Time for politicians to take a whole system approach to governing Wales
Bubble — By Daran Hill on February 2, 2010 7:00 am
The elephant in the room: at which level should public services be planned and delivered?
“WHEN she was twenty two, the future looked bright” mused Lily Allen in a recent hit on the pop parade. Ever since local government was reorganised back in Wales in 1994 debate has persisted over the number 22 and quite how bright the decision was to divide the map in this way. Although this discussion is entirely natural it has also been a distraction from other issues. We just cannot seem to discuss local government reform except in terms of how many there should be.
Actually, that is not quite true. The other big topic has been the relationship between the public and private sectors, especially over such ideological totems as the Public Finance Initiative projects or the tendering of services. This debate has not been confined to Wales, but it has been different here. Over the border the consensus has been on the use of PFI, here the opposite is true. Together, these preoccupations have eclipsed another, equally significant, aspect of who should deliver Welsh public services. For fifteen years there has been an elephant in the room: the power of the Welsh Assembly Government and National Assembly for Wales.
Before you rush to disagree, pointing out that far too much time has been spent focused on creating and increasing the powers of the Assembly over the same period, there is an aligned question which is barely ever asked: are public services planned and delivered at the right levels in Wales? This is not about whether the Assembly should exist or not – that sterile argument is long past – but whether it exercises dominion over the right range of subject areas.
The Welsh Assembly Government has and can accrue executive powers over a range of broad subject areas – health, education, economic development etc – and these are the same areas as those defined as Fields in Schedule 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, thereby permitting the Assembly to gain legislative powers in the same key sections. Most often forgotten is that WAG and the Assembly pretty much exercise powers over the same areas they inherited back in 1999. The most significant additions to the policy areas determined by WAG Ministers have been student finance, which complemented existing responsibilities, and the fire service, which was a wholly new area that passed from Whitehall to Cathays Park a few years ago. In the coming year, the power over building regulations will follow.
The Welsh Assembly Government occupies the old Welsh Office building - and exercises governance over broadly the same policy areas
But even these are not as broad as they first seem. And neither are the policy expressions of health or education, either. Or any of the other titles of the Schedule 5 fields. Because power is devolved to Assembly Government Ministers through either transfers of functions of existing executive powers exercised at a UK level or by means of specific delegations in more recent Acts of Parliament. Both are highly specific in terms of the powers being conferred. Thus the Health Minister, for example, has recently accrued some additional powers over tobacco control through Part 4 of the Health Act 2009.
Indeed, even in an area like health, which people assume to be virtually completely devolved in administrative terms, more secondary legislation (executive orders) which applied in Wales were made by a UK Health Minister than by the Welsh Health Minister between 1999 and 2005. Unlike the Scotland Act 1998, both the 1998 and 2006 Acts specified a system where executive and legislative powers are never to be exercisable over the whole of a policy area. Even 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).
But so much time has spent focused on the issue of the precise (and usually very precise) powers of the Assembly, that barely anything seems to have been done about establishing coherence around the overall division of responsibilities between the Whitehall/Westminster level, the Assembly level and the local government level. And, in parallel to this, whether public bodies should function at a UK level, Wales level or more locally. That’s not to deny that certain services are being examined from such a political perspective. For example, recent steps to consolidate and improve the structure of NHS Wales are an example of looking to plan more effectively in smaller units and with a much strengthened role for the all-Wales level. But this has been done without touching social care, which is fundamentally linked and yet remains in 22 units delivered at local government level.
Some might argue back that this is already happening and that there is an unspoken consensus that the Assembly level is the one which is gaining powers. Certainly there has been additional devolution of executive and legislative powers from Westminster, and more is planned; and there has also been a strengthening, albeit piecemeal, of the all-Wales nature of guidance to local authorities on certain matters. But it all still feels rather uneven and without an underpinning logic. Because, ultimately, a whole system approach to determining who is best to plan and who is best to deliver is missing. In many ways the administrative world is stuck in aspic before the Assembly existed, with levels operating over broadly the same areas of responsibility and the Assembly just doing, in a devolved context, what the Welsh Office once did.
