbane and rarely ruffled Conservative Economy spokesman David Melding raised his voice. That in itself deserved raised eyebrows. This was "truly pathetic" he said. Was this "what passes for leadership in the Welsh Assembly Government?" The Lib Dems, with Jenny Randerson leading the charge, went for "a discourtesy" to his fellow AMs.

Even the - Plaid - chair of the committee, Gareth Jones couldn't help adding that he'd been "a little surprised" by the Deputy First Minister's absence.

So where was he?

He had "a long standing engagement dating back months to attend a conference this afternoon on the economic crisis organised by the Welsh Governance Centre." And anyway given the Enterprise and Learning Committee's report covered the work of the education department as well as the department for the economy, it was entirely appropriate that the Deputy Minister for Skills should respond to the debate.

We seek him ... and find him in the Hilton Hotel, where his speech, according to some anyway, was shifted from a quarter past four to four o'clock. Maybe.

What's significant here? That Mr Jones is gaining a reputation amongst an increasing number of AMs for not responding quickly enough to their queries, not taking them and their job of scrutinising what he does seriously enough; that it's hard to avoid the feeling he's being targetted by those who suggest that being DFM and holding such a crucial portfolio must be very hard work indeed. You know what they mean - perhaps a bit too hard these days.

Mr Jones may argue, as a good country solicitor might, that the facts suggest otherwise.
He's answered questions on the government's handling of the economy many times before .The ProAct and ReAct schemes - yes, those again - have generally gone down well. His department is working overtime to respond to what is a global crisis.

But perceptions and reputations are equally important and a good country solicitor ought to know that too.

The Local Government Association (LGA) has published a remarkable pamphlet to coincide with its annual conference, taking place in Harrogate this week. The glossy, professionally-designed eleven page document is what we've come to expect from local government these days. It is the text which is surprising. The pamphlet is written with a passion, immediacy and radicalism unheard of in local government circles since the days of Red Ken's GLC, David Blunkett's Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire and Derek ‘Deggsy' Hatton's Militant resistance in Liverpool. Even the title of the pamphlet - ‘Who's in Charge? A Manifesto for a New Politics' - is reminiscent of the language associated with the radical localism of the New Urban Left in the early 1980s. Much of the text could have been borrowed, with minor modifications, from David Blunkett and Keith Jackson's (1987) book: ‘Democracy in Crisis: The Town Halls Respond'.

As such, established local government commentators will recognise that there is nothing particularly new in the demands made in the LGA's manifesto. It advocates rolling back the unelected Quango state; radical decentralisation to bring decision-making down to the lowest possible level; making local NHS bodies accountable to the electorate; a genuine power of general competence for local government, and real fiscal autonomy, including returning to councils the power to set local business rates.

The surprise is that these demands are being made by the usually ultra-cautious LGA, and that the case for them is underpinned by a sense of (justifiable) anger in a text whose authorship is jointly credited to the Leaders of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Independent groups within the Association. Consider this as a joint statement from the three main parties in local government: ‘Expenses scandals have catalysed a more fundamental and longstanding sense that the system doesn't care about the interests of real people and is run by cosy insiders for their own benefit'. Or this: ‘Until people have a real sanction over the things that matter most to them, they will, quite rightly, feel that voting doesn't matter, except as a way of venting their frustration with a political system that they feel works for the politicians, not for them.

In these times, such critique is possibly too easy. The far more intriguing part of the document, which provides its greatest claim to radicalism, is that all the main parties have signed up for an agenda of ‘more politics, less state'. On page three, the authors suggest the following:

Voters unsurprisingly feel excluded, disempowered, and angry. And while they vent their anger on politicians, the basic truth is that they want to see more politics, not less - just not the stale politics of national parties. On the contrary, it is the remote and unresponsive executive state that must shrink. In terms of the power and influence they wield, government must become smaller and citizens bigger.

This notion that the state must shrink and government must become smaller might seem at first sight to imply that the Conservative majority within the LGA was dominant in shaping this manifesto. This sort of language could equally be interpreted as being seriously at odds with Labour's preference for the interventionist state.  But to see things this way would be to miss the point. There has always been a suppressed strand of radical Labour thought which favoured community and cooperative, rather than state, control. This is the neglected Guild Socialism of GDH Cole, rather than the dominant ‘commanding heights' state socialism of Sidney Webb, a vision of associational democracy in which fraternity and liberty matter just as much as equality.  Notably, many Labour politicians seem to suppress their own preferences for such approaches, particularly once they become Cabinet Ministers, as the following extract from Blunkett and Jackson's (1987) book would seem to suggest:

We do not feel that the state should be the only means whereby people in need can find help and support (...) Collective community support, of the kind formerly seen in so many towns and villages, is vital, alongside the formal state provision. What we need is to do things together, rather than having them done for us.

