Don't Believe The Hype

When I see an artist’s impression of how a development is supposed to ultimately look, it often makes me wonder if the “artist” ever visited the town in question…

Kingsway Shopping Centre development - John Frost Square, Newport, South Wales

The vision




The reality






These pictures aren’t actually up to date, but that vision was how it was supposed to open and that was the reality. It doesn’t get much busier than these pictures suggest and I must point out there are very few shops inside the shopping centre.

In time for the Ryder Cup they’ve painted some bits of the surface and stuck a couple of giant marbles in, apparently they’re fountains.



They’ve also stuck some Dragon sculptures (“SuperDragons”) throughout the town, but most of these have been vandalised and removed for repair at some point over the last few months. There are also flags and banners proclaiming various things and always that the ‘city’ is hosting the Ryder Cup 2010.

And I can't forget the Ryder Cup Countdown clock. A large digital clock stuck on the side of an old carpark, at the back of the square in this photo, the carpark on the right.



Took a while to get it working properly but it turned out to be a truly exceptional waste of money and as you can probably tell from the picture it really captured the imagination of quite literally hundreds of people who may have glanced at it as they passed through the square over the last few months...

When I see these 'imaginings' of developments for Newport, they never quite ring true. It wouldn’t just be about knocking up a few fancy buildings; they’d have to change the nature of the town.

The truth is I don’t know what has happened with developments in a lot of other towns in the UK, but I can’t help but imagine there’s a closer correlation between vision and reality. Newport has never quite managed it. Maybe one day it’ll change, but it certainly hasn’t happened as the Ryder Cup is upon the town and it comes under something of an international spotlight.

The Kingsway Centre was just one part of developments throughout the city centre, aimed at transforming the city in time for the Ryder Cup. To get into the complexities of the reasons behind the tragic reality would take a long time and not be of any interest to many. But to cut a long ridiculous story short:

- The Celtic Manor won the bid for the Ryder Cup in 2001, the local authorities must have thought they were onto winner and whether by holding out for the best offer or through simple incompetence, they waited through the property boom right up until just before the financial crash to start any significant development, the money dried up, the economy went into recession and all of the developments backed by private investment stopped.

- Now a large number of shops are empty; partly because the proposed developments didn’t go ahead and partly because of the downturn. So Newport city centre has a half finished University Campus, a hastily finished railway station, some superficial adornments and a foot bridge to nowhere, and very little else! All in time to welcome the teams and the world’s media for the Ryder Cup.

After 13 years of a Labour Government which coincided with a major economic boom, the city centre, give or take a few fundamentally minor developments, looks worse than it did before. With no shops, it could look no other way.

It's pathetic and though the authorities have a lot to answer for, all you ever hear is the usual positive propaganda, born of the New Labour machine.

This is political and relevant to so many aspects of modern British society. We are told one thing by detached politicians and authority figures, but it is average people who have to live with the reality and ultimately tax payers that fund their mistakes and follies.

The usual excuses are trawled out when those responsible are very occasionally held to task by an essentially partisan and apologetic local media, but the economic crash is no excuse when you consider the time they had. They had nine years through an economic boom and in the nearby cities of Cardiff and Bristol; major developments have recently been finished, as work continued into the crash. But both of those cities have had strategies that have spanned decades, Newport hasn't.

While everyone tries to be positive about what is a big event and something that can only be good for the area, the mistakes are excused and the reality for most people is overlooked, so how will the situation ever improve? When so little has been done in such opportune times and the same inept authorities will remain in control.

I suppose it must be an essential resource if you're in a position of power; you have an excuse ready for every eventuality. This one may not come from a public servant or politician, but I like in this article where David Russ, managing director of South Wales Chamber and Centre for Business claims:

“There's no point in building shopping facilities and bars and restaurants if they'd be full for a week then empty for the next three or four years.”

So why plan a f**king £200 million development in the first place then!?!! If it was only going to be used for a week?? What's the point in ever doing anything? The economic circumstances haven't stopped so many other cities continuing with developments and it hasn't stopped public money being used in Newport. A***hole! And one that doesn't have to live with the reality and is just making excuses to suit the circumstances. The fact is they missed the boat and royally f**ked up, but he just says 'ah well, no point in doing anything during a recession...' Anyway he's only from the South Wales Chamber of Commerce and from a quick search it looks like he's got public sector form...

