Eurfyl ap Gwilym 1, Jeremy Paxman 0
Westminster '10 — By Daran Hill on April 27, 2010 10:38 am
Fictional Junior Minister 'blinking' Ben Swain being pulled apart by Paxo on Newsnight. Which wasn't the programme shown last night...
Ah, Paxo, Ill miss him when he has that massive coronary.
And last night he looked at points that he was certainly heading for one.
Ok, Plaid texters, tweeters and facebook updaters, I gave in at 10am this morning and watched the interview between Jeremy Paxman and Plaid economist Eurfyl ap Gwilym on Newsnight last night. Tenacious yet calm reasoning turned round would looked like it could be a difficult interview for the subject and, in the end, it was the interviewer who was on the spot. As was clear, the great Paxo had not done his homework and made the mistake of assuming a Plaid economist would not understand the UK economy or comparative funding levels. He probably won’t do that again.
I particularly liked the way that by the final minute it felt that Eurfyl ap Gwilym was the one doing the interviewing. Masterly. Makes me wish he’d actually made it to the House of Lords where he certainly would have been a strong and distinctive voice for Wales.
Indeed, that was probably the most enjoyable of any Plaid appearances on the media during this election. It’s certainly had a profound impact on Plaid activists who have barely promoted some of the weaker interviews during the campaign. And it’s got to be a good day where they stop, at least for a while, moaning about Plaid not being on the telly and start promoting when their significant figures actually are. (Sorry, couldn’t resist it…)
Tags: 2010 General Election, Eurfyl ap Gwilym, Plaid, Plaid Cymru, television
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
38 Comments
And you were doing so well until the last sentence…
The dig at the end is slightly odd Daran. The fact that when Plaid are given national exposure, as with this interview, it shows them to be a party of substance with something distinctive to offer the UK debate and backs up its credibility in calling to be included in the TV debates. You, no doubt from that line, believe that it is fair they have been excluded but please try not to let your own personal jibes at political parties dictate your blogging otherwise it makes a mockery of the claim to be an independent analysis.
I have to say that most of your positive pieces about Plaid seem to have a negative jib attached to level up the playing field.
Worryingly, I agree with everything Daran says – from the admiration for Malcolm Tucker, through the commentary on the Newsnight interview, to the final point that “it’s got to be a good day where [Plaid] stop, at least for a while, moaning about Plaid not being on the telly and start promoting when their significant figures actually are”.
I’m no fan of Plaid, but Eurfyl ap Gwilym gave a terrific performance on their behalf yesterday evening. And let’s be honest, about how many of their spokespeople can that ever be said?
“The dig at the end is slightly odd Daran. The fact that when Plaid are given national exposure, as with this interview, it shows them to be a party of substance with something distinctive to offer the UK debate and backs up its credibility in calling to be included in the TV debates. You, no doubt from that line, believe that it is fair they have been excluded but please try not to let your own personal jibes at political parties dictate your blogging otherwise it makes a mockery of the claim to be an independent analysis.”
Actually what I was getting at Carl wasn’t about Plaid being excluded. I can see both sides of that argument, and I think that as the last two weeks have shown you’ve got a right to be angry. What I have found bewildering though is that your party has become relatively obsessed with that issue over others. Sometimes it’s felt that obsessing about the TV debates has been your major campaigning platform. I can see why that’s happened but it surely has impacted on being able to get out your real campaign messages?
Helen’s main column on the site today puts it in an interesting context about two campaigns happening (if not more). I felt the same when this all kicked off – media obsessing about NI increases, ordinary voters probably talking about anything but.
I also wrote: “Plaid activists who have barely promoted some of the weaker interviews during the campaign.” Surprised you weren’t more annoyed by that than the tongue-in-cheek conclusion.
“please try not to let your own personal jibes at political parties dictate your blogging” – if I took that advice there would be no fun in it. And independent analysis doesn’t preclude one from having a pop at people or parties. Yesterday’s post demonstrated just that.
Grow a thicker skin.
Plaid seem to be doing exceptionally well whenever put on the UK-wide media, which shows to me that had they been included in the Party Leaders’ Debates, they’d have seen a surge very similar to the Lib Dems in Wales.
I think Illtyd’s mistaken (at best) to claim that “had [Plaid] been included in the Party Leaders’ Debates, they’d have seen a surge very similar to the Lib Dems in Wales”.