Of course, like Blunkett and Jackson's writing, the LGA's pamphlet is a product of its times. Radical proposals for democratic reform have become de rigueur in the heady political atmosphere which has prevailed in elite circles since May 09. But, as I've argued elsewhere, it is far from certain that the reforming spirit is percolating through the Populus as a whole. Like others desperate not to miss this opportunity to push for reform, the LGA seeks to ‘front load' its case for change with questionable references to the apparent public desire for a new political settlement. The first paragraph of the text makes the following claim: ‘in the first week of June, the public spoke loudly and clearly through the ballot box. Voters want to see the political system change in response to their frustration with it'. Elsewhere the document asserts the superior democratic legitimacy of the LGA's vision for a new politics: ‘the LGA is made up of politicians who, unlike those at Westminster, have seen their mandates refreshed at the ballot box since 2005'.

This sort of analysis is seriously problematic. The local and European elections of June 2009 did produce dramatic results, but to argue that the public spoke loudly and clearly at the ballot box is plainly wrong. The vast majority of the electorate stayed at home, just as they normally do for local and European elections. We have no basis at all for assuming that continued large-scale electoral abstention indicates a widespread desire for radical change centred on a far-reaching programme of decentralisation. In this sense, the LGA are as guilty as other reformers who risk putting the cart before the horse. The actual case for constitutional reform and political decentralisation is the other way around; it is only through radical change that we will restore public confidence in our politics and be able to bring about a reversal of the mass boycotting of the ballot box which has become the most obvious hallmark of contemporary British democracy.

Roberto De Mateo - that will do at the Baggies.

A young manager with a bit of success who played at the top level. Just concerned at these rolling contracts which, fair play to the guy, suggest an ambition beyond the Hawthorns. How can their be a greater ambition!!!!!?

(still alive, but blooging on politics now restrianed by job - c'est la vie).

New report on our website on the Heads of the Valleys called 'Good to be Here'. Read it, comment on it, and change your thinking about it.

The Bevan Foundation's report on child poverty was launched last week, and has already attracted an encouraging response - see Valleys Mam, A Change of Personnel and Syniadau.

Not South-Wales specific, but the Council For British Archaeology has launched an online Heritage Toolkit for Community Groups. Featuring lots of ideas on how to get started exploring the history of your local area, for walks, school-talks etc. Well worth a look if you are looking for ideas in this area.

Heritage Toolkit For Communities

The Finance, Audit & Business Improvement Scrutiny Board of Swansea Council – a body probably unsuitable for asthmatics – today receives a report on how businessman Alun Thomas mistakenly received a cheque for £121,936.90 from the local authority back in March.

The report concludes that ISiS, a newish computerised payments system extolled by Lib Dem cabinet member Mary Jones and her techy minions managed to screw up. Or to be more exact, the people using the system screwed up inasmuch as the person creating the cheque got the details wrong and the 2 other people responsible for re-checking the details also got it wrong.

There are no significant measures suggested to prevent a repeat occurrence other than a recommendation that procedures which are already in place are actually enforced. Indeed the only workable sanction appears to be that the money was recoverable through the courts if Mr Thomas had decided to keep schtum and cash the cheque.

Not much of safeguard – and not much of a system after all, it seems.

We love anniversaries in journalism. It's 40 years today since the Prince of Wales was invested, if that's the right phrase.

It's two years this week since Labour and Plaid Cymru coalesced in Cardiff Bay.

It's approaching the first anniversary of the last Welsh Conservative news conference at Westminster (or maybe it just feels like that).

It's 10 years today since power was devolved from Westminster to Edinburgh and Cardiff.

That means it's also the 10th anniversary of the Wales Office, where Peter Hain - Secretary of State for more than half that time - says they are busier than ever before.

Ten years ago, on what we could call D-Day, Mr Hain was a junior Welsh Office Minister. One day he was making key decisions on Welsh schools, the next he was metaphorically twiddling his thumbs as the education brief, along with others, was transferred along the M4.

The artist Mumph drew a cartoon of Mr Hain and a fellow junior Minister playing battleships in the power-free zone that their department became. It may have been a slight exaggeration, although those present at the time recall a surreal post-devolution atmosphere before Welsh Ministers found a new role at Westminster.

In those days, if anyone mentioned LCOs you might confuse it with a breakfast cereal or supermarket. These days they are the stuff of casual conversation in pubs up and down the land. Well, perhaps not.

