Beware the entitlement to rule
A triumph for ignorance? Anti-Lisbon treaty campaigners won in Ireland in June last year after playing on the fears of the electorate with unfounded claims
DESPITE being an easy going sort of chap, there is one thing that will motivate an abandonment of any neutrality and that is the issue of the constitutional development of Wales. For the National Organiser of the Yes for Wales campaign in 1997 to pretend otherwise in 2009 would be to suggest that the last 12 years has been a failure. Despite its ups and downs, the National Assembly and Welsh Government have been far from failures. But one thing that has failed has been the communication of the value of the institutions, at least during the first five or six years of devolution. In that failure, both the politicians themselves and the political classes must share the blame.
There have, of course, been some notable exceptions. All Wales Convention member Aled Edwards has done as much as any politician to explain it all – witness his excellent document on the first 10 years of devolution as well as his constant work on highlighting policy innovation. The Commission of the Assembly, albeit latterly, is also now taking the message out there. There are other examples, too. But despite this there remains a degree of disconnect between the Assembly and the population of Wales – who also happen to be the Welsh electorate.
This should worry everyone who supports more powers for the Assembly. Because in as much as yesterday’s report from the All Wales Convention provides a solid evidence base on which to build, it also illustrates the huge knowledge gap that still exists. The worry – and it is the same worry as in 1997 – is that, come a referendum, lack of knowledge will lead too many people into the camp of resisting change. When in doubt, stay at home or stay with what you know – or don’t know, actually.
When we move to referendum, which looks and feels increasingly like Autumn 2010, our actions and strategy need to reflect what has gone before. In doing so we need to learn lessons not just from the devolution referenda of 1979 and 1997 but also from other times and places, too. For example, the 1975 European referendum took place against a schism in the then-Labour government on the issue. This was solved by giving Labour campaigners a free vote. The same tactic was adopted the Conservatives the other week when David Cameron indicated his party would not block the referendum if in government, and Conservatives would be allowed to vote as they saw fit. Don’t knock it: this compromise could deliver perhaps 10% of the total electorate into the Yes camp when the referendum comes.
Another referendum that needs consideration is the one which took place in Ireland in June 2008. This has been covered previously on WalesHome.org, but from the perspective of the issue of Europe – or, more precisely, the Lisbon Treaty – which was the actual topic under ballot at the time. But there is a whole other story which needs examination. That is the rejection of a proposal for constitutional change advocated by a political elite which found little resonance with the ordinary voter. On June 13, 2008 in Ireland, 53.4% of voters rejected the treaty, while 46.6% voted in favour – all of which sounds very 1997, doesn’t it?
This article on why the people voted as they did gives much food for thought. In it, Soeren Kern writes: “As many observers of European politics know, democracy does not come easy on a continent where European elites view themselves as an aristocracy entitled to rule over the ignorant masses.” To many in Wales, the Assembly is viewed with equal distaste and unhappiness.
During the Irish referendum all the major parties backed the Yes campaign. It was led from the front by government ministers. Both of these are seen as essential requirements for an effective Yes campaign here, too. But ultimately on their own that will not be enough. People do not respond well to being told what to do by governments.
During the June 2008 Irish campaign, Prime Minister Brian Cowen made a huge faux pas when said that it did not matter if people had not read the treaty (he had not read it either, he admitted) and did not understand it because they should trust their elected leaders. The coming referendum on Assembly powers will be based on the Government of Wales Act 2006 or, more specifically, the coming into force of Part 4 of the Act over Part 3. It will not be about abolishing the Assembly, reversing the LCO process, moving to Scotland-style power or independence. Yet all of those things will feature in the No campaign literature – and on some of the tongues of prospective Yes campaigners.
So what is to be made of the complex outcomes of the All Wales Convention and how will Wales’ political leaders respond? At least some of them, unlike Mr Cowen, will have read the Government of Wales Act 2006. But in the face of misinformation and disingenuity, will not a strong part of the appeal of the Yes campaign be based on a “trust me” approach so beloved of politicians? Is there not a huge danger in Wales in 2010 replicating Ireland in 2008?