The reason the LibDems saw a surge in the polls after the first leader’s debate was not because Clegg got equal air time with Brown and Cameron, but because he performed better on the night. To put it very politely, I’ve seen no evidence to believe that if IWJ shared a platform with the leaders of the three main GB parties, he’d outshine any of them.
Daran is quite right.
I have just written a comment on facebook as part of Adam Price’s thread re. Newsnight and the report from Barry. Please have a look at it and tell me what you think.
However, I do wish that the general public could be made aware of Eurfyl’s appearance as it does two things
a) it adds factual credibility to the rhetoric of Plaid’s argument i.e it sells Plaid’s case
and
b) it would doubtless give Plaid a huge boost in opion polls if it were reported by the press in the same way that the aftermath of the Presidential debates have been.
- The point is it won’t be because there is no platform for reporting such issues.
What affects 3 million people is not considered of interest to the other 57million.
That is for Plaid a sad and unjust fact of life that they’ll have to live with for now and think of other creative ways of overcoming.
At least through this, Plaid supporters and campaigners can believe in their message that much more – all the more reason to take it to others and campaign positively – thereby putting the frustrating facts behind us.
To put it very politely, I’ve seen no evidence to believe that if IWJ shared a platform with the leaders of the three main GB parties, he’d outshine any of them.
1. You need to watch the debates that IWJ has taken part in. He’s been the clear winner every time there has been a Welsh televised event;
2. I guess we’ll never know now.
“You’re misquoting me!!!”
Aw, poor Paxo.
I’m sure the cerebral but arrogant Mr Paxman will be a better “celebrity interviewer” having received a taste of overdue humility. Well done Plaid Cymru and Mr ap Gwilym – you’ve done us all a big favour.
“I also wrote: “Plaid activists who have barely promoted some of the weaker interviews during the campaign.” Surprised you weren’t more annoyed by that than the tongue-in-cheek conclusion.”
I have to say I don’t know what this is referring to. Maybe you will note the interviews that you believe have been negative for plaid Daran? Overall I believe that Plaid have come off well when given the opportunity. Ieuan Wyn from what I saw and immediate opinion polls won the two welsh leader’s debates that have taken place whilst I think it was generally recognised that Heledd Fychan was outstanding on the BBC debate. If there are some negative ones, which I can’t think of, is there really a shock that a political party isn’t pushing them? A weird statement if you don’t mind me saying.
As for getting a thicker skin is it not fair comment when the site claims, and it isn’t a claim I dispute by the way, it is independent analysis when you have political digs as part of that analysis. That makes the post anything but independent by the fact that you are making a personal point based on your political views of Plaid. Something I feel is sometimes a running theme when you give a positive post about Plaid. As a commentator on this blog do I not have the option of questioning that?
Gez said:
“The reason the LibDems saw a surge in the polls after the first leader’s debate was not because Clegg got equal air time with Brown and Cameron, but because he performed better on the night. To put it very politely, I’ve seen no evidence to believe that if IWJ shared a platform with the leaders of the three main GB parties, he’d outshine any of them.”
Personally I disagree. In the first debate Clegg was arguably marginally better in my view but had a surge simply because either people didn’t know him and so he was a fresh voice, or because he was getting air time he was not used to. In the second debate personally I thought Brown was the best. That said I couldn’t tell you a single unique policy of the Lib Dems as the leaders debate was all style over substance.
Carl, you’ve put down the gauntlet so here goes. Although I tend not to speak ill of individual politicians unless they do something that really annoys me, I think Elfyn Llwyd communicated your campaign messages very poorly on Dragon’s Eye a week last Thursday and was worse in the S4/C interview at the start of last week. His explanation of the maximum wage policy was unclear and unconvincing.
“I think it was generally recognised that Heledd Fychan was outstanding on the BBC debate.” No disagreement from me there. Her campaigning style is one I lauded on the Montgomeryshire seat profile I wrote.
“I dispute by the way, it is independent analysis when you have political digs as part of that analysis. That makes the post anything but independent by the fact that you are making a personal point based on your political views of Plaid. Something I feel is sometimes a running theme when you give a positive post about Plaid. As a commentator on this blog do I not have the option of questioning that?”
Of course you can question, but I can also rebut. The “political dig” I made has been supported by others who’ve left comments.
And of course lots of points I make are personal, but I tend to take issue with issues rather than parties as a whole. This comment is a rare occasion when I’m deviating from that and saying where I think individuals have gone wrong.
I think Plaid’s media impact this campaign hasn’t been great. And in many ways the reasons for that are out of Plaid’s control, but I stand by my point that Plaid has been overly negative and obsessed with the leaders’ debates. Eurfyl ap Gwilym was a delightful counterpoint and stood out all the moreso for it.