The 10th wedding anniversary is normally marked by presents of aluminium or tin. I'll leave you to come up with suitable gifts for the Wales Office on its big day.

The Home Secretary has hit all the headlines today with his assertion that ID cards will not be compulsory and that plans to introduce compulsory identity cards for airline pilots and 30,000 other "critical workers" at Manchester and London City airports this autumn have been abandoned.

However, good news as this is, we should not celebrate too soon nor should we assume that the project is dead and buried. The Government is to press ahead with the National Identity Card Database and British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on it. This means that the main elements of the scheme will continue to be put in place leaving a future government the prospect of picking it up and running with compulsory cards in the future.

The database itself of course is a concern. How secure is it? Will it be used to interact with other databases to build up profiles of people for political or other non-crime related issues? The Government may have backed down on the most high-profile part of this scheme but the elements that are left continue to contribute to the erosion of our rights and civil liberties in this country.

Plaid Cymru AM Bethan Jenkins is staging a short debate later today on 'The Twitter Revolution - a time for democratic renewal?'

As part of her 15 minute speech she is presenting a five minute video collage of people who use Twitter and social networking sites and why. This is my contribution to that video.

Why is the Honourable member for Torbay so animated about an Arts Council for Wales grant to Swansea artist Sue Williams who has been handed £20,000 to study women's buttocks?

Surely he shares the views of the artist that more needs to be done to emulate the African approach whereby "the bottom is treated with respect; as opposed to attitudes in the West which are "trivial, sensational and sexual."

And anyway, aren't there enough Lib Dems in Wales available to comment on this clearly serious matter?

The BBC has reported that there are NINE more cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Wales, taking the total to 26.

Among the latest cases is a 25-year-old local man who works at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.

Health officials said this case is not connected to that of another hospital employee confirmed at the weekend, but was travel related.

The man is no longer at work and there is no further risk to patients or staff at the hospital, they said.

Everyone who has been confirmed with swine flu in this latest batch - involving people in their early twenties from Cardiff, Swansea and Caerphilly - have been offered antiviral medicine and are recovering well.

So far 201 people have been investigated for swine flu in Wales and only one person has been taken to hospital. Sixteen cases are still under investigation.

New cases:

• A 21-year-old man from Cardiff who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Leicester.
• A 19-year-old woman from Swansea who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Exeter.
• A 20-year-old woman from Swansea who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Exeter.
• A 20-year-old woman from Cardiff who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Exeter.
• A 19-year-old woman from Cardiff who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Exeter.
• A 19-year-old woman from Cardiff who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Warwick.
• A 19-year-old woman from Bridgend County Borough who is a direct contact of a confirmed case in Exeter.
• A 22-year-old woman from Caerphilly who is a contact of a confirmed case in Oxford.

All are recovering.

While Dr Roland Salmon from the National Public Health Service for Wales added: "Because this particular type of swine flu is new, people have little or no immunity to it. For this reason, we know it will spread across the country eventually."

... the Welsh Assembly Government's Chief Medical Officer, Dr Jewell has said the authorities were prepared for the virus outbreak and have "robust procedures" in place. "While we are prepared for this, we are not complacent and people must be vigilant."

How can you prepare for something that is new, particularly as each outbreak may be different in terms of strain, and each person will respond to the virus in a different way to another? It seems that Dr Jewell has been in management posts for longer than he cares to remember.

NHS Direct can be contacted on 0845 46 47.

Studland Bay is a beach near Swanage in Dorset, which is officially designated as a location where naturists can sunbathe without a stitch on. It seems there's been some trouble down there. A police spokesman is reported as saying "There will be a point of contact in incidents that may occur on beaches such as littering, unauthorised fires and barbecues, dog fouling, illegal parking, sexual misconduct or incidents which threaten to bring naturism into disrepute". Sounds like a roughish area to me.

Anyway, the Dorset Police has teamed up with the National Trust, which owns the beach, to train three community wardens to control the foreshore and sand dunes at Studland Beach. The only thing we're told that they will be wearing are bright yellow T-shirts. The patrols will take place throughout July and August. Emma Wright, the visitor and services manager with the National Trust said "We welcome having more eyes and ears on the ground". Not a bad summer job for three lads waiting to go to uni in the autumn.

Rogerstone Community Council and allotments

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the bravery, intelligence and skill of our servicemen and women in Helmand. They have made a huge difference in that province, which was previously ungoverned space. As I said earlier, there is still a long way to go, but the help that people are getting, the security forces that have been established, and the role that Governor Mangal has played in political leadership for that province would not exist without the efforts of our troops and their supporters. The further intensive activity as a result of American efforts in neighbouring provinces means that the next few months will be important in Helmand, as well as in the rest of Afghanistan. Voter registration has happened for 85 per cent. of the population of Helmand, which would have been impossible before 2006.

