Book Review: The New European Left: a Socialism for the Twenty-first Century? By  Kate Hudson (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

Reviewed by Peter Rowlands

Hudson’s ‘new European left’ (NEL) are those parties today mainly grouped under the banner of the ‘Party of the European Left’ (PEL), not formed until 2004, although most of the parties involved previously co-operated through the New European Left Forum (NELF, 1991), although another grouping, the  European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL, 1994), are to be distinguished by their more oppositional attitude towards Europe in its present form than that of the PEL who are for European integration.

Hudson charts the growth of this ‘New Left’ in some detail, mainly from the pivotal years 1989-91 when the communist parties in both western and eastern Europe were thrown into crisis by the collapse of the system that they had hitherto, to a greater or lesser extent, supported,  although this was foreshadowed by differences within and between the west European communist parties over ’eurocommunism’ in the 1980s.

Hudson explains that a ‘new left’had been growing from the 1960s onwards, influenced by Trotskyism and Maoism, as well as by feminism and ecologism.This had already led to the growth of some ‘new left’ parties, in Denmark (1959) and Norway (1975), but the real forerunner of the NEL was the United Left in Spain, formed as a front in 1986, and including communists, left social democrats and other left groups. But it was the 1990s that saw the emergence of the NEL, bringing about major realignments, often involving mergers of communist and Trotskyist groupings that would have been inconceivable prior to 1990 and leading to entirely new groupings, the most successful of which has undoubtedly been Die Linke ( the Left) in Germany, which is mainly a fusion, although not until 2005, of the non-Stalinist successor to the GDR communist party and a left breakaway from the SDP, which gained 12% of the vote  in 2009. Elsewhere, fortunes have been mixed.

In France, the CP’s decline has brought about its participation in the Front de Gauche , founded in 2008 by the new left party, PG, although not including the new hard left anti-capitalist NPA. In Italy, however, the PRC (Party of Communist Refoundation), one of the successors to the PCI which effectively became a social democratic party in 1991, did quite well in the 1990s, but its participation in the 2006 Prodi government and its support for the war in Afghanistan saw its virtual elimination in 2008. In Spain, the United Left saw a decline in its support, and after having achieved 10% in 1996 it was reduced to less than 4% in 2008. Hudson is critical of the Greek and Portugese communist parties for having maintained, as they see it, doctrinal purity at the expense of  left unity in those countries, with Syriza emerging as the main left party in the current Greek crisis.

Hudson explains how, in the West, the opportunity for the NEL was created by the drift of social-democratic  parties to neo-liberalism,  and this opened up a political space for the NEL. In the East, most of the communist successor parties became social-democratic parties, although often retaining substantial support. The only exceptions were the PDS in Germany and the Communist Party of Bohemia Moravia (CPBM) in the Czech Republic, which has maintained good support, winning 11% in 2010. She also describes the NEL’s participation in the ‘global left’, charting the rise and decline of the ‘social forum’ movement.

Her ending is prescient, describing the NEL as anti-capitalist but, at the same time, as potential participants in coalition governments. She warns of the dangers of this and of the necessity of keeping abreast of new movements such as Occupy, but rightly sees this as the way forward.

Hudson’s book has its flaws. There is a need for a decent appendix to summarise the developments she describes. There is also an inexplicable failure to mention the Dutch Socialist Party, one of the most successful of the NEL parties in recent years.

There is no attempt to account for the absence of a NEL party in the UK, which in my view can be explained by the first-past-the-post electoral system, and which helps to account for the left’s failure in Italy.
Social-democratic parties are too easily written-off  as wedded to a neo-liberal agenda, but since the onset of the current crisis there are signs of change which may in the future pose a challenge for the NEL. Indeed, this is far more likely than any challenge from the European anti capitalist left, whose forces remain tiny, except to some degree in France, Denmark and Portugal.

There is also little mention of  the Green parties which in most north-west European countries have support which in many cases matches, and sometimes exceeds, that of their NEL counterparts. These are parties of the left, normally with agendas that go well beyond environmental questions, and it is inconceivable that they would not be part of  any future left coalition, as has to a limited degree already been the case.
Notwithstanding these observations Hudson has produced an important and timely book.The left in the UK should pay what it discusses much more attention than it does, because our future is inseparable from it.

