The Failure That Is Anglesey

This week, we latest GVA statistics were released for Wales.  They make for despairing reading, if you live on Anglesey.

GVA - Gross Value Added - is a measure of the contribution of each individual producer, industry or sector in the UK.  It is commonly modified to a GVA per head of population, where it becomes 'how much of a contribution each person made to the UK economy.'

Anglesey has the lowest GVA figure across the whole UK.  Not just Wales - the whole of the UK.  And indeed, this is not the first time we've seen this outcome - it's been the same for a very long time.

And it's not just a slight difference that leads us to the bottom - our GVA per head is less than half the UK average.  We are, in every sense, a poverty-stricken island.

My name?  Anglesey.

Worse than this is the fact that Gwynedd has seen a rise of 3.4% in the period 2012-13 in its GVA figures, whilst Anglesey dropped 1.5%.  So it can't merely be blamed on geographical location.  There's something special about Anglesey that leads it to consistently be a huge under-achiever.

But maybe this is not surprising when our current portfolio holder for economic development is a former farm insurance salesman who, later, couldn't even make a sweet shop pay.  That, and the legion of well-paid tortoiseshell bespectacled officers who don't appear to be on any sort of performance-based renumeration.  If they were, perhaps we'd see something better than sitting back and watching the island sink into economic oblivion.

Sadly, the answer has, for many years, been seen as 'Wylfa B, Wylfa B, Wylfa B'.  All the eggs in one basket.  A simple measure of desperation.  You'd think the politicians would learn and set their sights on a diverse economy based on small, efficient businesses.

But, why worry when your councillor's allowance each year take you twice as high as the per-capita GVA?  That is the simple disconnect between the governed and the governors.  The workers and the wasters.  Whilst they may laugh in the poor people's faces, it is a dangerous place to go, as any history book will inform.

Caught by the glitz, the self-importance and the trips abroad, our council can only join-in with its central government master and repeat that the vast majority of people support Wylfa B, when independent studies do not support this idiotic bleating.

Meanwhile, it's clear that Anglesey has been ill-goverened into the ground whilst our noddies fought amongst themselves for power and privilege. Reap the benefits, folks, and pack-off your kids elsewhere.  Oh, and pray that Cardiff will wield its legal powers to bring the sick joke that is Anglesey Council to a very swift end.

Anglesey Council - The Dumb Dinosaur Wakes Up.

This week, Anglesey's bumbling Chief Executive, Richard Parry Jones, has written what is described as a 'frank but constructive' letter to Horizon Nuclear.

Horizon, whose knees probably won't be trembling very much, say they are 'disappointed' by the Council's letter.  Hey, join the queue of the disillusioned, Horizon!

The motivation is said to be the lack of clarity over just how many jobs, and just how much economic benefit Horizon will provide to locals, as opposed to workers parachuted-in from new plants reaching completion across the world. This, from a Council whose own clarity consisted of trying to keep hidden from the public its interim MD's pay packet (that was £1200 a day, plus a few more perks, by the way.)

It is remarkable that Anglesey is only now asking these questions.  Residents have been chatting about them for years now.  For years, the Council has been ramming its 'Energy Island' (a trademarked, jolly cover for 'Nuclear Island') down the throats of residents, even though the programme appeared with no public consultation nor any identifiable mandate.   Search online, and you will find endless rose-tinted press releases by the Council, coupled to ludicrous certainty about the New Dawn awaiting Anglesey, if it gets Wylfa B.

Energy Island(TM) has delivered dubious results for Anglesey.  Most of the whoopla about tidal energy has died away, leaving little more than, erm, Wylfa B and ever-more wind turbines that would have arrived without the Council's hamfisted involvement.

The point never addressed by our hopeless Council and our uselessly compliant local media is that Anglesey has had a nuclear power station operating since 1971.  During that time, it has stood as a perverse, government-sponsored mini-island of prosperity for the few who work there, whilst the vast majority of the island's 70,000-odd population have just grown poorer in a rapidly-declining economic environment.  Nuclear power does not bring widespread and lasting economic prosperity.  Wylfa A proves that much.

Also rammed down our throats has been the shrug-shoulders to new pylons across the island, whilst other parts of the UK have protested their way to climb-downs by National Grid, now burying their lines in many parts of England, where the people are less willing to sit and do as they are told.  According to insiders, Anglesey Council has been busy working hand-in-hand with National Grid to aid their 'preferred option' of more pylons whilst trying to appear at arms' length to the public.