Senior Welsh Labour figures celebrate the passage of the Government of Wales Act 2006
Labour has been in office at both ends of the M4 throughout this period and are the deliverers of devolution. But their approach has been gradualist in devolving downward from Westminster and this has made reasoning for locating elements of governance less than clear. People will respond to this charge in terms of “bedding down” or the time it takes to transfer responsibilities. That does not change the central question, namely at what level should services be planned and delivered to make coherent sense? Because all we know at present is the boundary to come between Westminster and Cardiff Bay as defined through Schedule 7. We do not know where Labour believes the extent of executive powers should ultimately lie beyond this (since additional executive responsibilities are added from time to time), or where the boundary should be between all-Wales government and local government. There is always talk of working together or partnership, but as yet little new theorising on where bedded-down, post-devolution boundaries should lie.
The Welsh Conservatives are even more unclear. At least Labour has, through practical action, shown it is prepared to deal with boundaries through definitions like Schedule 7. Although we know the Conservative Party to be fundamentally unhappy with many aspects of the Government of Wales Act 2006, we know little of where they would like the boundaries to lie. Do they simply accept Labour’s dividing lines? If so, that would be an admission Labour has got it right. And for a party that aims to “trust the people” there has been precious little examination of what should lie at all Wales level and what should fall to local government since the 2007 manifesto pledge to reform and reduce the role of local education authorities. But this was just one part of a policy area, rather than a whole system analysis.
A similar finger can be pointed at the Liberal Democrats. They too emphasise local decision making as core to their beliefs, but how local should that be? Where should the boundaries between regulation, planning and delivery lie?
Even Plaid Cymru can’t be said to have a fully considered position on this. Of course there is a clearer idea here about the current and future relationship between Westminster and the Assembly – though not as clear as you might imagine – but can Plaid honestly say they have a coherent vision for the boundary between Assembly and local government? And one which is more developed than their old vision of the division of Welsh local government and the Welsh Office? Quite rightly, perhaps, they have been preoccupied by the interface of the Assembly at the other end. But, in a time soon to come where there will be cuts in public spending whether Plaid accept it or not, the modern Assembly relationship with local government may need more thought and clarity.
So what is the solution? Maybe a depoliticised commission might work, given the role of examining all of these issues and deciding where best services should lie. Such a body could finally take a whole systems view of the governance of modern Wales. Perhaps it could make a logical assessment of where powers should lie. Who knows, perhaps it might suggest some powers are devolved from the Assembly to local government and not just vice versa or – even more controversially – that some powers currently exercised at all Wales level should be undevolved back to London (bet that gets some people frothing…) But, whatever the outcomes, and even if no massive changes were recommended, then at least a thorough analysis would have been taken.
Before that can happen at least some of the political parties in Wales need to go past viewing public services as a debate between public and private; or just seeing improved governance in terms of a powers struggle between Wales and Westminster or Whitehall. Only then can they offer a coherent, communicable and modern vision for service planning and delivery which works at the right level and makes sense.
Tags: constitutional reform, cuts, local government, Plaid Cymru, public debate, public sector, public services, Welsh Conservatives, Welsh Labour, Welsh Liberal Democrats
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
23 Comments
Your idea for a depoliticised commission has a great deal of merit.
Excellent piece.
A very coherent article which asks all the right questions. You’re absolutely right to point out (if not highlight )that what the devolution settlement broadly brought was a democratisation of the previous situation, a set up that was not designed for a democratic arranegment in Cardiff Bay.
One issue that you didn’t mention which has had huge implications for public finance in Wales is that in most public services salary agreements are made on an England and Wales basis, leaving the Assembly with little say but a large bill – most notoriously on doctors’ pay.
One issue that really intrigues me is what the knock on impact will be if the Conservatives follow through with their plan for English votes for English MPs? The current messy compropmises that littler the current set up will become much harder to justify & we will probably end up stumbling towards David Melding’s prediction of a federal UK by 2020.
The referendum of 1997 was about whether an Assembly should do what the Welsh Office did. Then there were complaints that adding a new level of administration without changing the system was unnecessary. There were also complaints that much of the things that an Assembly could do, could be as done as effectively by the unitary authorities, and if the number had been eight instead of twenty-two this is probably the case. There are now murmuring about decreasing the number of unitary authorities to improve local services.
One of the difficulties we now have is that some AMs, Plaid in particular, see the Assembly and devolution as a stepping stone and a process towards wider political objectives. As soon as Plaid became part of the One Wales Agreement Government the tension between administering the block grant and national aspirations increased and has made people suspicious of the Assembly and its purposes. The argument about Part 3 or Part 4 is to a large measure technical rather than a matter of principle but the purpose of the referendum is being clearly stated in terms of national identity. The disappointing thing about the Assembly is that there is currently within it no effective opposition that will, next week, debate the request for a further referendum. It is as if the only thing that matters is full powers.
