True Wales and Aunt Sallies
WE EXPECTED a robust response to yesterday’s WalesHome.org article by True Wales spokesperson Rachel Banner, and we weren’t disappointed. Many of you took close issue with some of the numbers involved (we even received an official response from the Assembly’s press office on the question of its running costs). Others responded to the arguments that were put forward about separation and the role of the All Wales Convention. Overwhelmingly, those who left comments disagreed strongly with Rachel Banner’s analysis.
Few, however, responded seriously to the central charge of the piece – that of a devolution project instigated and run by “the elite” for its own benefit. Most disappointing was Peter Black’s response on the Freedom Central site, based on “the assumption that True Wales’ supposed agenda to secure real devolved power for Welsh people is a disingenuous distraction tactic”. If you start from the position that your opponent is a liar, it is unlikely you will make much of an attempt to address what they have to say.
Vaughan Roderick, on the other hand, did address the elitist charge, deducing that it is a clever tactic likely to resonate with people. He is surely right. In 1979, the notion that the proposed Welsh Assembly would entrench the “crachach” was used to devastating effect. In 1997 I winced every time Betty Bowen or Carys Pugh declared that the Assembly would mean “jobs for the boys”, knowing that this was a charge that hit home hard in the Labour heartlands. As Rhodri Morgan points out in today’s WalesHome.org interview, people in Wales have an instinctive dislike of their “elders and betters”. And troweled on top of all of this is a highly toxic anti-politics sentiment catalysed – but no means caused – by the MPs’ expenses scandal.
So True Wales are on fertile ground. Inside the bubble, the transference of power from Whitehall to Cardiff Bay has always been the project, and for the “client class” of journalists, lobbyists and quangocrats, this process has undoubtedly brought power closer to where they are. For most ordinary voters, however, there remains a vast gulf between their lives and decisions made in the Senedd and Ty Hywel – perhaps scarcely any less wide than when those decisions were made in Parliament and Gwydwr House. A “no” campaign that can evoke this sense of distance, and that articulates an alternative based on bringing the elite to heel will be mining a very rich seam indeed.
“Yes” campaigners can make hay with TW’s claims about costs and independence. They can choose to talk past their opponents until referendum day. They can even go about knocking down arguments they think their opponents are making. But unless they are prepared to confront the charge that devolution has done little to empower the average voter they had better be prepared to concede a huge chunk of the battleground to their opponents.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
I think the Welsh people – gwerin or whatever you want to call them – must take some responsibility for this situation. There are so many opportunities to get involved with the Assembly and WAG. So much of the lack of engagement is down to a feeling of general malaise in politics and public perception of politics, and not so much to the Assembly per se.
I’m no nationalist but I think Wales is an entity in its own right and has circumstances that are different enough from the rest of the UK to justify having an Assembly and WAG. What’s the alternative? True Wales doesn’t have one. It has a general theory about ‘true devolution’ and getting down to local level. How would you even go about this? (Some issues should not be dealt with at local level.)
True Wales is content to take a scorched earth tactic, that is to smear an entire institution as ‘jobs for the boys and girls’. It’s very damaging for the political discourse in Wales. I know people who work in WAG and the National Assembly who flog their guts out daily trying to make Wales a better place to live. It’s an insult to them that True Wales is so disparaging about their contribution. These hard-working people are needed to make Wales work. They’re not from the ‘boys and girls club’ but are working on below UK average wages doing essential jobs.
The choice in a referendum and more widely in people making the choice to get involved is whether people would like to take responsibility for their own affairs. It’s about whether they want to accept the successes and failures for themselves, or whether they want to continue blaming others (or not even think about it).
I think this is an extraordinarily silly argument, Adam. In a democracy, anybody is free to stand for election and people can vote for whoever they like.
In that respect voting for members of the Assembly is no different from voting for MPs, MEPs or County or Local Councillors. If AMs are “elite” then these other elected politicians must be equally “elite”.
In fact, I addressed that issue as well as the issue of True Wales’ distortions over cost in my comments to RB’s post. But as you’ve chosen to repeat True Wales’ position in a new post, allow me to repeat the reply I gave:
From then onwards, RB goes into a world of speculation. She makes out that she wants to improve the entire British political system. That’s fine. If she believes in it, let’s see some firm proposals. But I suspect that she doesn’t really have any. She’s only interested in nothing more being devolved to Wales.
It’s rather like telling people waiting on the platform for a train not to catch this one because—if only you’ll wait in the rain a little bit longer—the next train will have crystal chandeliers, leather armchairs, a personalized surround sound enertainment system and complimentary champagne … and, of course, it will have bells on it!
I’d suggest that most of us just want to get on the first train that will get us to where all the polls show we now want to be, namely one step further on from where we are now. Simple, practical politics for where we are now will always be more important than speculating about some sort of totally different form of politics.
—-
Finally, I think you misunderstood what Vaughan said, Adam. Yes, it might well be clever of True Wales to turn the focus away from their distorted facts and figures (which can be refuted with hard evidence) onto the more intangible area of what we think of politicians in general. Having been shown to have lied about the first, they have little choice but to move to other ground.
But, in that case, the issue is whether we trust our AMs more than we trust MPs to make laws on those areas which are already devolved to Welsh ministers. Vaughan’s point was that this tactic would backfire on True Wales, since all the indications are that we think more highly of our AMs than our MPs … as things like the expenses scandal clearly show.
I do not think that you have been entirely fair to my response. I addressed each of the charges and suggestions in Rachel Banner’s piece and also spelt out some of the benefits of devolution as greater transparency, accountability and local control. Surely those virtues deal with the charge of an elite running Wales?
