Welsh Fiscal and Constitutional Commission #1

On the IWA's blog Click on Wales, John Osmond has some interesting comments about the progress of the soon to be formed Welsh Fiscal and Constitutional Commission dubbed ap Calman by some. At the end of his article John makes a rather disturbing comment:

Plaid Cymru’s nominee is likely to be its economics adviser Eurfyl ap Gwilym who is currently also heading its Commission looking at the party’s organisation and policy in the wake of its poor election results in May.

However, a question mark is hanging over Plaid Cymru’s involvement. This is because the Cabinet Office have suggested amending the Commission’s terms of reference agreed last July so that, in addition to examining the “current constitutional settlement in the light of experience and recommend changes”, it would have the words added: “and continue to secure the position of Wales within the UK”. According to leading figures in the party, if such an addition finds its way into the terms of reference that eventually emerge, the motivation would be to ensure that Plaid Cymru does not participate in the Commission.

The original Calman commission was set up by the unionist parties in Scotland as a response to Alex Salmond's National Conversation on the constitution of Scotland; the theory being that the Nats could have a conversation amongst themselves about Independence, the other parties would have a commission talking about Scotland's constitutional future within the UK.

It appears that some wise soul has decided that the Welsh Fiscal and Constitutional Commission should be held along similar lines. I'm not sure why though, because it shows a lack of appreciation of how the Welsh experience of devolution has differed to the Scottish one.

In Scotland the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem's MPs shared visceral hatred of the Nationalists was transferred into the Scottish Parliament and has helped the SNP by creating a narrative where only one party stands up for Scotland in the Scottish Parliament elections. Both Rhodri Morgan's clear red water and Nick Bourn's clear blue water have created (at least the illusion of) Labour and Conservative parties that patriotic Welsh voters can support on a Welsh electoral stage. The clear coloured waters have enabled all of the big four parties to create a fairly consensual Welsh attitude to the evolution of devolution, despite doubts expressed by Westminster colleagues such as Peter Hain and Stephen Crabb.

This has been a problem for Plaid, because of the clear coloured waters; the London Parties jibe doesn't have the same resonance in Wales as it has in Scotland.

Almost everybody in Wales knows that Plaid Cymru members go to bed at night and dream about constitutional matters! The idea of a Constitutional Commission from which Plaid is artificially excluded will be seen as a farce by most Welsh people. From a purely electoral point of view, excluding Plaid from the commission will be manna for Plaid – without Plaid's input the Commission will be a London body dictating how Wales should be run! Is this how those setting up the Commission wish to see it perceived?

Should Plaid join the Commission, in spite of the Westminster centred politicians? Or ignore it as an insult to Wales?
I think that I know where I stand on this question, but it would be interesting to hear other's views before declaring!

And another thing that peeves me about Glan Conwy Council!

According to the last published minutes of the Council those in attendance were:

Cllr.Mrs.S.Lesiter-Burgess, Cllr.J.Spicer, Cllr.Mrs.C.Evans, Cllr.Mrs.A.Parry, Cllr.Mrs.P.Rogers, Cllr.T.S.Buckley, Cllr.O.Evans-Jones, Cllr.C.P.Barton, Cllr.D.J.Rees, Cllr.Mrs.S.Edmondson.

Why is Cllr Dai Rees described as Cllr, but Cllr Pam Rogers described as Cllr Mrs?

Isn't noting a female councillor's gender and marital status rather Jurassic?

Doesn't this council need kicking into the 21st century?

Congratulations ARTD!

Andrew RT Davies has a new job, he has my hearty congratulations, but I'm not sure that he has the support of the voters of Wales! Last time I looked, Carwyn Jones was, unfortunately, the Leader of the Welsh Assembly!

I'm sure that RT FaRTy, would make a brilliant Assembly Leader, if elected! But before being described as Leader of the Welsh Assembly – shouldn't he overcome the teeny, weeny, bitty hurdle of being elected to the post?

Hat Tip to Toque – and I agree with his sentiment that the Tories, of all parties, appear to have neglected to include a representative of one (rather big) part of the UK in their An United Kingdom debate!

Duw! It's hard.

RIP: Phillip Hill, Charles Breslin, David Powell, and Garry Jenkins; names added to a list that is already too long.

No democracy in co-option!

