Comments on: Trigger happy: The Assembly should vote positively for more powers

By: Chris Rowlands

Chris Rowlands — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:09:24 +0000

The setting up of the Welsh Assembly was purely a democratisation of the Welsh Office.

It has developed slowly and now is shackled by the whole LCO process.

The Welsh MP’s aren’t too keen – turkeys voting for Christmas? Isn’t Westminster wonderful!

By: Illtyd Luke

Illtyd Luke — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:23:20 +0000

I’ll withdraw to my corner then. Have fun with David Davies MP and any other dodgy right-wingers that your side will have to deal with. In the meantime ill get training on the new Calzaghe punchbag, a product (I kid you not) developed with a grant from our very own Adrian, Ieuan Wyn Jones.

By: Len Gibbs

Len Gibbs — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:11:39 +0000

Illtyd Luke
Final words for this round…

“You have already recognised this in a comment on this website, that the referendum is NOT about independence. ” I most certainly have! My comment above is that the way to ensure that it is not, is for Plaid to recind the political objective. The difficulty we have is that Plaid regard devolution, and the referendum, as step towards independence. Whilst this is their strategy independence is unfortunately an issue.

‘they’re going to give us 20 extra AMs’ or ‘it’s going to cost us £8billion’ I don’t t recall making the point but Tomorrow’s Wales have and they want to implement the Richard’s Commission in full, and that includes 20 extra AMs. True Wales is clear about its position, we do not want more AMs or MPs.

“a Constitutional Convention”…”we’ve just had one of those”. Well we haven’t. The AWC wasn’t a Constitutional Convention.
“diplomat Sir Emyr Jones Parry of being a closet nationalist ” I can’t remember that one either. I sat beside Sir Emyr when a caller to the radio programme more or less accused him of being a nationalist. His answer was delightful. He listed the elements of the charges and then said that if that made someone to be a nationalist, he was proud to be one…and I would.
“now claiming it was a good thing and upholding its recommendations” The article I wrote about the AWC, and published on this site, had the headline that a ‘NO’ campaigner had praise for it. I’ve never written anything that can be remotely described a critical of the Report or those who were involved in it. Perhaps you’d like to read the article again and see the remarks that I did make. I have a criticism of the brief issued to the Convention, and as the Convention stuck to the scope of the brief, I have no criticism of the Report itself. There are three areas that are of considerable importance and without the report we’d have a debate with fewer harder third party facts.

“a peep about decentralising devolution when your group first formed”
True Wales was formed at the inception of the AWC and for the first few months the opportunities of making public comments was limited. True Wales would have folded if the AWC Report advised WAG that a ‘yes’ referendum vote was impossible to win. When we had the get-out answer of “You can win, but it can’t be guaranteed” and there was a strong likelihood of a referendum, True Wales issued the “True Devolution Charter”.

‘Cardiff Bay elite’
True Wales are not the only ones who hold this opinion. It’s just that we are willing to say it.

…Final words for this round.

By: Illtyd Luke

Illtyd Luke — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:17:16 +0000

The ogre of independence is not on the agenda Len. It is not mentioned in the Government of Wales Act, which is what we’d be voting on.

An independence referendum would be required for Wales to see independence.

You have already recognised this in a comment on this website, that the referendum is NOT about independence.

Let’s not let that stop you though. I’m sure you’ll be campaigning on ‘they’re going to give us 20 extra AMs’ or ‘it’s going to cost us £8billion’ or whatever lies your group comes up with. I’m sorry for not appearing charitable about this but there’s only so far I can tolerate a ‘no’ position when it evades facts.

” we can have a meaning ful discussion, perhaps in a Constitutional Convention, about a better format of devolution for Wales”

For goodness sake man we’ve just had one of those and your group lambasted it throughout (anyone remember the “tax payer funded yes campaign” slur?) ! Not only did your group lambast it but you accused the British diplomat Sir Emyr Jones Parry of being a closet nationalist ! Before you performed a Damascene conversion and now claiming it was a good thing and upholding its recommendations.

There is a very good spirit of debate and friendliness at Wales Home which I am loathe to disturb, but there is no way you are going to get an easy ride on this.

“True Wales wants a less centralised devolution and Adam Higgett has also made the point as has Peter Black under his pseudonym. There is a broader basis for a wider based devolution than might have appeared the case in Nov when the AWC reported.”

Don’t flatter yourself. You didn’t say a peep about decentralising devolution when your group first formed. You base your desire for decentralisation on the predication that our legislature is a ‘Cardiff Bay elite’ (words you have used on this website). Something that many commentators on this site have proven to be completely unfounded.