Just because Carwyn or Huw or Edwina or Ieuan – or even Rhodri, come to that – tells us to do something, it will not wash this time and it almost didn’t last time. In 1997 we used specifically well regarded politicians alongside celebrities to make the case for change, and it only helped up to a point. Some 12 years on, things have changed. The general culture of anti-politics at the moment is not helpful to winning a referendum on those terms. The expenses scandals of recent months and years have had a devastating effect on trust in political leadership. As Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It put it, albeit more colourfully, people don’t like politicians and think they shouldn’t get support toward second homes – rather, they should be living in caves. At points last May and June, perhaps caves would have been too good for them. Let us not underestimate the cloud that still hangs after the death by a thousand cuts meted out to our MPs by The Daily Telegraph.
The Irish experience also illustrates the principle danger of referenda: that voters answer their own question and not the one on the ballot paper. Thus March 1, 1979 was always going to be as much a rejection of the fag end of the Callaghan government as September 18, 1997 was an endorsement of the new New Labour government. However much those outside Labour but on the winning side that fateful night might try to pretend otherwise, the aeroplane flying around South Wales towing a banner saying “Vote Yes, Vote Blair” was as powerful and critical as any speech by a Welsh politician.
When it comes down to it, voters in referenda are moved by quite basic instincts and don’t let facts get in the way. The True Wales campaign knows this well and that is why it is already basing its campaign not on the real issue at stake – moving from part 3 to part 4 of the Government of Wales Act – but on gut instincts, misrepresentation and bullshit.
Just look at their platform and the platform which will form the basis of their No campaign:
Let’s debunk these in order:
- the spending priorities are set by the Assembly as a whole through the approval of a budget set by the Welsh Government. The government is there because it won an election. That’s called democracy;
- when did the cohesive tolerant society end? Must have missed that one;
- the appointment of Cabinet portfolios is a matter for the Prime Minister and has nothing to do with the Assembly;
- moving from Part 3 to Part 4 would not change the place of Wales within the United Kingdom, strong or otherwise;
- LCO requests do reflect the wishes of the majority of the Welsh people. They arise from legislative commitments in the One Wales agreement which in turn are based on manifesto pledges in 2007 from Labour and Plaid Cymru – the two parties which won two thirds of the Assembly seats at that election.
But although easily debunked, the True Wales myths will still be peddled. It was the same in Ireland with No campaigners saying the European Union, if Lisbon was approved, would force abortion on the Irish state. And that is the root of the problem: the No campaign next year will rely of fear and lies to make its case. Things will not have changed from 1979 when people were told that if they voted Yes for an Assembly then they wouldn’t be able to get Coronation Street on their tellies.
The Yes campaign here must recognise that and fight not just to win a yes vote but to dispel the myths and to educate people on the real facts. That is one hell of a job. By comparison the No campaign will have a much easier task in terms of misinforming and spreading fear. The True Wales campaign aims show this is their tactic. Yes for Wales Mark III must address this head on or we will replicate Ireland next year.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Excellent article Daran which reflects the views of many of us who believe that the fundamental mistake being made by those in favour of more powers is that they believe that it is inevitable. It isn’t and too much of the debate is being conducted by a political elite who just not engaging the voters. The article by Finkelstein which I mentioned yesterday should become essential reading for anyone interested in the how ordinary voters pereceive the political process. As Drew Westen points out in his book we ignore at our peril the effect of emotion on how people vote. We should also take opinion polls which suggest that a ‘yes’ vote is a shoo in with a pinch of salt. The You Gov poll which is now being quoted also asked who repondents thought would win the X factor! Last night I attended a Labour party meeting and no one even mentioned the Jones Parry report. It isn’t just a simple matter of moving immediately to a referendum and then just having a short campaign. In an anti politics atmosphere voters have to be persuaded that their lives will be changed for the better by full law making powers. For those who either believe passionately in devolution or independence this is obviously a given. How many voters will actually read anything about Jones Parry in the newsapaper they purchase today? It might have a great deal of coverage by the Western Mail but how many column inches will you find in the Sun, Daily Mail or Mirror? In 1997 it was a close run thing and in my opinion what swung it was the opposition of the Tories and the reaction to 18 years of Tory rule from many traditional Labour voters. This might not be the case next time. Today’s Times also illustrates another problem with even the question for any future referendum. According to the Times the government will soon publish a White Paper setting out its response to the Calman Commission in Scotland. The article suggests that real tax raising powers could be on offer for Scotland. If this is the case then how can an Assembly with full lawmaking powers not also have some ability to raise revenue. You really can’t have ‘representation without taxation’ and some form of revenue raising powers has to be considered alongside full lawmaking in my opinion.
