Whether or not the response to Nick Clegg's offer to change the dates of the Welsh Assembly Election is childish or sensible, I find the offer totally confusing.
The reason behind the offer is to ensure that devolved and Westminster elections don't clash, so far so good – elections to different establishments shouldn't clash. But the reason why they might clash is because the Lib Dems have decided that Westminster should have fixed term elections; because they believe that the ad hoc way that Westminster elections have been called in the past are undemocratic.
So in order to stop ad hoc elections to Westminster we get rid of fixed term elections to the Assembly by giving the Assembly a two year leeway in which to hold ad-hoc elections! This is totally illogical.
If fixed term is good and ad hoc bad the problem isn't solved by switching from ad hoc in Westminster to fixed and swapping from fixed to ad hoc in Cardiff Bay!
Of course the clash is only caused because Gordon Brown called an ad hoc election on the first Thursday in May, which just happened to be the fixed date of devolved elections. Wouldn't the sensible answer to the problem be for Westminster to call its first fixed term election in September/October 2014; rather than causing problems by insisting that Gordon Brown's arbitrary decision to hold an election on May 6th 2010 should define the date of Westminster elections in perpetuity?
Showing posts with label Westminster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westminster. Show all posts
20/02/2011
07/07/2010
The National Assembly for Westminster?
Since the advent of the ConDem Westminster government six weeks, or so, ago, I have been disappointed with the attitude of Assembly Members.
I can accept that Labour and Plaid AM's are peeved that the Conservatives and Lib Dems are in Government in London and that the Welsh opposition AMs are as pleased as punch, so one expects a bit of our government V your government banter, but does the Assembly have to be so London Centric in all its proceedings? Questions to the FM and business questions for the past three weeks as well as many other debates all seem to be about what is going on in London.
The One Wales Government is NOT the unofficial opposition to the ConDem Government, the opposition parties are not in coalition in Wales and they are not the spokes persons for the Westminster government in Wales!
We pay AMs of all parties to discuss matters concerning Wales in those areas devolved to Wales, not to be a Westminster sounding board. Apart from letting Wales down with the nonstop London centric point scoring, Assembly questions and debates are becoming very, very boring.
Come on boys and girls get over the last election result; love it or loath it the result stands, please get back to doing the job in hand of managing the devolved issues to the best of your ability despite / irrespective of what is happening down the M4!
I can accept that Labour and Plaid AM's are peeved that the Conservatives and Lib Dems are in Government in London and that the Welsh opposition AMs are as pleased as punch, so one expects a bit of our government V your government banter, but does the Assembly have to be so London Centric in all its proceedings? Questions to the FM and business questions for the past three weeks as well as many other debates all seem to be about what is going on in London.
The One Wales Government is NOT the unofficial opposition to the ConDem Government, the opposition parties are not in coalition in Wales and they are not the spokes persons for the Westminster government in Wales!
We pay AMs of all parties to discuss matters concerning Wales in those areas devolved to Wales, not to be a Westminster sounding board. Apart from letting Wales down with the nonstop London centric point scoring, Assembly questions and debates are becoming very, very boring.
Come on boys and girls get over the last election result; love it or loath it the result stands, please get back to doing the job in hand of managing the devolved issues to the best of your ability despite / irrespective of what is happening down the M4!
16/06/2010
Plaid & SNP to be excluded from Welsh & Scottish Affairs Committees?
During the Business of the House debate in the Commons yesterday Elfyn Llwyd raised the following point of order:
However his point was ruled out of order by Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans.
Mr Llwyd attempted to raise the same issue during the progress of the debate, but was again ruled out of order by Nigel Evans.
Given that Plaid is a party of Government in the Assembly and that the Committee has a huge responsibility for scrutinising Assembly eLCOs, it would be strange and undemocratic if Plaid was excluded from the Welsh Affairs Committee. Because the matter was ruled out of order by Mr Evans, I don't know what the background to Elfyn's complaint is. Can anybody shed any light on what is happening?
