Enoch Powell was right
Powell is mostly remembered now for his infamous "Rivers of blood" speech than his political wisdom
IT MAY seem a provocative place to start a piece on the correct strategic direction of the Conservative Party in Wales, but here goes.
As David Melding’s scholarly tome “Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?” reminded its readers, Powell became the first person in his party back in the 1950s ever to draw up a policy document for Wales. And beyond that important policy contribution he also made a wise political decision: he turned down the position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Wales when the role was created and offered to him in 1951. The reason for his decision was simple: he did not believe that an MP from outside a Welsh constituency should occupy a ministerial portfolio created to represent and advance Wales’ interests within the Whitehall leviathan. But subsequent appointments by party leaders over the years have revealed such concerns are the exception rather than the rule.
Should a Minister appointed to represent Wales always come from a Welsh constituency? Mainly no, has been the answer from a Conservative Party without the political savviness to fix the Wales-in-Westminster Question. At no point between 1951 and 1964 was the Minister of Welsh Affairs in the incumbent Tory governments of Churchill through to Douglas Home held by a Member of Parliament from Wales. Similarly, under Heath, from 1970 until 1974, it was the Welshman representing Hendon South, the late Peter Thomas, who became the first ever Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. He is generally regarded as having performed well in the role, and the Wales Office is still located in Gwydir House, which took its name from the title he assumed on being elevated to the Lords in 1987.
Rather surprisingly, perhaps, Margaret Thatcher became the first Conservative Prime Minister to appoint a Secretary of State for Wales from a Welsh constituency when, in 1979, Nicholas Edwards, the Member for Pembrokeshire, entered the Welsh Office. Yet she and her government got no real credit for such a move. The harsher side of Thatcherism and the debacle over the establishment of S4C – which is itself detailed in compelling fashion by Melding in his book and on his profile on this site at the weekend – ensured there was little political dividend for the a Conservative Party which at last seemed more “Welsh” in some of its attitudes and policies.
Sweeping, perhaps. But politico-cultural standpoints so often are. And when we look back at the period of Conservative government between Edwards’ retirement in 1987 and the arrival of Ron Davies as Blair’s first Welsh Secretary a decade later, the era is often seen as one of continuity politics characterised by the appointment of four Secretaries of State who were literally for Wales, which of course means the quartet of Parliamentarians from Worcester, Wirral, Wokingam and Richmond – although it would have been far more pleasing had William Hague pronounced it “Wichmond” and allowed the alliteration to be maintained?
In reality there were huge differences between the administrative styles and policies of these four Englishmen. It is at its most pronounced when contrasting Peter Walker and John Redwood. The former is clear about the basis on which he accepted the Welsh Office in 1987 in his engaging autobiography “Staying Power”. He points to the agreement he reached with Margaret Thatcher when she appointed him to the post: “The big attraction of the Welsh Secretary’s job was that I was told I could do it my way.” His three successors in post, David Hunt (1990-93), John Redwood (1993-95) and William Hague (1995-97), were effectively granted the same freedom, too. But that in no way means they ran it in the same way.
It is generally recognised that both Walker and Hunt used the Wales Office to run far “softer” social and industrial policies than in England at the same time, while Mr Redwood’s period was clearly more Thatcherite than the Conservatism practiced by most of the Major administration in the 1990s. Nevertheless, in Welsh political history it is most likely that the four will be remembered for what united them – their non-Welshness – rather than any of the dividing political factors.
There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong in constitutional terms with appointing Welsh Office Ministers from any constituency in the UK, or indeed from the House of Lords. But by not choosing an elected Welsh MP to fulfil such a role, a clear signal is sent out. We exploited that ruthlessly during the Yes for Wales referendum campaign back in 1997. No matter how personable William Hague had been, he was still an English MP. There was no escaping that fact. Appointing non-Welsh MPs to positions of direct administrative authority over Wales alone was never an issue of constitutional impropriety – but it always has been, and will be, an issue of political impropriety.
That is why the next Conservative government must think carefully about who is appointed to one of the most junior jobs around the Cabinet table, Secretary of State for Wales. If the appointment falls on an MP from outside Wales, there will certainly be a political price to pay, no matter what the merits of the appointee. William Hague may well have been one of the most talented politicians and effective communicators ever to have been in the Welsh Office. That did not mean Welsh public opinion did not resent him while he was there.
