Teaching RE in schools

Not wanting to be outdone by fellow bloggers Adam Price and Normal Mouth, I managed to get mentioned in Golwg this week too. Here is the translation of the article (written by Ifan Morgan Jones):

Complaint About Changing the Ten Commandments

A preacher from the Conwy Valley is unhappy, because he claims that a school in his area has re-written a part of the Bible in order to make it politically correct

Alwyn ap Huw claims that his children have received a new version of the Ten Commandments that changes the Christian message.

In place of: Thou shalt have no other gods before me, he claims that the children had received a commandment that said: Respect your god and the gods of others.

That, he said, is the complete opposite of the central Christian message that God alone can give salvation.

"They are trying to teach respect for other religions, but lying about religious beliefs doesn’t show respect to them at all"

"They shouldn't try to change a child's understanding of religion by trying to make it more nice".

"Teaching things such as tolerating and respecting the views of others belongs to another subject".

"If lies, that do not reflect the facts of faith, are what is taught in Religious Education lessons, is there any point to such lessons?"

For the sake of his children, Alwyn ap Huw wasn't willing to say which school had made the change, but he said that this sort of thing was common in religious education thorough Wales.

Ifan got the gist of what I said, but not quite!

My children were not given a new commandment. Respect your god and the gods of others, was given as an explanation of the meaning of the first commandment. However I did say that this was a totally false explanation of the meaning of the commandment, indeed, it is quite the opposite of what the first commandment says.

The point that I was trying to make is that most religions are exclusive they are totally intolerant of other religious viewpoints. One might think that this is unacceptable in a modern, diverse society, but it is still true!

Traditionally RE taught children how to live as good Christian citizens in a Christian country. Today RE attempts to teach a child about many faiths but it still has a role in teaching morals and citizenship. However, the moral and civic values that it teaches are secular, not religious. My complaint is that because secular mores are taught in RE the religious aspect of the education is falsified in order to fit into the secular mould.

Learning about religions is essential to understanding the arts, the humanities and, if not pure science, the antecedents of science. Teaching false religion for the sake of political correctness hinders such understanding. (Try teaching the end of the Tudor period to kids who are taught that Christianity is a lovey-dovey nice religion!)

During the next 15 days children in schools thorough England & Wales will pretend that a plastic doll is the baby Jesus, and will be loved by their parents for doing so. At the same time an English woman brought up on the fallacies of religious equality and religious tolerance will be in gaol for calling a teddy bear Mohammed!

On a final point of clarification, it wouldn't need a Miss Marple to work out which school my kids attend! I didn't want to name "the" school because I didn't want to blame one school for what I see as a general problem. The RE problem is one that exists on, at least, an England and Wales basis - so picking on the school that my boys attend would be unfair!

Ultimately, the problem is more than educational, it is constitutional! The United Kingdom is not a secular state it is a .. ym .. sort of... Christianish, if you can work it out let me know state!!!

Sir Emyr's Convention

I'm sure that Sir Emyr Jones-Parry is a perfectly decent person who doesn't need a sat nav to find his way around Wales. Don Touhig's campaign of kicking the man not the ball by being rude about Sir Emyr is un-needed, unacceptable and probably harm's Mr Touhig's view more than it harms Sir Emyr. However, having said that I do agree with some of Mr Touhig's doubts about The Convention.

In theory The Convention will be inclusive and will ensure that all opinions are heard. The convention may hear diverse opinion but I fear that its true purpose is to listen to just one.

Independence on the one hand and the abolition of the Assembly on the other are both legitimate views which are held by thousands of Welsh people. No matter how good an argument is made for abolition or how fervently the case for independence is made there is no doubt that The Convention will reject these views out of hand.

Some options will probably not even be put to The Convention. What the Scots call devolution max - devolving everything other than defence and international affairs will not be considered, despite the fact that this option is likely to be what is desired by many as the next stage of devolution after the referendum.

The truth is that only two options will be given serious consideration: The status quo and the option proposed in the Government of Wales Act 2006. It is a foregone conclusion that The Convention will support the GoWA proposals.

As it is a foregone conclusion what view The Convention will favour and what it will decide one has to ask whether spending millions of pounds on such a convention is the best use of public funds at a time of tight public spending.