Actually, I’m rather fond of Plaid, and certainly of a lot of their people and their policies. This isn’t meant to sound like a “Some of my best friends are black/gay” but I can’t think of another way of expressing that really. But I shall raise the issue of inherent bias in my comments which weave in “a personal point based on your political views of Plaid” with my psychologist, as it is evidently a deep rooted problem which I have yet to confront on the reclining chair.
We all enjoyed the interview and, heaven knows, Jeremy Paxman has lived by the sword enough times in his career.
However, it’s worth pointing out that the vast bulk of this encounter was taken up with a not especially edifying exchange about whether the PESA figure for London on p97, subsection 4, paragraph 6.2 was above that of Wales. Most viewers will, I suspect have been left totally bemused by the whole thing. And let’s not be naive enough to suggest that Newsnight viewers are a representative cross-section of the electorate. They are more engaged and willing to absorb more technical arguments.
EaG bested Paxman – but the questions he nailed him on were on piddling aspects of process (whether the Treasury counted London as an English region and whether per capita public spending is marginally higher in London than elsewhere). The wider argument about territorial funding in the UK, and the equity of the existing system was completely elbowed aside. Paxman deserves the blame here for losing control of the interview, but let’s not delude ourselves that it showed Plaid in a good light, either. The party’s case was hardly advanced at all.
“I think Elfyn Llwyd communicated your campaign messages very poorly on Dragon’s Eye a week last Thursday and was worse in the S4/C interview at the start of last week. His explanation of the maximum wage policy was unclear and unconvincing.”
That’s true, but he was exceptional on Question Time.
Thank you for coming back Daran. I think you make a fair point about Elfyn and you are right to say his performance was pretty poor on Dragon’s Eye. Illtyd makes a valid point that he was outstanding on Question Time which begs the question why the difference I suppose.
“Of course you can question, but I can also rebut. The “political dig” I made has been supported by others who’ve left comments.” I could argue that those who have supported it in the comments have done so as they have been lead by the original post. I won’t make that point mind as we would be running around in circles. Thanks for your response to my original points.
Adam,
I disagree. I think Eurfyl actually made the issue quite simple, which only a man as detailed in his understanding as he could no doubt do. I though Eurfyl basically boiled it down to the misrepresentation of the media and other parties that Wales is completely over funded and that they should somehow be thankful that the Barnett formula is in place. He did that by highlighting London gets more and then showing Paxman up as someone who had not done his research.
I thought he made the case well for how Wales is under funded and showed that he certainly knows more of what he is talking about than most. The fact that Plaid has such a credible economics expert shaping its views will surely be a very positive reflection on the party. I know from speaking to some friends in England, many of them actually working in the financial sector that their view was that Plaid knew what they were talking about. Now that could be simply down to the fact people were happy to see Paxman get his comeuppance but if people outside Plaid’s natural support base were impressed by last nights showing then no doubt it will indeed lend credibility to the party as a whole on this issue specifically and will have indeed advanced its case.
Not so sure I agree with your police work there. 1 interviewer mildly slapping him will not slow Paxo down.
Plaid’s rep sitting in a crowded, poorly lit, badly worn local newsroom vs. the Wales Tonight studio or Paxo’s newsnight HD studio will always give an optics tactical advantage to London. While we see and hear what we want, the broader SPIN war outside of Wales still favours Paxo (as it almost always will).
He may have that coronary but he’s not stupid. You can win the battle and still lose the war.
Carl
We’ll have to disagree. The exchange barely skimmed across Plaid’s case for reform of Barnett. It hardly touched the sequential nature of Plaid’s policy in this area (eg. secure a bigger grant from London to help make Wales fiscally autonomous in the longer run). Nor, it should be said, were any of the counter arguments explored. Instead, the best we got was Paxo’s sneering assertion that Wales could never pay her own way. You don’t have to be a nationalist to find this a patronising and woeful attempt at scrutiny.
For those of us well acquainted with the argument the significance of slightly higher per capita expenditure in London may be understood. For everyone else, I suspect it went in one ear and out the other – along with Paxo’s sneering and EaG’s supercilious chiding.
Sad to say most people, myself included will have missed the nuance of the debate and just enjoyed Paxman being brought down to earth with a rather hefty bump. Plaid of course will get kudos for this, although I have often wondered why no one has had the balls (if I may use that expression) to face him down before now. remains to be seen if the dragon has been slain or he will return even more ferociously in the future.