It is very easy to take published statistics to criticise the performance of WAG as are some decisions concerning the quangos, the demise of the WDA in particular. There is in retrospect some justification that a new level of administration was just that, adding cost without adding anything by way of added value. There is also some justification, and the article adds to this view, that some of the work undertaken by the Assembly could be done as effectively by the unitary authorities. But this does not mean that the vote of 1997 is invalidated as the purpose in 1997 was to democratically manage the block grant. In that sense the objective hasn’t changed but we have a better understanding of it, its cost and its scope. Some of the criteria I used in management systems consulting was to ask the client, “What job can be done by someone also at a lower cost” and “Who is better able to do this task?” so they could do what they did well. These questions should occupy the minds of the AMs and not committing themselves, their time and effort, into the esoteric of Part 3/Part 4.
Part 3 will work as well as Part 4, and Peter Hain and Hywel Francis are making every effort to ensure that the problems experienced are removed. It is highly unlikely there are many who would seriously consider sending things back to Westminster, although, come to think about it…..
The problem we have with the Assembly is that it’s a mini-centralised reflection of Westminster, without it seems an opposition. It is not devolution in the people democratic sense. One of the cultural things about the Welsh, unlike the English, discussions about matters usually contain “What do you think then?” That is not happening in our devolved arrangement. As a plug, True Wales makes positive suggestions about how this might be done in its True Deveolution Charter.
I have always been a believer in simple transparency when it comes to democracy and taxation. We the voters should be able to see what our elected representatives are spending our money on, and if we don’t agree with the policies we can use our votes accordingly, but which votes – at which level – wh does what?
So starting with the County level, I have always been thoroughly confused by the statements I receive from my local council – Cardiff.
In 2008/09, Cardiff Council had a net expenditure of £476 million. This was financed from Council tax receipts of £113 million, Business rates of £84 million, and the balance of £280 million from the Revenue Support Grant from the Welsh Government.
So the first interesting fact to note is that Council tax only accounts for less than 25% of net expenditure, and if business rates are added, Cardiff Council still only collects 41% of its revenues directly, relying on grant from Welsh government for the remainder.
The other interesting fact which is buried in the accounts is that Cardiff Council actually collects 4 times the amount in business rates that it is allowed to keep, with the remainder being sent to the Welsh Government to redistribute on an all-Wales basis. Nothing wrong with redistributing wealth to the poorer councils, but is seems odd to give so much in one hand and to receive the same back in the other.
Then turning to the Council’s areas of expenditure, the biggest single expense is education at £205 million, followed by Social Services at £112 million, Highways & Waste at £48 million, Parks & Leisure at £23 million, others totalling £18 million and finally Management at £44 million, and capital financing at £24 million.
Two interesting points here – the first is the cost of management which seems excessive. This is in fact only 11% of total expenditure, but it would be interesting to see how this compares with other councils.
The second point is social services which seems an anomaly to me. This role does not really fit the role of a municipal body, and why is it not managed as part of the NHS???
So few suggestions:
Firstly, remove social services from Cardiff Council, and make them part of a Social Services Agency, maybe operating at a Regional level and funded directly from Welsh Government. This would remove £113 million from the council budget, plus a corresponding pro rata reduction in management and financing costs (12 million & 7 million respectively). This would result in a new nett expenditure of £345 million for Cardiff Council
Secondly, increase the amount of revenue that County Councils can retain from business rates from 25% to 66%. The remaining 34% can be returned for redistribution on an all-Wales basis as before, although it is unlikely that Cardiff would be a beneficiary.
This would increase directly collected revenues to 334 Million or 97% of revenue, with the balance made up from payments received from Welsh Government for specific services provided, for example election costs in general elections. The Council would become effectively self sufficient and would then be able to offer the electorate a direct democratic choice – services or taxation.
Coming back to the Social Services Agency, I suggested that this could be established on a regional level, and would be similar to the Morgannwg NHS or the South Wales Police, and maybe over time the areas served by such bodies could be made progressively co-terminus wherever practical. I would establish regional management boards for each of these bodies, which would be democratically elected using the regional votes cast in the Assembly elections. The 4 regional AMs would be directly appointed to the regional management boards (resolving the lingering question of what they actually do) with 8 further appointees drawn from backbench AMs or County Councillors, in direct proportion to regional votes cast for each party. While not a perfect system, it does at least introduces an indirect democratic link and an element of accountability.
