THIS reporter watched the first debate of the General Election campaign, writes Jon Coles.

He did it to spare you the bother.

He wishes he hadn’t spared you because now he’s bothered.

There are several ways to approach reporting on such an event: a stringent analysis of the facts, a comparison of the policy pledges both leaders made, and even bemused indifference.

Instead, here’s a balanced and informed personal response.

If that’s the choice the country faces, we are all doomed.

On the one hand, tiny, tetchy, and oh-so-shouty Rishi, who couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge his party has been in power for fourteen years.

On the other hand, Keir Starmer couldn’t help but remind people that he came from humble oranges and believed in something, even if he couldn’t identify it under questioning.

In the middle, Kate Etchingham from ITV News needed to be subbed out in favour of Nigel Owen as soon as she let Rishi Sunak repeat the same lie repeatedly without allowing Keir Starmer to address it.

Mr Sunak’s message was simple: “WOOOOOO! Labour! Spooky! Beware!”

Mr Starmer’s was also simple: “My dad was a toolmaker.”

If that is the best the two largest political parties in the UK can come up with, you have to wonder how bad their own parties’ alternatives are.

(This reporter also watched the Senedd this week; he knows).

You don’t have to wonder hard, of course. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Steve Miller Band have all had a go and all been disastrous.

In the interest of introducing some facts into fact-free exchanges, The Herald looked at the big claims both made.

Mr Sunak argued for a £2000 tax rise under Labour. Here’s how he came up with that number: his policy advisors created a list of “Labour policies”, made assumptions about them, and then asked Treasury civil servants to cost them.

In short, the Prime Minister’s figures are garbage, and he knows they are.

Mr Sunak also said a Labour government would tax people’s pensions. Since he, as Chancellor, pulled hundreds of thousands of pensioners into paying taxes by freezing tax thresholds only to pledge an unaffordable pension “quadruple lock” after fourteen years in office, his words ring hollow.

Onto Sir Keir Starmer.

Did he mention his father was a toolmaker?

More seriously, it’s hard to think of a single thing Keir Starmer said that amounted to a policy that would improve people’s lives. He was sad for the lady with cancer. He sympathised with the student. He would be firm but fair.

In other news, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the rain is wet.

Messrs Sunak and Starmer profess to be big football fans. The debate was like watching a dismal mid-table fixture between two teams, unaware that the important thing to do with the ball is kick it towards the other side’s net in the hope of scoring a goal.

Mr Sunak wanted to concentrate on the future. That’s not a surprise. His biggest achievement is staying in office long enough to undo the worst economic effects of his predecessors’ administrations.

You would never associate Mr Sunak with chutzpah. However, for sheer nerve, accusing Mr Starmer of not coming up with a better idea in fourteen years than his brilliant one for National Service was like a child who’d murdered their parents asking a court for mercy because they’re an orphan.

It would be churlish to point out his own Armed Forces Minister ruled out National Service only two days after Mr Sunak called the election because the armed forces didn’t want it.

Mr Sunak’s claim that, on the contrary, many in the armed services supported the scheme means either his minister was wrong and those briefing him from the armed services were wrong, or – and it’s a possibility – one of his friends on Call of Duty said it was a vote winner.

Back to Keir Starmer.

Did you know his dad was a toolmaker?

The studio audience liked Sir Keir’s pledge to crack down on those using non-domiciled tax status to avoid paying taxes. He could’ve rubbed it in by saying that since Mr Sunak’s campaign team had identified £2.5bn in tax avoidance that could be recovered quickly after fourteen years of looking for it, he might be persuaded to let the sons-in-law of Indian billionaires off the hook.

However, apart from non-dom status, the only thing approaching a firm policy commitment from the Labour leader was his observation that his dad was a toolmaker.

That’s a dreadful verbal tic, and he will have to do more than swap it out for “my mum was a nurse”.

Spiky exchanges on immigration were as heated as they were unenlightening.

When discussing migration, Mr Sunak claimed small boat arrivals are down by “a third” in the last 12 months.

Small boat arrivals did fall by around a third in 2023, comparing year-on-year. However, provisional figures show that in 2024, small boat arrivals have risen 38% compared to the same period last year.

Mr Sunak had a nice line prepared for Keir Starmer’s predictable attack on going to the country before a single plane took off for Rwanda. On the one hand, Mr Starmer had spent two years calling for an election, only to complain when one was called.

The Labour comms team must work on that.

However, the Labour leader was surely correct when he said only international cooperation would stop the organised gangs involved in people trafficking. Glorious isolation will achieve nothing and probably – as those who backed Brexit to curb immigration have found out – make things far worse.

As for who “won”?

The Labour leader shaded it by being less obnoxious.

We must also remember that those commenting online or offering an opinion on broadcast media had made up their minds before Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak opened their mouths.

