Archive for November, 2008
27th November 2008
Colofn Golwg
Wrth ysgrifennu’r golofn wythnos yma, dwi ddim yn gwybod beth yn union fydd cynnyws y datganiad gan y Gweinidog Addysg yn y Cynulliad ynglyn a ffioedd dysgu. Ond dyw e ddim yn anodd dod i’r casgliad bod y Gweinidog am newid polisi cyllido myfyrwyr ar hyd y llinellau yr oedd y pwyllgor yr oedd hi wedi sefydlu, o dan arweinyddiaeth Merfyn Jones, wedi awgrymu. Fe fydd yna ymgynghoriad nawr cyn i’r polisi newydd gael ei weithredu. Mae Llafur felly yn cyflawni eu polisi manifesto nhw o adolygu’r drefn cyllido addysg uwch. Mewn gwirionedd, mae nhw’n dychwelyd, mwy neu lai, at y polisi o gyflwyno fersiwn o ffioedd cyflenwi Lloegr a drechwyd gan y gwrthbleidiau nol yn 2004.
Yr hyn sydd yn gwneud y sefyllfa yn gymhleth – a dweud y lleiaf – yw’r ffaith bod un o’r gwrth-bleidiau hynny bellach mewn grym. Fe wnaetho ni ym Mhlaid Cymru alw yn ystod ymgyrch etholiad 2007 am sicrwydd gan Lafur na fyddai yna newid yn y system arriannu yn ystod tymor nesa’r Cynulliad – addewid nad oedd Llafur am wneud, gan alw Plaid Cymru yn naïf. Dyw polisi Plaid Cymru – o wrthwynebu ffioedd yn llwyr – ddim wedi newid. Fe gytunon ni i adolygiad o’r polisi ar y sail y byddai fe’n afresymol i wrthod hyd yn oed trafod y mater yn wyneb y posibilirwydd y byddai Llywodraeth San Steffan yn codi’r cap o £3000 ar lefel y ffioedd. Ond yn anad dim, doedd dim cytundeb i ymateb yn y modd mae’r Gweinidog yn ei awgrymu.
Dyw’r safbwynt yma ddim yn gwadu bod y cwestiwn o sut i gau’r bwlch ariannu rhwng prifysgolion Cymru a Lloegr yn un dilys. Ac eto, mae yna egwyddorion pwysig yn y fantol. Yn gyntaf y polisi ei hunan: pam ddylai y tal am addysg uwch unrhyw berson ddibynnu ar gyflog ei rieni – hyd yn oed pan nad ydi’r person hwnnw’n ddibynol yn ariannol arnyn nhw? Mae yna ddadl dros dreth graddedigion – lle mae myfyriwr yn cyfrannu nol i’r prifysgolion yn unol a’u gallu nhw i dalu (nid gallu eu rhieni). Byddai treth penodedig (’hypothecated’) o’r math hefyd yn fanteisiol o bosib gan y byddai yn creu insentif i’r prifysgolion fuddsoddi ymdrech mewn hyrwyddo gyrfaoedd eu cyn-fyfyrwyr ar hyd eu bywyd. Gallai Llywdoraeth y Cynulliad ofyn i Gomisiwn Holtham ar ariannu edrych ar hyn fel opsiwn? Yn sicr, nid yw San Steffan wedi bod yn ariannu Cymru’n ddigonol gan yn hytrach glymu eu harian i brosiectau costus, megis yr Olympics, gan dynnu arian a buddsoddiad allan o Gymru i fedru gwneud hynny.