The Assembly should become more accountable once the LCO system is abandoned, and that just leaves Westminster……
I would also add to Penddu comment to abolish LEAs and replace them with US style school districts with directly elected representatives (who tend to have some background in education). Based on the same areas as the new NHS trusts. Education needs to be put back into the hands of educators and out of the hands of bumbling amateurs!
While this isn’t relevant to the blog post at all, I couldn’t let one of Len Gibbs’ points go unchallenged.
“As soon as Plaid became part of the One Wales Agreement Government the tension between administering the block grant and national aspirations increased and has made people suspicious of the Assembly and its purposes.”
So people have not been ‘made suspicious’ of the Assembly by Plaid’s participation in the One Wales agreement? Nope.
The only evidence available suggests that people have become more supportive of the Assembly since One Wales, not less.
Sorry to Daran for derailing his thread, but these kinds of wierd preconceptions are going to be popping up all over the place now that the referendum process is underway, and I think they need debunking every time they pop up, regardless of hat website or blog they are in. I follow this site and think Len Gibbs is a pretty decent guy (insofar as I can make that judgement!) and in a different league to some of the other True Wales supporters, however he is making points that go against the evidence here and should be pulled up on it.
“The problem we have with the Assembly is that it’s a mini-centralised reflection of Westminster, without it seems an opposition. It is not devolution in the people democratic sense”
That is also a highly misleading and spurious claim. Consensus or not, the Assembly is quite clearly NOT a reflection of Westminster, pretty much by every marker be it structure, composition, etiquette, electoral system, powers, responsibilites, conduct, law, style, legislative function etc etc.
Illtyd Luke…It seems to me your a very decent guy as well!
The article has raised an interesting and important subject that needs discussing. That there are only a few responses show that not many have an opinion on how devolution should develop. Whether we think that the assembly has more or less support will become clear when the results of a referendum are declared. Whatever it might be, it is undesireable that the current system remains unchanged. Devolution needs to progress away from centralisation and towards a greater involvement of the people, however so. In the drama of the debate about Part 3/Part 4 it is lost that True Wales isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly. True Wales published a Charter about devolution that has a greater engagement with the populace. Aspects are similar to some of the thoughts of Daran and penddu but there are also differences. However, there is an agreement that devolution isn’t only about constitutional matters and that there needs to be a better focus on how services are delivered to people. For that I am glad we have this opportunity to exchange views. Plato explained Socrates thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Who knows, we might all eventually agree!
May be the reason why it appears I’m in a “different league to some of the other True Wales supporters” is I am more devious. I spent a life time persuading people to buy product, service and system and latterly a better approach to devolution. Don’t dismiss the True Wales supporters, you do so at your peril. They have passion about Wales and that is important.
So, to intervene rather mischeviously Len, will True Wales be saying as part of your No campaign: “True Wales isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly”?
Surely that won’t help you harness the voters who are fundamentally unreconciled to the institution and might not vote for another group that is part of the “consensus” around retention?
Daran,
The referendum isn’t about anything other than devolution and the nature of the assembly. Its either part 3 or part 4. There are people in True Wales who would like to see the assembly abolished, in much the same way there are people in Plaid who want independence. It is up to the abolitionist and the independence people to decide if they want to vote for Part 3 or Part 4 or not. Neither True Wales nor Plaid cannot alter the terms of reference. I think True Wales has made it clear on a number of occasions in the media, Rachel Banner did yesterday in the Western Mail, that it is about better devolution. The True Wales “The True Devolution Charter” is not about abolition but a different approach to devolution. That is why I said in the Part3/Part4 debate it has been “lost that True Wales isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly.” But we are not saying ‘yes’ to a centalised assembly in either a Part 3 or Part 4 format.
However, before we can go to a more decentralised devolution we have to deal with the issues put before us in the referendum. The Western Mail editorial of yesterday put forward a doomsday scenario if True Wales aka the ‘no’ campgaign were to win the referendum. It was palatable nonsense. All that True Wales is doing is to say that in either the Part 3 or Part 4 format the system needs changing and if Part 3 were the popular choice nothing would have changed as from how we are now, any more than if Part 4 were to win. We’d have centralised devolution. Your article is of interest because you expressed some of the ideas True Wales puts forward in The True Devolution Charter. The difference being you want to decentralise form Part 4 and we want to decentralise from Part 3. But we both want more decentralisation.