Let’s be clear on one point in particular. In no way should this article be seen as a personal criticism of Cheryl Gillan, the current Shadow Secretary of State for Wales. She has been the best incumbent of this role since the Conservatives went into opposition back in 1997. For the following eight years they had no Welsh MPs to choose from for this role, yet from 2005 the party has had three Members of Parliament with Welsh constituencies. It says much about the skill and personability of Cheryl that during the whole of this Parliament there has been no real criticism of her ability to fulfil the Shadow Secretary’s role from a constituency in Buckinghamshire, despite the addition of three Welsh colleagues.
The reason the criticism has not come is because, of course, she has exercised the position of Shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Were she, or any other MP from an English seat, to be appointed to the Secretary of State’s role then things would change. The first line of attack from across the rest of the political spectrum label her appointment an “insult to Wales.” The clips of John Redwood mouthing along to Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau would be back on our screens before you could say “Gwlad”. Or even “Brad”. We would be catapulted as a nation back to the politics of 15 years ago.
One way around the situation might be to abolish the Wales Office completely. Such a move would mirror a proposal floated by the Liberal Democrats at their recent conference. Others have also advocated this course of action, such as the naturally unreticent Adam Price MP. It is supposed that under such a new arrangement there would be an overarching Secretary of State role for a merged department containing Wales, Scotland, decentralised government in England and perhaps even Northern Ireland. In such circumstances the Secretary of State need not come from a Welsh constituency at all, although it would be necessary to appoint a junior Minister from Wales to deal with Welsh affairs.
On the surface such a move would offer an easy fix, allowing a Cameron government to play to the gallery by reducing the size of government – always a good message for Conservatives – while simultaneously solving the thorny Welsh Question. Yet such a move could prove politically controversial, too. Labour would be quick enough to argue that the first step of incoming Conservative government would be to marginalise Wales and reduce our voice. Indeed, if such a step were taken, it would not surprise me if others who had advocated such a course suddenly found themselves unhappy with the precise detail of the new administrative structure being proposed and joined the criticism of the “anti-Welsh Tories” who were just reverting to type and insulting Wales once more. With an incoming Tory administration also announcing cuts to public services which the other parties would portray as more “savage” (to coin a recent phrase) than their own proposals, it is easy to see how, within days of an election win, that the political rhetoric here would return to “Wales against the Tories”. Again, the 1990s would be back.
Either option would also, presumably, be done against a backdrop of a substantially increased number of Welsh Conservative MPs, who would undoubtedly start to face questions about the purpose of electing them only for them to be overlooked for Ministerial office. This would raise its own issues.
The mistakes of the past are plain to see. Yet they also seem to repeat themselves in a party that has failed to consistently portray itself as Welsh and has suffered electorally for it. If the Conservatives achieve a breakthrough in 2010 and get back to double figures in terms of Welsh MPs, that advance could be reversed if the party misreads or ignores once more the mood of Wales.
Therefore David Cameron’s decision on who should administer the Wales Office after 2010 needs careful consideration. If a non-Welsh MP is made Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, there will be a price to be paid. If the post is abolished, that too is dangerous ground without political consensus. What he decides to do is not a peripheral issue: it could be the making or the ending of a Conservative political renaissance in Wales. Enoch Powell knew that over half a century ago.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
I would imagine that Alun Cairns or Jonathan Evans are most likely to be the next Sec of State for Wales, to be honest. Unless Jonathan gets a more “high profile” role.
It’s about time the position was scrapped. Both Peter Hain and Paul Murphy have been part-time Secretaries. Let’s move to a single Department of the Nations and Regions and save everyone some money.
I’ve posted comments on this topic over on the Our Kingdom website in the past.
My main gripe at the time was the suggestion that the Welsh post could be abolished via Cabinet reshuffle even though it was / is an integral part of the Welsh devolution settlement. At the time of Peter Hain’s resignation in January 2008 someone from IPPR North wrote an article in the Guardian suggesting a Department of Nations and Regions yet the new Welsh settlement had only been in force since May 2007 and we hadn’t yet seen a full LCO/Assembly Measure cycle.