[Written in 2013]

The  European elections  in  Wales,  2014

By Peter Rowlands      

These were bad for Labour. We failed to win a second seat, needing about 18,000 more votes to do so, while the swing to UKIP was greater than anywhere else in the UK, although the UKIP vote remains lower than anywhere else except London and Scotland. The corollary is that the swing to Labour was lower in Wales than elsewhere in the UK, except for the three regions in the South and East and Scotland.

The combined hard-left vote was a derisory 1.2%, down from 3.1% in 2010, with the combined  fascist vote down even more at 1.9% from 5.4% - one of the few welcome aspects of these elections. It must be assumed that much of the previous BNP vote went to UKIP. The Green vote, at 4.5%, remains low against a UK average of 7.9%. Labour won ten councils, with UKIP in second place in all and running Labour close in Newport, Torfaen and, worst of all, Merthyr, where there must have been a massive switch from Labour, as there are few Tory votes here. UKIP won in six councils, three of which (Flint, Wrexham and Vale of Glamorgan) should have been won by Labour. The Vale was the worst result, where we came third, behind the Tories.
       
Having said that, we shouldn’t overreact to UKIP’s success in these elections. Supporters of UKIP are strongly opposed to the EU, and therefore highly motivated to vote, whereas there is no equivalent enthusiasm FOR the EU, except to a limited degree among what is left of the Lib-Dems. I am personally a keen supporter of a federal socialist EU, but know of few other Labour members who are. Many Tory and Labour voters switched to UKIP for these elections, but polls indicate that about half of these are likely to return next year. If this happens, UKIP are worth 15% of the vote in a low turnout election - say 10% in next year’s general election, not enough to win any seats, except possibly for Farage himself. The bulk of Tory and Labour voters felt no motivation to vote, and in Labour’s case were not given any, at least in terms of European policy, but most of them will vote next year.

By then, Labour must have developed a credible policy on Europe and related issues in order to see off UKIP and win the election.

Labour's Policy

By Peter Rowlands   

Although it has not been particularly commented on the publication of eight documents from Labour’s Policy Commissions marks a further step down the road to the manifesto. Amendments are invited, although the deadline for these of June 13th doesn't give much time, partly because of the EU and local elections on May 22nd.              

The documents should be read alongside the shadow cabinet documents, and it comes as no surprise to note that the key wording in each is identical. This is not to say that there has been no consultation, and the policy commission documents are full of quotes from submissions to them, but while this is certainly an improvement on the past, democracy over this and other matters would appear to have some way to go.

What then should the left propose by way of amendments? Or is it all signed and sealed? While the broad outlines of the manifesto would appear to be taking shape, it is important that the left fights for an expansionary budget and for other commitments, rather than say very little which is what the Blairites would prefer.

What is Labour offering, and what needs changing? To begin with, and most important of all, Labour has signed up to Con-Dem spending plans for 2015-16, which are likely to be more severe than any so far implemented and bring crisis to many hospitals and local authorities. As Polly Toynbee said in the Guardian on Feb 7th, it is doubtful whether Osborne himself could implement these.

So the most important change of policy needed is an emergency budget following the election. This should impose a moratorium on cuts for local authorities, education and health for a year and draw up a new budget based on significant tax increases for the better off and a renewed drive against tax avoidance.

At the same time, a huge investment should take place, mainly in green energy and housing, of the order of £50 bn. This is affordable. No-one suggested that HS2, at comparable cost, was not, although this should now be put on ice.

If the Con-Dem cuts in the March 2015 budget are maintained by Labour then all the other positive features of the manifesto will be nullified. Even if there is substantial investment in housing the cuts would loom large and would be highly perplexing – why are we sacking social workers but taking on bricklayers? It is vital that this change in policy is made, as  current Labour policy is far more draconian than the Darling policy which envisaged cuts at about half the level currently being imposed.

Having said that, the policies and commitments in the various reports differ in terms of what the left would see as priorities, but in some areas they are very positive. Below I have tried to summarise the main proposals along with key omissions, from a left viewpoint, which amendments should seek to cover.

On banking, to a British Investment Bank and a Green Investment Bank, with big banks to be broken up to promote competition and regional banking, limit overall market share and separate retail and investment banking, unless this has been done. (The commitment here is rather ambiguous, but of supreme importance.) Long termism will be supported, and a 25 year strategy implemented for improving infrastructure.