Indeed, as the Convention actually has a practical remit that is political; to smooth over difficulties between Labour AM's and MP's and to promote the GoWA option it is fair to ask if The Convention should be paid for out of the public purse at all. The Convention in reality is a smokescreen for a political campaign and political campaigns should be financed by the supporters of the campaign, not by tax payers, many of whom may disagree with the campaign's aims.

Too Many Councils in Wales

Normal Mouth has a weekly column in the Welsh Magazine Golwg. After the mag has been printed Normal posts the original post that Golwg has translated on his blog. His latest offering can be seen here.

It appears that Normal doesn't do the post heading! He has had difficulty with finding a heading for his current pre-translation!

Under the title Too Many Councils? Time to Face the Truth Normal makes the case in Golwg that there are too many councils in Wales. I agree. Thirteen county councils were good enough for almost 700 years. There may have been an argument for change, but the change should have resulted in fewer rather than more councils.

Normal makes the fair point that Kent County Council has a similar population to that of Wales. However Kent is not an "Unitary Authority" it contains 12 city, borough and district councils, not too far off the 13 "traditional" Welsh councils!

Kent also has over 500 community and parish councils.

I agree with Normal that the number of county councils should be reduced. My personal opinion is that we should have between five and eight county councils, reducing the number of councils to a sensible level would save a lot of money.

However I disagree with Normal on one critical point. Normal ends his column by saying The Assembly appears eager to acquire new powers from above. It is time it looked under the stairs as well. To put it in local speak the ability to act should be taken from Conwy and given to Cardiff!

That is a non starter!

One of the best arguments that the "antis" made in 1979 and 1999 was that "devolution" = "centralisation" this argument has been proved. It is a truism that my local parish council was responsible for more aspects of local services in 1880 than the Assembly is responsible for today!

The nationalist heartland voted NO in 1979, because it feared that all would be centered in Cardiff. The Yes argument in these parts was basically one that felt that, after Thatcher, Cardiff centered government would be better than London centered government.

The fact that the Cardiff centered government can find 13 million pounds to save its local concert hall, but it cant find a piddling million quid to save the biggest employer in Conwy, makes Cardiff feels further away from Conwy than it was 10 years ago and it feels much further away than even London or Brussels are.

The general feeling in those parts of Wales to the north of the Beacons and to the West of Barry is that Devolution has devolved bugger all, it has centralised everything in Cardiff.

The Assembly, as it acquires more powers from above, should look under the stairs, as Normal suggests, but it should do so in order to give careful consideration to the powers that can be sent downstairs!

Any referendum for more powers for Cardiff, that doesn't ensure that local government in the North and the West is strengthened will fail, and will deserve to fail!

Paul Flynn MP

I was sorry to hear that one of the stalwarts of the Welsh blogosphere Paul Flynn MP suffered a minor stroke whilst going about his work in parliament last night. Best wishes to him for a full and speedy recovery.

Four arrested on terror charges in Cornwall

Four men, including a senior member of the Cornish Stannary Parliament have been arrested by armed police investigating alleged terror plots against chefs Rick Stein and Jamie Oliver.

In June e-mails claiming to have been sent from The Cornish National Liberation Army were sent to newspapers threatening to burn down the chefs' restaurants in Cornwall. The e-mails also claimed that the CNLA had received training from members of the Free Wales Army (FWA)!

One of the men arrested, Stannary member Hugh Rowe, 53, vowed to clear his name following a dramatic dawn swoop on his home and the alleged seizure of dozens of his possessions in the early hours of Monday morning.

The four men were held by detectives in a series of coordinated raids by armed police on addresses in Camborne and Falmouth.

The full story can be read on the This is Cornwall news site

Does the BBC have a pro-England news bias?

Under a headline Allegations over BBC pro-England news bias the Western Mail reports:

THE BBC is to launch a major inquiry following allegations that Wales is poorly served by its UK network news operation, the Western Mail can reveal today.
Tomorrow the BBC Trust will announce that two experts specialising in politics and the media will examine the coverage of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on flagship news programmes such as News at 10 and other bulletins presented by newsreaders like Huw Edwards and Fiona Bruce.