Yr ail egwyddor pwysig ydi democratiaeth. Democratiaeth plaid lle mae yn ofynnol i arweinwyr ddilyn polisi wedi ei benderfynu gan yr aelodau cyffredin. A democratiaeth yn gyffredinol. “Vote Plaid, Labour lied” oedd y rhigwm ar wefusau cenedlaetholwyr wrth gyfeirio at lanast Irac a thro bedol Llafur Newydd ar ffioedd dysgu. Dyw cyfansoddiad Plaid Cymru – yn ol llythyren ac yn ol ysbryd – ddim yn caniatau i ni wneud yr un camgymeriad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At the time of writing this week’s column, I have no idea what will be the content of the statement made by the Education Minister in the Assembly about tuition fees. But it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that the Minister will suggest changing the policy regarding student funding along similar lines to what was suggested by a committee she’d established, under the leadership of Merfyn Jones. There will be a consultation before the new policy is implemented. Labour are therefore fulfilling their manifesto promise to review how higher education is funded. In reality, they are returning more or less to England’s policy of introducing top up fees which was defeated by the opposition parties back in 2004.
What makes the situation complicates is the fact that one of those opposition parties is now in power. During the 2007 election, we in Plaid Cymru called on Labour to give assurances that they wouldn’t change the funding system over the course of the Assembly’s next term - something Labour refused to commit to, calling Plaid Cymru naive. Plaid Cymru’s policy - of totally opposing fees - hasn’t changed. We agreed to a review of the policy on the grounds that it would be irresponsible not to even discuss the matter in light of the fact that the Westminster Government might raise the cap of £3000 on the level of fees. But most importantly of all, there was no agreement to respond in the way the Minister has suggested.
This position doesn’t deny that there is an issue surrounding how we should close the funding gap between Welsh and English universities. And yet, there are important principles at stake. Firstly, our own policy: why should the fee paid by a person for higher education be determined by their parents wages - even if that person isn’t dependable on them financially? There is an argument in favour of a graduate tax where a student contributes back to a university in line with what they can afford to pay personally, and not what their parents can pay. This kind of hypothecated tax might also be beneficial as it would create an incentive for universities to invest their efforts into promoting the careers of their former students for the rest of their lives. The Assembly’s Government could ask the Holtham Commission on funding to look into this an option. Certainly, Westminster hasn’t funded Wales properly, preferring rather to tie its money to expensive projects, such as the Olympics, and taking money and investment out of Wales in order to be able to do so.
The second important principle is one of democracy. The democratic nature of a party where it’s essential that leaders follow the policy decided upon by the ordinary members. And democracy in general. “Vote Plaid, Labour lied” was the chant on the lips of nationalists whilst referring to the mess made in Iraq and Labour’s u-turn on tuition fees. Plaid Cymru’s constitution - in letter and in spirit - does not allow us to make the same mistake.
24th November 2008
PBR - instant reaction
A rag-bag of small tax cuts and tax rises delayed that will fail to stimulate the economy but will rack up a massive £118 billion of additional debt next year. The upshot is likely to be a rise in long-term interest rates and little in the way of upswing for the real economy. On top of this there is te prospect of the privatisation of the Royal Mint. All in all the worst of all possible words, too small a stimulus for too big a debt. No wonder Chancelor Merkel and President Sarkozy said no to this type of plan.
The Pre-Bust Report: a prelude
‘Too little, too late’ is an easy charge to make against any Government as this world economic crisis continues to drag us headlong into a deepening recession. The Conservative critique, incredibly, seems to be that the Government is doing too much and almost appears to be suggesting that ‘nature be allowed to take its course’. This is familiar territory for those of us old enough to remember the Geoffrey Howe budgets of the early 1980s when the Conservative Government actually did cut spending in the middle of a recession to ‘purge’ the economy of waste and inefficiency. Conservative rhetoric this time is also coming dangerously close to those ‘quack’ doctors in the Middle Ages who advocated the practice of ‘cupping’ - removing pints after pint of blood to purge the body - and nine times out of ten killed their patient in the process. For the rest of us, a return to mass unemployment is not a very attractive prospect.
