Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Redundant studios, and irrelevent debate

Around 11.00 this morning, I was in Newtown when my mobile sounded. It was the Conservative's Media Director asking me if I'd appear on Radio Cymru's Taro Post to talk about Gordon Brown's expected admission that Labour would cut public spending after the next election. Since I was around 50 yards from the studio at the time, I readily agreed. But when Taro Post rang me to confirm the interview, I was told that the studio was not acceptable. It would have to be a land line. This surprised me enough to prompt an inquiry as to why. It seems that because the other guests in a four party discussion were on landlines, being in a studio would give me an unfair advantage. Never happened to me before. I wonder whether this is a new policy by our all of our broadcasters, or is it just limited to Taro Post, limited to Radio Cymru, limited to Conservatives, or whether it was a one-off. The next time I'm on a land line when someone else is in the studio, I'll have some more questions to ask.

The discussion itself was a bit disappointing. Since the basis of the conversation was that Gordon Brown was going to say there would have to be cuts in public spending, I'd expected a measure of agreement about the way ahead. Didn't work out like that. There was much talk that reversing Conservative commitment to increase Inheritance Tax thresholds would help resolve the financial crisis - despite it being funded by a specific tax on non-doms, being programmed 'sometime in the first Conservative Parliament', and amounting to what is a comparative drop in the ocean of the debt we face. There was also talk of the 50p income tax rate for those earning over £150,00 pa, as if it would make a difference. There may be reasons to approve of this proposed rate (though I don't agree with them), but they are nothing to do with raising extra revenue. Past experience informs us that the new rate will raise virtually nothing at all. The approach of the Lib Dem spokesman was the oddest. All he seemed to care about was cutting the defence budget. National security has always been the first responsibility of government in my view. I was not at all surprised to learn later in the afternoon that Vince Cable has announced that the Lib Dems want to scrap the St Athan training academy project.

Still, its a start. At least reduction in spending was under discussion. Over the next few months there will be a lot more about where the now agreed cuts are going to fall. Could be lots of busy landlines, and a few redundant studios.

8 comments:

Uncle Bob said...

Wasn't that St Athan's project going to provide a 5000 job boost to the local economy? Thay would account for nearly 5% of the official unrmployed in Wales. I wouldn't want to be a Libdem campaigner in the area come election time.

Lib-Dems: let's not said...

The Lib-Dems, despite all their talk of protecting freedoms and liberty, don't want to fund the nation's defense to protect freedom. It is such a short-sighted policy, but hey, the Lib-Dems are so out of touch with actually having government responsibility for the nation's defense that they feel comfortable with politicizing the nation's defense to the extent they are happy to deceive the public about the need to have a strong defense.

While Iran and other nations that don't have our interests at heart seek nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, the Lib-Dems want to disarm the nation. Pretty soon Iran will have ballistic missiles with the capability of landing nukes on London, Edinburgh and Cardiff, but hey - lets disarm, lets remove our capability of deterring nuclear attack on our nation and by the way, while the Lib-Dems vilify the USA, they make the UK more depended on the USA for protection against nuclear attack. The Lib-Dems are clearly not fit to form a national government. They would lay waste to the defense of the realm, feel comfortable at rendering more porous the UK's border controls, and happily see the BNP gain seats as a result. For all their talk about protecting freedom, the Lib-Dems are slip-shod in defending freedom.

Valleys Mam said...

Hi Glyn,just wondering why Nick Bourne or any other AMs dont seem to be spokes people for your party.I can't remember the last time I heard Nick Bourne make any comment to camera or in the press

Double speak said...

VM> you can talk, you heavily supported presidential candidate Obama while claiming you were against the war in Afghanistan. You claim you don't support the war in Afghanistan, but you supported Obama to the hilt.

Anonymous said...

Seem to remember that Plaid was opposed to the Training establishment in St Athan's; correct me if I'm wrong - or have they made a Ewe turn?

Glyn Davies said...

Uncle Bob - Agreed.

LD lns - It makes sense to consider all defence spending to ensure its both appropriate and affordable. I don't defend Trident or any other defence commitments blindly. Its just the Lord (Roger) Roberts yesterday seemed to be conerned about nothing but defence cuts.

VM - Must admit I hadn't noticed. I would expect media focus to switch to Westminster based politics from now until the General Election though.

Valleys Mam said...

i see my stalker is following me grrrrrrr

Glyn Davies said...

VM - answer.

Anon - Some Plaid members are opposed, but I think party policy is in support. Only the Lib Dems are opposed - unless you do not think Vince Cable speaks for them on economic issues!