Putting apart sour grapes (and my grapes are very sour) elections are the way in which we should choose our representatives. There is something wrong in the way that community councillors are co-opted under the current system!

The rules are that ten people have to ask for a community council by-election; if that doesn't happen then the council co-opts.

In my last experience three candidates wanted to be considered as community councillor - but there was no election.

In my opinion three candidates should automatically trigger an election – three people after the same elected job – put it to the voters!

Surely the very fact that more than one person wants an elected position should automatically trigger an election makes sense in a democracy!

The only reason for co-option should be if nobody had put their name forward for election!

And now for some more sour grapes - Drew wouldn't have stood a chance against me in an open election, so he wouldn't have taken the risk of standing! I would have won unoposed!

So much for democracy!

Glan Conwy Community Council

The council co-opted a vacancy today to a person who lives in Eglwysbach, rather than a resident of our village!

I am very annoyed. Only two people have asked the voters of Glan Conwy to support their membership of the community council in the past 30 years! Me and Dan.

Dan won fair and square in the August poll, but I had more votes than any other member of the community council has ever gained! It is a travesty that the support that I gained in an open election should be overridden by internal favouritism.

I will stand for election again next May, on my record of community service, which I hope the people of Glan Conwy will respect! I can guarantee that I will beat some of the nodding donkies who are, with all respect, an embarrassment to Glan Conwy Council!

Dafydd Elis Thomas - a National Hero!

Dafydd Elis Thomas is one of my mega heroes. I have known Dafydd since I was a 14 year old canvasser for the old Liberal Party in the February 1974 Westminster election.

After his election I use to attend every surgery DET held in Dolgellau as a Pain in the Arse Complainant barracking for the Liberal cause, but he never refused to see me!

After his re election in October 1974 Dafydd set me a challenge: Because I could oppose him for his seat in 1980, when I would have been old enough to stand, I had to be able to debate with him in Welsh.

Being a first language English speaker, if it wasn't for Dafydd El's challenge, I wouldn't be a fluent and confident Welsh speaker today!

Before the 2007 election, when the SNP became the government of Scotland, any stranger to UK devolved politics comparing Scotland and Wales, would have assumed that Wales had more independence than Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland has many more powers than Wales had, this wasn't because of Rhodri's Clear Red Water, but because Dafydd El had made himself President of Wales.

Dafydd El crowning himself as President of Wales in 1997 was as significant an event in Welsh history as Owain Glyndwr crowning himself as Prince of Wales in 1404!

I wouldn't support Dafydd's current bid for the leadership of the party, he's done his bit brilliantly and it's time for him to move on. Having said that, there is no doubt that Dafydd Elis Thomas is a national treasure and a national hero! I find the hate comments made by too many nationalist against Dafydd, very unsavoury, because if I had contributed a quarter as much as Dafydd has contributed to the National cause I would be a very, very, proud Nationalist!

Why should Wales be DEPENDENT?

I am grateful to Stuart for drawing my attention to yesterday's Radio Wales Phone-in with Jason Mohammad. The first half of the programme delt with the question Should Wales become independent?

Stuart said about the programme I was struck by the fact that the debate wasn't hijacked by the usual suspects and that most people giving their views were at least open to discussing the subject. And I must say that I agree. It was a breath of fresh air to hear a programme about the issue of Welsh self determination where most of the contributors for both sides made sensible arguments.

The Scottish contributor a Dr Ray Donnelly, who was described as an expert on Scottish independence was the only contributor who took the debate into the realms of stupidity both by trying to flirt with Helen Mary on air and by making nonsensical comments such as "the Scots will have to eat porridge with whisky for breakfast if Scotland becomes independent". I may not agree with it, but the retention of the UK is a legitimate political position to hold – surely its proponents deserve better exponents of their cause than this!

The contribution that stood out for me was one that came from Catrin in Aberdare How about turning the question around, Jase, Should Wales be dependent I'm at a loss to see why anyone would say that Wales has done well out of being dependent on the UK". Quite right Catrin!

Perhaps those of us who support the national cause should stop trying to justify Independence and start asking the others why they want Wales to remain Dependent?

South Africa 17 - Wales 16

Any mediocre team can beat an opposing 15.

A good team must be able to beat the opposing fifteen, a bad referee, the wind, the rain and Lady Luck!

Wales failed and was less than mediocre. There are no excuses!

Sleepwalking into complacency about OUR future!