On workplace/employment rights, to reinforce the minimum wage and to give incentives to adopt the living wage, including tax rebates and procurement contracts. Action against zero hours contracts, protection for agency workers, but no commitment to restore TU rights lost under the Con-Dems, let alone Thatcher/Major.

On housing, 200,000 houses a year by 2020, with council houses, new towns and anti – land hoarding powers for LAs, the regulation of letting agents but only the encouragement of long term lets and reduced rents, rather than compulsion. The bedroom tax to be repealed.

On tax, action on tax havens and tax avoidance, the restoration of the 50p rate at £150k pa,
No further cutting of corporation tax, a reduction in pension tax relief, a mansion tax. However, no mention of the ‘Tobin’ tax or a general avoidance principle.

On benefits, a compulsory 25 hours pw guarantee, and the end of the ATOS contract, but nothing on safeguarding disability benefits.

On education, very little, except a new vocational award (TechBac) with few details. Nothing on scrapping all selection, free schools, academies, reinstating EMAs,  local authorities as main administrators of education and guaranteeing nationwide pay and conditions of service for teachers.

On transport, an integrated network with elected transport authorities, bus regulation as in London, retaining the East Coast Main Line in public hands, capping fare increases, safer cycling. No mention of rail renationalisation.

On energy, a price freeze, dividing energy and supply, opening the companies’ books, cost effective green energy schemes.

On health, the repeal of the 2012 Act, the linking of physical mental and social care into one service, tackling the A and E crisis, seeking a consensus on residential care, tackling health inequalities and promoting public health. No mention of free personal care, abolition of prescription charges, dental and optical care.

On ‘better politics’, lowering the voting age to 16, democratic reform of the House of Lords, defending the Human Rights Act.

There isn't much time, so get amending right away!

Postcript: some suggested model amendments to Labour's eight Policy Commission documents 

This is intended as a brief guide to the sorts of amendments that those on the left might want to move, noting the most welcome features of each document as well as their main omissions. The individual comments/amendments were published on the Your Britain website on March 7th.

1) STABILITY AND PROSPERITY

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• Sustainable long term growth
• Improved living standards
• Breaking up the big banks if necessary
• A British Investment Bank
• A freeze on energy prices
• The restoration of the 50p top rate of tax.

However, we oppose continuing with Con-Dem spending plans in 2015-16. We favour:

• An emergency budget that will emphasise growth, the only way to generate the revenue needed to reduce the deficit.
• A sustained crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.
• A more progressive tax system through reforms at personal and corporate levels.

2) STRONGER, SAFER, COMMUNITIES

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• Build 200,000 houses a year by 2020
• Build council houses and new towns
• Anti hoarding (by building firms) powers for councils.
• More neighbourhood policing.

However, we favour further measures for housing:

In the public sector:

• The suspension of the right to buy while waiting lists remain.
• An increase in the housing target to 300,000.

In the private sector:

• Rent controls and greater security for tenants.
• The loss of tax relief for buy-to-let purchases.

3) LIVING STANDARDS AND SUSTAINABILITY

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• A freeze on energy prices
• An integrated transport network
• Greater energy efficiency
• Maintaining carbon emission targets

However, we favour:

• The complete renationalisation of the railways.

4) WORK AND BUSINESS

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• End the ATOS contract
• Abolish the ‘Bedroom Tax’
• End abuses via ‘zero hours’ contracts
• The protection of agency workers
• The reinforcement of the minimum wage
• The extension of childcare provisions.

However, we favour:

• The restoration of all trade union rights lost under this government.
• A commission to establish a new framework for employment rights.
• A campaign in conjunction with our affiliated unions to improve wages and conditions for low paid workers in the private sector.
• The adoption of the living wage as a minimum wage by 2017.

5) HEALTH AND CARE

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• The repeal of the 2012 Act
• The integration of social and mental care with health care
• Tackling health inequality

However, we additionally favour:

• Free personal care for all those in care homes
• No private practice in the NHS
• Free prescriptions for all
• An end to PFI in the NHS
• A commitment to free optical and dental care when resources permit

6) EDUCATION

This  (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• Extend free childcare from 15 to 25 hours.
• Provide ‘wraparound’ care from 8am to 6pm

However we additionally favour:

• The restoration of local authorities to their proper role of local co-ordinators of all school provision
• The abolition of Academies and Free Schools
• The abolition of selection at 11+
• The restoration of EMAs.