Must say well done to Plaid for blogging, tweeting and posting this, a real demonstration of how social media should be used to push stories as they happen, at the last election something like this would have been lost to rumour and legend, and perhaps VHS.
What was the substance of the argument by the way?
Last night was a classic example of how not to get your message across. I wonder how many people watching the programme even knew what PESA was . For many it might have had something to do with the Leaning Tower of Pisa or perhaps a report form Pisa university. The argument which might have given the interviewee immense personal satisfaction didn’t move the argument that Wales was entitled to more money on the basis of need one jot. The problem for Plaid on this score is that they are linked to the Scottish Nationalists. For politicians in Wales who are linked to the main UK parties the tactic should be to link up with colleagues in the North East and North West and attack not just Barnett but its basis which was the failure to reform the Goeschen formula which set the ratio between English and Scottish expenditure on the basis of population figures in the late 19th century
“I think Plaid’s media impact this campaign hasn’t been great. And in many ways the reasons for that are out of Plaid’s control, but I stand by my point that Plaid has been overly negative and obsessed with the leaders’ debates. Eurfyl ap Gwilym was a delightful counterpoint and stood out all the moreso for it.”
In simple terms, it has clearly been a burden for Plaid to have to raise the issue of exclusion from the debates. Much media time has been spent debating it from a Plaid perspective, too much I feel. But obsessed? The fact is that Plaid believe that the party and the electorate of Wales have been wronged by it and it would be rather silly if they didn’t not raise that enough. If that unfairness did not exist, there would be no need to speak about it.
My honest view is that Plaid probably did focus too much on it at times, but then the debates have been the number one issue full stop. It is why New Labour have ‘moaned’ about it to the press. The debates, which undermine our parliamentary version of democracy, have been the only game in town. If the Government ‘moan’ about that, why should a smaller Wales only party like Plaid not? Daran does not answer this crucial point.
We have 3 days of build up, 24hours of non stop coverage, 3 days of analysis.
The debates have been a boost to the election, but also have mutated our political system beyond belief. The three parties have clearly been giving essentially free advertising space denied to the parties that often compete against them. People get all smart and say ‘this is the first Presidential election’ – well that is a terrible, it is against our parliamentary system, it is wrong.
Plaid have been stitched up royally in this election. I love a fight, a dust up and have thick skin, but an unfair playing field justified by gloating Labour/Tory/Lib Dem hacks is wrong.
The BBC should hang their heads in shame
Daran – my questions to you are thus
Have you taken a swipe at Labour’s plea to the media that they focus on policy more and the debates less? Is that moaning?
What would you have done if you were Plaid? Rolled over like a incontinent old sheepdog until the pee got cold?
Plaid’s appeal has clearly been vindicted given the massive advantage the Lib Dems have gained from this.
I agree that Daran’s jibe at Plaid is unfair. Nothing in the post about Labour complaining that the debates don’t focus enough on policy. Well, at least they are there in the debates!
Plaid are raising this issue of not being included in the debate as like it or not, the televised debates are shaping the political agenda despite the fact that we are door knocking, holding rallies and so forth. We should be part of the debates, and I don’t think Plaid should stop saying that up until election day.
Mal wrote: “Must say well done to Plaid for blogging, tweeting and posting this, a real demonstration of how social media should be used to push stories as they happen, at the last election something like this would have been lost to rumour and legend, and perhaps VHS.
Quite. Has certainly brought this into sharp focus, and rightly so. A good example of the effectiveness of social media in this election.
Marcus wrote:
“My honest view is that Plaid probably did focus too much on it at times, but then the debates have been the number one issue full stop.”
We agree on the first point. And also on the power of the debates. I wrote in response to Carl: “I can see both sides of that argument, and I think that as the last two weeks have shown you’ve got a right to be angry.”
I’ve never been a fan of these TV debates. Back in January I wrote in the thread to Jonathan Edwards’ provocative article (http://waleshome.org/2010/01/the-great-political-and-economic-establishment-stitch-up/):
“No TV debate for anyone, I say. It will skew the General Election in many ways, not just against the non-Big 3 but also by creating a journalistic focus on the personality cult of leadership rather than broader party platforms. Or, should I say, further enhance such a focus.
“Despite my love of politics am tempted to boycott any such TV debates. And not just because I want to hear from Alex Salmond or the leader of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland.”