It’s always best to watch for yourself and make up your mind.

In this case, don’t bother.

Summing up the debate is easy: seventy minutes wasted.

I make no apologies for being unable to speak Welsh, writes John Elliot.

Google translate did the title for me. I apologise to Welsh readers should the Welsh be dreadful.

My Dad was a labourer in a factory. We are talking 1960’s here. Mum and Dad were ignorant of education, they hadn’t a clue what ‘O’ levels were. And my older sister was learning French! This was like, well, there is a man on the moon after all. One day my dad said, talking about learning French, ‘I think your school, Rosie, should have a day a week where only French is spoken. You’d learn a lot better.’

Like my sister, I ‘learned’ French in school. She went onto to study it in college. I really couldn’t be bothered. Maybe though it was the way I was taught. A lesson or two a week by rote, repetition and irrelevant. When was I going to need French? Like since 1995 when I moved to France.

Because of a language project I’m working on with a university in Hungary I’ve become very interested in the purpose of the Welsh language. Also, very importantly, my granddaughters were born in Wales and attend Welsh medium schools.

For the purpose of the project with the university I contacted the Welsh Education Secretary in relation to how Welsh is taught in Schools. My interest was school and teaching within the state section. The bill is itself 55 pages long. I have taken 11 points from it, so a minority of the text relevant to my interest in the

Welsh language in Wales and the current government’s attitude to it. This is a current bill and has yet to be passed by the Senned. The following points I am confident that they represent the words of the bill, but of course they are subject to my interpretation and editing. I think they will be of particular interest to parents, and of course those interested in language.

The bill, with reference to Wales, is making the following points:

• Every pupil should be allowed, deserves, to be a confident Welsh speaker.
• There is a commitment to all pupils receiving a portion of their education through the medium of Welsh beyond Welsh as a subject.
• In the ideal world 50% of pupils should receive Welsh education.
• At present there are half a million Welsh speakers, it is hoped that figure will be 1 million by 2050.
• The desire is for an education system to embrace Welsh as a language that belongs to all pupils in Wales. All pupils leaving statutory education at 16 can speak Welsh with confidence.
• It is hoped that the number of Welsh-medium schools (that is those schools whose education is mainly in Welsh) will be increased. It is hoped that there will be an increase in the teaching of Welsh in schools. To achieve this there needs to be an increase in the number of people able to teach Welsh and through the medium of Welsh.
• It is intended that there will be dual language schools as well as Welsh-medium schools. There are already some.
• With the proposal set out in this bill it is stated:
• We expect local authorities to pay attention to promoting and raising awareness of Welsh-medium education.
• An organisation for playgroups within Wales is Mudiad Meithrin. These are Welsh-medium playgroups for pre-school children. The language spoken is Welsh. Mudiad Meithrin states that 76% of their intake is from non-Welsh speaking families.
• In 2015 The National Centre for learning Welsh was set specifically for adults wishing to learn Welsh.
• It is worth noting that, to use contrasting examples in Gwynedd there are 80 Welsh medium schools and zero English schools. In Cardiff there are 18 Welsh medium schools and 96 English schools.

As I’ve already mentioned my granddaughters, pictured here are bi-lingual, English and Welsh. They speak both languages as if it were the norm, this is what we do. I live in France. The girls have already picked up some French. My grandson was born in Belgium. His birth language is English. His school language is French. He is also bi-lingual. Flemish is also spoken in Belgium, he confident in Flemish.

John Elliot works as an editor of poetry anthologies with different universities throughout Europe. He is currently producing an anthology of Welsh poets translated into English, Hungarian and German

THE CONDITIONAL phrase is a friend to politicians of all parties in all governments.
At its simplest, the proposition is: “If this happens, then we might be able to do this”.
The Chancellor’s Budget on Wednesday (Mar 6) was an example of the conditional phrase on steroids.