You’ve discussed the numerous English or English-based politicians who have held Welsh posts. At least we share a border, a legal jurisdiction and various institutions with England. Why would we want a Scot (or more accurately an MP from Scotland) to mediate on our behalf in London? In what way would that be an improvement? And would the Barnett formula ever be reviewed?!
How odd to miss the elephant in the room. Although I see no reason why there should not be a Department of the Nations, I fail to see why this should mean that England should be broken into regions. None of the other nations are being called upon to accept regionalisation.
The Geordies defined the English position on this. Time and again, polls have shown that England wants a parliament. To maintain the Union and to buy votes in Wales and Scotland, Westminster discriminates against England at every turn. The smaller Nations in the UK seem to resent England’s size. They must get over it. The Celtic fringe now have the devolution for which they voted.
Devolution cannot be reversed. It needs to be completed by giving England its own parliament. All devolved administrations must also be granted the same powers.
Only one question remains: Does the UK continue in some form, or do we go our separate ways? The longer the current situation obtains, the more certain is it that the UK will split. Indeed, it would be well to lose one layer of our Russian doll-like identity.
“You’ve discussed the numerous English or English-based politicians who have held Welsh posts. At least we share a border, a legal jurisdiction and various institutions with England. Why would we want a Scot (or more accurately an MP from Scotland) to mediate on our behalf in London? ”
I appreciate the point that you make and feel that the same political constraints apply. This is not about common borders or common legal jurisdiction. As I wrote, it has never been “an issue of constitutional impropriety – but it always has been, and will be, an issue of political impropriety.”
I would expect that if any amalgmation of government departments took place there would still need to be a junior Minister within it with responsibility for Welsh Affairs and, as per the rest of my argument, they would need to be an MP from a Welsh constituency.
“How odd to miss the elephant in the room. Although I see no reason why there should not be a Department of the Nations, I fail to see why this should mean that England should be broken into regions.”
I am pretty agnostic on this point. I don’t feel drawn to an English regions model, I just referred to it because that was the option others had put on the table. It seems that under a possible Conservative government English home rule is perhaps a more realistic proposition that at any time since Gladstone.
My colleague Adam Higgitt wrote on this topic on WalesHome some months ago:
http://waleshome.org/2009/07/england-sleeps-on/
Since the Wales Office and the Scotland Office now come under the Ministry of Justice, how about creating three Ministers of State (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland) with rights to attend Cabinet rather than one Secretary of State and junior ministers? That has a little more symmetry. Should the current Welsh settlement continue I can’t see that having the Justice Minister deciding on Assembly LCO requests is any worse than, say, the MP for East Renfrewshire doing so.
DARAN, Thanks for the link. The article by Adam Higgitt is very good. But the sleep is really narcosis induced by those who wish to maintain the status quo. The British dinosaur is dead , but the message hasn‘t reached the head yet.
With devolution, Wales and Scotland have strengthened identities which they never really lost. Westminster seeks to force England to be Britain.
By depriving England of an identity they are unknowingly fostering unrest. England is a multicultural, multiethnic country. It needs an identity, a coherence and a pride in itself and its own. As Joe Calzaghe and Roald Dahl are Welsh, so Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and Monty Panesar should all be seen as English. This would head off extremism in England at the pass!
An increasingly sundered England will be no good for its people or its neighbours. Having a stable country of 50,000,000 over the border would be good for Wales. Regions with ethnic sub enclaves controlled by Terre Blanches and Bin Ladens would not.
‘Course, I really fancy the Heptarchy with Mercia at its head!
“Get him Offa.”
Jith’s comments are more positive than Mr. Smith’s. Welsh devolutionists would be keen to morally support the English case, but often there seems to be some kind of resentment towards Wales and Scotland from English home rule advocates, which is not constructive. There need to be more non-bigoted and moderate voices in England arguing the case for devolution and possibly independence.
Illtyd Luke said that “There needs to be more non-bigoted and moderate voices in England” of course there are no bigots in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland only in England (yawn zzzzzz) is it any wonder we English get so worked up when we have people like Gethin who refer to England as “the Regions”.
“Lets move to a single department of the Nations and Regions” ENGLAND is a COUNTRY NOT A GROUP OF REGIONS just as Wales and Scotland are no more no less, we expect no more or no less than Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, we want no more or no less than Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.