The BBC won't have to spend too much on their inquiry. The answer is clear, there is very little information about events in the smaller nations of the UK on programmes such as News at Ten. Indeed if one depended on the BBC's British output to find news about the Welsh Assembly almost the only thing that would be known from this year is that the Assembly killed a holly bullock.

However I believe that the Western Mail's headline editor is mistaken, and that the BBC is asking the wrong question in their review. Rather than a pro-English bias the BBC news service has an anti-English bias.

Wales and Scotland have their own national news services, there may be questions about quality and the inability to attract sufficient viewers, but a Scot or a Welsh person can choose to watch Scottish or Welsh national news and current affairs programmes. The only country in the UK that doesn’t have its own national news coverage is England, an English person is totally dependent on the UK service to find out what's happening in England.

Since devolution, politics in England is clearly different to the politics of Wales, Scotland and the North of Ireland. One of the weaknesses of the BBC's (and other channels') news and current affairs programmes is that they don't acknowledge this by providing a service specifically for England.

If there was a national news service for England one of the effects would naturally be a more balanced representation of what is happening in all of the nations of the UK in what was left of UK wide current affairs programming.

Back from Honolulu

My Internet problems have, at last, been resolved - normal service on the blog will be resumed shortly.

During my absence two Labour bloggers have been selected to carry their party's banner in forthcoming elections.

Martin Eaglestone, a glutton for punishment, has been selected to stand as prospective parliamentary candidate in the Arfon constituency. Because of boundary changes Arfon is now considered to be a "nominal" Labour seat, so Martin has the task of "defending" a seat for the first time in his career as a serial candidate.

Luke Young has been drafted as a prospective council candidate in the May election for Blaenau Gwent County Borough.

Hearty congratulations to both of them.

Gibney and Brunstrom

The death of Mark Gibney in 2003 was horrific. Mr Gibney was decapitated because he was driving so fast that when he attempted to brake on seeing an oncoming vehicle his motorbike stopped, but his head didn't.

Mr Gibney was driving at very high speeds on the B5105. As anybody who has driven in Wales knows our A roads are not suited to high speeds, never mind the B roads. Yet Mr Gibney decided, of his own volition, to drive at a very high speed, reckless of his own fate or the fate of other road users on a twisting, rural Welsh B road. He died as a result of his own reckless stupidity.

Mr Gibney's driving was described by the Coroner in his inquest as reprehensible. Mr Gibney had no licence, no insurance, no training and his motorcycle had a false number plate. When he died Mr Gibney was wearing a tee-shirt that showed his total contempt for the law and the safety of other road users that the law attempts to protect. His tee-shirt displayed the (untrue) slogan :

HELLO OFFICER
YES MY CAN IS E MARKED
YES MY NUMBER PLATE IS LEGAL (No! It wasn’t)
YES MY TYRES HAVE TREAD
NOW PISS OFF
AND CATCH SOME
REAL CRIMINALS.

Mr Gibney, clearly didn't think that driving on a B road at high speed without any concern for other road users, or for his own safety, was a serious criminal act.

Mr Gibney's family have the audacity to complain about Chief Constable Brunstrom using Mr Gibney as an example of the horrific consequences of dangerous driving. If they can't see that Gibney is the perfect example of stupid attitudes to macho biking they must be in denial of reality!

If, God forbid, a member of my family was caught up in such horrific circumstances, I would want that family member to be used as an example to others, as a warning against such stupidity. The fact that Mr Gibney's family are calling for the Chief Constable of north Wales to be sacked for drawing attention to the horrific consequences of abusing the road in the way that Mr Gibney abused it, and that certain MPs are supporting the family's view is beyond my comprehension

I told you so! Labour & Devolution

I have still not sorted out my ISP problems, so I apologise for not giving hat-tips or links to others who have made pertinent comments about the subject of this post.

I have mentioned before that I am not a supporter of devolution. My personal view about a referendum is bring it on, win or lose the Scottish type stage in the evolution of devolution argument will dead,either way, and nationalists can go on to argue the case for independence.

Despite the fact that I couldn't give a bugger about the result of a referendum, I do appreciate that Peter Hain makes a fair point when he says that those who believe in devolution as a means in itself or as a means to an end won't want to call a referendum that fails. Mr Hain says that a referendum called within the next four years will be lost.