IT ALL DEPENDS

“If this happens, then that happens, and provided these things also happen, we might be in a position to consider doing this”.
As a strategy for spending on public services, it’s nonsense.
The UK Government is not in control of events that might affect its capacity to achieve even stage one of the processes that, on some far-away date, might mean it gets close to delivering public services more efficiently.
Let’s get that out of the way, for starters.
That is quite bad enough, but the Chancellor – not alone in this fiscal fraud – goes one step further.
Mr Hunt says the UK must cut its national debt, the amount it has borrowed to pay for Covid, Liz Truss, and other disasters. That objective is noble but meaningless. The debt the UK owes will rise over the next three years. It will only fall in the fifth year of the spending cycle and then only against the previous year’s debt.
That means the amount of debt the UK is in will rise over the next half-decade.
In turn, future repayments of that debt’s capital must be met out of future government revenues. The limited number of ways that can happen include refinancing the debt (putting off the payment to the future), raising taxes, and cutting public spending: probably a mix of all three.
The disingenuous lunatics on the Conservative right-wing bang on about how it’s all the Office of Budget Responsibility’s fault. The rules on debt and fiscal policy are not the OBR’s rules. They are the Chancellor’s. The OBR applies them to the Chancellor’s spending and taxation plans.
It is rather like Harold Shipman complaining he only murdered his victims because the pharmacist supplied him with poison. The intent is all on the Chancellor’s part.
Keir Starmer claimed the Government had “maxed-out” the nation’s credit card.
He is right, but only to an extent.
The central flaw in fiscal policy is that the Treasury—and therefore the Office of Budget Responsibility—fails to distinguish between borrowing and spending for investment and borrowing and spending to deliver day-to-day services and to make up for revenue shortfalls.
As Labour has chained itself to the wheel of the current spending approach, we will have to get used to paying more for less for years to come.
Any UK Government could borrow for future investment, putting the National Debt above 100% of GDP. However, that will likely increase the cost of borrowing and devalue the assets securing the current debt, such as UK Government bonds.
The markets wouldn’t wear that when Liz Truss tried it. They won’t wear it now. Borrowing more money while cutting taxes is like taking out a £500,000 loan, leaving a well-paid job that could service it, and deciding to work three shifts a week on a filling station forecourt.
Sooner or later, the bailiffs come knocking.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The political back-and-forth is interesting only to those with little stake in the Budget’s outcome, at least as it affects average families on average incomes.
A billion here, a hundred million there. Those are empty numbers.
The bottom line matters.
The Chancellor announced a cut in National Insurance from 10% to 8%. Last year, he reduced it by 12% to 10%. Forgetting, of course, that his predecessor (Sunak, R.) increased National Insurance in the first place.
However, Mr Hunt did not increase the wage level at which National Insurance starts being paid. That means the amount by which most workers on modest or average wages benefit from an NI cut will be eaten up by any pay increases they’ve received over the last two years of high inflation.
The income tax thresholds also remain stationary, pulling more people into paying the basic rate thanks to pay increases and the increased National Minimum Wage.
It’s sleight of hand. An apparent tax cut will leave people superficially better off but no richer.
In other titbits, the Chancellor announced the continuation of the 5p levy reduction on fuel for motor vehicles and a freeze on the duty on booze.
Mr Hunt also unveiled a new tax on vaping products from October 2026, linked to the levels of nicotine they deliver. At the same time, tobacco duty will rise by £2.00 per 100 cigarettes to ensure vaping remains cheaper.
From this April, the threshold at which small businesses must register to pay VAT goes up from £85,000 to £90,000. It’s something, but not much of something, as the threshold’s been frozen for the last seven years.
Mr Hunt also scrapped tax reliefs for the owners of furnished holiday lets. Holidays let owners claim capital gains tax reliefs and plant and machinery capital allowances for items such as furniture and other fixtures. At the same time, their profits can count as earnings for pension purposes.
Abolishing that tax break will save the UK government around £250 million annually starting from April 2025.
Holiday let investors could lose an average of £2,835 a year in tax, based on a property purchase price of £350,000, an annual mortgage rate of 4.5%, and £20,000 in rental income.

PUBLIC SERVICES IN LIMBO

The constant drive for “greater efficiency” in the public sector boldly and unfoundedly assumes that public service “productivity” is the same as the private sector’s. It isn’t.
Making a pin more efficiently through the division of labour is not the same as treating a patient for cancer or collecting bins.
In all efficiency drives, the point always arrives when there are no more lightbulbs or photocopiers to turn off at night, meaning savings must be found in frontline service budgets. Mr Hunt announced plans to “digitally transform” the NHS. Fat chance. The atomisation of the NHS into trusts and boards that must compete for money by offering the most at the least cost dooms the project to expensive failure.
The same applies to local government funding and extends to Wales.
Councils competing against each other for a finite pot of resources only available to spend on what the central Government insists it is spent on negates local democracy. It favours those local authorities closest to the Central Government or with the best grants application team.
Competition for funding is no way to deliver public services and leads to vanity projects.
It is better to deliver funding fairly and through a method that ensures funding follows the need for core services.
The question is acute in Pembrokeshire.
Our Council received millions of pounds in funding for projects Pembrokeshire does not necessarily need. The money would have been better allocated to the cost of adult social care delivery. However, the UK and Welsh Governments did not make tens of millions of pounds available to meet that need. Instead, we can have money for “Instagrammable bridges” and “transport hubs” because we won a prize in a competition with other broke local authorities to build things we don’t need.
It’s nonsense. And, at heart, every county councillor knows it is.
Any elected representative (whether councillor, MP, or MS) who doesn’t is unfit for public office.