7) BRITAIN’S GLOBAL ROLE

This (BLP/CLP etc.) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• Remaining in the EU and keeping the ‘Social Chapter’
• Co-operating on fighting crime and controlling the arms trade
• A political settlement in Palestine
• A renewal of the 0.7% target for international aid.

However, we additionally favour:

• No replacement of Trident.

8) BETTER POLITICS

This (BLP/CLP etc ) notes this document. We particularly welcome the commitments to:

• Lowering the voting age to 16
• Democratic reform of the House of Lords
• A register of parliamentary lobbyists
• An extension of the Freedom of Information Act
• Further protection for LGBT, BAME and disabled minorities 
• The abolition of the ‘Gagging Law’.

The first part of this article originally appeared on the Left Futures website.

Welsh Labour Grassroots: Working on the Fringe

By Sophie Williams

Always engaging and informative, this year's Welsh Labour Grassroots fringe event at Welsh Labour Conference in Llandudno was particularly refreshing. Attracting a good turnout (including ordinary party members, AMs and even Welsh Government ministers) and featuring four excellent speakers, this was a rare opportunity for left thinking members to come together to discuss the Party’s current political direction, both in Welsh and UK terms.

Recently selected Gower parliamentary candidate, Liz Evans, kicked off with a revealing insight into the campaign in this marginal seat. Although one of the longest held Labour constituencies in the UK, Gower is facing demographic change and rising disillusionment with politics, a feeling undoubtedly influenced by the impact of divisive Con-Dem policies on the most deprived areas. Liz was keen to reverse this disengagement through adopting policies (the Living Wage, commitment to investment in the public sector and its workforce and the restoration of trade union and employment rights) to win back working class Labour voters and restore and reinforce the voice of ordinary people.

Welsh Labour’s number two candidate for the European elections on May 22, Jayne Bryant, contributed an invaluable overview of the need for a strong Labour vote and the need for more socialist MEPs, and highlighted the fact that currently only 13 out of 73 UK MEPs are Labour, a which serves as a reminder of the urgent need to strengthen the voice of socialism in Europe.

The final two speakers, the Welsh Government Finance Minister, Jane Hutt and Mark Drakeford, the Minister for Health and Social Services, were both in a reflective mood. Jane and Mark have been at the centre of Wales’ devolved government from its inception and currently hold two of the most demanding ministerial portfolios, both very much having to contend with the impact of austerity. Their contributions looked back over the years to re-engage with the fundamental philosophical and political principles that continue to motivate their decision making in power. Both were clearly angry at the mounting Tory attack on Wales and the Welsh Way of social governance. Jane gave a comprehensive overview of the Assembly’s many achievements under Labour since 1999 - highlighting key policy successes, including the ‘Flying Start’ early years programme which supports children and families in deprived areas and the youth employment scheme, Jobs Growth Wales. Mark was keen for members to consider the wider global picture, looking forward to the series of key political events taking place over the next year, from the European elections to the UK General election, and their implications for a changing political landscape. A key reflection centred on the potential impact of the Scottish referendum on Wales, and the pressing need to start a dialogue on this topic, and an assessment of the Tory attacks on Welsh public services and particularly our NHS – driven by the need for neo-liberals to destroy any indications that a non-privatised, pro-public sector model of governance can work well.

Questions to all four speakers were wide-ranging, from zero-hour contracts to Ed Miliband’s conference pledge to create a reserved powers model for Wales, akin to that of Scotland. The conclusion was that we need to fight back against Tory attacks and reinforce our message that, despite the strain of austerity, Welsh Labour’s policies are working.

This article appears in the current issue of Labour Briefing magazine.

Welsh Labour Takes the Fight to the Tories

By Nick Davies 

Welsh Labour Conference is a strange beast. Despite the  matey atmosphere and the relative lack of political distance between the AMs and members, it’s still a controlled environment. Substantive policy issues  are shunted off to the Welsh Policy Forum, and if it’s an election year, which is usual, conference  generally consists of a sequence  of  prepared  speeches by MPs, AMs or candidates.  For more reflective political discussion, conference-goers need to make their way to the Welsh Labour Grassroots fringe meeting. This year’s conference was a little different, however.

