What's in a name?

In about 1979-1983 or there about, the late Daily Post columnist Ivor Wynne Jones criticised me in one of his typically anti-Welsh columns regarding something I had said or done in the nationalist cause, in which he referred to me as the Rev Dr Allan ap Hugh. I dropped a note to the Post to say that I was not a Rev or a Dr and that I am Alwyn ap Huw rather than Ivor's interpretation of my name.

Ivor, being Ivor, couldn't accept that he had made a mistake and retorted:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet - as would the name of the foulest stench of the briar smell as foul!

I appologise to Duncan Higgitt for getting his name wrong in my last post.

Having said that, I hate to admit it, but perhaps Ivor had a point!

Golwg and Blogs

When the Plaid Driven (Labour Sat Nav) Government crashed into the bridge that promised a Welsh Language Newspaper they backtracked into a compromise lane that gave the Welsh language mag Golwg loads of money for an on-line internet presence.

It should be available today at www.golwg360.com
I am still getting a page error result at every attempt to access it - but it's early morning - let's hope for better later!

The hard copy of the periodical use to have a weekly column from former blogger Normal Mouth. Normal Mouth and I rarely agreed with each other, but I always found his arguments worth reading and worth thinking about. Normal continued to post a weekly column to Golwg long after he stopped posting on his own site. I was disappointed that Normal's rants seem to have been ditched by Golwg this week. I hope that this is just a temporary hiatus and that Normal will be restored to his former glory on the on-line edition.

There is a new column in the mag today called Byd y Blogiau (The Blogging World), which starts with the strap line Blogs are Influential - This Is What They Say. I am pleased to note that mine is one of the influential blogs noted, along with the offerings of Paul Flynn MP, Cynical Welshman (sic) and The Prof.

Looking forward to Normal and links on-line!

LOL

Being miserable by nature, there isn't much that makes me laugh. But this post by Normal got very close!

Why care?

In his column in Golwg this week Normal Mouth wonders why public opinion seem to support issues that human rights campaigners see as an erosion of our basic liberties.

He highlights the fact that many communities are calling for more CCTV cameras rather than complaining that those that exist are an intrusion.

Opinion polls seem to suggest that the 42 days (and more) proposals of detention without trial are supported by about two thirds of the population.

Many seem to believe that taking DNA samples and identity cards are a good thing if they help police catch more criminals.

Part of the answer, I'm sure, is that we have a high level of trust in the police and the other security forces not to abuse those powers. Which is fair enough, the difference between freedom and oppression is often based on how the authorities use (or abuse) their powers, rather than what powers they actually have.

The second reason (which may be based on the first) is that we don't expect the reductions in human rights to effect us, they will only effect people who have no rights to have rights.

The attitude that I hear on the streets (and promoted in some parts of the media) seems to be:

I won't be locked up for 42 days without trial and who cares if a terrorist is locked up for 42 years, never mind 42 days? Why should we care if a person who wants to bomb, kill and maim loses his human rights? OK some of those locked up might not be charged afterwards. We all know that there is "no smoke without fire", so many of those released will be the ones who have been allowed to get away with it because of our soft laws, rather than the innocent. Even if the odd "innocent" person is locked up they will be Muslims who don't believe in human rights anyway so why should I care?

But before taking this attitude that it doesn't affect me so why should I care, it might be worth reflecting on the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Anonymous said...

I allow anonymous comments on my blog, many bloggers don't do so.

I understand why people might wish to remain anonymous - If their real names were linked to comments some could face problems in their work, social or family life.

Anonymity allows people to say what they think without repercussions.

The secret blog comment is as important to politics today, as was the secret ballot 150 years ago.

However I did think that this comment posted by a nonny was quite hilarious

Anonymous said...
Who is NM? Is his identity publicly known? Or maybe it's a she? Just wondering

People who post comments under Anonymous said... clearly have no right to try to "out" those who post under regular monikers!

For Wales see Scotland

Not satisfied with his role in telling us Welsh nationalist where we are going wrong, I see that Welsh Labour blogger and Golwg columnist Normal Mouth, has decided to take on the might of the SNP too.

NM is currently enjoying a long thread debate on a post by soon to be SNP MP for the Gordon constituency, Richard Thompson's blog, on why Labour is right and the SNP is wrong re the wording of the forthcoming independence referendum.

Rhodri Morgan use to base his past success in Wales on the clear red water that was between Traditional Welsh Labour and New Labour in Westminster. I would have thought that Welsh Labour would wish to create a Clear Red Ocean between itself and the shambles that is the Labour Party in Scotland. But if Normal wants to associate the Welsh Labour party with Wendy Alexander's troubled patch, I shan't complain.

On the subject of Scottish bloggers and columnists in Welsh language magazines, I was plesantly suprised to see that Will Patterson aka J Arthur MacNumpty now has a column in the Welsh language monthly current affairs mag Barn.

I do hope that Will follows Normal's example by publishing the English "original" on blog after the mags official publication date.

A Normal Referendum

I enjoy Normal Mouth's contributions to Golwg, they are generally better than his usual blog posts. I suspect that he tries to be less partisan in the magazine than he is on his blog, by doing so he gives an interesting view on Welsh politics.

As an aside Normal is obviously employed by Golwg as a blogger - he took over the column from Blamerbell - so why doesn't the magazine recognise this by publishing his and other Welsh blogger's URLs?

I was disappointed by Normal's latest offering in which he claims that those who want an early referendum on further powers for the Assembly are faking it and that all of us really truly support Peter Hain and Paul Murphy's policies of procrastination.

Normal's current article is full of inaccuracies.