Peter might be a piss poor politician, but Dr Hain is a distinguished academic. As an academic Dr Hain knows that one can't make a premise without proving it. But this is exactly what Dr Hain has done on at least 4 occasions since last May. He has stated, categorically, that a referendum held before 2011 can't be won, but he has offered no reason or proof for his premise, other than his own belief.

The academic response to Dr Hain's unproved premise is that there is no proof available. The political response is that there is proof but that the proof is too embarrassing for the Labour Party - that if a referendum is called within the present Assembly term Peter Hain knows that too many Labour MP's will renege on the All Wales and campaign for a No vote.

So where does that leave Plaid?

HAD

And had by its own left wing who put their own isms before the national cause!

Problems

I am suffering major internet connection problems at the moment. Apparently my former ISP has given me the wrong MAC code, which is making it difficult for my new ISP to connect me to broadband. Whilst awaiting a resolution to this problem my only home internet access is through an extortionately expensive pay as you go service (6p per minute!!!).

So posts will be few and far between until this problem is resolved. I hope that the problem is solved soon and that my readers don't suffer too many withdrawal symptoms by being deprived of a regular dose of my pearls of wisdom

England or South Africa?

I am not very interested in sports. I have never quite understood the significance of the fact that my country is better than your country because a dozen or so of my compatriots can kick, throw, head or bat a ball better than a dozen or so of your compatriots.

Having said that I am aware of how politically significant 1966 was. 1966 was important not just because England won the football World Cup, but that it was won by beating Germany. It was the real end of the two world wars. Had England won in 66 by beating France, Brazil, Sweden or Argentina, it wouldn't have been half as significant an event as beating Germany was.

Every England supporter over the age of 21 had been born during or before the war. They had known the feeling that England had won the wars in theory but had lost out in practice. 1966 proved that England WAS better than Germany.

1966 was also important because it showed that England was a nation and not an euphemism for Britain as had been the case before. England beat the Fritz, alone in 66, without the help of Scotland, Wales or the Irish Unionists.

England won the rugby World Cup in 2003. England has probably more than a 50/50 chance of being the first country to win the cup twice in a row, but even two rugby World Cups wont add up to the significance of 1966.

But yet the thought that England might win is enough to send some of my sport loving acquaintances into fits of apoplexy - including those who claim to consider themselves to be more British than Welsh, they will be shouting for South Africa on Saturday rather than our neighbours who share this island with us. Why?

Gwe, Ceredig and Normal have written about British / Welsh identity recently and have all claimed that a dual identity is possible. Can they explain how this dual Welsh / British identity can also be so anti English?

I have little interest in the outcomes of sporting events, but as a quarter of my ancestry is English and none is South African, I wish England all the best for Saturday.

Which team will other Welsh bloggers support: England or South Africa? Let me know who and why in the comments

More on independence and devolution

There has been an interesting response to my previous post. A number of respondents take issue with my claim that devolution is designed to slow down or stop the nationalist movement. They claim that devolution is a process that will inevitably lead to independence. I am deluded for believing that campaigning for devolution harms the campaign for independence; Plaid, on the other hand is pragmatic in following a route of ever enhancing devolution.

There is no doubt, whatsoever that devolution is an ideology invented by unionists, proposed by unionists and delivered by unionists. The idea that people committed to the union; Ron Davies, Leighton Andrews, Rhodri Morgan, Peter Hain and thousands of other devolution supporters; are deluded fools who were duped into supporting independence without realising it is totally ludicrous. These people support devolution because they believe that devolution will preserve and strengthen the union.

Of course Plaid could be right. It is certainly within the bounds of possibility that as devolution progresses people might see the Government of Wales as increasingly more relevant to their lives and the Westminster government increasingly less relevant. In time we might evolve to a situation where the people of Wales think that Westminster is so irrelevant that we may as well cut that level of government out altogether.

Where I think that Plaid is terribly mistaken is in its decision to campaign for this evolutionary model. Because such a campaign is counter-productive rather than pragmatic.

Firstly. Unionists are not going to support further devolution if they believe that it will lead to independence. If Plaid supporters claim, as they do, that granting "Scottish type powers" to the Assembly is the next step on the road to independence then they will ensure that the current unionist majority in Wales will vote against any such proposal in parliament and in a referendum.