UPDATE:
Whilst I was posting this Adam Higget posted the background to the issue on a site which his brother objects to me linking to.
Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in a position today where we are discussing motions that will effectively exclude Plaid Cymru Members from being a member of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and Scottish National party Members from being on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Additionally, there will be no room for those parties' Back-Bench Members to sit on the Back-Bench business committee. What kind of motions are these? What is the point behind them? I urge the Minister to take them away and think them through, as these motions will not stand the test of time, and the people in Wales and Scotland will be furious when they find out.
However his point was ruled out of order by Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans.
Mr Llwyd attempted to raise the same issue during the progress of the debate, but was again ruled out of order by Nigel Evans.
Given that Plaid is a party of Government in the Assembly and that the Committee has a huge responsibility for scrutinising Assembly eLCOs, it would be strange and undemocratic if Plaid was excluded from the Welsh Affairs Committee. Because the matter was ruled out of order by Mr Evans, I don't know what the background to Elfyn's complaint is. Can anybody shed any light on what is happening?
UPDATE:
Whilst I was posting this Adam Higget posted the background to the issue on a site which his brother objects to me linking to.
11/03/2008
FACT: AM's had less than 2% pay rise
The whole crap about the huge hike in AM's pay seems to miss an important point. AM's have not had an 8% pay rise, they have had a 1.9% rise.
National Assembly Members are paid a percentage of MP's salaries. MP's salaries have gone up by 1.9%, so AM's salaries have gone up by 1.9% too.
The rest of the so called increase is a grade change. Like if you are a staff nurse and become a sister or a PC who becomes a sergeant , or a teacher who becomes a head, you get more pay because of your promotion.
AM's, because of the Government of Wales Act 2006, have been promoted from 75% MPs to 82% MP's. They haven't had a huge pay rise, they have gone up a pay grade!!!
Westminster parliamentarians seem to be the most vociferousness complainants about our AM's pay rise. Which is understandable, because if AM's are doing 82% of what use to be an MP's job, shouldn't Welsh MP's be paid just 18% of their current salaries?
Indeed, as Westminster MP's are doing so little, wouldn't it be best to get rid of the bloody lot of them and save 40 x 100% MP saleries?
PS: Nice to see Plaid's usual suspects make a stand on their percived socialist issue of AM's pay. Shame they didn't make a stand on the nationalist issue of money for a Welsh language newspaper - after all Plaid AM's are paid for being, at least 82% nationalists!
National Assembly Members are paid a percentage of MP's salaries. MP's salaries have gone up by 1.9%, so AM's salaries have gone up by 1.9% too.
The rest of the so called increase is a grade change. Like if you are a staff nurse and become a sister or a PC who becomes a sergeant , or a teacher who becomes a head, you get more pay because of your promotion.
AM's, because of the Government of Wales Act 2006, have been promoted from 75% MPs to 82% MP's. They haven't had a huge pay rise, they have gone up a pay grade!!!
Westminster parliamentarians seem to be the most vociferousness complainants about our AM's pay rise. Which is understandable, because if AM's are doing 82% of what use to be an MP's job, shouldn't Welsh MP's be paid just 18% of their current salaries?
Indeed, as Westminster MP's are doing so little, wouldn't it be best to get rid of the bloody lot of them and save 40 x 100% MP saleries?
PS: Nice to see Plaid's usual suspects make a stand on their percived socialist issue of AM's pay. Shame they didn't make a stand on the nationalist issue of money for a Welsh language newspaper - after all Plaid AM's are paid for being, at least 82% nationalists!
07/03/2008
Whats the point of Parliament?
I don't often have the opportunity to follow full parliamentary debates, so like most I depend on the news and political programs' sound bites to inform me about what has happened in Westminster.
On Wednesday and Thursday of this week circumstances enabled me to watch two full debates from start to finish.