Richard
I suspect you may have a point. Decisions are made by those who turn up, and all that.
MH
No, I haven’t repeated True Wales’s position at all. I haven’t endorsed it at all. In fact, beyond the assertion that the Welsh polity probably appears no less distant that the old British one to many voters, I expressed no view whatsoever about the validity of True Wales’s argument, or any of the counter-arguments. All I said was that nobody really attempted to address the central charge in the piece by them that we published yesterday. I didn’t include the passage from your comment because all you did in it was to challenge True Wales to develop proposals aimed at reforming the entire political system. And all you now appear to be claiming is that AMs are just as elite as MPs and MEPs. That is a tacit acceptance of their argument, not a refutation of it.
Peter
You started from the premise that TW were engaged in an act of deception, before going on to refute the motives you then ascribed to them. Your argument against their elitist charge appears to be much like MH’s; to concede that AMs are part of an elite, but to justify this on the grounds that it’s a Welsh elite and not a British one.
It strikes me that True Wales are challenging proponents of devolution to describe what devolution has done to give more power to people, and to make their elected representatives more accountable (as well as why more powers would do more of this). All I asked was why the “yes” side seemed so reticent to answer that challenge.
Who is this”elite” in the Assembly?
Does it include my local AM who I see shopping in Asda with his wife most weekends? Does it include Culture Minister Alun Ffred who was in my local a couple of weeks ago having a pint with the lads following a football game between my village side and Nantlle Vale? Does it include Ann Jones who can be seen regularly in car boot sales in north Wales or Elin and Brinly and Mick Bates who can be seen in the marts mingling with ordinary farmers on a regular basis?
The last time I spoke to Rhodri Morgan was whilst he was in a queue waiting to be served in a fish and chip shop. How remote and elitist is that ?
The most crach of the crachach must surely be the Lord President, a bloke who I was standing behind waiting to use an ATM in Llanrwst a couple of weeks ago, very crach indeed!
The fact is that when you look at the people who are supposed to inhabit the so called Elitist Bubble in the Bay, the myth doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Adam, what I said was that you repeated True Wales’ position. We can each make up our own minds about whether you agree with it or not.
Neither did I (since you put me together with Peter Black) “concede that AMs are part of an elite”. What I said is that if AMs are elite, then our other elected politicians must be equally elite. “If” is a little word with a meaning that seems to have escaped you, Adam.
In your comment you assert that “the Welsh polity probably appears no less distant than the British one” … which is (to me at least) another example of you repeating the True Wales position. This is laughable. The Assembly deals with matters that affect only Wales, a population one twentieth the size of the UK. This, by definition, brings the decision making process for areas devolved to Wales much closer to the people of Wales.
As to wheether this is the most appropriate level of devolution, I need only repeat what I said in the previous thread: namely that, by considerable margins in each case, people in Wales think our National Assembly should have more influence than either Westminster on one hand (a margin of 3 to 1) or Local Authorities on the other (a margin of 4 to 1).
—-
P.S. How do I get my picture to appear in the comments? I’ve no doubt that I’m not as good looking as either you, Adam, or Peter Black … but even so …
The Achilles heel of many of those who attack Rachel Banner is that like her they are not interested in devolution. Devolution is a means to an end and that end is independence. Like Lenin they want to support the Labour Party as a rope supporting a hanged man. The problem stems right back to the 1970s when the Labour party became interested in devolution because of the success of nationalism in Scotland and Wales. Very few in the Labour Party saw devolved government across the UK as part of the much needed constitutional reform required to bring a centralised state without a written constitution into the 21st century. As a result the 1998 Act was a fudge and the 2006 Act a dog’s breakfast. No one is actually discussing how a devolved administration could actually improve the lives if ordinary people. The arguments of moving from Part 3 to Part 4 of the 2006 Act are of no interest to most people. They want to know how such a move will improve their lives. Talk of a more confident Wales since 1999 is just pure rhetoric to most people. Historians of pre 1914 Italy often talk of the gulf between political Italy and real Italy. That gulf exists in Wales. My clients often ask me who is the Secretary of State for Wales. One even rang me on Wednesday to ask ‘what was she like?’. By She, he meant the person who is succeeding Rhodri Morgan. He didn’t realise that ‘Carwyn’ was a boy’s name. Most people in Wales don’t read the Western Mail, listen to Radio Wales or stay up until late on a Thursday to watch Dragon’s Eye or the Sharp End. When the referendum comes the only information many will get will be the respective leaflets from both campaigns delivered through the post. Yes campaigners are taking things for granted again as they did in both 1979 and 1997. In an anti politics environment that is a very dangerous tactic to adopt. Last year the voters of Doncaster elected as Mayor an English Democrat who was dismissd by the main stream parties as an irrelavance. With his populist policies he is still the most popular politician in Doncaster. They should also not forget that the party with the highest vote in this European elections was the Tory Party and the fourth MEP is from UKIP. Instead of rushing headlong into a referendum those who really want to see real devolution need to start putting forward the arguments that will convince a fairly sceptical public. The debate has to be about more than just Part 4 of a badly drafted 2006 Act. It has to include a through discussion of all the matters that would be reserved for Westminster, a more democratic electoral system for the Assembly so that all AMs are directly elected by the voters, some form of revenue raising and borrowing powers and how many fewer MPs Wales will have in the UK Parliament as a result. In short we need a more mature and grown up debate than we are unfortunately getting at the moment.