Dewi Dau and myself (Dewi Tri is still missing but was with us in spirit!) have just returned from the launch of David Melding’s new book on the future of the British constitution.

Tŷ Hywel was the venue, packed to the rafters with the who’s who of Welsh politics: the Presiding Officer himself was there, as were assorted AMs (like Alun Cairns - sporting a lovely tan it must be said: real or not, I’ll let you decide), journalists and interested parties.

The book itself champions a more federal system of Governance in the UK. 'That's no new argument,' I hear you cry, but remember this is a Conservative saying it. David Melding is unashamedly proud of being British and in his speech to the assorted crowd he told us how this new approach - Federal Parliamentarianism - could be the saviour of Britishness. We have transported the system across the Globe, to Canada and Australia and now, according to David Melding, it’s time to look closer to home.

What will David Cameron make of this approach from a prominent Welsh Tory I wonder? Will he be supportive of the opportunity to get Welsh issues off his agenda - no more LCOs - or will he rubbish it as a fad, an idea more akin to the Liberal Democrats?

David Cameron’s opinion may well become more important if, as is widely expected, his party wins the next General Election. But for now David Melding can sit back and bask in the glory of his completed work - five years after putting pen to paper for the first time. Much praise has already been heaped upon him by those fortunate enough to have finished reading his book - none more so than Dafydd Ellis-Thomas. He brimmed with energy and excitement as he opened the evening with his comments.

A good night was had by all whether you agree with Melding’s analysis or whether you think it’s a pile of the proverbial.

As for PoliticsCymru - we managed to hand out some business cards (yes we have them!) and were asked to gave a quick interview to ITV’s “Sharp End” programme so be sure to watch on Thursday night: hopefully we won't end up on the cutting room floor.

Dewi Un

This caught my eye on Betsan’s blog.

“Then in 2011 it was Labour's turn to launch their election manifesto.”

In 2011? Has Doc from back to the future been helping out at Transport house?

Lembit is attempting to distract me from watching a programme!

'A Prince for Wales?' on BBC One Wales to be precise. Huw Edwards is asking the great and the good of Welsh life, as well as the ordinary people, about a prince for Wales.

Lembit's new glasses are distracting me beyond belief!

David Cameron seems to be raising the temperature of his language when commenting on the Prime Minister and his policies. Today's Telegraph front page has him accusing Mr Gordon Brown of "deceit, dishonesty and deception". He's also reported as warning that Britain faces "riots in the streets" if Gordon Brown's dishonesty over public spending enables Labour to win the next General Election. Personally, I see Gordon Brown as looking more unbelievable by the day - and today I reckon the Prime Minister lost it completely. Irvin Stelzer covers it well in tomorrow's edition.

Lets look at where we are. Our Government has spent so much more money than it has available, and our national debt has grown so large that the Governor of the Bank of England and respected bodies like the OECD are informing the Prime Minister publicly that we must have a plan for reducing debt if the UK is to remain solvent - something we have never heard before. The national debt is heading towards levels last seen immediately after the Second World War. Our economy is heading for meltdown - and our Prime Minister announces billions more public spending.

There are some consolations. Firstly, now that the headline spending figures have been reported (the objective), Government spokespersons are changing the story and telling us that its just moving current spending commitments around. Secondly, in the interviews I've seen these spokespersons have that look in their eyes which tell us that they do not themselves believe what they are saying. They look as if they are lying, and know they are lying. And thirdly Government Ministers are in too much of a state of confusion to do anything significant anyway. For example, yesterday Lord Mandelson said that the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review will not take place before next summer, while this morning Liam Byrne denied it, telling us that the Chancellor will inform us about this in due course. And on Newsnight tonight, a Government Minister said that the Conservatives can have access to information that George Osborne has been demanding. Bet you its not true, and will be denied tomorrow. And fourthly, if Gordon Brown carries on with this incredible fantasy, there will be no chance of him and his team being re-elected to continue destroying Britain. Just a few months more to go, but my heart bleeds for my country.

That's a big ol' question up there in the title isn't it. If you have an opinion, please drop it in a comment.

I'm thinking thus, because there's not much to report from today. Another pretty routine (and thus successful and also unsuccessful one of sobriety).

Again, I went to the pub and saw my mates and that's where the question came up. But it's one that plays on the mind of anyone who's had a drink problem I should imagine, and it's also a BIG and IMPORTANT question because knowing the answer is vital to how drink problems (I'm avoiding the word alcoholism for the moment) is treated.