Outside of the Conservative party and the dwindling Chicago or Austrian school of economists most of us would argue that fiscal stimulus is a very necessary response to stave off the kind of deflationary spiral that currently envelops us. But is the Government about to do the right kind of thing but in the wrong way and for the wrong reason. What do I mean by that? Well, there are a number of reasons for supporting fiscal stimulus (extra spending or tax cuts):
1. Directly compensate pound for pound for the shortfall in demand in the economy
2. Shield the vulnerable from the worst effects of the downturn
3. Provide a psychological boost in confidence to get consumers and businesses spending again
4. Take advantage of spare capacity in the economy to bring forward socially useful investment e.g. on housing or renewable energy
The last three reasons all make absolute sense. The problem is that if the Government plumps for a reduction in Vat of 2,5% as its principal policy lever it is obviously opting for policy approach number one which is the Keynesian caricature of ’spending one’s way out of recession. There are a number of problems with this approach. First up, scale: to plug the gap caused by the shortfall predicted next year by the bank of England the Government would need an immediate package of extra spending and tax cuts worth about £30 billion - the VAT cut represents just about a third of that. Secondly, effectiveness: will cutting the price of something that costs £4.99 today to £4.87 unleash a wave of mass consumerism. Unlikely, and it will do nothing for the business-to-business market which will be unaffected by the change. There is a case for a tax cut but the purpose must be to change people’s long-term expectation about the economy - not so much to create a feel-good factor but at least to take away their fear. Only that will begin to change the prospects for the housing market. Cutting VAT by this minuscule amount - to make a modern medical analogy - is a bit like putting a patient on a drip when he really needs CPR. There is a need for tax cuts but a better approach would be to raise the tax allowance by £2,000 which would have an immediate and more visible effect on people’s take home pay and take millions out of tax altogether. It would also cost more or less the same as the VAT proposal. Cutting VAT more substantially - to 5% as we have suggested in labour-intensive sectors like construction and tourism - could also have a noticeably beneficial effect.
The other problem with the Government’s proposed tax cuts is how they’re funded which in the short-run at least looks likely to be added borrowing. There is a big risk that this will drive up long-run interest rates - because of the need to offer higher yields on Government bonds. This will make the Government’s stated policy of getting the banks to start lending again by offering more attractive terms to its customers much more difficult to achieve. The fiscal stimulus package should, at least in part, be funded by higher tax rates on the very wealthy today not just tomorrow, as well as a windfall tax on energy companies and the scrapping of unnecessary commitments like Trident and ID cards.
On the socially useful spending front there are a number of important initiatives the Government could take including creating a Citizen’s pension of a £100 (boosting the Basic State Pension will be necessary anyway because of the massive collapse in pension funds) and also introducing free social care for the elderly as in Scotland. Capital investment programmes should include housing, renewable energy and public transport infrastructure - all overdue and beneficial to future generations who will be saddled with the debt.
The fear is that the Government will end up spending and borrowing a lot of money but which will have negligible or indeed even a negative effect.
An even more worrying thought is that the Government’s action on the fiscal front will obscure the need for urgent changes in monetary policy. The underlying roots of the current crisis are after all monetary in nature, as are the solutions. The Bank of England needs now to cut interest rates to 1%. The Government needs to issue a clear ultimatum to the banks that if they do not pass this cut on to their customers then the semi-nationalisation of some of some of the banks will become a full-scale nationalisation.
Even a cut in interest rates might not work on its own of course, which is why the Government has to embrace the prospect of ‘quantitative easing’ which is the nice technical word for ‘printing money’, economic heresy only a few months ago but now possible the one thing that can prevent deflation becoming a depression. In practical terms that would mean the Bank buying up corporate debt and boosting the money supply. At a time of falling prices, where there a literally too little money chasing too many goods, the normal rules of conventional economics are turned on their head. I am not sure the Government has grasped that. The wheels of contraction in the economy are spinning out of control. It remains to be seen if what the Chancellor will announce in a little under an hour can halt that process let alone shift it to reverse.