Without wishing to offend Alwyn, he has probably been a little disingenuous. He would have certainly recognised Rachel Banner’s (RB) elite in the Health Service – could he also recognise a similar elite group in Education? My guess is yes. I am surprised then that he denied being able to recognise the elite body politic in Wales, all large social groups will have some kind of elite group within them that actively participates in the group’s political dynamics. RB, for her sins, has attached a label to ours that certain interest groups find disturbing.
The elite group in question is not composed exclusively of AMs. It includes individuals from all walks of life. The common denominator will be a desire to maintain a dominant position in a particular society. It wishes to rule, and rule it does through the WAG and one or two other quangos. In itself, where we have checks and balances, society will counterbalance the effects of such a group/s. Here in Wales only one side of the scales of politics is weighted, the weight belonging the body of AMs resident in the Bay, a body politic with a seemingly single objective, a body politic that has been very effective until now of suppressing real sustained opposition.
I am guessing, and it is only a guess, but could Rachel Banner be the advocate of balanced politics, a modern day suffragette who is asking for democracy to be returned to the people?
MH
Closeness to the people is measured by the manner in which government is conducted, not the size of the jurisdiction. The charge here is that the Assembly is no more accountable and no more responsive to the wishes of the electorate than Westminster. What influence does the ordinary voter have over decisions made in the Assembly over and above those available at a Westminster level? In what ways is the Assembly more responsive to these impulses? How much more capacity do voters have to eject those who make bad decisions? These are the questions that I suggest the “yes” side needs to come up with compelling answers to if it is to blunt TW’s central claim. Merely asserting that because there are fewer people being governed the system of government is closer will not, I suspect, satisfy those who feel that their capacity to make government listen to them is very limited, or is superficial (by that logic a tiny authoritarian state could make a convincing case for operating a system of government that is closer to the people, even if it took no heed whatsoever of their views).
The truth of the matter is… the Welsh, in general terms,have no interest in either the Assembly or it’s ultimate, and VERY ELITIST aim, independence.
The scepticism amongst most people I speak to revolves around the FACT, these language crazed nutters in Cardiff Bay are isolated and cutched up in the incestuous glass menageries they have constructed for themselves, a endeavour that had it been promoted and publicised pre the 1997 debacle, qwould without doubt have meant a much larger ‘nay’ vote than the pathetic turnout provided.
If these folk wish to opt for another referndum some time in the futurem, then I for one would welcome a compusiory vote by all enfranchised, with the main question, no, the only question on the form being,…
‘ do you want the devolution, considering what has occurred since 1997?’
Anything else is a load of waffle and obfuscation, a outpouring welll praciticed by the present set up down in the Bay.
Proof of which lies in the bulk of the comments preceding this one.
Adam, It seems silly for you to talk about a “tiny authoritarian state” that “takes no heed whatsoever” of the views of its citizens.
Why tie yourself in such hypothetical knots? The reality is that we live in a representative democracy. In fact—because of the element of proportionality in the electoral systems for Wales, Scotland, and London—we have a more representative democracy (though still not as good as STV in NI) than we have in the UK Parliament at Westminster.
That is another reason why ordinary voters have more influence over the decisions made in the Assembly than at Westminster. The current Welsh Government is made up of a coalition of two parties that attracted 54.7% of the FPTP vote and 50.7% of the regional vote. The current UK Government is made up of a party that got only 35.3% of the vote … but that has a huge artificial majority of seats.
So which better reflects the views of its “ordinary voters”?
We vote for our AMs. If we think our AMs take “no heed whatsoever” of the people that elected them, we can vote for another party.
Adam, I think our problem is that I did not directly address the elite charge because I considered it to be a piece of political posturing. I pointed out that AMs were no more an elite than MPs, that is not at all, because as Alwyn points out we are ordinary people who by and large have achieved our position by hard work and persuading people to vote for us. I continued by pointing out that the difference MP and AMs is that in Cardiff Bay we have a distinct mandate, are able to give a Welsh dimension to legislation and are far more accessible, transparent and accountable. Those are the direct benefits of devolution.
As it happens I do think that True Wales are engaged in an act of deception, but as Vaughan points out it is a very clever one. They consistently misrepresent the process and attribute motives to supporters of devolution that do not exist. They play on people’s lack of engagement with the process, their natural doubts and their concerns about cost to undermine the Assembly. They fail to actually engage with the case for moving to Part Four of the Act preferring instead to throw up a series of red herrings about process and intent. That is politics but it is dishonest politics.
Jeff is right, there are some who see this referendum as a stepping stone to independence but there is a valid and coherent case for devolution that has been expounded by Liberals and Liberal Democrats for decades. The idea that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level is an empowering one and it is only partly understood in the way that True Wales have hijacked it to expound their so-called ‘devolution-within-Wales’ that is actually no more than a tokenistic nod to inclusive democracy.
MH
You misunderstand me in a way that I can only assume is willful. I was not engaging in hypothesis, but reductio ad absurdum (the clue was in the phrase “by that logic”). The point is that the size of a jurisdiction is in itself not a good enough argument for demonstrating greater proximity to the people, as you argued earlier. The “authoritarian state” was an illustration of how the logic of your argument could be applied in a way that you did not intend and would not support. You, of course, knew this was the point I was making.
It’s interesting that you cite the formation of a post-election coalition as an example of the greater influence voters hold over their AMs than their MPs. To stick with the policy area under discussion, only one in five voters voted for a party explicitly committed to holding a referendum, yet it is now a central plank of this administration’s programme. What influence do the 80% of voters who did not support this policy have? What indeed do the majority of voters who supported the other party in the coalition, and which made no such commitment? Post-election coalition agreements (especially those where, as in this case, both parties stridently denied any intention of entering such an arrangement with one another) are generally held to weaken accountability, since the voter ends up with a programme of government not on offer before the election, and his little idea which commitments from each parties’ manifestos will make it into that programme. Much greater accountability would be secured through a pre-election coalition agreement.