“Gwydir House, which took its name from the title he [Peter Thomas} assumed on being elevated to the Lords in 1987.” Er, are you sure? Doesn’t the name date back to the first Lord Gwydyr? http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67794
David – I think that’s what comes of making assumptions. A mistake I shall endeavour not to repeat…
The sad thing is that there’s a great practical argument for English regional government, inasmuch as the size of the units should reduce in powers of 10; UK circa 60 million people, Regions circa 6 million people (at which level Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland/London fit quite nicely), counties 600,000 people, then parish/community councils up to the level of towns (notably, Hereford City Council is a parish council!) But that practical argument has got drowned in the politics.
Hi Illytid luke. As it was my 1st go at blogging, I put my name rather than a nick name. Sorry if I wrong footed you.
English resentment is a result of the Unionist parties being willing to disadvantage England to maintain the union. Interest in an English Parliament stems mainly from the devolution settlements in 1997(?). At that point, Wales and Scotland began the process towards independence. Up till then I was British, I am now most definitely English. Of course comments like “the English are the human form of foot and mouth” etc. don’t encourage even tempers! This sort of comment is slung from each side, of course.
The U.K. is now part of the E.U.. Brussels makes 70% of our laws. When the U.K. breaks up, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be rather small nations in the E.U.. They will be as incapable of independent choice as Ireland has been in the treaty vote. A regionalised England would be similarly disadvantaged.
My concern is thus only with England. The other nations already have made their choice. I wish them well, although I feel we would have been stronger together.
With financial meltdown the Celtic Tiger looks fragile, whilst Salmon’s ark of affluence is risible. Without the English taxpayer, HBOS and RBS would have failed. Scotland would have re-run the Darien project which brought about the Union in the first place. But we are in debt for 50 years.
An independent England , with a population of 50,000,000 would have far more clout, indeed little less than U.K.‘s current 60,000,000 have. The more so if Westminster money currently used to prop up the Celtic economies could be used at home. Avro Manchester, Woodford and Yeadon which gave us Lancaster, Shackleton and Vulcan have shrivelled and have closed or are due to. During the same time courtesy of Westminster, Broughton, a shadow factory, has grown to 7000 jobs.
England needs to rebuild its industries. Even Ireland benefits from the English economy. One assumes Irish companies are more competitive in England because of Irelands low corporation tax rates. For this reason the British Irish council needs nipping in the bud. I’d guess there are more English Ryanair travellers than Irish ones. England could be far more successful financially.
I apologise for my English partisan views on a Welsh website, but to achieve our mutual aim we need to understand each other’s viewpoints.
Ta!
Labour was formed by the workers, fighting for their rights inside the “British” system. What alternative did they have?
Well, now they DO have an alternative. Welsh workers can fight for the rights of Welsh workers in a Welsh Assembly. “Welsh” Labour need to acknowledge this, and split off from London-NuLabour, forming a new party – Welsh Labour, answering to themselves, not to head-office in London.
(I have the same criticism of the LibDems and the Tories. They need to become WELSH parties, not just Welsh branches of London parties. Burn the bridges, lets get this thing going)
Nice idea Al, but sadly Labour has always relied on Wales and Scotland to deliver government in Westminster. Not only that, what about the numerous DevoSceptic Labour members who have made it difficult for the Assembly to move on to become a full blown Parliament?
I’d be all for all the ‘Welsh’ parties being just that, but the Tories are Unionist, (it’s in their name) and the Liberals are only marginally better than Labour in that they seem only to think of Wales if they can see it is of advantage to them in their aim to form a government in Westminster.
However, were this to happen, at the very least it might persuade Plaid Cymru not to be so coy about the dreaded ‘I’ word… Okay, so they now admit they do stand for independence, something that most voters in Wales have known for years, but probably didn’t trust them because they were less than honest about that ultimate aim. I personally suspect that they may have advanced much further much sooner if they had been a little more open about it a long time ago. It has to be remembered that Plaid made huge gains during the late 60s in South Wales, and though they have never ‘broken through’ support for the party has remained strong in these areas since then – hence the constant vitriol from some in Welsh Labour, who, if they were honest, would admit they are afraid of Plaid.
Lets not stop at burning the bridges, lets go the whole hog, declare UDI and move the capital to Machynlleth!
‘