Newport Council have slapped themselves on the back, when it is the Celtic Manor that has organised the event and built the most important facilities; the courses and resort. Notice the difference in results when private finance works alone. If the Local Authorities had been in charge of the event I think we’d be looking at another Delhi.

I don’t intend to dwell on this but there will be more to follow on the inept handling of development in Newport. The fact is these authorities do handle a huge amount of tax payers’ money, but whoever said they know what they're doing??? Whoever said they shouldn’t be properly held to account?

If they were more honest about expectations and the reality, and of course if they didn't p*ss so much money up the wall, it wouldn't seem so bad.

It would certainly seem better if they didn't sp*nk £20 million pounds on a pointless railway station, but more about that next time. Only a little more though...

Ignorance is Strength

Too much time spent dealing with work and the inept management of a major British company. But briefly back to the political arena and although the New Labour years were characterised by the struggle for the middle ground and blurring of party lines, the cuts and the issue of public spending are certainly redefining the divisions in British politics.

Labourites are taking to opposition with relish; I think they find the partisan nature of the British political landscape comforting. It always settles back to the same old same old…

Here’s a good example, where with the coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats we could be seeing a style of Government based more on consensus than ever before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/15/alan-milburn-joins-demos-thinktank

Gordon Brown did already try to move into this territory with his “government of all the talents”. However, as with everything else during his premiership, it was b**locks. While one might imagine it would be Tories, with their support of First Past the Post and therefore confrontational politics, who would be against inclusive government and the politics of consensus, it is in fact becoming apparent it is Labour and the Left that stubbornly refuse to give any ground and are more than happy to revert to the old politics. Remember the Crewe and Nantwich by election.

While they have neglected their former core support they are quick to attempt to pander to old political prejudices to gain favour. It’s pathetic.

John Prescott taking well to the “New Politics”, accusing Alan Milburn of ‘collaborating’ with the Coalition, along with others.



Maybe they’re infiltrating John. Get back in your bin

A recent Labour Party function

Every door will open wide. To happy people like you...

I'm losing the will to live with all the talk of cuts. I fully appreciate how important the subject is and I knew full, as this blog has indicated, that they would dominate this parliament (before we get anywhere near electoral reform...), but Bejesus Christ! We're going back and forth over the same ground in the media, back and forth and round and round in circles!

Well that's just from my viewpoint, the cuts are crucial to so many people and they are unlikely to see it the same way.

I haven't had any time over the last couple of weeks to write any further on the matter, work has dominated way too much of time, cutbacks you see, turned it into a nightmare...

I will get back to it soon, but the Labour Leadership contest is still going, not as prominent in the news over the last week or so, but it's still there, lingering, like a nagging doubt. It's got another couple of months to run! But it can still cause amusement.

I don't think John Prescott has thrown his significant weight behind any of the candidates so far. He is with some of the candidates, showing that it's about the Labour party and they're all in it together...

John Prescott amongst the leadership candidates

All the usual suspects with Andy Burnham and Douglas Alexander in the front.

Douglas just happy to be there...

But where's Diane Abbott??

Wash your cares away, worries for another day...!

I think the Labour party, having not been completely annihilated in the election and although their Leadership candidates are hardly setting the world alight, are going to take to opposition rather well this time.

With cuts imminent and the best economic course uncertain, they quickly manoeuvred themselves into the position they are likely to maintain through opposition and this was apparent long before they’d lost the election.

They are the party of ‘the people’ and they are holier than thou. Of course just as it is the right of a new government to blame the former administration for so many woes, it is the right of opposition to claim that various problems and situations did not happen and would not have happened on their watch.

(For instance #neverhappenedunderlabour trended on Twitter a few weeks ago. Started by Campbell and his minions gleefully indulged him. Of course according to him the Labour comments were the funny ones and the Tory comments lacked humour. I suppose the latter included the comments calling him a massive c*** and his book a f***ing load of bull***t and a disgusting waste of trees…)

Head stuffed firmly up own ar**

“If only I could…”

This opposition standpoint is of course completely hypothetical and similar to people saying the Tories would have let the banks bomb. It is all essentially meaningless because it can never be proved.

Considering the scale of the catastrophe Labour oversaw and the unsustainable scale of public spending and debt, I think Labour really are pushing it with the self righteousness. However, it is in their nature and so many are keen to believe it all, because they are the self appointed saviours of the working man.