And you still haven’t even tried to answer the central charge, namely that devolution has failed to drive power below the politician level. TW will go into this campaign arguing that devolution just means a cabal in Cardiff instead of London. They’ll call for a plague on all houses. Making tepid comparisons with Westminster will cut virtually no ice. To most people, they’re all politicians. The “yes” side needs to articulate why devolution means people power, not Cardiff power.
Peter
in Cardiff Bay we have a distinct mandate, are able to give a Welsh dimension to legislation and are far more accessible, transparent and accountable.
And I’m suggesting the “yes” side needs to do more than merely assert this – it needs to demonstrate it. Show don’t tell. In what ways does the Assembly achieve these ends? Illtyd Luke suggested in the other thread that the Assembly’s petition system has resulted in issues raised being discussed in committee. We need that, and many more such examples of where the mission is not simply transferring power from London politicians to Cardiff politicians, but beyond that.
Ultimately, whether TW are sincere or not – and whether you believe them to be so – is largely irrelevant. What is important is whether this argument has impact. I say it does. Simply shrugging one’s shoulders and calling them liars ain’t going to make this argument go away.
Obviously, the only people who tend to get involved in this sort of debate are those with a vested interest in achieving both a separated mini state, or full independence.
As usual the ‘normal’ Welsh person gets no say in the matter, and why? because there is no interest., and he/she is ecluded due to seeing the whole process is confine to Cardiff Bay, and those with a nationalist agenda.
A referendum, as soon as possible, with a compulsory vote.
Anything less is a denial of democratic rights for the whole population.
If they will not get out to vote under ‘normal’ circumstances, then bloody well make them, on fear of a severe penalty.
Then we may get to the truth of the matter.
Which as I see it, is what True Wales is really after.
I agree Adam and I did address it and referred to the petition system and its efficacy. However we cannot fight a campaign by accepting what True Wales say at face value and arguing on their terms.
Adam, I think you made yourself very clear, and are only now trying to make out that you meant something different after I showed how silly your hypothesis was.
-
And—with a final chuckle before I go to bed—I see the “central charge” has now become “failing to drive power below the political level”. Adam, you are just making it up as you go along.
Power, as I’m sure will be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, should be held “at a political level”. In a democracy it means ordinary people voting for the candidates and parties that are prepared to stand in elections. It is a process that is open to any adult and any party … not just to the “elite” or the “cabal” that you and True Wales seem so keen to imagine. Not many grown ups are going to be frightened by the bogeymen you conjure up.
You misunderestimate (a favourite word) people’s intelligence. It is not a question of merely calling True Wales liars but—as I did in the previous thread, and have done elsewhere—showing where they have lied by producing clear, hard evidence to prove them wrong.
—-
If he’ll let me, I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with Peter Black on this. Why should we fight the Yes campaign by focusing on a set of completely false assertions? We have a positive message.
MH
I didn’t say “political level”. I said “politician level” – the same charge I deduced from TW’s piece in the first place.
Perhaps you’d like to rethink your response, based on what I actually said.
Sorry John Tyler, but I don’t know about these remote inaccessible public servants either.
When I have comments to make about health I write to the chief medical officer or the chief nursing officer and get replies from them, rather than office juniors. On the whole my experience has been that they are pleased to get feedback from a common and garden nurse. They don’t always agree with what I have to say, but they always respect my point of view and are generally grateful that I have made my view known to them.
As a father I have corresponded with those high up in Estyn, when I have had concerns about their report regarding local schools. Despite the fact that I am a working class bloke with a council house address I have always found that they have welcomed my input and responded appropriately to my concerns.
The only thing that creates remoteness is the myth of inaccessibility. The myth of inaccessibility may feed a chip on the shoulder about “them and us”, but it is a myth, not a reality.
If I can demand an answer from a minister or a civil servant from my council house, and get it, so can you!
The “Elite Cardiff Bubble” is a figment of the imagination! A lie to make people think that government can’t be influenced by them.
The fact of decentralised Welsh Government is that you can e-mail, phone, fax or even knock on the front door of any ministers or senior civil servants and receive a welcome, a fact that those who have a vested interest in a them and us society don’t wish to acknowledge!
Thought for the day ….. The True Devolution Charter! ….. battle lines, not many figures for MH to dissect and reassemble, a good alternative philosophy that would make Wales a more equitable place to raise a family, a philosophy to send voters back to the Labour Party, and maybe tempt certain Conservatives to join the campaign for a better Wales.
Apologies, Adam. I misread.
However it doesn’t really change much. Someone who gets elected is a politician. So read it this way:
“Power in a democracy means ordinary people voting for the candidates and parties that are prepared to stand in elections. It is a process that is open to any adult and any party … not just to the “elite” or the “cabal” that you and True Wales seem so keen to imagine. Not many grown ups are going to be frightened by the bogeymen you conjure up.
and so on …
Of course it’s right that we make the political process as open and accessible as we can. Of course it’s right that we encourage everyone to take a part in it by voting, and encourage anyone who wants to stand for election to do so. But everyone who stands for election becomes, by definition, a politician. And the ones who get elected are put in positions of power by the voters, only by the voters, and only until the next election. So unless you want to put an end to representative democracy, power can’t and shouldn’t be driven below the politician level.