One of the opposition arguments made, not so much against the SNP, but against the people of Scotland is that they may sleepwalk into independence!

The argument is that the people of Scotland are so star struck by Alex Salmond, that they might vote YES in a referendum because of what they feel in their bellies, rather than what they know in their heads; Mr Salmond's charisma might mesmerise them into voting for independence against their better judgement!

Or, to put it in other words, the people of Scotland may support independence in a referendum because they are too stupid to know better! A good unionist vote winning strategy!!!!

At the moment the Unionist supporters seem to be banking on the fact that the vote will go their way. They might be right, they might be wrong, who knows until the votes are counted?

Supposing that Scotland votes YES and becomes independent, where does that leave Wales, where does it leave England?

The term used in the Scottish blogosphere is rUK (remainder United Kingdom), which is fair enough from a Scottish prospective – but where does it leave those of us who continue to live in the remainder?

I have heard of no plans from the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats nor even Plaid and MK about what happens next IF Scotland votes for Independence.

Which raises the question Who are the Sleepwalkers?. What are the people of England, Wales, Cornwall and the north of Ireland going to do, going to be, if Scotland becomes independent?

Surely all parties need to plan for the inevitability of Scottish Independence and its ramifications for the rest of us! Sleepwalking into post Scottish Independence must not be an option!

Oops!

Apologies to those who have been trying to read this blog today but have found it as "invite only". I have been having problems with a person intent on using the comments section to post spam links, so I switched the blog off whilst I deleted them, and forgot to switch it back on again. Sorry!

Glan Conwy- a place where many sleep but few live?

There have been a number of posts on the Welsh blogosphere in the past few days noting the latest Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation Statistics; as Jac 'o the North notes there aren't that many surprises in the statistics – the poor areas of Wales are still poor, although as Plaid Wrecsam notes, not all is woe, some areas have improved.

The statistics will, undoubtedly, help politicians and others to see that something should be done and attempt to offer something as an answer to those problems; good luck to them – I hope that something works.

It is easy to split large towns and cities into areas of social deprivation on a ward to ward basis; Caia Park is a poor area of Wrecsam, St Mellon's Estate is a poor area of Cardiff / Newport, the West End is a poor part of Rhyl etc. Something must be done for them!

But what about the poor in my village - Llansanffraid Glan Conwy?

Both wards in my little village are doing all right; both are in the upper percentile of Welsh communities, as are most rural wards. But this hides the fact that wards divide the rich and the poor in cities and large towns, but leylandii hedges divide them in rural communities!

A side effect of the ward based needs analysis used by the Assembly Government is that the needs of locals in my ward and similar wards thorough Wales are ignored, because the needs of the native poor of working age are masked by the wealth of incoming retirees – which makes us a statistically rich community but means that locals haven't got a hope in hell of getting any support from the Assembly or any other Government Agency to create work or leisure or community spirit in our village.

So my village becomes a place in which many sleep but few live!

Something should be done about this too!

Two faced Bryant

Chris Bryant MP's reaction to Roger Lewis' vicious attack on the Welsh:

"I can't believe Jonathan Edwards has risen to the bait," says Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda in South Wales. "Roger Lewis's piece is fatuous nonsense, but the last thing people want is a moaning version of Welsh nationalism. Wales is at its best when it is triumphantly insouciant about the criticism of others, and if we can't take a bit of scabrous attack without running to the police, it's a sad day for Wales."

Chris Bryant MP's reaction to Alun Cairns silly comment about the Italian football team:

Rhondda Labour MP Chris Bryant said: “David Cameron has had over two months to decide whether or not Alun Cairns should be sacked as the Tory candidate in the Vale of Glamorgan. “It’s very much decision time for David Cameron on this issue.
“Failing to sack Alun Cairns shows how indecisive Cameron really is when it comes to taking tough decisions.”

Sack somebody for making an ill informed joke about the Italians, but laugh off a scurrilous attack on the Welsh!

Typical Welsh Labour MP!

A Greater Advert

Peter Black AM has a bit of a thing about cats, so his latest post draws attention to Aldi's fish finger advert which features a Welsh cat, he thinks it is a great advert.

I am more interested in booze than cats, so I think that this one in the series is an even greater advert:

Petitioning the Government

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to sign an e-petition on the re-vamped HM Government e petitions website.