I find most politicians patronising at the best of times, but Labour politicians, especially while on the defensive as they have been for some 3 years, are thoroughly patronising.

Where do they get this moral authority? When Brown oversaw the expenses scandal and three of their former MPs are facing criminal charges? When the likes of Byers, Hoon and Hewitt are caught trying to offering to wh*re themselves out? Just to point a couple of major problems with the sanctimonious bull***t, especially from scum like Campbell.

Campbell reads a book about self righteous c***s

‘Who wrote this s**t?!’

Labour did come through all of that relatively unscathed, but there are a number of reasons for that, which I still intend to look at one day.

Speaking of patronising, how about some of the BBC’s coverage of public sector, of course the Corporation itself being fearful for the future under a Tory regime.
For some good objective journalism they wheel out a few sad little faces… On the weekend I saw a librarian from the North East:

“What do you think of the impending cuts and possibility of jobs losses?”
“Please don’t cut me…”
Awwww… Nasty Tories!

I’m paraphrasing of course… But we have sympathy for a librarian because they work for the public good and it’s not some nasty banker, we should have spat on them as they left Lehman Brothers with their belongings in boxes. Probably full of diamonds and bundles of filthy notes, the b**tards!


“Granny killer!!!” *

(* Please see below for reference)

Of course I have sympathy with any average worker and the low paid (I’m one of them!!); it’s not a good situation. But after two years of hard times for almost everyone else, I just can’t accept this blinkered view.

The problem is the focus, it is not the services that should be cut, they just need to be run more efficiently and it is backroom staff and operations which need to cut back. I will come back to this point in my next post, it is very important.

Labour’s standpoint on cuts and the handling of the economy in general, is relatively simple position to hold. They don’t have to deal with any of the fall out and they don’t have to get their hands bloody in any way.

Just a quick analogy, that is far from perfect – I’m not a Tory supporter but it’s like someone smashing into a car, causing a huge pile up, then walking away to criticise the emergency services. “Oooh they’re not doing a very good job, not helping everyone…”

Or having a massive party at someone else’s house, carrying on until the funds have run out or have been cut off and everyone moans as a care taker comes back to break it up and clear everyone out. “Killjoys!”

I think there are plenty of analogies (much better, more thought out…) that could be made, but I have no doubt people will ignore the obvious problems with Labour’s rhetoric and their responsibility for the situation. The supporters are already doing as such with reckless abandon and apparently quite enjoying opposition.

I mean take for instance Tweets from Labour supporters that followed Labour MP John McDonnell saying he would like to assassinate Thatcher.

“I like how (The Tories) rage about a joke about killing 1 OAP whilst gleefully introducing cuts that'll actually kill loads of 'em” (* So by way of causation...)

“Unlike Thatcher McDonnell has never *actually* assassinated anyone”???

Apparently only Labour supporters have a sense of humour, but I’m not sure about their sense of proportion… All of it smarts of ‘Evil Tories, they used to eat babies don’t you know. Yes, in the 1980s…’

I used to hate them as well, but some of the sniping is verging on pathetic and after 13 years of government it seems very hollow now.

But it is true, Labour in general do have a sense of humour. They certainly like taking the p*ss. They show us the way to have a laugh through adversity.

They p**sed billions up the walls in their final days, knowing full well they were likely to lose the election and therefore effectively all responsibility would be relinquished. Worth getting it in, f*** the debt piling up!

Worth it because they know they look good for all the projects given the green light and services they have funded on the tick, there was even the chance of swaying votes for the election, but more likely, they knew the new government will always look bad as they have to take it all away. Boo! Tories! Boo!

And so it has begun. The Government have announced cuts and a review of the spending in the last months of the Labour administration.

And Labour weren’t satisfied with that level of p*ss taking, Liam Byrne left his ‘joke’ note for the incoming chief secretary to the Treasury. He said he hoped that David Laws’ sense of humour wasn’t a casualty of the coalition deal.

Did he really think it wouldn’t become public? If so surely someone that stupid shouldn’t hold public office? And if he did know really then he must think everyone needs to get a sense of humour apparently. If you’re stuck in a sh*t job, facing the sack or unemployed because of the downturn, the least you can do is laugh at this c***’s joke. It lightens the day…

In the Independent article about today’s announcement Liam ‘Joker’ Byrne is quoted as saying the last minute spending only amounted to 0.05% of total spending, but does that only suggest the massive scale of Government spending?