Yes, good article. Totally agree with the comments on True Wales.
One problem is that some people still don’t quite distinguish between the principle of the Assembly and the actions of the Assembly. Last night I caught the tail end of an item on the operation of the Blue Badge scheme on Wales Today. Apparently the operation of the scheme in Wales differs slightly from that in England and Scotland and the couple featured declared themselves to be discriminated against. I can well imagine that there were some watching at home, not particularly well-disposed towards the Assembly, muttering to themselves that the Assembly (rather than the policy) should to be scrapped. Divergence of policy can be a difficult/emotive subject to deal with at times but it’s at the heart of devolution and has to tackled head on.
The case for moving to part 4 is fairly unanswerable, which is why True Wales needs to lie, smear, distraught and create fear. One important point may be that around 47% will vote yes but nearly 3/4 want equality with Scotland. Unfortunately 22% equate “full legislative powers” with independence. So its easy for True Wales to say part 4 = independence because it already chimes with voters.
True Wales live in a world where the BBC, ITV, the polling companies, the Western Mail and the leadership of the Labour Party are controlled by Plaid and have entered into a conspiracy to make Wales independent by stealth. Hence their claims that the creation of a Welsh Stock Exchange and an honours system are in preparation for independence. Further more as most of civic society, the major charities and voluntary organisations receive funding from the National Assembly they are effectively controlled by them and have to sign up to the independence conspiracy. Naturally they claim the bulk of Labour Party members back them and not the leadership.
A further track that they will use, as demonstrated by one of their representatives at yesterday’s unveiling of the report, is that unless a majority of the electorate vote in favour that the referendum will lack democratic legitimacy as a minority will have altered the constitution. There is a petition before the Assembly asking the Assembly to ask the UK government to put a hurdle of 60% of the electorate for any referendum to have passed. That has been submitted by a prominent supporter of True Wales. Further suggestions call for an 80% turn out before any vote should be regarded as valid. For evidence of this just read the BBC Wales political blog…
In short True Wales are positioning themselves as the valiant underdog who are fighting a vast conspiracy to make Wales independent, and the only way to stop it is to vote no in the referendum. And just in case they lose it they will start claiming that the vote is illegitimate as less than 50% or 60% of the electorate backed the proposal, or that its not valid as less than 80% turned out to vote.
Having read the articles published this week, it would appear that whilst we are talking about the next staging post on the route to the destination, that in fact the electorate will need the facts on the envisaged destination and its nature – Independent Wales in the EU or Independent Wales as part of a federated UK? etc.
Also the electorate will require the details of the economic consequences for any of the options of the destination. As has been said the Calman report will bring forward the topic of tax raising powers. So when we will we see projected budgets for the envisaged destinations, together with the envisaged scenarios of how an independent Wales will operate and what will be its economic structure?
There has been much emotion and debate about the journey, but few facts on the nature of the eventual destination, its timimg and the economic consequnces. For instance what sort of economy is envisaged, how will it be achieved and what will be the taxation levels?
If the electorate is expected to vote “Yes” for the next staging post – or even a rush to the destination, then it should have the economic cases for each destination scenario detailed and published. Which party/grouping will do this after the GE 2010?
Financier, we’re talking about moving from Part 3 to Part 4 of the 2006 Government of Wales Act. Why are you talking about independence?
Hendre,
Because that is just a staging post to an eventual destination – which is envisaged and defined by many as “independence.”
It is no good going on a journey if you do not know what is your envisaged destination – or is that what many are trying to do?
If that destination is independence, then why not look at the economic cases for that destination – then the electorate can decide whether to stop, progress or turn back!
How many people read the local newspapers (for me the Echo and WM). How many people in Wales have even heard of True Wales?