Ed Miliband’s speech praised Labour’s record in Wales, while gliding over the fact that on education policy, Tristram Hunt is nearer  to Michael Gove than to his Welsh counterpart Huw Lewis. The one significant announcement was that a Labour government would introduce legislation so that, like in Scotland, power would be assumed to lie with the Welsh administration unless reserved to Westminster, as opposed to the present arrangement in which powers have to be specifically conferred on Wales. Behind this arcane-sounding formulation is an important principle: it would strengthen the ability of the Welsh government to act in defence of the people of Wales without interference from Westminster, such as the Attorney-General’s attempt to use the courts to prevent the Welsh government retaining the Agricultural Wages Board. 

The real red meat came  later. For months now there has been an increasingly bitter and hateful attack on the  record of the Welsh government by the Tories in London and their media allies. The motivation is to distract attention from their own  project of effectively privatising the NHS in England and to attack what they see as the threat of a good example: the Bevanite NHS Wales, community comprehensive schools and  government  help  for students with higher education. It’s difficult to say there’s no alternative to Con-Dem policies when they are at the other end of the M4. Grant Shapps has admitted that the Tories are using Wales as part of their general election strategy; presumably, attacking one of the devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom is part of their plan to win back UKIP voters!

First Minister Carwyn Jones went  to war on the Tories’ ‘War on Wales’,  setting the record straight on the Welsh government’s performance on health, education and job creation. Health  Minister Mark Drakeford followed with a warning to Cameron that he had picked an argument ‘on the wrong topic, in the wrong place and with the wrong people’. This belligerence from the Welsh government is welcome and it contrasts notably with the attitude of  Welsh MPs.

The phrase ‘fork in the road’ came up repeatedly. The next general election will, or should, be about what  kind of society we live in.  Wales cannot afford another year of the Tories, let alone another five after that. That prospect is disturbingly likely if Labour fails to prevent a clear alternative to the Tories. It is up to Welsh Labour, in combatting Tory smears and lies, to present that alternative.

This article appears in the current issue of Labour Briefing magazine.

NHS Wales: the threat of a good example

By Darren Williams

It is clear that Welsh public services – and especially the NHS – will be a key battleground in the next UK general election, as Westminster Tory politicians invoke the supposed shortcomings of the Welsh model in an attempt to justify their own ‘reforms’.

While English health care is increasingly fractured, marketised and handed over to the private sector, devolution has allowed Wales to restore the NHS to its original Bevanite vision, albeit in an updated form. Even before the UK coalition took office, Welsh Labour was following a very different approach from Westminster – abolishing the internal market introduced by the Major government, rejecting PFI, foundation hospital and independent sector treatment centres and scrapping prescription charges.

The Tories are therefore desperate to be able to rubbish Wales’ service delivery. Writing in The Spectator, Bristol Tory MP Charlotte Leslie described Wales as ‘a Labourite utopia of state supremacy with none of the so-called evils of alternative providers getting in the way of the tight grip of the state’. And the Tory chairman Grant Shapps told the Western Mail that service failures in Wales would be help up to warn people elsewhere the UK what would happen if Ed Miliband were to enter Downing Street.
Jeremy Hunt recently told Parliament that there had been a 10% increase in Welsh patients attending English A&E departments since 2010, suggesting that Welsh service failures were putting greater pressure on the NHS in England. The Welsh Health Minister, Mark Drakeford, pointed out on the Today programme, however, that attendances at A&E had increased by 11% across the country over the same period and it would be nonsensical to attribute increases in Newcastle or Nottingham to Welsh patients. Moreover there had been a 10% increase by English patients at Welsh A&E units, reflecting simply the ‘long and porous border’ between the two countries.

The Tories have also made much of an email sent last December by the English Chief Medical Officer, Sir Bruce Keogh, to the deputy chief medical officer in Wales, saying that he had given data that suggested there may be grounds for concern about mortality rates at certain Welsh hospitals. The email had been obtained by Charlotte Leslie and formed the basis of hostile coverage in the Telegraph, Mail and Express. In the face of such a concerted campaign – ‘a cynical, deliberate’ attempt ‘to drag the reputation of the Welsh NHS through the mud for nakedly political purposes’ in Mark Drakeford’s words – the Welsh minister has patiently attempted to point out that Keogh’s email did not give his personal view as to the seriousness or otherwise of Welsh mortality rates, and that the UK Statistics Authority has advised that the available data do not provide for safe comparisons between the countries of the UK.
The Tories’ relentless attack has also drowned out the many facts that show the Welsh NHS in a more favourable light. For example, waiting times for cancer patients are much shorter in Wales than in England, the experience of cancer patients is better, delayed transfers of care are at a ten-year low and Wales’ cardiac survival times top the  European league.

