Comments on: A Question of Leadership

By: TJ

TJ — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:31:42 +0000

If you believe in leadership of committees or consensus this is why Wales has the worst economy in the UK – no leadership.

By: Dave Collins

Dave Collins — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:20:02 +0000

It reads to me as if Owain may have written this some time ago and that it’s been held back by the WH powers that be …
“Yet there is still time to turn it around, to engage more with the media and to adopt a more challenging, rather than directive approach. The coming weeks will prove telling.”
Anyway, Carwyn’s won with a comfortable mandate now, so it’s time for us members to turn our attentions back outward to the wider electorate and get on with winning a fourth term for UK Labour.

By: huw maldwyn

huw maldwyn — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:23:33 +0000

I share Tom Evans’s confusion at the timing of this hatchet job dressed up with an introductory treatise on leadership. Surely Hart needed attacking before the polls closed? Or is this a crude attempt at a shake-out of the cabinet that allows Carwyn to move Leighton and Huw into the Cabinet – and Edwina out?

By: Illtyd Luke

Illtyd Luke — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:29:21 +0000

Don’t get this article at all.

I would dispute Islwyn being regarded as an ‘anti-nationalist’ community. Strong Labour community yes, but after Labour, Plaid is the second party there and briefly held the seat. Wishful thinking perhaps.

I don’t see how such a vehemently anti-Plaid piece is consistent with the author’s statement that
“Constructing walls around Welsh Labour, and, in broader terms, Wales will not help us out of recession.”

By: Tom Evans

Tom Evans — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:06:39 +0000

What’s the point in a hatchet job after the ballots have closed?

By: Ben Llwyd

Ben Llwyd — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:16:31 +0000

I thought this was going to be an article about the different leadership styles of the 3 candidates, instead we got an attack on Edwina and little real analysis of the others (who both have their detractors).

What was most interesting about this article was the attempt to re-frame the “choice” agenda as somehow more inclusive than the “voice” agenda. First of all the author should recognise that Rhodri (and to a degree Sue Essex) is the architect of the “voice” agenda and although part of its rationale was opposition to the marketisation of public services in England part was simply recognition of the demography of Wales: the vast majority of the country is too sparsely populated to offer much choice in service provision, esepcially once, in education terms, the choice between English and Welsh meidum schools has been made. Secondly there is absolutely no evidence that “choice” benefits the more excluded, indeed the reverse. Choice requires access to information and knowledge and confidence in “playing systems”.

Giving service users voice can be equally biased in favour of middle class users if done badly but there is an increasing (although still very patchy) set of examples of service users from very deprived backgrounds having inputs into how their services are designed and delivered – and the delivered bit is often the most important from a user perspective. It’s required a huge culture shift from public service managers and many, as well as some local authority members remain sceptical but we’re miles away from where we started in 2004 and I’d be amazed if any of the 3 candidates want to turn back the clock on this work.