If you want to make out that politicians are somehow “different” from other people you end up destroying politics. It seems you do, and that would explain why you and True Wales are so keen to use words like “elite” and “cabal”.
MH
It’s a little surprising to read this attempt, albeit a clumsy one, to associate me with the views of True Wales. I thought my opening statement in this thread was clear enough on that point. Evidently not.
For the avoidance of doubt – and so you don’t take yourself down another blind alley – I am not arguing that the political class in Cardiff or anywhere else are a cabal. I’m explaining to you the arguments that True Wales will use in the forthcoming referendum campaign, and which I hope the “yes” side will develop good answers to. I trust you are capable of distinguishing between the act of advocating such a view and the act of analysing it.
The essence of your argument above seems to be that the basic premise of representative democracy – that we elect people who then act on our behalf – is enough to guarantee accountability, and that beyond making it open and transparent we should do no more. Perhaps so, but the argument we saw from True Wales yesterday was that the people of Wales were promised much more than a straight replication of the Westminster way of doing things; what was promised was a political system that was qualitatively more accountable, more responsive and which placed more power into the hands of ordinary people. They developed this further by arguing that politics per se is need of an overhaul to increase accountability and that this, rather than the transfer of more powers, should be the focus of constitutional reform.
I’ve still yet to see a response on this thread, or the thread attached to the piece in question, that attempts to confront either of those points in a serious and sober way.
… You can have anything you want,
… as long as I want to give it
… words from the bubble, not spoken I admit, but in world where actions speak louder than words make up your own mind :
… several months ago, a small group considered the question of referendum and should the bar be raised higher than a simple majority for success. Our conclusion was raise the bar, but how high was difficult to answer, eventually we concluded that if 40% or more of the electorate voted for or against a referendum, that particular group would win.
The referendum of 1997 would have failed miserably, we would still be talking about creating a Welsh Assembly.
To test the water we attempted to place a petition at the No 10 petitions website, we were rejected out of hand, “Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government” we were informed.
Not to be put off the same petition was presented for consideration at the Welsh Assembly, a slight adjustment to the wording including raising the bar to 60%, an outrageous expectation we know, not so long and were were rejected, the rejection statement went …
“Changes to the referendum process in Wales would need to be made by the Houses of Parliament, as it would need a change to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which is outside of the Assembly’s powers.”
I appealed to the Assembly who got in touch with No 10, who subsequently allowed the petition, it is hosted at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Democracy-Wales/ .
Now why should the petition be have rejected by No 10, I don’t know for certain, it was not some form of conspiracy I’m sure, a lack of knowledge possibly.
What about the Assembly, well there was a period of approximately two weeks before rejection so we can assume due consideration had been given to it, but rejected it was. How was it worded …..
“We call upon the National Assembly for Wales, to urge the Welsh government to petition the British government, to modify the law relating to constitutional referendum in Wales, so that the current simple majority is replaced by a sixty percent of the electorate majority as a requirement to succeed.”
It was asking Rhodri, at the time First Minister, to petition the British Government on our behalf, of course the petition could have failed at the first hurdle by attracting little support. There was no way that our WAG was either going to debate the issue in public or present the public an opportunity to impose conditions on its future referendum plans.
So Alwyn ap Huw, I have no axe to grind with our civil servants or politicians as individuals, they are always most courteous, our politics are another matter, I reiterate
… You can have anything you want,
… as long as I want to give it
Why should our politicians restrict the politics of the public, particularly when it is politicians who have asked for the public’s input via the petitions system, occasionally we are asked difficult questions, occasionally the public might have the rights of it. On the question of 40% of the electorate, it conforms to recent UN directives, the 60% could have started a debate.
Please remove this line and following comment …
Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on your blog, it is an inspiration in its even handed approach to blogging, it is refreshing not being frustrated by abuse that I admit to responding in kind in the past.
Adam, Of course you can claim that you’ve “still yet to see” a response that is serious and sober, but I think that claim is as believable as the claim that you are not advocating True Wales’ position.
As I noted when I first came across you on your Welsh Political History site, you have a peculiar habit of pronouncing your verdict as if you were a neutral judge. You are neither a detached advocate nor a neutral judge. You are a person with particular opinions, as are we all. I’d advise you to say what you think in an open and straightforward way, rather than pretend that you are merely putting forward a point of view, only to then act as a judge who … surprise, surprise … just happens to agree with his own opinions.
MH
When one side in a debate alleges bad faith on the part of the other, it’s usually a sign that fruitful discussion is at an end. So it is here; if you cannot take at face value what I am saying I fail to see what I can do to convince you to the contrary. Nor do I see why I should bother.
You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this article. It was not “Adam Higgitt’s views on devolution” – I do not imagine our readers have much interest in that. Rather, it was an analysis of the responses to Rachel’s Banner’s article which we published, and some observations of my own about how I saw the campaign shaping up on the basis of what was argued and how people responded. Both here and on Welsh Political History I take as read the assumption that grown-ups will realise that they are reading the perspective of an individual, and assess what they are reading against what they know about me. It’s what I do when I read an opinion piece or column or blog post elsewhere. It says rather more about you than I that you seem to have some difficulty in doing this.
Nor is it the case that I have spoken neutrally in this article. My “particular opinions” were clearly expressed (and repeated in this thread). They were:
- That most people who responded to RB’s article shied away from her charge of elitism
- That to not answer this charge would be a mistake for the “yes” camp
I said what I thought “in an open and straightforward way”, namely:
- That the elitism argument has impact and will resonate, as it has before
- That the Welsh polity probably appears just as distant to most ordinary people as the UK polity
It is my opinion that “I’ve still yet to see a response…that attempts to confront [RB's arguments about accountability] in a serious and sober way”. If you disagree, say so and show why. But don’t tell me what my opinions are or whether they are believable – they are my opinions, not yours.