So Marcus when you say: “The debates have been a boost to the election, but also have mutated our political system beyond belief”, you’ll find you have my sincere agreement.
You then go on to directly pose some questions
“Have you taken a swipe at Labour’s plea to the media that they focus on policy more and the debates less? Is that moaning?”
No, I haven’t. I did think about it in last 24 hours but haven’t had the luxury of time to do so.
Bethan Jenkins now adds: “Nothing in the post about Labour complaining that the debates don’t focus enough on policy.”
And in that she is right too. Both of you have correctly identified that this post is not about Labour and its moaning. Well done. It is actually mainly about what Eurfyl ap Gwilym did for Plaid last night.
Marcus, you challenged me to do so some hours ago on Twitter and I was minded to, even though I don’t like being told what to blog about any more than anyone else does. On your suggestion, I was minded to write a blog post later on Labour complaints, but let me set it out in simple terms for you here instead.
Labour has little reason to complain. Brown decided these debates should go ahead, they are getting a fair share of coverage, and the Labour Party is still in government so it has that positional advantage too. An advantage that begins with the freedom to call an election at a point which is most advantageous to a party in power and spools on from there.
“What would you have done if you were Plaid? Rolled over like a incontinent old sheepdog until the pee got cold?”
I usually try not to sleep in any form of excreta. It doesn’t always work. Plaid is right to be unhappy. But the party’s monotone on the issue has not helped you get across some of your key messages.
“Plaid’s appeal has clearly been vindicted given the massive advantage the Lib Dems have gained from this.”
No disagreement here. These debates have made Nick Clegg by giving him new visibility. Always knew they would.
And finally, Marcus, “Daran does not answer this crucial point” because that point hadn’t been raised in the comment thread until now and it’s up to me what I put in my own blog posts. Now that you have raised it, I’ve tried to answer it.
Well, Plaid, you did really well this morning in getting the social media engaged around Eurfyl ap Gwilym’s performance. There was a real sense of viral communication about it. But now we’re back to focussing on those bloody leadership debates. Which sort of validates my point about your focus, doesn’t it?
You could have just put ‘I agree with Marcus’, but thanks for your detailed response.
My ‘challenge’ was merely that outside of the set piece articles, I believe their is a lack of analysis of Labour failings, particularly in the shape of jibes etc that you highlighted.
That is not a ‘pro bias’ or even an accusation that it was deliberate, but I think that has been visible. There has clearly been a lack of such jibes aimed at some of the clear mistakes in the Labour campaign.
No doubt I am sticking my neck out saying that, and I await the links to argue back, but my ‘challenge’ was rooted in that view. No one is telling you to blog anything, this is Wales Home not News at Ten
Anyway. Back to the debate at hand.
Amidst this euphoria about Eurfyl ap Gwilym’s performance let us not forget the truly appalling report by the Special Correspondent (sic) Alan Little on BBC News at 10 last night on attitudes to further devolution in Wales. The report was biased, inaccuarate and misleading – and probably watched by several more million than saw Newsnight. The report quoted three people against further powers and not a single person in favour. And this despite all recent polling showing an increasing majority in favour of a yes vote in the referendum. In the BBC’s own poll the majority is 21%. The report suggested that further devolution would mean higher taxes – patently untrue as tax raising powers are not on the agenda. It also suggested that support for further devolution was concentrated in Plaid Cymru supporting Welsh speaking North Wales. And this despite the cross party unanimous vote for a referendum in the Assembly. Can I encourage visitors to this blog to complain to the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
Marcus wrote:
“There has clearly been a lack of such jibes aimed at some of the clear mistakes in the Labour campaign.”
I’d intended to blog a lot more and in a more rounded fashion but events and demands have conspired against.
This includes not having been able to watch the Welsh leader debates, when I had hoped to blog them. Ah well. But it isn’t in any way intended to be directed at one party of another. I think that people get very over sensitive during election periods, constantly scouring for balance etc. That’s understandable and if a Welsh Conservative gives a good show on Channel 4 News tonight and my interest is drawn to it through twitter, then I’ll blog on it tomorrrow. Maybe.
“No one is telling you to blog anything, this is Wales Home not News at Ten.”
Errr, yes you were. But happy to let that lie.
Elin you are right. The report was a disgrace. There are some excellent BBC journalists in Wales such as Vaughan Roderick and Betsan Powys. No doubt they were ashamed at the lack of understanding and bias in last nights piece.
Daran.