Financier,
Plaid Cymru may envisage an eventual destination of independence from this referendum but no-one else does. Since when has Plaid Cymru been the ‘many’?
Should Part 4 come into force, the Assembly would still have less powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I fail to see any logic in retaining a weaker settlement in Wales as a means of securing the union. You mention turning back but as the likelihood of the Scottish or Northern Ireland settlements being dismantled is virtually nil what is achieved by dismantling the Welsh one?
“Plaid Cymru may envisage an eventual destination of independence from this referendum but no-one else does. Since when has Plaid Cymru been the ‘many’?”
And not every Plaid voter either – 10% of population actually.
I am one of the many who believes in greater devolution, but not independence.
Conflating different positions is exactly what this article says the No campaign will do. Don’t fall for it
Financier writes: “Because that is just a staging post to an eventual destination – which is envisaged and defined by many as “independence.””
A statement that perfectly provides a perfect example of the mix of misinformation and outright untruth that Daran warns against.
Sadly there’ll be plenty more of it, so we’d better get used to it.
The problem with True Wales is that they are sticking to a simple message – however false – and it is a message that people can identify with. Mud sticks.
And they can afford to lie quite blatantly as they are not backed by any parties or any big political names with careers to build. They have nothing to lose.
The Yes campaign cannot sink to their level, but at the same time we must recognise that we need to convey a simpler message, and not confuse people with arcane explainations of the LCO process and part 4 schedules etc. Keep it simple.
And while the official Yes campaign can not be seen to be involved in dirty tricks, there is no reason why individual supporters should not get their hands dirty. Get stuck in!
Penddu,
Absolutely agree that the Yes campaign must be based on selling the benefits. It shouldn’t even focus on more rapid legislation but on the legislation programme that will follow. It needs to be promoting those Welsh policy plans that were devised in Wales, and it needs to ask a simple question – where do you want your decisions made? In Wales or in Westminster.
However, I totally disagree with dirty tricks. This can be fought and won fairly.
Financier,
Less conspiracy theories please and more debate of what’s actually on the table.
A Yes vote= obtaining law-making powers in the devolved policy fields instantly.
A No vote= obtaining those powers bit by bit by asking Westminster…i.e what we have now.
Nothing more, nothing less. The financial results have already been talked about elsewhere, I think the cost of acquiring the powers all at once was virtually zero according to Sir Emyr.
True Wales are the only ones telling the truth, the yes camp are politically naive and threaten the existence the UK, more powers will move Wales to where Scotland is now, on verge of independence. The level of abuse thrown at true Wales reveals the true nature and extremist actions and views of the yes camp.
The reason True Wales exists is because there is a complete absence of any opposition to more powers from within any of the major parties in Wales. If we said that there is approximate 30% of welsh people who are asked the questions on this issue and seemingly opposed to “more powers”whilst not one major (in terms of wales) politician has come out against more powers. As i have said elsewhere Plaid Cymru and the rhodri Morgan types in Labour have been on about “more powers” since the inception of Assembly in 1999,and even if they get more powers now,within a year they’ll be “at it” again,until they reach their desination of an independant wales. As Mao said “The long march started with one step” and we are on our way unless there are strict limitations put inplace,and also much more healthy debates amongst the “elite”and ordinary people like myself. As Jeff Jones stated the report published by AWC has not even registered with 95% of welsh people as their concerns are about economy etc etc,and not the concerns of executives in BBC Wales/S4C who can see huge advancement of careers and huge salaries (taxi expenses) if the Assembly grows and grows in powers.In conclusion everybody wishes to see better management of public services and as Reagan said “A bigger bang for your buck” and therefore what laws would the Assembly currently put in place if it had the power,or are we being asked to vote for a pig in a poke?.
It could be argued that the powers of the Asssembly can be as much about not doing things as doing things. Take, for example, New Labour’s latest wheeze in the field of education, namely providing enforceable entitlements to standards of education. While it may sound a good idea on paper it has many ramifications for the relationship and balance of power between teachers, schools and parents. Thanks to devolution we can look at the policy and decide whether or not it’s the right one for Welsh schools.