So can I also be mischevious Daran, are you going to tell those who seek independence that the referendum isn’t about independence? Perhaps they too will go to another group that is part of the “consensus” around independence?
Touche.
Len,
If you truly believe in more devolution then surely the better starting point would be from Part 4? That way your proposals can be developed entirely within Wales and not have to rely on a begging bowl from Westminster???
Len you write:
“The referendum isn’t about anything other than devolution and the nature of the assembly. Its either part 3 or part 4. There are people in True Wales who would like to see the assembly abolished, in much the same way there are people in Plaid who want independence. It is up to the abolitionist and the independence people to decide if they want to vote for Part 3 or Part 4 or not. Neither True Wales nor Plaid cannot alter the terms of reference.”
Yep, agree with that.
“I think True Wales has made it clear on a number of occasions in the media, Rachel Banner did yesterday in the Western Mail, that it is about better devolution. The True Wales “The True Devolution Charter” is not about abolition but a different approach to devolution. That is why I said in the Part3/Part4 debate it has been “lost that True Wales isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly.” But we are not saying ‘yes’ to a centalised assembly in either a Part 3 or Part 4 format.
“However, before we can go to a more decentralised devolution we have to deal with the issues put before us in the referendum. The Western Mail editorial of yesterday put forward a doomsday scenario if True Wales aka the ‘no’ campgaign were to win the referendum. It was palatable nonsense. All that True Wales is doing is to say that in either the Part 3 or Part 4 format the system needs changing and if Part 3 were the popular choice nothing would have changed as from how we are now, any more than if Part 4 were to win. We’d have centralised devolution.”
I don’t accept that we have a centralised devolution situation at the moment, but I do recognise that in strict legal terms that if a referendum were lost that the outcome would be no change from the present situation. But, as you argue, is calling for more decentralisation “All that True Wales” is doing? Your charter is just one plank of your policy platform. Others are detailed here, where I challenged them in sequence. Has True Wales now abandoned this collection of erroneous statements?
“Your article is of interest because you expressed some of the ideas True Wales puts forward in The True Devolution Charter. The difference being you want to decentralise form Part 4 and we want to decentralise from Part 3. But we both want more decentralisation.”
Actually that isn’t what I was getting at. Decentralisation might or might not be the product of a whole system approach. I was arguing that all levels needed examination, not that decentralisation would be the automatic consequence.
“So can I also be mischevious Daran, are you going to tell those who seek independence that the referendum isn’t about independence? Perhaps they too will go to another group that is part of the “consensus” around independence? Touche”
Touche, indeed. On both sides there will be people who will be voting Yes or No not because that is their preferred option but because that is the answer that is closest to their position. Such is the nature of a straight yes/no referendum proposition. But the difference is in the way the Yes and No campaigns will represent arguments. The yes side may include people who want independence (a very minority position on that side) but this will not, I would guess, be a message from the Yes campaign because it is not what is being proposed. I do not – based on some of the things True Wales has said so far – believe your side will be as clear and honest in the arguments it makes.
Rachel Banner’s column in today’s Western Mail (page 4, but can’t find it online) rather proves that point when she talks for several paragraphs about independence in political and economic terms. In this morning’s paper, it is the True Wales campaign that is bringing independence into it, not Helen Mary Jones, the Plaid Cymru Assembly Member. What an odd world we live in.
So isn’t it about time True Wales started living by your words that “The referendum isn’t about anything other than devolution and the nature of the assembly.”
One of the problems with constitutions is that they are never tidy and they never satisfy. Unwritten constitutions are worse. The only tidy constitutional set-up in terms of the distribution of power and responsibility is a dictatorship and nobody wants that. Even then, family gets in the way. Discuss.
Daran said ‘I do recognise that in strict legal terms that if a referendum were lost that the outcome would be no change from the present situation’.
Of course in reality it would be a green light to Whitehall to slow down and frustrate the Assembly even more.
As I’ve blogged over on This is My Truth ( http://www.thisismytruth.org/2010/02/the-consequences-of-a-no-vote) a No vote will be a damaging reverse in the devolution process.
Whitehall will feel emboldened and legitimised in frustrating the Assembly’s requests.
So the status quo is not an option. Forward or back, that’s the option. And lets not pretend otherwise.
Alternatively a successful “No” vote could be the impetus to create a regional government that works with Westminster for the benefit of the public in Wales.