The Welsh NHS is, of course, far from perfect, as Drakeford is quick to acknowledge – and it faces growing challenges as a result of the UK government cuts. But, even in such difficult times, Wales continues to lead the way with legislation introducing a life-saving system of presumed consent for organ donation; obliging restaurants and takeaways to display prominently their food hygiene ratings; and seeking to recover treatment costs from companies that have exposed their workers to asbestos (the latter is being considered by the Supreme Court after being challenged by the insurance industry).

Unfortunately, Labour in Westminster is sometimes slow to defend Wales’ record, and the Cynon Valley MP Ann Clwyd, has, in effect, a become a mouthpiece for Tory attacks, after her concerns over her dying husband’s treatment in a Cardiff hospital led to her appointment by Cameron to advise on the handling of complaints.

Whatever its faults, the NHS in Wales represents the demonstrably fair and viable alternative to the privatised Tory model and, as such, it should be defended by socialists.

This article first appeared in Labour Briefing magazine.

What happened to the Clear Green Water?

By Nick Davies

Throughout the history of devolved Welsh government, a distinctive theme of Welsh Labour and, therefore, of Welsh government policy has been a commitment to sustainability. This commitment was pursued most energetically by the former minister Jane Davidson under whom, between 2007 and 2011, sustainability had its own cabinet portfolio.

Since then as the gap between rhetoric and reality has grown ever wider, there appears to be a real risk of that commitment being misunderstood as simply ‘the environment’ – something to be bolted on, rather than baked in.  Without a real understanding of what it is, sustainability looks in danger, in the present grim period, of  being  repeatedly trumped  by a  perceived need to create jobs at any cost and therefore effectively abandoned as an effective driver of policy.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 imposed on Welsh government ministers a duty to make a scheme setting out how they proposed to promote sustainable development. ‘One Wales, One Planet’ was the result. This had as its aim a sustainable Wales using only its fair share of the earth’s resources; sustainable development was the overarching strategic aim, cutting across all policies, programmes and ministerial portfolios. Sustainable development was to be the central organising principle of the Welsh government and of the public sector throughout Wales.

At the start of the 4th Assembly, speaking on the Welsh Government’s flagship Sustainable Development Bill which sought to put the scheme into effect. Carwyn Jones pronounced that sustainability was at the heart of the Welsh government’s agenda for Wales and of his government’s legislative programme. In 2013, he announced that an independent body would be created to provide guidance, expertise and advice to ensure that sustainable development would become, as intended, the central organising principle.

Since 1999 has been possible to criticise the gap between aspiration and achievement, the lack of mainstreaming, the apparent reluctance (or inability, given the weak and unstable devolution settlement) of the Welsh Government to intervene effectively, in defence of its own professed political principles as against Westminster or local authorities – issues such as Ffos y Ffran, the open-cast mine near Merthyr Tydfil, spring readily to mind. However, what was present was a greater understanding, certainly than in Westminster, of what sustainability means and a commitment to genuinely sustainable policies, a commitment which won high praise in environmental and ecological circles well used to governments falling short of promises and expectations.

However, according to the previously well-disposed Jonathan Porritt, writing in The Guardian: ‘despite the laudable aims behind Wales’s sustainability bill there is now a serious risk that it could be watered down by nervous civil servants and lawyers who are under pressure from backward looking elements in government, industry and the public sector’. While still happy to contrast favourably Wales’ record with that of Westminster (he cites the coalition government’s abolition of the Sustainable Development Commission) he strikes a note of caution, stating that carbon emissions are still too high, progress on renewal energy held up by a ‘slow planning system’ and progress at government level being ‘patchy’; in particular, sustainable ideas need to be taken more seriously in relation to economic development. Most fundamentally, according to Porritt, under the proposals for the bill, then out for consultation, the duty to be imposed on ministers was not sufficiently onerous and the meaning of sustainability was not sufficiently defined.