13th November 2008
Colofn Golwg - Nid “Y Ddadl o Blaid Academi Filwrol” chwedl Golwg ond o blaid troi’r academi filwrol yn academi heddgadw
Wrth osod torch yn ystod Sul y Cofio, fe’m cyflyrwyd i feddwl am le y fyddin yn y meddwl Cymreig. “Awn i gwrdd y gelyn” y bloeddion ni yn niweddglo y gwasanaeth egwlysig a ddilynodd. Ond brwydr ysbrydol oedd wrth wraidd dychymyg yr emynydd anghydffurfiol. Ac eto, mae bron i ddeg y cant o’r lluoedd arfog yn dod o Gymru – dwywaith ein canran o boblogaeth. Gallwn fod yn eitha ffyddiog taw nid ffenomenon diweddar mo hwn. Mae’r Cymry wedi bod ar flaen y gâd – yn llythrennol hynny yw – ym myddinoedd Prydain o Rourke’s Drift i Goedwig Mametz a nawr Afghanistan.
Ac eto mae perthynas diwylliant Cymreig – ac yn fwyaf oll Cymraeg – a’r tradoddiad milwrol wedi bod yn un cymharol sarrug at ei gilydd. Mae hyn yn wahanol iawn i’r sefyllfa yn yr Alban lle mae traddodiad milwrol cynhenid wedi ei ddatblygu a’r fyddin ar ol gwrth-rhyfel 1745 yn ymgorffori elfennau amlwg o hunaniaeth yr Ucheldiroedd – y cilt, y cotbib a ffyrnigrwydd ymladdol y Gaeliaid – yn asiad hynod effeithiol a grymus. Gafr a bwyta cenhinen unwaith y flwyddyn oedd ymgais tila y Catrawde Cymreig i naddu delwedd genedlaethol. Dyw’r delyn ddim yn rhyw gynnig ei hun ar gyfer gorymdeithio – ond pa wahaniaeth y byddai defnydd helaethach o’r iaith Gymraeg a chaplaniaid Anghydffurfiol wedi gwneud?
Mae cenedlaetholdeb Cymreig wedi drwgdybio militariaeth un ai oherwydd ein bod yn heddychwyr, yn wrth-Brydeinwyr, yn wrth-imperialwyr, yn weriniaethwyr neu oherwydd ein bod yn gyfuniad o’r cyfan. Ac eto, roedd gymaint o genedlaetholwyr yn gyn-filwyr – o Saunders Lewis i Gwyn Alf Williams – ag yn wrthodwyr cydwybodol. Mae hefyd yn syndod faint o genedlaetholwyr a gewch chi yn rhengoedd y Fyddin heddiw – er gwaetha lein cyson – a chywir - y Blaid yn erbyn y rhyfel yn Irac. Nid meibion a merched afradlon Cymru lan, Cymru lonydd mo’r rhain ond adlewyrchiad o realiti cymdeithasol y Gymru sydd o honi. Oni ddylen ni wahanieithu felly rhwng y Fyddin fel sefydliad a’r milwyr fel unigolion, rhwng y rhyfeloedd a’r bobl sydd yn eu hymladd?
Yn yr un modd tra bod protestio yn erbyn polisiau a rhyfeloedd a dulliau ac arfau milwrol yn ddilys, ydy gwrthwynebu academi hyfforddiant fel y cyfryw yn gwneud synnwyr? Onid natur yr hyfforddiant ddylai fod ffocws ein gwrthwynebiad ni. Wedi’r cwbl pan ffurfiwyd West Point gan yr Americanwr o Gymro, Thomas Jefferson, academi heddwch oedd ei weledigaeth e. Oni allwn ni ffocysu ein meddyliau ar greu mewn cysylltiad a’r datblygiad hwn pwsylais newydd a chanolfan rhyngwladol o ragoriaeth mewn ymdrechion hedd-gadw.