The new nuclear build is said to be wanted by the majority of Anglesey residents - but only if you listen to the biased views of Horizon and the Council.  A study by Bangor University found the wrong questions were being asked and, consequently, yielded the wrong answers.  The majority, it seems, are not in favour of 'Wylfa Newydd' and its patronisingly Welsh cottage-like name.  The latest missive of concern by Parry Jones now insists that the "vast majority" support Wylfa B, and that this support is "of the upmost [sic] importance."  No points for written English, then.   No doubt by 2015, it will be 'everybody, to a man'.  Such are the assertion-laden tendencies of little men.

The reality of Wylfa Newydd has been apparent to everyone except Richard Parry Jones and his merry men, it seems.  Whilst Horizon has been tokenistically pumping money into Coleg Menai and training a few people up, these are not going to be the experienced engineers and plant installers that will be needed for an efficient construction project.  Nobody believes that those people will be local; they will obviously come hot from other projects to keep their skills honed and ready for the next one, somewhere else.

Sure, some people like painters, plasterers, and maybe a builders' yard or two may become rather wealthy from Wylfa B, the vast majority of spending will not be local due to its highly specialised nature, and the expected reliability of supply.  'New turbine assembly, you say?  Yeah, I had one round the back, somehwere', isn't the kind of exchange we're likely to see at Llangefni Jewsons any time soon.

It's rather galling to find the Council repeatedly make reference to 'evidence-based' decision making, when its own claims about the degree of public support has already been shown to be highly-questionable at best, and plain wrong at worst.  

It's also a bit rich that this Council wants clarity and adherence to policy by industry when its own development plans ground to a halt years ago.  This is, in every way, a failed Council trying to make out it's an authority with clout.  It's a bit late for that.

Still, maybe Parry Jones and his lot can take another fully-justified and necessary trip to Japan to 'clarify' the position.  Nice work, if you can get it...

Anglesey County Council: Back to Normality

In the week where we discovered the 'Basket Case Council' sent a Council tax invoice for one penny to a father who'd recently lost his daughter (being invoiced), we find general business is back to normal in Llangefni.

Over the past couple of years, Cardiff has been gearing-up to rid itself of the financial dead weight that 22 local authorities represent in Wales - a nation of just 3 million people.  The clearest signal that change would happen, no matter what, came when new legislation - the Local Government (Wales) Measure - to permit a forced amalgamation of local authorities was passed in Cadiff in 2011.


Despite the endless slef-interested bleatings of the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), it's clear that not only is Cardiff intent on cutting the number of councils, but is intent on doing it quickly.  After all, the financial crisis has been going on for five or more years by now, and the impacts about to be felt by the average Joe.

The Williams Commission was clear in identifying the problems and providing the solutions on a plate to Ministers.  Under such pressure, several councils, including Gwynedd, have already relented to the very clearly inevitable and offered themselves up for amalgamation.

Anglesey, however, has other ideas.  Never one to be anything other than ridiculous, Anglesey has stated it will stick it out and resist amalgamation.  It says is wants a meeting with Cardiff to "learn more" about the process of amalgamation.  This is very interesting, because for months, the bumbling and ageing Chief Executive of Anglesey, Richard Parry Jones, has been popping down to Cardiff for plenty of meetings.

Chop, chop - merge now!

There is no defence against cutting the bloated public sector within Wales, which in many areas provides the only well-paid employment to be found.

It's also clear that much of the resistance to amlagamation is utterly predictable and self-interested moaning from councillors and senior officers alike, both groups fearing a curtailment to their lavish expenses and very positions.

Anglesey's councillors, for example, now cost well in excess of £1 million per year in annual allowances.  One elected member pocketed £43,000 last year (2013/14), according to Anglesey's own data.

Yet, whilst there is plenty of hand-wringing about how services "must be cut", and endlessly raising Council tax by 4.5-5% per year  - every year - none of the councillors discuss cuts to their own allowances, which are in many, if not most cases, higher than the average annual salary for the island.

Anglesey has never worked as a Council.  Mired in scandal and alleged corruption from the outset, it has been subject to condemnation by one District Auditor after another.  In the 1990's, heads did roll, albeit with golden 'goodbyes' and nothing by way of personal accountability, as is the way of the State.

We've since seen direct control from Cardiff by Commissioners, the initially top-secret payment of £1100 per day to a parachuted-in and widely-derided interim MD, and various special measures of various departments.

More recently, a Family Court Judge, no less, stated very publicly that he suscpected Anglesey's Social Services might be trying to cut costs when they completely failed to adhere to the law in stopping a child returning to its mother.

This is not a council in which the public can have faith.

The message to the self-interested public money grabbers who are once more putting their pockets, rather than the people first, is clear: you must merge, and quickly.  You have no track record other than failure on which to rely, and it is to be hoped that Ministers will dismiss the bleatings, and wield the axe in a deicisive manner.

