This mirrors the approach in 1997. Umbrella campaign and presence from January, with real campaign kicking off after election.

Since a No campaign already exists, a Yes campaign must have some sort of shape. And there is no embryo fit for purpose

And I’m certainly not pretending that the political realities I decribed ONLY revolve around Labour. Of course they apply to all political parties, including Plaid, as you said. I’m only focussing on Labour because the ball is currently in their court. I’m trying to convince Labour politicians about why they need get the referendum order through while they still have a majority in Westminster to do it.

-

We perhaps don’t disagree too much. You are definitely right about the Yes campaign not presenting the arguments to the public until the dust has settled after the general election.

I’d like to see the referedum on the last Thursday in October before the clocks go back, because that will have an affect on turnout, which we need to be high to capture the 28% Yes margin in the “moderately likely” group you mentioned. That leaves, as you said, a maximum of 4 or 5 months to make the case.

But what we need to do is think of the Yes campaign in TWO stages. The first stage is to set up a “council of war” to work out the right strategies. We can and should do that in January, hand-in-hand with the decision to set the referendum order in progress. This, I’m sure, is what Huw Irranca Davies (speaking for many) meant by “finding a plan to engage with the wider public in Wales and ask their views on these issues” rather then “to launch into some sort of Yes campaign solely driven by the political elite”.

The only thing I would say is that this needs to involve Yes strategists from ALL parties and other interested groups, rather than just Labour or Labour and Plaid. We would need to test out the effectiveness of different strategies and approaches in focus groups and the like to see which ones work best. Then in June (or perhaps later) we launch stage two, the public campaign, and hit the ground running.

I’ve been planning a post on this very subject, and it should come out some time over the weekend.

Yup. But, to borrow a phrase, winning people around to devolution is a process, not an event. The more we go on, the better people like it. Public opinion has moved an awfully long way in favour. It’ll move further still.

But let’s not imagine that people don’t still harbour reservations – 1 in 5 of all voters still want the institution abolished, for heaven’s sake! There is work to be done. To us, the debate is long since won and dreadfully old hat. It ain’t like that everywhere. Ten years is an age to us; to some it’s still quite novel.

I have absolutely no doubt that the narrowness of the vote in ‘97 made it much harder for people to accept devolution than it might have been. The residual effects of that are still detectable today. Even if you believe otherwise, why would we choose a narrow endorsement tomorrow when there is the chance of a big endorsement the day after?

Let’s not be pedantic here. “Some anxieties” means credible grounds for doubting that the vote can be won on the basis of existing public opinion. You say the polls show it’ll be “yes”. I acknowledge as much. But the poll of those who will actually vote shows that margin to be just 3% – within the margin of error, in other words.

Why wait? I’ve explained that, too. A very significant slice of the electorate don’t even understand what “full law-making powers” means, let alone can be relied upon to a) care enough to vote on it and b) vote “yes”. Others go cooler on the idea when they learn more about it. It very may well be that this is a process of explanation that can be carried out between now and autumn 2010. But you’d have an even better chance if more time was taken.

I do appreciate the political calculations around the fact of a forthcoming General Election and potential change of government. I really do. But perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the “near-term campaign” will not only blot out most meaningful public debate about more powers, but will also make the politicians act in crazy ways. “One campaign at a time” might have been a campaign slogan and recommendation of strategy, but to me it is as much a statement of inescapable political fact. We just don’t have a rich enough public debating space to conduct simultaneous discussions about who should run the UK AND how much power the Welsh Assembly should have. What that means is that the debate on powers does not really kick off until perhaps as late as June 2010 – as few as four (summer) months from the vote itself. Let’s be realistic about what can be achieved in that sort of timescale.

As for my closing paragraph, I suggest you re-read it. I did not say that the referendum itself was about the internal political objectives of one partner. I said the deadline of May 2011 was – an important difference. Why May 2011? Because Plaid needs to be able to show its membership that coalition with Labour was worth it. By all means criticise Labour for trying to bend this issue to its political objectives. Just don’t pretend it’s the only party doing it.

I have difficulty in buying into this assertion. We’ve had the National Assembly and a Welsh Government for 10 years and what it does is part of the modern Welsh public’s everyday dialogue. Not only do people quite easily identify where the Assembly sits and what assistance it can provide (which, to me, means they understand its powers), but they also actively seek help from it. Speak to AMs and they’ll tell you that their casework just gets busier and busier.

It’s a leap from there to further powers, but my point is that what happened with the Yes vote was over a decade ago. In the intervening years, we’ve all had plenty of opportunity to get used to and become advantaged by the Assembly. Most of us have become convinced. As such, looking back over our shoulder to what happened in 97 becomes rather academic. If we forget what happened then and concentrate on now(and, Adam, I have you to thank for this soundbite) that surely makes the question not “why?”, but “why not?”