Yesterday I listened to the International Womans' Day debate. Many contributers from all parties noted that one of the difficulties in attracting females to become MP's was the image rather than the reality of parliament. It was a good debate, excellent points made by 99% of the contributers. But yet, the reports on the debate showed a rather catty exchange between Harriett Harman and Theresa May, adding to the bad image of the House – showing the House at its “Macho” worst rather than the reasonable best that was evident in most of the debate.
On Wednesday I listened to the European Referendum debate. As I have mentioned in other posts I am not keen on the way that referendums are used in the UK, but, on the other hand parties made promises and promises should be kept, so I was undecided in listening to the debate. Good points were made by both sides and I found myself being swayed too and thro' during the whole six hour exchange, which is what a good exchange of views should do.
But I listened to the whole debate - most MP's didn't.
I came to the conclusion, based on what was said on both sides, that I would have voted for the referendum, if I had a vote. Again most MP's didn't vote on the argument; they voted according to the way that they had been instructed to vote before the debate had even taken place, which makes one wonder what on earth the point of holding a six hour debate was? The end result would have been the same after a six second debate!
When people laud British parliamentary democracy, and claim that it is the best in the World; that an independent Wales would suffer without it, I have to ask Why? Surely Wales can do better than this!
On Wednesday and Thursday of this week circumstances enabled me to watch two full debates from start to finish.
Yesterday I listened to the International Womans' Day debate. Many contributers from all parties noted that one of the difficulties in attracting females to become MP's was the image rather than the reality of parliament. It was a good debate, excellent points made by 99% of the contributers. But yet, the reports on the debate showed a rather catty exchange between Harriett Harman and Theresa May, adding to the bad image of the House – showing the House at its “Macho” worst rather than the reasonable best that was evident in most of the debate.
On Wednesday I listened to the European Referendum debate. As I have mentioned in other posts I am not keen on the way that referendums are used in the UK, but, on the other hand parties made promises and promises should be kept, so I was undecided in listening to the debate. Good points were made by both sides and I found myself being swayed too and thro' during the whole six hour exchange, which is what a good exchange of views should do.
But I listened to the whole debate - most MP's didn't.
I came to the conclusion, based on what was said on both sides, that I would have voted for the referendum, if I had a vote. Again most MP's didn't vote on the argument; they voted according to the way that they had been instructed to vote before the debate had even taken place, which makes one wonder what on earth the point of holding a six hour debate was? The end result would have been the same after a six second debate!
When people laud British parliamentary democracy, and claim that it is the best in the World; that an independent Wales would suffer without it, I have to ask Why? Surely Wales can do better than this!
01/10/2007
English Votes for English MPs
According to a report in Scotland on Sunday, Gordon Brown and all Scottish MPs will be excluded from voting on England-only laws under radical Conservative plans to be unveiled this week.
Tory leader David Cameron is poised to back a major overhaul of the Westminster system under which all 529 English MPs would meet separately as a "grand committee" to decide on their own legislation. MPs would then be expected to sit out any full vote in the Commons.
It would be up to the Speaker to designate legislation as English-only.
I can understand why the Conservatives are supporting this move. It is clearly wrong that non-English MPs should have undue influence over English affairs that will have no effect on their own constituents.
However there are some major problems with trying to deal with the English Devolution deficit in the way that the Tories propose.
Firstly, of course the current Speaker is a Scot. I can't see many English people being pleased if the decision to designate any issue as an UK or an English one was to be in the hands of a single Scot! (Although I understand that Speaker Martin is standing down at the next election).
More importantly is the position of Wales. Unlike Scotland, Wales doesn’t have legislative devolution - we only have executive devolution. All the Assembly can do is implement and modify laws passed for the whole of England and Wales.
Those things that have, quite understandably, upset English people such as the Assembly voting to abolish prescription charges in Wales at the same time as Welsh Labour MPs were voting to increase prescription charges in England don’t happen by the Assembly passing a Welsh Law. They happen when the Assembly decides to modify the implementation of an England and Wales Law. If the English law didn't exist, the Welsh modification couldn't happen.