Secondly. Whereas Plaid is correct in saying that devolution is often offered in response to nationalist grievances, when this happens it is always as a compromise. The less that is initially agitated for, the lower the compromise will be. By campaigning for less than full independence Plaid is in danger of lowering the compromise threshold, thus slowing down the evolution of devolution.

Thirdly. If independence will come about through the evolution of devolution then Plaid is actually defunct as a party. The Liberal Democrats support a fully Federal Britain; enhanced devolution is Labour Party policy and is supported by many Conservatives. So if independence is the inevitable consequence of devolution one is still supporting the cause of independence by supporting one of these devolutionary parties - there is no need to support Plaid. Which brings me back to my question Why shouldn't I, as a right wing nationalist, vote Conservative rather than Plaid? (And it was a question, incidentally, not a statement of intent).

Saying these things isn't slagging Plaid off for the hell of it, incidentally. I believe that Plaid has an important role in Welsh politics, the role of promoting the nationalist cause. I think that it is a matter of sadness that Plaid hasn't fulfilled this role over the past 18 years because it has been sidelined by the devolution debate into promoting unionist regionalism. A nationalist party should have independence as its primary goal, not as a long-term aspiration. If independence is Plaid's long term aspiration then its short and medium term aspirations MUST be in the union. I may well vote Plaid and support Plaid in future elections but until it makes independence its primary goal I will also continue to criticise the party.

Alan, Plaid and the Union

Alan in Dyfed is clearly a Plaid Cymru sycophant who can't see any fault in his own party.

He has claimed, in many a comment, that I am some sort of a lesser Welshman because I'm not a party member and that those of you who are supporters of other parties are almost beyond redemption unless, of course, you have a change of heart on the road to Llanascus.

Some have suggested that Alan is such a Labour caricature of a Plaid supporter that he can't be true or that he does more harm than good to the party's cause. I disagree, I think that Alan is the true personification of Plaid's problems.

The first problem is the inability to accept that anybody who isn't a member of Plaid has Wales' best interest at heart.

Just before the 1979 devolution referendum I was in Cardiff whilst an international rugby mach was taking place. There were thousands of Welsh fans, people who supported Wales with a passion, who had Vote No stickers on their Welsh scarves. At the time I couldn't understand it; after 28 years of reflection I now realise that they wanted the best for Wales but didn't think that devolution was the best for Wales. They might have been wrong, but they most certainly weren’t anti Welsh - they opposed devolution for patriotic reasons.

Of course Alan is correct in saying that there are members of other parties who are pathologically anti-Welsh, but they are few.

Most people with an interest in Welsh politics want what is best for Wales. The national cause would be best served if nationalists accepted this fact and tried to engage with those who want the best for Wales rather than condemning all opponents as quislings, lackeys and traitors.

The second problem is Plaid's inability to distinguish between devolution and independence. Again we see it in one of Alan's posts. The Conservatives make positive noises about devolution ending with the statement that they are committed to devolution whilst remaining committed to the Union.

Alan sees this as some sort of oxymoron! How can you be committed to both the Union and Devolution? By supporting their commitment to devolution with a commitment to the Union the Tories, according to Alan, deny all that has been aforesaid.

This attitude to devolution, which is rife in Plaid Cymru, either proves that the party is naive or it proves that it is duplicitous. Devolution is a unionist issue. At best devolution slows down any movement towards independence, at worst it kills independence stone dead.

Whilst Plaid Cymru supports enhanced devolution it opposes independence. Whilst Plaid campaigns for Scottish type powers over less than a fifth of Scotland's responsibilities by 2015, Plaid is campaigning against independence, it is campaigning for a unionist agenda, it is behaving like a unionist party.

Now if Plaid is both a Socialist and, practically, a Unionist party, what reason do I have for voting Plaid in the next election? I may as well support the Conservative and Unionist Party! At least I agree with the conservative bit of the Tories' offering whereas I disagree with both Plaid's support for socialism and its support for the unionist trick called devolution.

Own Gaol?

One of the most vociferous proponents for the need of a prison in North Wales when the Welsh Affairs Committee discussed the matter last year was Hywel Williams the MP for Caernarfon. Martin Eaglestone suggests that Hywel is getting cold feet over the proposal having discovered that one of the sites proposed is in his own back yard!