And also since he admitted there was ‘no money’ left, well we'd have had an extra £9 billion, you f***ing w*****r!

Still Labour continue to attempt to look like the party of the people and humour, but they are very selective in both respects. Who they help and who and what they take the piss out of…

So who has the moral high ground?

Stephen Byers?


Geoff Hoon?


Elliot Morley? Jim Devine? David Chaytor?


Liam Byrne?


Who do these people speak for?

And who do these people represent?



It always brings me back to their "Future Fair for all?", but there is no doubt it would have been fairer for some than it would have for others.


More to follow on the nature of the cuts in Government spending and the tactics of the Labour party, and rarely forgetting their epic Leadership Contest...

The Labour Leadership Contest - Nothing to see here...

Since my last post there’s been the Labour hustings and the endless talk of cuts, which is of course leading somewhere, to the “emergency” budget, but otherwise there has been little to talk about. I’ve been busy, the world moves on, everyone is concerned with their own s**t at the moment…

There has been international incident and focus, particularly the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which definitely did get worse and doesn’t appear to be getting any better yet, not to mention the political fall out.

I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to the Labour party leadership contest. Obviously Diane Abbott’s inclusion was the biggest talking point and it is a good thing, it provides something of an alternative in a rather limited line up.

It could be seen as a pretty cheap gesture from David Miliband.


David Miliband toying...

She won’t win of course and he looks good, perhaps wins friends on the left, maybe from the two Eds. Yeah it’s cheap and Machiavellian. It could even backfire. I don’t know the intricacies of the voting system but today I have read that Ed could be edging ahead and the system might help him

It's not just about a duck.

David and Ed see the Labour party as their play thing...

Miliband of Brothers


The contest is going to go on for an age, so I will comment again on the candidates and their potential affect on the Labour party, when the race has developed and I’ve had time to look into it.

But I think the strongest candidates are still very much of the political class and tied to New Labour, will they be capable of genuine change..?

I've mentioned old Ed Balls before but I should also mention Andy Burnham is involved in the contest. Well done Andy...

More on the Labour party in opposition to follow.

It's a huge s*** sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite...

I was going to write about the issues of the week, from Laws to Campbell, but throughout the last week or so, on the internet and on the TV, this question continues to be posed almost relentlessly:

"Why should Civil Servants pay for the mistakes of bankers?"

And it will continue to be asked over the next few months/years as the cuts are planned and take effect.

So I just wanted to return to this issue, briefly...

I have seen comments on social media that say public sector workers get 'paid less' than private sector works and this is one of the common misconceptions that are generated from the public sector, unions and the left wing media.

I'm sure civil servants are sick of seeing all these contract cleaners, warehouse staff, factory workers, call centre workers, admin staff, bar/hotel staff, waiters, care workers, etc, etc, etc, driving around in Porsches or the like, mocking their impending plight..!

The misconceptions and propaganda seem to confuse the whole of the private sector with the financial services. As if all the workers listed above are on massive wages and bonuses. A common quote I've heard over the years from public sector representatives when confronted with the issue of their pensions and benefits, was that they wished they could have the 'bonuses of the private sector'. (Well apparently some government agencies do hand out bonuses, just to perfectly contradict this oft-repeated mantra. One fine post-crash example was the FSA)

It may be true that some industries, particularly the financial services, have a bonus culture, but it is far from all and certainly few at the lower levels.

It has been the low paid private sector that is currently being criminally over looked during the election and now as the issue of cuts takes centre stage. Unemployment has been an issue, but not the conditions in the private sector as belts have tightened for two years. Gordon Brown even tried to take credit for keeping unemployment low even though it is in the private sector that changing working conditions (e.g. going part time, reducing hours, etc) meant many clung onto their jobs.

Times have been very hard for nearly two years, but apparently it is civil servants paying for the downturn? That doesn't really ring true in many circumstances.

Those rejecting the need for cuts seem to use the word 'victims' quite regularly, again as if they alone are feeling the brunt of the crash, just two years after it happened. That's a painfully slow shockwave...

The simple fact is we should all have to deal with it. It is actually quite insulting to those who have suffered, the unemployed and the low paid.

It has also been harder in non-unionised industries, obviously recent examples of Network Rail and BA have shown that changes in conditions are not forced on to them without a fight. While my opinions of unions have altered over the years and I do believe in collective action in principle, these actions are unlikely to ultimately help. Workers in many any other industries have simply have to put up with changing conditions, or leave, if they so wish.