Nobody will EVER be 100% sure. It’s a chimera. Setting impossible targets is just an excuse for putting things off … and off … and off …

-

Moving on, I’d take issue with your suggestion b, namely that the longer we leave it, the greater the chance of a Yes vote.

I don’t think that’s true. The polls all show, and have done for some time, that we will get a Yes vote now. So why wait? We’re not increasing the chance of a Yes vote, we’re simply increasing the margin of victory. More importantly, if we do not take this opportunity now (i.e. set up the referendum while Labour still have a majority in Westminster) I don’t think we will get a second chance for many years.

David Cameron will be put under immense pressure from Welsh Tory MPs (who are all against primary lawmaking powers) to go back on his declaration. And, whatever he says, the cold, hard politics of power will make the Tories very reluctant to let go of the lever of control that the SoSW currently has over new areas of legislation.

And even if the Tories DO keep their word on not vetoing a referendum, they can still do quite a lot to make winning it less likely. Do Labour want important things such as the wording of the question (although the wording has to be approved by the Electoral Commission) and the exact date (imagine a referendum in the middle of a cold, hard January in 2012 or 2013) to be left in the hands of a Tory SoSW?

-

Your closing paragraph was quite amazing, Adam. A delusion worthy of Hain himself. The referendum isn’t about “the internal political objectives of one partner” … a majority in ALL parties in the Assembly (and of course Trish Law, to make it unanimous) wants primary lawmaking powers. For Labour in particular there are cold, hard, political reasons for them to do so because it will mean Labour policies (since Labour are likely to remain the largest party in the Assembly) can be delivered in Wales through the Assembly even if Labour lose control in Westminster.

That is the political REALITY that makes it in Labour’s OWN interest to make sure we have the referendum in 2010, rather than in a few more years’ time … quite irrespective of the small matter of sticking to a signed agreement.

i also wanted to respond your’s an Jeff Jones comments on the Financial issues and the main reason is that its easier to discuss law making powers than it is to talk about Tax, National Insurance, Budget deficits. Stock Markets etc,

One of the other reasons for financial changes are not discussed is the lack of knowledge and interest in Financial matters by the politicians in Cardiff Bay and the political parties they represent , taking away the ‘blame Westminster for the budget squeeze’ option for many Ministers and politicians would be like taking away their comfort blanket, im not sure many could cope.

Also look at the response from HM Treasury to the Holtham Commission even with its limited recommendations for change were all but ignored by Ministers and Civil Servants at a UK level , so what chance is there of meaningful change when neither the Labour Party or Conservatives believe in or can imagine giving up fiscal and financial powers to any of the devolved administrations without breaking up the UK, something that might actually benefit them in the medium and long term.

There are also groups like True Wales who in their response to the suggestion of a Welsh Stock Market raised on your blog by Jenny Randerson pandered to the worst fears of many about sky high taxes, Stalinist levels of poverty and the end of the UK, and if that is all people hear on the matters then until we get counter arguments to that kind of nonsense through credible rational arguments and individuals the debate is lost before its started.

There are people putting ideas forward but its not as sexy to the press as spats between the parties over lawmaking, so to raise the profile of the debate on economic and financial powers we need leadership and courage and credible individuals in these fields and for the body politic to listen and engage about the issues, it also means a step change in thinking, something that will take time for many politicians and the public to adjust, but is not impossible to achieve.

It’s true that that is not automatically a problem, Wales should not frequently be compared to Scotland, but it is a fact that the people of Wales consistently desire a similar devolution settlement to the one enjoyed by people in Scotland.

Further, if the referendum doesn’t happen, could a future coalition agreement at the Assembly result in a post-2011 referendum that has even more options on the table? Parity with the newly strengthened Scotland perhaps?

Another unanswered question is that how is Scotland able to receive hugely significant further powers (including more fiscal powers) without going through a referendum yet we aren’t? We are not the same here in Wales, but political parties here could make the appropriate manifesto commitments to deliver proper devolution without going through confusing and contorted referenda.

The suggestion that Hain’s pessimism itself depresses the potential “yes” vote is a good one; overwhelmingly the politicians are participants rather than observers in this process.

All I’m saying is that if you sweep away all the controversy, claim and counter-claim away from the referendum debate there may be good grounds for taking a longer run-up at it. That’s not to say it can’t be won next Autumn.”

I disagree but I don’t say that it is not a valid argument. I don’t also say that Hain could not be right that a referendum can fail, although personally I think one should and will take place and it should and will win. My only point here is that I can not for the life of me agree that anything at all Hain has done is of anyway positive about the referendum and there is no way he is an asset. That said I will be very suprised if on the day the referendum is won he is not up on stage calling himself the father of devolution and claiming success for the victory.