Of course I am biased in favour of the “No” vote, I am blind to the alluded differences that require unique laws either side of Offa’s Dyke, whilst sighted to the need for local spending priorities. I see a need to structure government in Wales so that it sits comfortably and cooperatively with the structures in Westminster.
I notice there is no support for Daran’s depoliticised commission, no support for better governance, David Cameron would be supportive I am sure.
Len Gibbs writes- “The referendum isn’t about anything other than devolution and the nature of the assembly. Its either part 3 or part 4. There are people in True Wales who would like to see the assembly abolished, in much the same way there are people in Plaid who want independence. It is up to the abolitionist and the independence people to decide if they want to vote for Part 3 or Part 4 or not. Neither True Wales nor Plaid cannot alter the terms of reference.”
Completely correct. True Wales should therefore drop the independence scaremongering and actually campaign on what is on offer.
“So can I also be mischevious Daran, are you going to tell those who seek independence that the referendum isn’t about independence? Perhaps they too will go to another group that is part of the “consensus” around independence? Touche”
I’d like to think I know a fair few nationalists, and not one of them think this referendum is even about Scottish Style powers, let alone independence!
Lee, I agree. Hence my words “in strict legal terms.” I was waiting for someone to fill in the blanks, and thanks for obliging.
Penddu “better starting point would be from Part 4” Seeing that I recently wrote a critique of the AWC Report and made criticism and recommendation starting at Part 4 is not an option. However, if by chance we get to Part 4 the True Wales objectives remain unchanged. In my posting on Waleshome I made the point that over time the differences between Part 3 and Part 4 will diminish. Its just that we want to hurry things along by skipping Part 4.
Daran,
I see you have joined the Devious Club!
I read the list of points you directed me to and I had forgotten how good they are. Thanks for reminding me.
# spending priorities that reflect the needs of all the people;
# restoration of a cohesive, tolerant society;
# no increase in the current number of AMs and MPs;
# keeping the Secretary of State for Wales;
# the maintenance of a strong position within the United Kingdom;
# that any application to draw down Legislative Competence Orders from the United Kingdom Government should reflect the wishes of the majority of the Welsh people.
“decentralisation” Yes, I understood that but in reviewing and in all probability revising, the logical step in devolution is to deploy decision making to the lowest point.
“believe your side will be as clear and honest in the arguments it makes.”
Definitely! True Wales because it is a cross party group has to have an agreed position and this has been defined in Terms of Reference. The position is simple. If you agree with it, you can join, if you don’t you can’t. This doesn’t stop anyone from saying what they like as a private individual but if they speak, as I do on occasions, on behalf of True Wales I am mandated. Generally you can take the view that unless I write on this site in a True Wales capacity everything else is in my private capacity. On Friday I am mandated to represent True Wales at the Lib Dem meeting in Swansea. What I say there will be the True Wales view. In these postings the comments are my own. But there isn’t much difference except here I am willing to expand ideas, and I think from the comments made, they have appeared reasonable and acceptable. And I may add, I have found many of the points made in other postings equally useful and acceptable.
“the True Wales campaign that is bringing independence into it, not Helen Mary Jones,” Rachel is rather taken with the slippery slope because it is the stated intention expressed by Plaid supporters. It cannot be ignored. I have a more pragmatic approach. The statistics are against independence. But we have to be aware of the background of the reason why the referendum is being proposed. A step in the process to autonomy within the EU by 2030 – Adam Price.
“time True Wales started living by your words”
One of the problems with the progress of the referendum is that we have ill-defined periods of time in between events. The target isn’t actually obvious and is lost in the uncertainty of the unknown. As the issues become clearer the focus of campaigning will sharpen. It already has since November and will be even clearer next week. As a former systems analysts I have identified five areas that require debate. I assure you that the thrust of our argument will be evidenced based.
Lee: “a No vote will be a damaging reverse in the devolution process”
It has that potential and the editorial in the Western Mail painted a horror scenario that True Wales will deliver on Wales if it were to win a no vote. This is, however, to miss the point. True Wales – and this is what has started this particular thread – “isn’t saying no to devolution, or for that matter to the assembly”. My posting in reply to the Western Mail was “a no vote will be bad news for Carwyn, worse news for Ieuan and good news for Wales.” Devolution isn’t going to go away, it will just get better!
John Tyler: Nice to hear a companionable voice. I thought everyone had emigrated to Patagonia! – Nice place if you haven’t been there.