Anglesey Council's Potential Deafness Problem

Anglesey Council, who initiated their much-vaunted and trademarked 'Anglesey Island' concept many years ago now, may have a big legal problem on their hands if new research is put to the test in Court.

Researchers in Germany have unearthed mechanisms by which the ear's natural sounds are amplified by stimulation by low frequency noise, which campaigners often claim to be emitted by wind turbines.  The paper itself makes no mention of wind turbines.

Sunny and noise-free.  Or so the authorities and developers would like you believe.

Planning consent is such that levels of noise at LF are never taken into consideration, because the frequency and loudness levels are at points of the auditory spectrum where, even if these LF problems were shown to exist, they would never provide a legal basis for planing consent breaches. 

Only by the notoriously difficult-to-demonstrate route of statutory nuisance can LF noise currently be brought to Court.  Local authorities, whilst obliged to order assessments when reasonable complaints arise, are often in friendly liaisons with turbine developers, and in most cases, get the developers themselves to assess the noise.  It's hardly a recipe for objectivity.

But, with this evidence, part of a developing body of research that indicates LF really is a problem and could damage health, those whose lives and property are blighted by wind turbines will feel emboldened.

Anglesey has been an enthusiastic supporter of energy projects, and wind energy insiders report that senior officers are "very keen" when presented with new turbine proposals.  The public, however, have a different view.

The tide has turned against onshore wind farms.  Their proliferation in the crowded UK has become a significant poilitical issue.

For now, it appears that this latest research is one further nail in the coffin of those who have hoodwinked local politicians and the public alike into believing wind turbines never cause health problems.  If they really believed that, then they would embrace LF noise clauses in planning consents.  That this is never the case reveals the true situation with respect to turbine developments.

Indeed, the government fairly recently relaxed limits on noise for wind turbines.  This blogger, who seems to be an ardent supporter of the wind industry and perhaps part of it, claims the German research is "bad science."  As his riposte, he ridiculously posts an online video taken with a simple video device, claiming that the wind farm in question has "no noise."  

Where the blogger is right is in his claim that the term "wind turbine" does not appear in the text of the research report. 

Whilst this is so, it is a bit like saying a research paper reporting that "high energy collisions with the human body cause injury" can't be linked to motor vehicle accidents, and so there's no need for anyone to worry about cars hitting people.  The link to turbines is self-evident and unambiguous through the range of frequencies under consideration.  The paper provides food for further research thought in direct respect of wind turbines.  

Anglesey Council's Ludicrous 'Considerations'

Anglesey Council, hardly the exemplar of local government over the past 30 years, is 'considering' a waste collection option that could see black bins emptied only every three or four weeks.

One can certainly be kind to the council and say they have both legally-enforceable recycling rates to hit, and financial savings to make.

Now it's 1,2,3 weeks per collection, not 3,2,1,!

However, the EU legislation that necessitated recycling targets came into effect a very, very long time ago.  Like many other councils, Anglesey have simply sat on their hands for several years before getting to grips with the problem of waste reduction.

But let's get back to the immediate problem: can a monthly bin collection work?  An analysis of waste going into my black bin casts very serious doubt that it can.

This family recycles all that the council accepts.  This excludes a large number of plastics, notably packaging plastic and films, that the council can't get rid of.  As a result, our bin content over two weeks is currently almost entirely made up of packaging plastic.  All our food waste is composted within our garden.

What this tells you is that, for families, monthly collections will result in ludicrously full bins.  In summer, they will smell, although the reduced amount of food waste put into them should limit this compared to days gone by.

Councils, of course, have never been able - or perhaps willing - to tackle sellers and makers of food on the plastics they produce.  As a result, the manufacturers are able to dispose of the waste they (and not us) createat zero cost to themselves.  This has always been a sore-thumb sticking out in need of attention, but it's remained unresolved.

One might argue that, with monthly bin collections, the pressure will mount on food producers to cut down on the amount of thin and film plastic they use to wrap all our products in.  But it's uncertain.  Plastic bags didn't really become a controlled item until the Welsh Government banned free bags.  I think packaging plastics will have to similarly be controlled through legislation.

So, yes, the Council does have a genuine problem on its hands.  But then, has anyone started to look in depth at the years-long contracts handed out to private companies - who must make a profit - for taking over the waste collection and processing functions in the first place?  Therein must lie some pretty hefty savings - provided you can find good managers that are allowed to manage by Councils.

Anglesey GCSE Results

If there's one thing you can rely on any flavour of government to do, it's abusing numbers.