If you wish to continue to discuss RB’s post, the response to it and my opinions as about both as reiterated above, you are most welcome to do so. If all you wish to do, however, is to accuse me of conducting this discussion in bad faith, please don’t waste your time, or mine.
Adam
This is very frustrating. Adam is quite clearly explaining a counter-argument to his own. He’s quite right – the tone of some of the criticism of the article he refers to will only assist the cause of those the commenters in question claim to oppose. The first step to countering any opposition is to make a serious attempt to understand its tactics – so there’s a choice: either do that and win, or call people names and risk losing.
Anthony, you say that Adam is quite clearly explaining a counter argument to his own. Is he? As yet, he seems only to have expressed this “counter argument”, but without saying what he himself thinks the argument should be. To me, it seems that his opinions so far have been in support of True Wales’ position.
Now I’m quite prepared to see if he can simply and straightforwardly express his own views on how to counter Rachel Banner’s argument (although, as I have said, he appears to have shifted focus several times in the course of this debate) rather than rubbish the responses that others have made.
In my opinion it is not good enough to simply keep saying “none of you has come up with a serious or sober response” without being prepared to state what your own idea of a serious or sober response should be. I suspect that if Adam did try to give his own response rather than simply rubbish the responses of others, it would in fact have to echo some of the arguments he has already rejected as not being serious or sober.
But let him try. I’m all ears.
However, if he cannot or will not set out such an argument, my suspicion that he in fact agrees with what True Wales thinks will have been shown to be justified. Believe it or not, I’d like to be proved wrong. I can’t think of any different ways of refuting True Wales. If Adam can give us some new, different and better ways of doing so, I and everybody else in the Yes camp would thank him for it.
Adam Higgett:
“It strikes me that True Wales are challenging proponents of devolution to describe what devolution has done to give more power to people, and to make their elected representatives more accountable (as well as why more powers would do more of this). All I asked was why the “yes” side seemed so reticent to answer that challenge.”
One of the difficulties True Wales has in conducting a debate with those of the ‘yes’ point of view is finding a group of people with a coordinated and generally agreed point of view that is well expressed. In conversations we are usually told what the person we are speaking too thinks we believe. This morning I was told by anotherwise politically informed couple, ‘you believe…’
It is very important that both sides develop a clear explanation that the voters can understand and vote upon. Alleging ‘You believe…’ is easily countered by a few well chosen ‘inconvenient facts’. I wouldn’t expect to convince too many readers and contributors of this site to the True Wales point of view but I would hope that by the exchanges such as these, we can establish clear water across the Bay.
True Wales, has at least, shown willing by entering the dragon’s lair of Waleshome.org to put a point of view and prepared to debate and defend it. Please debate.
To be fair to Peter Black, he has addressed himself to the central theme of Rachel’s article and provided some useful quotations.
MH
This is by far the most disappointing of a series of very disappointing remarks by you. Re-read my last comment. Actually read it. I posted my article to give a perspective on where I see the arguments in this debate. I am not here to go into bat for the “yes” side simply because I think it is a mistake for it to ignore the elitism charge of the “no” side, and your suggestion that a failure by me to do so makes me a closet “no” supporter is unworthy of either you or this site.
For what it’s worth (though, heaven knows, this should be clear enough by now) I do not think the system of devolution for Wales has has done enough to fulfill its promise of closer, more accountable and more responsive government. But much more importantly, I don’t think a sizeable chunk of the electorate do, either. That is why I made my original observation about the distance of the Welsh polity. That’s why I invited others to prove me wrong. I want to be wrong on this. I see nothing in your arguments that suggests I am.
During the next year or more, a number of people will criticise the “yes” campaign, and the most cutting of such criticism may come from those who do it from a supportive perspective. Screaming “collaborator” at them will do neither you nor the cause any good at all. The way you’ve approached the latter part of this discussion has been almost sectarian. I shudder to think what damage attitudes like that might to do the “yes” campaign.
That’s it, now. Either debate in a spirit of fair-mindedness (and that includes not calling me a liar) or don’t respond at all.
Either you are being deliberately disingenuous or plain dumb. Read Adam’s previous columns and read this properly and learn to distinguish commentary from opinion.
Do you want a yes vote, or do you want to self-indulgently claim ideological purity and alienate potential yes voters? This is grown up politics. If you can’t engage with that, you’re doing your opponents work for them.
Adam, I think the problem with your position is that you cannot prove a negative. I can defend my positoin and assert that I am not part of an elite by defining my background and approach to politics. I can do the same for the Assembly but the fact is that all politicians are part of an elite because they form a distinct group that has to pass several entrance tests to achieve that position. The fact that an ordinary person from a working class background can sit alongside a ‘toff’ on an equal basis is in part irrelevant because both have had to endure than entrance requirement.
True Wales are tapping into an anti-politician sentiment rather than an anti-Assembly mood. They are saying to people that the Assembly are politicians and cannot be trusted with more power because we all know that politicians are scum. My point was that this applies to Westminster equally and that the only way to counter this argument was to point that out. On reflection I could also point to what the Assembly has done to open itself up – Senedd TV, the petitions committee, the North Wales bus, accessible politicians, open and transparent debates etc – but do you really think that will be enough to counter an anti-politician mood?
That is why I believe that questioning True Wales’ motives and their solutions is an important tactic. People need to understand that they are being played and that the alternative offered is nothing more than a series of patronising concessions designed to reinforce the political elite that True Wales rails against. That was the approach I took in my blog post.