The petition that I signed asked for Recognition of Cornwall as a National Minority, which was a subject that I was happy to support, despite a lack of faith in on line petition sites.

The site is an interesting place to browse, not so much because of the influence it may or may not have on British politics, but because it is an interesting cross section of the sorts of things that people in these islands think are important enough to petition the government on. There were, when I last looked, over 5500 petitions that one could sign which range from the eminently sensible to the outright whacky!

Apparently the difference between the new site and the old Number 10 petitions site is that there is now a commitment that if over 100,000 people sign a petition then that issue will be debated in parliament. From my latest visit I noticed that only two petitions have actually broken the 100k benchmark:

Convicted London rioters should lose all benefits.
Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed. No tax payer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them.

and

Full disclosure of all government documents relating to 1989 Hillsborough disaster

Full government disclosure and publication of all documents, discussions and reports relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disater. As requested by information commissioner Christopher Graham.

The petition originally backed as the one to be the first to get 100k votes was Guido Fawkes' petition for a reintroduction of Capital Punishment, that petition is floundering at the 17k mark, whilst the opposing petition to retain the ban on Capital Punishment is the third most popular petition on the site with 25k+ signatures!

This raises an important point! Guido's petition received a lot of publicity and backing from certain sections of the online and mainstream media, but with a mainly online fightback the petition is currently being beaten, but not every petition has its oppisite.

What if I think that making every person convicted of offences during the recent riots vagrants and beggars is going to increase social incohesion and is a bloody stupid idea?

How do I oppose this tabloid backed petition?

I could start my own petition, which might be one of a hundred similar petitions with only a couple of dozen votes, but without similar tabloid backing what chance would my petition have?

Surely every on line e-petition, that is supposedly going to influence government thinking should have two options - I support or I oppose this petition!

It seems wrong to me that the Daily Hate Mail, The Sun, Dale and Co, Guido etc can push petitions in a way that others can't, without a simple NO button option that enables those of us who read their propaganda and disagree with them to note our disagreement.

Undue Influence in London Mayoral Election?

This is a quote from the Representation of the People Act

115 Undue influence.
(1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.
(2)A person shall be guilty of undue influence—
(a)if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting;

The threat of a spiritual injury would include telling people that they risked eternal damnation if they vote for a certain candidate, or saying things like The people that don't vote for me will be weighed in the balance, come Judgement Day. The Archangel Gabriel will say, 'You didn't vote for Ken Livingstone in 2012. Oh dear, burn forever. Your skin flayed for all eternity'.

The comments might have been uttered in jest, but uttered they were and as we have seen recently only joking is no defence, so if I was a London supporter of Mr Johnston or any other mayoral candidate I might be very tempted to send a copy of the latest edition of Total Politics to Mr Plod at the Yard

Are Postal Votes Sexist?

Because of my former involvement in party politics I have attended a number of election counts, for all levels of election Community, County, Assembly, Westminster and Euro, but until last week I have never attended a preliminary postal vote count.

Of the 300 odd votes cast in the Glan Conwy Community Council election 68 were postal votes. Postal votes are accompanied by a signed declaration by the voter which "proves" that the votes had been validly cast. The declarations are scanned by a computer and the computer highlights those that don't "match" the details on the postal vote application.

The computer rejected a dozen or so votes (a fairly high percentage – about 1 in 5,). My opponent, the returning officer and I then had to visually verify the rejected statements. Most were caused by a failure of the scanning apparatus to distinguish between 9s 6s and 0 in the date of birth section of the declaration, all overturned. Some were cases where a voter had given a sample signature as John Jones but signed the declaration as J Jones, but because the Jones was undoubtedly visually the same, all three of us accepted the signatures as genuine.

Two postal votes were rejected, I thought that both were genuine but the returning officer and the other candidate disagreed with me. One was from a very old voter, I thought that the signature showed deterioration in handwriting fluidity due to age, the others thought that it was another person's signature; the second was from a female voter who was recently married. She had given her sample signature in her maiden name when she applied for a postal vote, but signed in her married name whilst casting this vote.

OK – it was only one vote and it didn't affect the outcome of the election, so in a sense it didn't matter, but it was still a case of a woman being disenfranchised for being a woman and it formed 1/300th of the vote, in some close call constituencies during the last Westminster election one in three hundred votes might have been decisive.