So under the Conservative proposal how do the England and Wales Acts that include clauses that allow the Assembly to go its own way get passed? Clearly such laws would not be England only laws so the idea that Welsh MP's should be excluded from voting on them is unacceptable. But if Welsh MPs do take part in passing them we would still have a situation where Welsh MPs would be voting on laws that will be implemented in different ways in both countries, which will not resolve the devolution deficit in England.
Laws passed in Westminster have to be passed by both the Commons and the Lords. Defining what an English MP is is easy, but what is an English Lord? Is Rowan Williams, the Welsh born Primate of all England, an English or a Welsh member of the House of Lords? Or will Scottish Lords still be able to vote on English or England and Wales only laws?
Will English MPs be prohibited from passing reserved power Wales only laws? If not it will be clearly unfair if English MPs can vote on Welsh Laws but English laws can't voted on by Welsh MPs. On the other hand if only Welsh MPs can only vote on Welsh Laws then Wales will end up with two devolved bodies the Assembly and the Welsh Grand Committee, where as the English will only have one again unfair.
The Conservatives are to be congratulated on realising that the devolution deficit in England is a real problem that urgently needs to be address, it’s a shame that they have decided to go for a dog's breakfast of an answer. Surely the sensible answer to the problem would be for England to have its own devolved parliament or assembly.
Tory leader David Cameron is poised to back a major overhaul of the Westminster system under which all 529 English MPs would meet separately as a "grand committee" to decide on their own legislation. MPs would then be expected to sit out any full vote in the Commons.
It would be up to the Speaker to designate legislation as English-only.
I can understand why the Conservatives are supporting this move. It is clearly wrong that non-English MPs should have undue influence over English affairs that will have no effect on their own constituents.
However there are some major problems with trying to deal with the English Devolution deficit in the way that the Tories propose.
Firstly, of course the current Speaker is a Scot. I can't see many English people being pleased if the decision to designate any issue as an UK or an English one was to be in the hands of a single Scot! (Although I understand that Speaker Martin is standing down at the next election).
More importantly is the position of Wales. Unlike Scotland, Wales doesn’t have legislative devolution - we only have executive devolution. All the Assembly can do is implement and modify laws passed for the whole of England and Wales.
Those things that have, quite understandably, upset English people such as the Assembly voting to abolish prescription charges in Wales at the same time as Welsh Labour MPs were voting to increase prescription charges in England don’t happen by the Assembly passing a Welsh Law. They happen when the Assembly decides to modify the implementation of an England and Wales Law. If the English law didn't exist, the Welsh modification couldn't happen.
So under the Conservative proposal how do the England and Wales Acts that include clauses that allow the Assembly to go its own way get passed? Clearly such laws would not be England only laws so the idea that Welsh MP's should be excluded from voting on them is unacceptable. But if Welsh MPs do take part in passing them we would still have a situation where Welsh MPs would be voting on laws that will be implemented in different ways in both countries, which will not resolve the devolution deficit in England.
Laws passed in Westminster have to be passed by both the Commons and the Lords. Defining what an English MP is is easy, but what is an English Lord? Is Rowan Williams, the Welsh born Primate of all England, an English or a Welsh member of the House of Lords? Or will Scottish Lords still be able to vote on English or England and Wales only laws?
Will English MPs be prohibited from passing reserved power Wales only laws? If not it will be clearly unfair if English MPs can vote on Welsh Laws but English laws can't voted on by Welsh MPs. On the other hand if only Welsh MPs can only vote on Welsh Laws then Wales will end up with two devolved bodies the Assembly and the Welsh Grand Committee, where as the English will only have one again unfair.
The Conservatives are to be congratulated on realising that the devolution deficit in England is a real problem that urgently needs to be address, it’s a shame that they have decided to go for a dog's breakfast of an answer. Surely the sensible answer to the problem would be for England to have its own devolved parliament or assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)