This lunchtime, a little while behind the other local authorities, Anglesey has appeared from behind the bushes to announce - wait for it - that "99.5% of students attained grades A*-G." 

Ha ha!  They may as well say "100% of students got a grade A*-Fail."  It's a pathetic, pointless number to quote that deliberately serves to produce a short-lived 'ta-da' moment. 

So, where did Anglesey score?  It's using the word "maintained" in relation to its results.  That means not up, not down.  Is this correct?

Anglesey got 67.7% in the still very wide grouping of A* to C.  The emerging national (UK) average is 68.8% (BBC figures).  So whatever Anglesey is doing, it's 1.1% below the national average.  Anglesey seems to mean "Wales" when it uses the term "national."


As to maintaining its position, Anglesey appears to be doing itself a bit of a disservice.  Its own press release claims the 2013 figures A* to C was 65.6%, so 2014 seems to be a 2% improvement.  Similarly, the pointlessly wide range of A*-G is up a very tiny 0.2%, which we can accept is treading water. 

Anglesey's spin doctors haven't said what proportion achieved the grades A* and A.  If they are anything like the national picture, they will have dropped markedly.  

According to sources, education chiefs are "not in the country" at the moment.  This may well be reflected by the disappointing revelation that a councillor hasn't even bothered coming up with anything new to say, this year's press release containing the verbatim-same note of congratulation as last year's:

"We can be proud of the educational success of our young people which is crucial to the future prospects for Anglesey."

Well, any sensible students and their parents will be taking their academic successes thus far and crossing over the nearest available bridge to the Great Wide World beyond, just as soon as they possibly can.  That way, they can get away from the shame of Anglesey and its council, famously described as a "basketcase" by Private Eye.

So, Anglesey is treading water once again this year.  This despite special measures following its failure to provide a good service.  In the end, how many people get any sort of grade is utterly meaningless smokescreening.  It is how many people get the top grades that counts.  Sadly for any spin doctor charged with making things look better than they really are, Anglesey, like the rest of Wales, continues to occupy the abyssal depths of the PISA tables - a much more telling result.

Social Services - Anonymous Complaints

If you want to lodge a complaint about someone putting up an oversized shed next door, but want to remain anonymous, planning authorities will typically tell you to get stuffed. 

Why?  Well, it's pretty obvious.  Complaints where neither the authority being complained to, nor the person being complained about know who's behind the moaning inevitably lead to open gates for malice.

But if you want to remain anonymous to Social Services?  No problem!  They don't ask who you are, because, they say, the interests of the child are paramount over any concerns about anonymity.  It sounds good, until you ask: is Social Services about family wellbeing, or just protecting children?  It ought to be an equal concern.

This is the terrible place local authorities up and down the UK have taken us.  Arse-kicked into covering their own backsides after high-profile failures on their part, they've now swung to the other extreme of making everyone guilty until they can prove otherwise.

It is, in no uncertain terms, a turning of centuries of legal safeguards against arbitrary punishment by the state on its head.  Forget Magna Carta, because Social Services plebs think it's a kind of upmarket coffee.

And forget, too, the line that "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about."  It's a lie.  If someone that hates you cottons-on to the fact they can make as many complaints about your parenting abilities as they like without anyone asking who they are, chances are they will.  Children are emotive.  They grab the headlines.  Especially when Social Services get things wrong. 

Many will say that anonymity encourages reporting of bad parenting.  Probably true.  But then, it was an ethic used to terrible effect by the Stasi, too.  Is that where the UK has come to?  It is.

It's time Parliament put an end to entirely anonymous reporting of allegations against parents.  If complainants want their details withheld, the Data Protection Act 1998 already allows that with no difficulty.  If this practice were to end, then it would be easier for parents maliciously targeted by former partners, estranged spouses and neighbours with nothing else to do of a day, to tell Social Services who they think is responsible, and match that against what is often long-term harassing conduct by others, and often a matter of clear police record, too.

So long as Social Services redefine innocence by allowing completely anonymous accusations to be filed, parents - and their children - p and down the country remain at significant risk of further distress and harm.  After all, send a shirty letter to a parent that someone, somewhere has moaned about them, and chances are they won't be taking it very lightly.  It's an incredibly awful experience, sometimes pushing already stressed parents to the edge.

It's no good saying, on first complaint, that the "file is closed."  If anonymity is OK, then Social Services can't tell whether the first anonymous complaint wasn't also made by the same person as the second.  So, when they do get the second malicious complaint, they assume it's made independently of the first.  They have to, because nobody asks who's moaning.  This is just fundamentally wrong and ought never to have been allowed to become the default arse-covering, anti-rule of law system that operates daily in the UK. 

It is a shame on the British spirit of justice, no less.