As a bloke I can get divorced tomorrow* and re-marry on Saturday and use the same signature on my postal vote, but my ex-wife reverting to her maiden name and my new wife adopting my name by marriage will both have their votes discounted! That's not fair – is it?

* Note to Mrs MOF - point used as an example not as an intention – honest!

The People have spoken – the bastards*

*A quote from Dick Tuck's concession speech following his loss in the 1966 California State Senate election; not my assessment of the people of Glan Conwy :-)

The result of the Llansanffraid Glan Conwy Community Council Bryn Rhys Ward by election was:

David Alwyn ap Huw Humphreys Independent 112 (43%)
Daniel Worsley Conservative 197 (57%)

Congratulations to Dan on his victory and a huge thank you to those who gave me their support. I was worried sick last night about how I would live it down if Dan had 4 or 5 hundred votes and I had 4 or 5. Although I am obviously disappointed at not winning I am also relived that I wasn't humiliated.

Despite having campaigned in numerous elections since 1970 this is the first time I have actually put my own head on the block, and I must say that it has, on the whole, been an enjoyable experience. I have seen nooks and crannies of the village that I didn't know existed. I have been able to put names to faces of people who I have greeted on the street for the past 20 years, without quite knowing who they are. I have been bitten by the bug and I will definitely be standing again when the whole council comes up for election again next May!

Peter Black Says that Welsh Language Campaigner is "Not right in the Head"

Before Mr Black sends his libel lawyers after me I hasten to say that

1 Peter Black has NEVER made such a claim

and

2 If he goes ahead with his support of Google Translate to translate the Cofnod (the official proceedings of the Assembly) he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, because Google Translate undoubtedly translates a recent comment made by him as accusing a language campaigner of being Not right in the Head (nad yw'n ddim yn iawn pen).

Not right in the head, especially in the south Wales dialect, suggests severe brain damage He hasn't been right in the head since the pit ceiling come down on him.

Wrongheaded, however is a much more benign term that just means contrary to sound judgment

The difference between the two terms is a subtlety that only a human translator can differentiate at the moment, and Google failed to spot the difference!

If Peter and friends decide to go down the Google route to translate the Cofnod I can guarantee that myself and others will pick up these nuances of translation and use them with glee come the next Assembly Election!

Do users of the English language in the Assembly really want to risk giving those of us who can spot the nuances our field day, by insisting on a machine generated bilingual record?

Are Lib-Lab-Con parking their tank on Plaid's grass again?

There is rather pathetic post on Wales Home in which David Torrance tries to fry Scottish First minister Alex Salmond for a lack of commitment to proper independence for Scotland!

Indeed, over the past 15 years the SNP leader has gone out of his way to emphasis an almost Burkean continuity with the United Kingdom, preserving whichever features of the ,ancien regime he judges Scots voters, however patriotic, are reluctant to sacrifice.

From the election of Gwynfor in 1966 up to the devolution referenda of 1979, the Unionists (to use Mr Torrance's all inclusive phrase) built up an independence straw man: If Scotland or Wales were to become independent they would be like Albania or Cambodia, cut off from the rest of the world economically, socially, culturally and in every other respect.

The nationalist response was always that such a claim was complete and utter tosh; an independent Scotland or Wales would become individuals in the family of nations and would retain strong links with all the nations with whom they had bonds prior to independence, including England, and that some of those bonds would be strengthened through independence.

Nothing has changed in the nationalist camp. We were saying forty years ago that many countries had shared currencies, the Irish Punt and the US dollar being typical examples at that time. We were saying forty years ago that many countries allowed foreign forces to have bases in their territory for the sake of mutual protection (like Greenham common!) We were also saying forty years ago that after independence Scotland and Wales had the option of being part of the Commonwealth of Nations and retaining the Queen as our titular head, as many other independent countries do. Alex Salmond is singing from the same old hymn sheet as his predecessors sang from in the 60's and 70's!

What has changed is the Unionist attack. Salmond is now derided for only wanting Devo Max or Independence lite, rather than the full blooded Albanian isolationism that he and his party were wrongly accused of supporting in the 60's and 70's.

The funny thing is that Plaid has had a squeaky bum period of being frightened of mentioning the I word preferring to talk about full national identity, the evolution of devolution and such like; terms that are not dissimilar to the Scottish Unionists Devo Max and Independence Lite!

Another example of the British Parties parking their tanks on Plaid's grass?