7th November 2008
Colofn Golwg - Ymgyrch ‘Ie’ Heb Oedi Pellach
Ym mwrlwm y clymbleidio rhyfeddol y llynedd, fe gyfeiriodd sawl un at debygrwydd digwyddiadau ar draws y Mor Celtaidd. Os oedd Martin McGuinness yn medru eistedd lawr gyda Ian Paisley, pam ddim Ieuan Wyn a Rhodri? Un gwahaniaeth mawr, wrth gwrs, oedd penderfyniad Arweinydd Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, i aros tu fas i’r Llywodraeth. Penderfyniad call iawn yn wyneb yr ymgecru mewnol wnaeth ddisodli Paisley hýn a iau ill dau.
Mewn Cynulliad o 60 doedd y polisi o ymneilltuo byth yn opsiwn i Blaid Cymru. Ond dyma ydy’r strategaeth mae’r Blaid Lafur yn amlwg bellach yn ei ddilyn. Dim ots pwy bynnag wnaiff olynu Rhodri Morgan, dyw gwir arweinydd y Blaid Lafur ddim ym Mae Caerdydd - mae’n eistedd yn holl ogoniant ysblennydd y Ty ar y Tafwys. Mae’r Unol-Lafurwyr ar ryfelgyrch a Swyddfa Cymru – yn arbenning yn sgil symudiad Huw Irranca-Davies – yn gwneud cymaint y medren nhw i danseilio Llywodraeth Cymru’n Un. Gweler ymyrraeth anhygoel Paul Murphy yn argyfwng banciau Gwlad yr Iâ, yn mynnu taw Llywodraeth Cymru biau’r cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw ddigolledu – er mai gweithredu ar sail cyngor yr Trysorlys yr oedden nhw ac allan o gronfa brys y DG y byddai unrhyw ddigolledu yn dod. Yr oedd ei sylwade sbeitlyd sectyddol am gyngor Caerffili (gan anwybyddu’r holl gynghorau Llafur mewn trafferthion) yn atgoffa dyn o ymosodiad Rod Richards ar gynghorwyr Llafurol ’seimllyd’. Nid y math o beth mae dyn yn disgwyl gan Weinidog.
Mewn ateb ysgrifenedig mae Ysgrifennydd Cymru wedi dweud bod rhaid i’r Cynulliad osod mas “yn glir ac yn ddiamwys” sgôp deddfu arfaethedig unrhyw Orchymyn drafft. Amser a ddengys os yw hyn yn golygu cydymdeimlad a safbwyntiau gwrth-ddatganoli y Pwyllgor Materion (Gwrth-) Gymreig. Oni fu yna addewidion gan Weinidogion gynt (Nick Ainger) na fyddai gorchymyn yn “gosod mas manylder y polisi mae’r Cynulliad yn dymuno gweithredu… oherwydd mai mater i’r Cynulliad benderfynu yw hynny”?
Ddwywaith hefyd yn ystod yr wythnosau diwethaf mae Paul Murphy wedi gwrthod cadarnhau y byddai’r Llywodraeth yn cefnogi cais gan y Cynulliad am Refferendwm yn ystod y tymor yma pe ddigwyddai hynny yn unol â chytundeb Cymru’n Un
Nofio yn erbyn llif hanes, wrth gwrs, mae’r Blaid Lafur Seneddol Gymreig. Mae nhw wedi colli eu hymerodraeth wleidyddol, a heb ddarganfod rol newyddyn iddyn nhw eu hunain.
Sut dylen ni yng Nghymru ymateb i’r musgrellredd gwleidyddol hwn? Yr ateb syml yw sefydlu ymgyrch ‘ie’ heb oedi pellach. Yng ngeiriau Gweinidog arall wrth drafod refferendwm ar bwerau deddfu llawn:
“Don’t shout at the Government, but go out and win the argument. Make the case to the people of Wales . If you win the argument, this Bill provides a mechanism for delivery. The ball is now in your court.” Clywch, clywch Mr Hain.