Public sector unions will mobilise over the cuts, of course attempting to defend the interests of their own members, but I think ultimately that is the problem of modern British employment. The solidarity throughout the working population, formerly found in industrial labour, no longer exists and the influence is much more limited. Unions will be looking after narrow interests that wouldn't necessarily benefit the larger population, those who have already suffered, no matter how well intended any action is.

There is huge scope for cuts in the public sector and while the private sector has largely been squeezed it within an inch of its life, little has changed for public servants and surely it is only right and fair that the situation changes.

It is now close to two years that this downturn has effected the world economy and as it transpired the two main culprits have come away largely scot-free.

It was the banking sector and Government, through action and inaction respectively, that caused the crisis. However, with the banks having been propped up by Government and the cuts in public spending having largely been postponed until now, in many ways these two sectors have not felt the full effects of the downturn, or at least no as perhaps they could have, should have...

Yes there have been job losses in the banking sector and the Labour Government was thrown out at the election (though only just, Brown was clinging onto the door of No. 10 with his fingertips...), but the banks were saved from extinction and they have in some ways returned to business as usual. Perhaps they are trying to balance the books a little better, so have tightened their belts (much to the dismay of some would be borrowers), but bonuses are back. While in terms of Government as I have stated clearly for nearly two years the public sector has been largely saved from cuts.

The debt has gone from the debt of banks to sovereign debt, the debt of the nation. So who will take the greatest relative proportion of that debt? Not the rich, the rich will not suffer in the downturn and that was clear and identified long before the crash actually happened. In the global economy the super rich will prosper over the long term as the Times rich list has already illustrated quite clearly this year.

And in terms of my two protagonists, the Labour party don't seem too disheartened by opposition, since they weren't completely annihilated. I mean Big Al Campbell is having a right laugh on Twitter, on Question Time and while getting publicity for his trashy book.

Alastair Campbell

A man utterly convinced of his own importance

The fact is the level of economic growth was unsustainable therefore the level of investment in the public sector was also unsustainable. Cuts have to be made.

The idea of sustainable growth reminds me of the huge of amount of rubbish stated about Brown's economic record. The absolute best was early on in the crisis when on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show John Prescott claimed that Brown had delivered 10 years of "sustainable" economic growth. It so completely nonsensical it doesn't require analysis.

I don't think Vine picked him up on it properly. It astounds me that the likes of Prescott and Campbell get away with such nonsense so easily, or are allowed to by professional presenters and journalists.

John Prescott

F***ing clueless

Stick to what you know best John

Spot on


Maybe in a few years' time the higher level of investment could return, if significant growth returns. But probably not if the Tories have anything to do with and greater efficiency does need to be brought to the sector. This is a main aspect in the disparity between the public and private sector and I do intend to look more closely at Labour's legacy in the public sector and employment in Britain.

The issue of debt reduction and cuts is complex, but many of those fundamentally opposed to spending cuts are suggesting that the debt should be paid by increasing taxes.

This blog article is along those lines

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/28/camerons-claim-on-8020-tory-cuts-doesnt-stack-up/

So effectively the private sector pays, even if some public sector workers suffer de facto pay cuts, the basis of the debt would be paid from wealth generated in the private sector.

Taxes will have to be increased of course, but the idea of just taxing the rich, or the banks, or whoever; will not work without the corresponding cuts. The rich should pay their fair share and banks need to be levied (something Labour was waivering on), but tax increases have to be combined with spending cuts.

To put it simply, the rich will avoid the taxes as best they can and the conditions at the wrong end of the private sector will continue to deteriorate as the burden of the tax is shifted. Even if the low paid are not directly taxed, companies will cut further in attempts to maintain profits.

I have to admit that this scenario adds some credence to the Tory and business leaders claims about the NIC rise, the 'tax on jobs'.

Job cuts, pay freezes, etc, etc. The low paid in the private sector shouldering an even greater level of the burden to maintain the conditions in the public created during an
unsustainable boom.

It's just the way the system is now. Labour and their supporters may not like it, but then they had 13 years to at least try to do something about it.


I don't know if I'm hammering the point home... I would hope the point is clear enough, there is more than just the disparity between the rich and the poor in this society Tory and Labour alike have mangled over the last 30 years.

A bit bogged down by debt and cuts. I will move on this weekend...