By: Len Gibbs

Len Gibbs — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:53:38 +0000

John Tyler you write, “Today Rhodri Morgan said on TV, he saw the last three years as an apprenticeship and it was time to move to the next stage.”
As I was sitting next to him at the time he said it, I was well aware that he was deliberately making a distinction between his views and Leanne Wood’s ‘tidying-up process’. Despite the fact that I don’t think that three years is a sufficient apprentiship he was removing himself from the banal of tidying-up and I thought that was encouraging. The GOWA 2006 does contain the provision of moving from Part 3 to Part 4 and as such, constiutionalists can’t object to its consideration. If we didn’t have the Plaid objective that moving to Part 4 was a step in the process to independence there would be far less to object in the discussion. But I think that three years is insufficient. Peter Hain gave an undertaking to Parliament in 2006 that no further change in devolution would take place before 2011. It is not unreasonable to interpret this as, no further consideration would be given before 2011. Instead Plaid have used the phraseology as not making a change until 2011. The 2011 date to begin consideration gives a longer and necessary timescale of about seven to eight years which is much more reasonable.
In the meantime the AWC has reported and pointed out that GOWA 2006 has a flaw that needs addressing and that is the issue of scrutiny. It is encouraging that since, at the invitation of the editors, I raised the issue on this site at the beginnning of the year, the subject has had more consideration. The problems with Part 3 are not as large as some make out. Rhodri said this during the discussion. It is possible for the Assembly to function under Part 3 and Peter Hain and Hywel Frances say it is working as intended and working well.
Given the flaw, and the time frame of Peter Hain and also the need for experience, it is possible to take more time for a wider discussion as to the exact nature of the type of devolution we want in Wales. True Wales wants a less centralised devolution and Adam Higgett has also made the point as has Peter Black under his pseudonym. There is a broader basis for a wider based devolution than might have appeared the case in Nov when the AWC reported.
There is no crisis that needs to be addressed now about ‘The laws about Wales that only concern Wales should be made in Wales’ as, if I am correct, the Assembly has already made laws in Wales that only apply to Wales, and will continue to do so under Part 3.
We need to remove the ogre of independence from the agenda and while the Assembly continue to make laws that only concern Wales, we can have a meaning ful discussion, perhaps in a Constitutional Convention, about a better format of devolution for Wales. We’ve got the time…we’re nowhere near Rwanda yet.

By: David Llewellyn

David Llewellyn — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:13:24 +0000

I watched the debate on Democracy Live, and Alun Davies sounded very empassioned on the issue of devolved powers, and his fustration on the LCO processes came through clearly.

I thought he did a great job.

By: CA Jones

CA Jones — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:52:06 +0000

I’d like to thank Alun Davies for his response as well, particularly as regards the matter of education spending per pupil in Wales. I, along with many, look forward to seeing the results of Leighton Andrews’s review.

Diolch eto Alun

By: Illtyd Luke

Illtyd Luke — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:45:34 +0000

Though I disagree with Alun Davies’ point about this being a Labour referendum, it is excellent that an elected Assembly Member has seen it fit to come back online and respond personally to comments about his own article. Where is the Cardiff Bay elite we keep hearing about?

By: John Tyler

John Tyler — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:35:23 +0000

Mr Davies provides reassuring words, quite different to the Plaid coalition partnership that has consistently referred during TV interviews to the next stage, post a successful “Yes” vote, as merely a “tidying up process”.

With regard to Mr Davies’ last paragraph, I wonder why you were not dragged kicking and screaming from the debating chamber while the WAG cut education spending, I’m sure I would have been …. unless of course the reality was hidden from you/me. I am not convinced issues of oversight and scrutiny would be addressed by simply stepping to the next stage, it is time for public proposals for oversight that would be implemented as soon as possible.

Today Rhodri Morgan said on TV, he saw the last three years as an apprenticeship and it was time to move to the next stage.

Well Rhodri Morgan, if you visit Wales Home, traditionally, following a 5 to 7 year apprenticeship (depending on the trade) there would be an extensive period as an improver, an improver would be supervised much as an apprentice but with a hand that became lighter as each year went by. The Assembly might be an improver in a couple of years, but certainly not the craftsman/craftswoman with whom to trust the family jewels just yet.

By: Daran Hill

Daran Hill — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:50:18 +0000

Alun writes:

“The issue of the power of the executive in Cardiff is an important one. Richard Wyn Jones is right in his concerns and I agree with him. That is why the new powers will strengthen the legislature and not the executive. The new powers contained in the 2006 legislation will accrue to the Assembly and not to the Assembly Government. It has been a fundamental part of the devolution process in other parts of the UK that where executive power is devolved to ministers in devolved institutions then the appropriate legislative powers also devolved to the institutions themselves. In this way the new powers would bring Wales into line with the other devolved settlements and would help balance the UK constitution. This would provide and create a stable and more accountable form of government. It would also enhance the power of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive.”

I agree entirely and wrote last week:

“…after a successful referendum, all that would mean is that the legislative powers of the Assembly match the potential boundaries of the executive powers of the Welsh Assembly Government. (If you’re still following me, these boundaries are set out here in Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which define such legislative boundaries post referendum).”

This is not an easy concept to advance to the electorate, and I don’t pretend it is, but it is a factually correct one.