Peter
I think you are absolutely correct. TW will tap into an anti-politics mood (but one with an a fairly deep antecedent traditional Welsh dislike of elitism behind it). In so doing, they will call for a plague on all houses – Westminster, the Assembly, Europe and local government. That’s what I’ve been arguing that to try and contrast the Assembly favourably with Westminster would be a mistake. It risks coming across like saying “we’re only burglars, not murderers”.*
You ask whether the initiatives you mention will be enough to counter the anti-politician mood? I don’t think they will. But that might be also because the Assembly can and should do more, rather than because there is no arguing with people who are seized by that mood. It would be in my view incredibly complacent to shrug our shoulders and say that the Assembly has done enough and all objections to the contrary can be dismissed (and those who issue them demonised). Like you, I remember the 1997 campaign vividly. We did promise a new politics to the people. Ten years on, only part of that promise has been fulfilled in my opinion. The best way to disarm TW is not to call them liars and frauds, but to show that the Welsh political class is open to new ideas about how to enhance its relationship with the voters.
* note to those who enjoy wilfully misinterpreting statements: this is a metaphor.
Mr. Black, you seem to be taking it personally, you shouldn’t. Individual politicians are not the underlying issue, but as individuals you might step up to the line and explain how democracy has been both protected and strengthened in Wales during the lifetime of the Welsh Assembly. Senedd TV, the North Wales bus, accessible politicians, open and transparent debates are tools of democracy. Nobody can deny that you have replicated some of the safeguards that we take for granted when considering Westminster.
Where has the Assembly indicated publicly how it intends to provide scrutiny of the Welsh Assembly Government, if the proposed referendum receives a “Yes” vote? What will protect democracy? And please don’t offer the body of the elected Assembly, it is not enough. Currently we have the awkward LCO system and Westminster to offer some protection; scrutiny needs awkward in its make-up.
So Mr Black, a direct question: how do you propose to create awkward to protect our democracy?
Peter Black
My comment of Sunday ended by saying, “To be fair to Peter Black, he has addressed himself to the central theme of Rachel’s article…”
Now he has the opportunity to address himself to John Tyler’s “So Mr Black, a direct question: how do you propose to create awkward to protect our democracy?” – so let’s have it.
Adam Higgit says, “The best way to disarm TW is not to call them liars and frauds, but to show that the Welsh political class is open to new ideas about how to enhance its relationship with the voters.”
Tto be fair to Peter Black again, let’s have them!
Because Wales need them. In my discussions with ordinary members of the electorate I find that there isn’t a need of “tapping into an anti-politician sentiment”. People, even if they are jaundiced about the goings on about expenses, are interested in how they are governed. They are interested in Westminster and they are disintereted in Cardiff. On Saturday when I spoke about the mooted referendum to a lady from Cardiff she said, “Oh, them!” End of conversation. Her son-in-law, usually highly political replied, “I will vote, but I won’t go and vote on that.” At least True Wales is attempting to meet the public and determine the attitude and mood of ordinary non-aligned voters. Adam is right, “the Welsh political class (needs to be)/(is) open to new ideas about how to enhance its relationship with the voters.” – it is important to all of us.
If I were of a nervous disposition, the idea that I might be dubbed as among ‘liars and frauds’ would bring me out in a nrevous sweat. But at least TW is prepared to enter the political fray (as this website) and put it’s case. We have a case to put and a case that needs answering. It is a strong, factual, detailed and persuasive case that gains resonance with the public. You dismiss the informed and intelligent arguments of True Wales at your peril.
Dear, ‘yes’ advocates…this is a serious issue, take Adam’s advice and get serious.
In addressing the ‘charge’ that the devolution project was instigated by and is run by the elite for its own benefit, perhaps it’s worth noting a few points in recent Welsh Labour history.
I stand to be corrected, but after the 1979 St David’s Day Massacre wasn’t the devolution project resurrected by the trade unions in 1987 in the aftermath of the miners’ strike?
Moving some 10 years on and the contentious policy of twinning, Welsh Labour has had a very poor record in terms of female representation, but this one-off act of positive discrimination has meant that the Welsh Assembly better reflects gender balance than Westminister or local government (though concerns have been expressed about possible ‘slippage’ on this). It’s no secret that Ron Davies did have a bit of a ‘A list’ of candidates whom he wished to see in the Assembly but the general consensus is that local democracy won out and local CLPs got their favoured candidates. When True Wales talks of the elite do they mean Gwenda Thomas, Lorraine Barrett, Janice Gregory, Christine Chapman, Brian Gibbons, John Griffiths etc?
Another contentious aspect was of course the use of PR whereby the Labour Party turned away from any attempt at ‘business as usual’.
So rather than talking of “by the elite/ of the elite” how about union-inspired, pro-women, pro-pluralism?
The trouble is with whole “debate” is the nature of the decision. I’m sure many of us recall with some disdain the many business fads over the years but many have some value:
Business Process Re-engineering as an eighties thing that looked at process and:
1) Eliminated unecessary process steps and costs.
2) Accelerated decision making.
3) Provided strategic coherence between policy and actions.
Read Syr Em’s report and imagine you were a Management consultant with a BPR background. You’d rub your hands with glee. The worse thing about the LCO process is that all the participants are able people of good will and intent – it takes an outsider to realise that the byzantine process is an absolute nonsense.
It’s a shame that a referendum is deemed necessary to be honest. That’s not being undemocratic it’s just strange that a referendum is needed for a process improvement without any particular constitutional need.