Anne Meikle of WWF Cymru  has also highlighted  the gulf developing  between the Welsh government’s own narrative and what the proposed legislation actually says, pointing out that the white paper requires only that ‘consideration (my emphasis) of the effect on  the social, economic and environmental well-being of Wales will be a fundamental requirement of the duty so that decisions are informed by the likely effects on each and the integration between them’  Presumably, having ‘considered’ something, the duty is then done.

In a retrograde step, the 2013 reshuffle saw the end of the Sustainability portfolio, John Griffiths moving to Culture and Sport, taking part of his responsibilities with him. (Alun Davies has the ‘other half’ of the Sustainability portfolio, ‘Natural Resources and Food’). An illustration of how this has involved a loss of focus on sustainability was that department’s ‘adoption’ of the Active Travel Bill. This bill’s purpose is to require local authorities to promote walking and cycling at the expense of the car, in other words to promote sustainable travel.   Therefore the focus of the bill was is on utility journeys, not with sport and recreation. To conflate the two appears to miss the point of the legislation

Welsh housing minister Carl Sargeant’s announcement of a watering down of plans for better insulated, more fuel efficient homes amounts to a climbdown in the face of pressure from the building industry, as WWF Cymru have pointed out. It means higher energy bills, where there are already unacceptable levels of fuel poverty, and a delay in dealing with Wales’ carbon emissions.  In 2012 the Welsh government claimed that in keeping with its commitment to sustainability, from 2013 it would use its new powers over building regulations to achieve an improvement in energy efficiency of 55% over 2006 levels and 40% over 2010 levels. When building firms complained about the cost of building homes in Wales, the government’s initial response was that it was an opportunity for them to gain a competitive advantage in new home-building techniques. However, the climbdown was not long in coming. The new regulations will result in a reduction of only 8% from 2010 levels, and then with a commitment to do so only from 2021. Irony of ironies, the Westminster government is committed to matching Welsh standards by 2014 and building zero carbon homes by 2016!  Cameron’s claims that his would be the ‘greenest government ever’ are treated with deserved ridicule, yet Westminster appears to be ahead, at least in this respect, of the ‘sustainable’ Welsh government.

As planning minister, Carl Sargeant also oversaw, in October 2013, the granting of planning permission to a ‘factory’ dairy farm in mid-Wales, in the face of contrary advice from a range of environmental and animal welfare organisations. Notwithstanding the effect on the environment, animal welfare and tourism and the presence of a school next door, the minister decided that these considerations were outweighed by the benefit of a mere ten new jobs.

Finally, there is the running sore of the M4 relief road in which the Welsh government is exposing itself to potential legal action by running a ‘consultation’, which appears to be confined to different versions of the same thing, namely a relief road running across the Gwent levels, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, excluding a possible South East Wales metro system, or a less environmentally destructive (and cheaper) road project involving the former Llanwern steelworks.

Surely if the Welsh government were to sign up to the cargo-cult of motorway building, at the expense of, a Site of Special Scientific Interest; sustainable, integrated public transport; or even a cheaper road option, it will be dragging Wales back into the dark days of 1970/80s UK transport policies and effectively forfeiting any right to have its sustainability claims taken seriously.

It is not difficult to see what is going on here. The Welsh economy is receiving such a battering as a result of the financial crisis and the Westminster government’s determination to make  anyone but the bankers  pay for it,  that ministers have adopted a default position of ‘if there’s jobs promised, do it’. Once on this slippery slope,  Carwyn Jones, albeit ‘on the hoof’ and without speaking for the Welsh government or Welsh Labour, ‘volunteered’ Wales to host the UK’s nuclear–armed submarine fleet at Milford Haven in the event of Scottish independence, presumably on the basis of  it creating ‘jobs’. Why anyone would decide to move themselves or their families to somewhere which was likely to be the epicentre of a nuclear holocaust appears not to have been fully investigated.

Despite the commitment, sustainability is not, on this evidence, what informs decision-making nor does it appear to inform any wider economic strategy.

It is up to socialists and environmentalists in Wales to demand that the Welsh government sticks to its own avowed principles so that economic renewal in Wales is not based on the outdated and discredited false dichotomy of ‘jobs v. the environment’ (sic), is based on the development of renewal energy and sustainable transport and does not harm the interests of future generations.