Illtyd Luke: I have made a reply to independence in a paragraph above.
“I’d like to think I know a fair few nationalists, and not one of them think this referendum is even about Scottish Style powers, let alone independence!”
I can introduce you to a few! In fact I know so many that I looked up the times of the trains to Edinburgh. They leave Swansea five minutes to the hour every hour all day and take seven and a half hours. Bye!
“But we have to be aware of the background of the reason why the referendum is being proposed. A step in the process to autonomy within the EU by 2030 – Adam Price.”
Adam Price does not even sit in the National Assembly, and the referendum is also Labour’s aim not just Plaid’s aim, and Labour is very much a Unionist party. Saying this referendum is being proposed because of autonomy within the EU is barking mad. It’s being proposed because it is in Peter Hain’s Government of Wales Act, an act of Parliament that keeps Wales inside the UK and does not lay down any provision for Wales to exit the UK.
“As a former systems analysts I have identified five areas that require debate. I assure you that the thrust of our argument will be evidenced based.”
So far, True Wales’ arguments have completely ignored the evidence. You have not yet offered anything evidence based and that to me is a real shame because you are clearly ready to engage with the other sides and make your points sensibly.
I quoted some reasonable evidence (opinion polls) at you about the Assembly moderately increasing in popularity, yet you ignored the point and instead believe that people have ‘become more suspicious’ of the Assembly because of Plaid. A position that contradicts measurable evidence.
Similarly, I quoted some evidence on this site to Rachel Banner. She argued that the Assembly prioritises constitutional affairs and nation building over public services. I produced the obvious figures that completely refute that ignorant argument (the Assembly/Welsh Government unsurprisingly spends billions on public services compared to millions on constitutional and nation building projects), yet there was no reply from her or no counter-argument. If your side bases your points and arguments on facts and statistics, that would be progress.
“I can introduce you to a few! In fact I know so many that I looked up the times of the trains to Edinburgh. They leave Swansea five minutes to the hour every hour all day and take seven and a half hours. Bye!”
I very much doubt you could introduce me to any, Len. I actually am a nationalist who is closely interested in politics, following every comment and press statement they make online and attending meetings as often as you do. Why would Welsh nationalists want to fight a referendum based on independence, when independence (as you would certainly agree) has low support at the moment? What would be the logic in that? Instead of making a joke about Edinburgh, how about name some Plaid officials or politicians or even activists who have made public statements about fighting this referendum on the basis of independence? I doubt you’ll be able to find many.
Luke
The forthcoming referendum is not about independence. But if nationalists did not believe it moved things closer to the point where independence was attainable, they would not support a “yes” vote in it. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, to insult the intelligence of anyone who thinks about the subject for more than a few seconds at a time.
Illtyd Luke:
“Adam Price does not even sit in the National Assembly”
But he’d like too!
“Saying this referendum is being proposed because of autonomy within the EU is barking mad.”
There is nothing to object to in you saying that it is in the GOWA masterminded by Labour, but the provision was not expected to be taken up at least before 2011. The fact is that a referendum was a condition of the One Wales Agreement. The Act had hardly come into existence and not had time to operate well/bad/indifferently when Plaid forced a commitment to a referendum in 2010. It is this acceleration of the referendum that makes it a political act within the overall strategy of autonomy within the EU. IWJ has gone on record saying that he wants Part 4 in place and is not so concerned whether it can be used immediately. Other Plaid people have said much the same. The mantra is that devolution is a process to independence. Part 4 is a step in that process.
“So far, True Wales’ arguments have completely ignored the evidence”
I had expected someone to ask what are the five areas? If you could hack into my computer it is held on file and the evidence with it and will be deployed when we get into campaign mode.
“I quoted some reasonable evidence (opinion polls) at you about the Assembly moderately increasing in popularity, yet you ignored the point”
I didn’t respond to the point because my experience from commercial life when I was a marketing director is that research polls are notoriously unreliable. They depend on a variety of factors and one of them is the question(s) asked. I offered True Wales to design a perfectly respectable set of poll questions that would have given us any answer we wanted. You’ll be delighted to know the offer was turned down. Pools indicate they don’t prove. Peter Hain reminds us that the 1971 and 1997 polls gave devolution a 10% lead and yet in 1971 it was dramatically wrong and the 1997 only just in majority. I think it is to early to place any reliance on current polling, even if it was in the favour of no.