Personally I’d rather move to Scottish style plus fiscal powers and would welcome a referendum on that.
Dewi:
“When True Wales talks of the elite do they mean Gwenda Thomas, Lorraine Barrett, Janice Gregory, Christine Chapman…”
It is of note that True Wales has Rachel Banner as it spokesperson. We are not male chauvinists and we don’t go in for gender bashing.
Len Gibbs,
As it was my comment I’d better reply. I notice you did crop my question and omit the two male AMs! To repeat it:
When True Wales talks of the elite do they mean Gwenda Thomas, Lorraine Barrett, Janice Gregory, Christine Chapman, Brian Gibbons, John Griffiths etc?
In other words, can the argument that the devolution project is essentially elistist be sustained bearing in mind that devolution led to a previously under-represented group gaining greater representation and the fact that many Labour AMs were local people and the choice of their local CLPs?
Hendre
Sorry about the mis-reference.
Yes, I did crop the quote, deliberately because you put a list of women first…
I almost added a comment that I have the greatest respect for Dr Gibbons who has been a good AM for my constituency Aberavon and I am sorry that he is resigning. I don’t know John Griffiths.
I have recently sent an email to Peter Hain about the resignations of women from the Westminster government – there is something wrong when that happens. My grandmother campaigned for Kier Hardy and was chairperson of the Labour Cwmavon ward and chairperson of the Cwmavon Co-op. I most certainly support the involvement of women in politics and this is why I put down any attempt to dismiss Rachel Banner on the basis of her gender. I have been concerned that Edwina Hart endured a whispering campaign against her on the basis of her being an English speaking female.
But note, there doesn’t appear to be any female posting comments on this thread. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Adam Higgitt has, quite rightly, asked us to refrain from making personal comments about Rachel Banner but I do find her comments regarding cliques and elites rather odd in the context of the eventual composition of the Labour group in the Assembly. Does she feel that female AMs, in particular, have failed to change the top-down political culture which True Wales abhors and has she raised these concerns through the internal mechanisms of the Labour party? Welsh Labour has been the dominant group in the Assembly since its inception so does the failure to engage more widely stem not so much from the fact that the devolution project is too elitist but that it is too, well, Welsh Labour?
I note Rachel Banner’s comment (echoed by Jeff Jones) that Assembly members should be “equally accountable”. Is this a plea for another form of PR such as STV or for a fully FPTP chamber? Surely it can’t be old Labour hankering for a return to its privileged position, its supposed natural birthright? Now that would be elitist!
I think much of this debate has missed the point. The question is do we the taxpayers really need another layer of government to magae our affairs? The answer has to be ‘NO’.
We now have five layers of elected representatives if you include Parish Councils, County Councils, The WAG, Westminster and The EU.
As a result spend per capita twice as much as the Australians and this is money which could and should be used on our vital social services like the NHS, police, child protection and for that matter the armed services.
We have better things to spend our money on that paying this lot to act as overpromoted power motivated clerks.
I would be prepared to let Welsh MPs meet say twice a month to vote on Welsh issues and release the burden of the costs of the Welsh Assembly for better use. These people were elected by about 26% of the electorate when almost half of us did not vote although I freely admit that I wish I had done so. Like most people I thought it was a non-starter and was both amazed and angered that we we found ourselves stuck with a bunch of self opinionated twits who draw vast salaries and meet twice per week in Cardiff and employ loads of staff to shift pieces of paper around.
You only have to attend a few ‘debates’ in Cardiff to appreciate what a dreadful thing the Assembly is. Let’s get rid of it ASAP and ask our MPs to earn their living making decisions on Welsh issues.
It’s a shame Len Gibbs didn’t address Hendre’s point about the Assembly enabling union-backed women to occupy the highest levels of power in Wales.
Jonathon is entirely wrong to compare government spending between Wales, the UK and Australia. Comparing us to nearby European countries would be more socially accurate, and the UK is in fact one of the lowest public spenders in the EU.
I don’t thing that should be part of a debate about legislative powers for the Assembly, because finance or the economy doesn’t even come into it and isn’t part of the deal.
Jonathon also seems confused about what’s on the table, as he is advocating abolition of the Assembly, something which is neither desirable or foreseeable.
Illtyd Luke
My final comment on this issue:
The problem with WAG and the supporting AMs is not the gender but the way the WAG and the Assembly works. On the issue of gender, I have previously drawn attention to the fact that True Wales has Rachel Banner as its spokesperson. No gender issue there. Our issue is with the way that the Assembly wants to increase its power without grassroots support. As Rachel has pointed out, the One Wales Agreement is a political arrangement that advances the power, position and prestige of the AMs rather than to benefit the electorate. If the female AMs want to extend democracy beyond the Assembly, they should take regard of the interest or lack of interest of the electorate.
The anti politics line from True Wales is truly scary. After the first election for the National Assembly a friend of mine, who was not involved in party politics, but was a member of a disability group, commented that he knew three AMs by first names and one of those was a minister. Other commentators have spoken of how AMs are part of their community and not part of some isolationist bubble. We actually have substantially less elected representatives per head of the population than most European countries and far less than we had when we had parish councils, rural/urban district councils, county councils and the UK parliament. In many ways we have far to few elected politicians. If True Wales wants real devolution they would be campaigning for community councils to be established for all communities in Wales and not for us to move to elected mayors and streamlined rubber stamp councils with undemocratic “citizens juries” substituting for people with mandates. If they want real democracy then they would support STV to replace the additional member system in the National Assembly and the FPTP that is used for council and Parliamentary elections. Yes the jobs for the boys jibe is a good weapon but totally specious.