I can understand Hywel's trepidation - I too believe that there should, in theory, be a prison somewhere in the north, but I don’t want an institution full of murderers, rapists and robbers built in my village thank you very much!

Having seen the list of proposed sites, I don’t think that any of them are really suitable. The best of the bunch is Bryn y Neuadd for access purposes. But Bryn y Neuadd is a former hospital for people with learning difficulties. Those of us who have worked in former institutions like Bryn y Neuadd have spent two generations trying to prove that living with a learning difficulty doesn’t equal bad.

Building a new institution for criminals on the site of an old institution for people who use to be derided as subnormal would undo a lot of the work that has been done over the past fifty years into normalising people who live with learning difficulties into mainstream society.

If one considers the needs of an ideal site for a north Wales prison, accessibility to courts, visitors and legal reps; the ability to take prisoners from south Wales and the north West of England to make up the numbers (there aren’t enough baddies in the north to justify an exclusively north Wales prison) etc. The site that stands out (for almost the same reasons) is the former Hotpoint site in Llandudno Junction - earmarked for National Assembly Offices.

How about a compromise, Hywel and Martin - Jail in the Junction and Assembly Offices in Ferodo?

Of course, if Assembly Members or Officials were serious in their desire to see a prison in north Wales they would, themselves, have spotted the Junction site as eminently suitable. The fact that they didn't proposes it as a possibility is proof that the north of Wales will never, ever have its own gaol!

Cash for Peerages - Conviction impossible!

In his most recent blog post Paul Flynn MP makes not one, but two, comments about the House of Commons' Public Affairs Committee's inquiry into Cash for Peerages. Mr Flynn seems to be peeved by the fact that the inquiry actually happened. Indeed he is so irritated by the inquiry that he looks forward to grilling Inspector Yates and giving him a blocking for daring to investigate his honourable friends.

The cash for peerages, Yates of the Yard, will before our committee on the 23rd. The investigation may be over but the niggles linger on.

Some of us are still irritated about the police investigation, dawn raids on witnesses houses, suspiciously timed leaks to the press from mysterious sources, all those arrests with nothing at the end. We look forward to Policemen Yates helping us with our inquiries.

Shame that Mr Flynn failed to mention the exchange between his Labour colleague Gordon Prentice MP and former Tory minister Lord Hurd in the Public Affairs Committee

Mr Prentice suggested to Lord Hurd that it would be virtually impossible to convict under the 1925 Act that outlawed selling peerages, because the police would have to have proof of an explicit agreement between the seller and buyer of peerages, whereas these deals are usually made on a nod and a wink basis - in the same way as a Mafia Godfather might say I will do something for you now, you may be able to do something for me in the future.

Lord Hurd (a published novelist) suggested that he could think of ways that a conviction might be weaved into a novel, but was unable to suggest a real life situation where a conviction could happen!

Rather than being irritated by the fact that Inspector Yates carried out his investigation, perhaps Mr Flynn should be more irritated by the fact that a law is so poorly drafted, that it is impossible to use it to convict anybody for, what is clearly, a corrupt practice hampered Policeman Yates' investigation and allowed the corrupt to get off scott free!

Ann's Sprinklers

In the Assembly yesterday Ann Jones AM had the honour of presenting the first private members proposal for a LCO. She chose a non partisan issue that received the support of the whole Assembly:
for the Assembly to acquire the ability to change building order regulations in order to insist that all new house builds in Wales have a sprinkler system fitted as standard.

Before she became an AM Ann Jones worked for the fire service in Rhyl, so she knows better than any other Welsh politician about the devastation that a house fire can cause to property, people and communities. If a person of Ann's experience says that such a measure can reduce that devastation and save lives then her measure has to be supported.

However chatting to some people last night I found a considerable amount of "concern" amongst ordinary householders about the measure.

Most of us who have smoke detector alarms fitted in our homes have had the experience of false alarms. You know the sort of thing - smoke from a neighbour's garden bonfire wafts through your open window on a summer's day and the alarms go off. - A nuisance but not a big deal. - But a false alarm that dumps gallons of water on your furniture and electric goods would prove very expensive (and make the burnt toast too soggy to scrape the black bits off).