“I quoted some evidence on this site to Rachel Banner.”
Rachel takes a different view than me on how to engage with the yes supporters. We don’t disagree on what we do but we prefer different routes. I am not in a position to answer for Rachel. If you ask me a question, if I can answer it or feel that it deserves an answer I’ll try to provide one.
“a joke about Edinburgh”
Sometimes I use a joke to make light of a topic that is not central to the overall discussion. The comment was based on an old joke heard in Scotland, “What trains have the most passengers, those from Edinburgh to Glasgow or Glasgow to Edinburgh?” The answer depends entirely on whether you live in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
So here is a goodnight joke. Which trains have the most passengers, those travelling from Wales to Scotland to enjoy full devolution or those from Scotland to Wales with people escaping from it. Go on laugh, its only devolution.
Nice to cross swords with Adam as always!
“The forthcoming referendum is not about independence. But if nationalists did not believe it moved things closer to the point where independence was attainable, they would not support a “yes” vote in it. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, to insult the intelligence of anyone who thinks about the subject for more than a few seconds at a time.”
That’s more or less true, but I was talking about on what basis the referendum would be fought wasn’t I? Surely there is some merit in saying that this referendum is not being dictated on the basis of Adam Price MP’s position on Welsh autonomy (as much as I respect Adam’s influence)?
Len argues- “It is this acceleration of the referendum that makes it a political act within the overall strategy of autonomy within the EU. IWJ has gone on record saying that he wants Part 4 in place and is not so concerned whether it can be used immediately. Other Plaid people have said much the same. The mantra is that devolution is a process to independence. Part 4 is a step in that process.”
I don’t buy the picture you’re painting which is essentially of Plaid holding the nation to political ransom in an effort to create accelerated devolution leading to independence- it flatters Plaid’s political influence. Plaid and the long-term goal of independence are just one part of what is a huge mosaic. I see it as a much broader process of making devolution more effective which has the support of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative AMs, third sector organisations, trade unions and some businesspeople as well. I find David Melding’s argument that devolution makes the Union work better to have just as much legitimacy as the independence argument does. I do pretty much accept that you might be able to use the independence point as a tactic to create confusion, as you’re quite right that nationalists see this as part of a longer process.
“I had expected someone to ask what are the five areas? If you could hack into my computer it is held on file and the evidence with it and will be deployed when we get into campaign mode.”
No Len, you ignored the evidence about the Assembly becoming more popular and hold a position that opposes measurable evidence. Now i’ve had the good grace above to recognise that independence does come into play if you see devolution as an ongoing process, will you have the good grace to recognise that your idea that ‘more people view the Assembly with suspicion” since Plaid came in, is not true?
Your point about opinion polls is obfuscation. Political scientists would recognise that consistent polling, by different companies, is showing a growth in support for devolution and for attaining further or better powers. I agree this doesn’t mean a ‘Yes’ vote will win at all, as you and Peter Hain remind us on the 1997 polls. But it does demonstrate an increased acceptance of the Assembly and of devolution, including in the past few years since the One Wales agreement came into place.
We’re seeing some major holes in True Wales’ case very early on in the debate. As for Scotland, it seems we can look alot closer to home to find some jokes of our own.
Len – I’m going to watch the debate this evening. Looking forward to meeting you then.
“I didn’t respond to the point because my experience from commercial life when I was a marketing director is that research polls are notoriously unreliable.”
Mr Gibbs: If there was now a series of polls, showing a massive decline in both support for devolution and a clear ‘No’ vote in the referendum, True Wales would come and say that “As we all know, polls are notoriously unreliable, so best not look too much into them.”
*stop laughing over there*
I only ask because on the True Wales website there is a regular update of how True Wales have conducted polls in various towns. Laughably, they never provide any methodology or even the amount of people surveyed. Now, excuse us all while we be slightly suspicious of those polls held by Rachel Banner with a clipboard, particularly while you dismiss professional polling evidence.
Your point on Adam Price is always laughable. Can we just confirm that there are members of True Wales who want abolishment of the Assembly? Yes? Ok. So how are we to trust your view that ‘True Wales is not calling for an end to the Assembly’? You are using two standards. Personally a more credible debate is for those on both sides to have detente on the matter of independence/abolishment. This referendum is not about independence, it is not about abolishment, this despite there being those of that persuasion on both sides.
I am sure True Wales would rather see Adam Price as Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Wales than admit that though.