One of my pals has experience as a drugs counsellor and started off on a fairly strong and long-gestated attack on AA. Lots of people don't like AA because they see it as cult like and religious. I haven't yet been to a meeting, but I do plan to go and will reserve judgement till then - I also understand that each meeting is very individual. We were visited on the ward by members of AA who hold a meeting in the hospital and their main thrust was to play down anything to do with religion and Jesus. I know the organisation uses the term Higher Power rather than God and asks people to define that in their own way.

Anyhow, my purpose is not ill-informed pontificating on an organisation about which I yet know very little. But, it is the law that any alcohol blogger must ask the, is alcoholism an illness question at some point, and now is my turn, just from what I know of myself.

It matters enormously of course. It matters because it affects spending large amounts of public money and it matters to me enormously because if I accept the disease model that means I'm probably going to have to accept that I can never drink again; something I find hard to contemplate despite all I've been through because of drink. Put the question into Google and you'll see a huge amount written on the subject - much of what I've read is axe-grinding rubbish designed to sell books, or treatments or traduce other books and treatments.

There doesn't yet appear to be any concrete evidence either way, although from what I've read the idea of a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse seems to have some support.

So, this is what I reckon. And, I really don't know where I'm going with this, it's just a ramble on what I think. By the way if you're a medical researcher and want to look at my brain I'd be only too pleased to help, I've always wanted electrodes on my brain.

One reason I think they're might be some merit in the predisposition concept is my own first experience of getting drunk. Charles Bukowski may have put it better: "With this, life was great, a man was perfect, nothing could touch him," but I absolutely recognise that thought. It was like a light going on and seeing the world in proper focus for the fist time, it fit, it was the real me this drunk person and straight away I knew I wanted to be like this as much as possible. I was 13. Now, it may be that everyone feels like that the first time they are intoxicated, but they simply learn to ration their pleasure. I also know there is some history of alcohol abuse in my family.

I find that very hard so powerful is that pull. I also recognise that I have a tendency to over-indulge with almost anything pleasurable and along the way I've had abusive relationships with almost every pleasure I've ever encountered from sweeties to porn to speed, acid, weed and coffee to sucking my thumb as a child.

On the other side in going through a therapeutic day programme that has really amounted to very simple, common sense guide to coping with life. And I can see in my love a drink a running away from that - from life, or anything unpleasant there within, from conflict of any kind to responsibility, getting up in morning and living to a budget. I've seen the so-called 'addictive personality' dismissed, it is in fact a narcissistic personality and when I'm not indulging in extreme self-hate there's a lot of that in me, a lot of self-regard, (just look at this blog, it's all me, me me) and the fact that the rest of the world does not bow down at my feet in supplication might indeed be a trigger for drinking. It's tough to take that is but I'm very glad that I've had my learning-to-live-classes and I'm really trying very hard to put what I learned into practice. Don't get me wrong; if you met me you would find me shy and self-effacing, much of my personality is hidden inside and only came out when the shutters were drunk into their open position, that's the only time I would have anything even approaching confidence - I need to try and find a healthy balance here somehow.

Self-medication. Another theory that I think has some merit. Narcissism taken, I was always very nervous and drink dealt with my anxiety and indeed my sadness, (narcissistic?) constant self-examination and self-admonishment. Of course, we all know that it's not a very good medication in the long run, but boy does it work at the moment of administration - instant confidence.

This, you see, could be dangerous temptation talking too. If I can learn to deal with life better, through counselling or what have you and if I get my depression and anxiety under control, through medication or what have you, then I can join those lovely lucky people like Mrs CD who have a glass of wine with their meal or a drink with friends on the way home from work without starting off on a three day bender. Wouldn't that be nice? But can I do that? I never have done, but then I've never grown up and accepted what life is all about in this society either.

This isn't getting to anywhere very conclusive at all. (I warned you). I can see merits in both sides of the argument, but not in the vituperative and self-serving nature of many of the arguees. Perhaps describing alcoholism as a disease does take responsibility away from the drinker but I also think it helps them - yes, it's easier on yourself to believe you ended up in a hideous mess as a result of some predetermined nasty gene over which you have no control, but it also might help you stop once you come to believe that you have an illness which means if you drink you will die. People with serious peanut allergies don't tend to try the odd Snickers bar for the thrill of it.

So, I don't know. I really don't and I'm tired now and in need of 300mg of Trazadone and some sleep - I'm sure I'll come back to it, we all do. But, if you've got a thought then I'd love to hear it, but, I think we'll both have to accept that whatever you say it will be a theory nothing more than that on the current state of evidence, so don't go getting all definitive on us.