Unless Mrs Jones and the fire service can reassure householders that the risk of false alarms from sprinkler systems are fairly negligible, I don’t see her measure gaining the popular support, outside the Assembly, that it will need to succeed. Can such a reassurance be given?

A dedicated candidate

It may be November 1st, it may be next spring, it might not happen for another year or two, but all party candidates have to behave as if an election is imminent by doing now what all candidates have to do.

Many candidates have started leafleting, attending local bring and buys etc, but can any other candidate rival Glyn Davies' dedication? Not only is Glyn leafleting and pressing the flesh in order to enhance his chances should an election be called soon, he has also started getting practice in for that time honoured candidate's activity of kissing the baby. That's dedication for you!

Llongyfarchiadau mawr Taid!
(And Nain and Dad and, especially, the new Mam of course)

Return of the prodigal

Like most who have an interest in Welsh affairs I was aware of the fact that Dave Collins had been forced to resign by Ann Jones AM because of his Welsh is a brain dead language comment. As much as I vehemently disagreed with Mr Collins' comment I have already stated that putting a young family man on the dole because of such a comment was a gross over reaction by the Labour Party, a party founded to protect the rights of workers.

Today I discovered that Dave wasn't the only employee of an AM to lose his job as a result of the brain dead affair. Apparently Marcus Warner, the author of the Keir Hardly site where Dave Collins' comments were published has also been dismissed by Irene James AM for Islwyn as her press officer/researcher, apparently for an irretrievable breakdown in trust but clearly for hosting the blog on which Mr Collins' unfortunate remarks were published.

I shan't pretend to be Marcus' biggest fan. I disagreed with about 90% of his postings as Keir Hardly and with a similar amount of his other postings as Clear Red Water and Renewed Labour. Marcus has also disagreed with many of my postings on this blog. But as Voltaire (may have) said I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it. But, of course, Marcus wasn't sacked for what he said, but for what (in effect) somebody said to him!

I am pleased to see that Marcus has returned to the Welsh blogosphere, this time in the guise of Southpaw Grammar.

I wish Marcus all the best and hope that he finds new employment soon, especially as he and his partner are expecting their first child.

Rhodri's Freebies

The last of Dr Richard Wyn Jones (Dicw)'s programmes on Devolution was shown on S4C last night. In the programme Dr Jones looked at some of the successes and failures of Devolution over the past 8 to 10 years.

I agreed with many of Dicw's comments. He said that the Assembly has had more successes than failures in most of its subject areas: health, education, transport, economic regeneration etc., quite right. But I must disagree with him when he claims that it is these successes that have made the idea of an Assembly more popular now than it was 10 years ago.

I went to my boys' school open day yesterday. Things in schools have changed a lot since I was a child in the Heath / Wilson era. The Assembly may have caused many of those changes, but none of the changes that I saw jumped out and bit me as Assembly driven changes.

I was poorly under the doctor when John Redwood was Secretary of State for Wales. I've been poorly under the doctor since the Assembly started too! Things have changed, but to me those changes have been at the doctor's surgery and in the hospital, not in Cardiff Bay.

The Assembly's economic policies have transform employment opportunities in Wales, but I doubt that any unemployed worker who gets a job will offer a big thank you to the Assembly, because s/he realises that it's the Assembly's economic competence that made that job available!

The thing that has put the Assembly on the map, and made it practically relevant to the people of Wales is Rhodri's Freebies.

Of course, from a moral point of view, a super rich pensioner shouldn't have a free bus pass. The children of millionaires shouldn't have free swimming sessions. Billionaires shouldn't have free prescriptions and Trillionaires shouldn't go into our museums without paying a cent. But it is these freebies that have made the Assembly immediately relevant to the people of Wales.

It’s the little freebies rather than the huge changes in health, transport, the economy etc that have made the big difference in attitude to the Assembly.

When Nain (Grandma) visits, because she can - on her free bus pass - that's when my family knows that the Assembly has made a difference!

I can think of a million and one reasons for opposing all of Rhodri's Freebies, but there is little doubt that it is they, more than anything else, that has made devolution relevant to most people in Wales.

Shame that an academic of Dicw's ability failed to recognise this fact in his analysis.

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.