Firstly he says:

The Welsh political elite currently divides into three camps: those who say they want primary powers via an earlier referendum, those who say they want primary powers via a later referendum and those who don’t want primary powers at all

.

There is a fourth option. some of us believe (for a variety of different reasons) that a referendum is not needed / undesirable and that it would be better if the Government of Wales Act was amended forthwith to get rid of the referendum clause.


Secondly Normal claims:

Few politicians genuinely seem to want an early referendum. Labour has claimed credit for the Convention idea, a device that at least punts decision time into the future. Some, however, credit Plaid as the true authors of this deft delaying tactic.

If a snap referendum was held tomorrow all the signs seem to suggest that it would be won by the YES side. The sediment in the clear spring water appears to be a fear that some Labour dinosaurs (naming no names) would do a Kinnock and campaign against Labour Party policy in a big way, scupering the referendum, as in 1979. This is a real problem. But I can't see that delay will solve it. Is there any guarantee that they will have changed their minds by 2012 or 2016? No!

There have been pro and anti home rule wings in Labour since its inception 100 years ago and if the anti's are appeased they will continue for another 100 years. The Labour opponents of enhanced devolution need to be taken by the horns and fought with now. Delaying the fight won't make the fight less bloody, won't make the outcome more secure and wont make victory smell sweeter of defeat smell less bitter.

Those who believe in enhanced devolution, in all parties, should campaign for it and aim for it now - there is nothing to be gained by procrastination!

Thirdly Normal claims that:

The consequences of a “no” vote would be catastrophic, for devolution and for Plaid.

I disagree. On three counts:

No new powers will be given to the Assembly by a Yes vote. The powers are already there in the Act. A Yes vote just makes gaining the powers simpler. Loosing the vote will be an administrative rather than a political problem.

Win or loose the nationalist cause (with or without Plaid, but probably with) will be enabled to go on to the next step in the evolution of devolution.

In other countries (Quebec for example) losing a referendum on autonomy has strengthened the national party. Their most extreme proposal is put off for a generation, which makes them stronger "regional" representatives within the status quo. A raging nationalist bull may not be electable, but emasculate it by referendum and it may be given the chance to govern, as a tame bullock, until its cahones reappear!

The worst failing in Normal's article is this statement:

It is hard to argue for a referendum so that people can vote no

There has only ever been one UK wide referendum, the EU one in 197?. The purpose then was to get a yes vote. In Wales we have had many more referendums. The Sunday drinking referendums were introduced specifically to enable a no vote, in order to reverse an act perceived by both Labour and Conservative politicians as passed as an appeasement to north Wales, Welsh speaking, chapel-going, Liberals. The 1979 devolution referendums which included the if you are dead you have voted no clause was hardly geared to the yes side. Most calls for UK referenda, the Euro, Mastricht, Lisbon etc, of recent years have been called for, specifically, in order to gain a no vote.

All in all, it is those who are opposed to Wales, those who have a NO attitude to Wales, who insist on a referendum for Wales to be treated as a grown up country and who also insist that such a referendum should be delayed forever and a day.

Making Excuses for Child Poverty

Since he started writing for Golwg, Normal Mouth has written an interesting if opinionated and personal take on the politics of Wales and the wider world without appearing too partisan. His latest offering however changes tack - it is a full frontal partisan attack on Plaid Cymru over the issue of Child Poverty.

When Plaid says that the Assembly has few powers to tackle the issue properly, Normal claims that Plaid is being defeatist and that the party is reverting to type by pointing the finger at London as a defence.

The idea that Plaid is being realistic and honest doesn’t occur to our Labour sycophant.

Bethan Jenkins AM is Plaid's most outspoken champion on tackling Child poverty. What I hear her say is that it is a matter that needs to be dealt with at all levels of government, Assembly, Westminster, Local Authority and EU level. Rather than pointing a finger, I hear Bethan asking for better cooperation and understanding between all levels of government on this important issue.

Of course, if one level of government isn't pulling its weight, isn't doing all it can do to tackle the problem it is incumbent on the champions of the cause to point this out as both Bethan and Huw Lewis have done.

Having made his accusation Normal goes on to ask Why, then is Plaid so defeatist?

His answer is that:

Ending child poverty isn’t the Nationalists’ issue. Through its dogged persistence Labour has made the cause its own.

Ending child poverty is one of a dwindling number of policy areas that all shades of Labour can unite around. It reminds the party that real issues unite it in real ways. It is therefore an anti-wedge issue. The fact that the charge is led by Nationalist bête noire Huw Lewis only ratchets up the temperature. This is an issue that neither Lewis nor Labour can be seen to win on.

I find this difficult to believe.

It is true that everybody in the Labour Party wants to end child poverty. But everybody in every other party also wants to end child poverty. Child poverty is as universally hated as apple pie is universally loved. Indeed, one only has to look through Normal's own Questions to a Welsh Political Blogger posts to see ending child poverty pop up in answers from bloggers of all persuasions.

Child poverty isn't, in fact, a problem in its own right. Child poverty is a misnomer, a bit of Nu-Lab spin designed to unite the party on an apple pie issue.

Child poverty is a by-product of adult poverty. Most poor children are those who live in households headed by poor parents. The only way to take children out of poverty is to take their parents out of poverty.

Real policies that attempted to deal with parental poverty would split Labour mercilessly along the old / new fault line and along the middle England / industrial heartland fault line. The real problem - adult poverty, is a wedge issue in the Labour party.

My issue with Huw and especially Bethan is that whilst claiming the socialist moral high ground on this issue they persist in using the Blairite euphemism of child poverty instead of campaigning for what good old fashioned socialists use to campaign for - the ending of plain POVERTY.