I know dude, just an observation from a supportive WH contributor. S’all good. :0)
Paxo gets a stuffing. I watched Eurfyl ap Gwilym versus Paxo with awe. Superb performance especially considering how everything was weighted against him, having to stand in a busy newsroom whilst Paxman lounged in his throne-like studio chair.
Perhaps Paxo is losing it, his earlier interview with Ed Balls was not that good either. He couldn’t make Balls blink.
Andrew Neil (Brillo) seems to be the best of them at the moment.
“He couldn’t make Balls blink.”
Once again, CP brings a welcome touch of lyrical light relief to WH.
Andrew Neil, with his two shirt buttons undone, looks increasingly like a recently-divorced businessmen with a champagne account and an eye for the lively young maiden.
Interesting piece, Daran, with interesting comments too…
I don’t have time to write a detailed comment this evening, but just wanted to share my appreciation for Eurfyl’s brilliant work last night.
The issue isn’t just about the TV debates – it’s the fact that since most journalists ( newspaper, regional TV, radio and Internet – follow the current TV story like sheep, then all the other media also portray this election as a contest between three parties only – in fact, between three people only.Huw Edwards was presenting the news in Cardiff Castle last night. For all but a one line reference to Plaid Cymru, he might as well have been in Basildon – only the ‘big three’ were mentioned
I was canvassing today and a good quarter of those who answered the door, told me ‘I’m going to vote for Cameron” or ‘My vote’s going to Clegg’ . when I pointed out to them that these gentlemen weren’t standing in this constituency one got quite ratty. Two of the ‘My vote’s going to Clegg’ couldn’t even tell me who the Lib-Dem candidate was.
There are nine candidates in this constituency and six of them have no media coverage, or at best dribs and drabs. The remaining three have a massively skewed advantage. Here, it probably reflects the voting pattern. That’s certainly not true in Ceredigion and Llanelli. It’s not even true of Rhondda or Caerphilly. Conservatives and Lib Dems in those constituencies must be singing at the electoral manna poured on them.
I’m sure ap Gwilym wasn’t thinking along these lines, but an important point is that Paxman is not an independent or legitimate interviewer. See how he allowed Blair off the hook over Iraq. He is a guard dog for the London establishment. Which Plaid is not a part of and now appears to be solidly opposed to, as a radical anti-establishment force.
It’s all well and good accepting that we’re descending into an undemocratic presidential system, but the managerial drones in the Brit parties and their media and blogosphere hangers on think it’s a good thing. Plaid seems to be the only party in Wales saying hang on- this isnt right, we do not have a presidential constitution or system. And it’s entirely out of Plaid’s self interest, because their interest is synonymous with that of the people of Wales.
“However, it’s worth pointing out that the vast bulk of this encounter was taken up with a not especially edifying exchange about whether the PESA figure for London on p97, subsection 4, paragraph 6.2 was above that of Wales. Most viewers will, I suspect have been left totally bemused by the whole thing.”
It is so important however because it debunks the great myth of London subsidising Wales. Public spending is greater in London per capita than Wales – diffficult to overestimate the importance of that and of peoples’ ignorance of it.
Man of the wrong match.
It took EaG 5 minutes to be more right than Paxo, which I think he was, maybe.
But…..
The laughable suggestion Paxo ‘lost’ misses the point – he wasn’t sitting on a pile of funding analysis, because he was expecting EaG to drive discussion onto Plaid policy, given this is a concession slot. It’s perhaps lucky for Plaid that Paxo wasn’t armed to the teeth, with for example a back of fag-packet critique of Plaid’s pension plans.
NEWSNIGHT INTERVIEW 26.0.10 – SUBTEXT MINUTES.
Paxo – ‘Wales is overfunded’
EAG – ‘No it’s not, we’re poor, poor twice i tell you’
Paxo – ‘Bollocks, you pay no tax and spend loads of three-lions cash on converting Pierhead buildings and subsidising flights to each other’s houses’
EAG – ‘Ahh but have you seen the other figures?’
Paxo – ‘No (they sound a bit convenient), and my figures fit my narrative.’
EAG – ‘Well I’ve seen my favourite figures – we’re poor in Wales, poor twice, my figures show it’
Paxo – ‘What other figures?’
EAG – ‘My ones, the ones I have, you don’t and nobody at home can verify. Those ones.’
Paxo – ‘So Plaid want more money for Wales in the middle of an economic crisis’
EAG – ‘Pretty much, yeah’
END OF INTERVIEW
There’s a bit of an ignorant and dangerous myth there Brian that your ironic piece is pushing, and that’s that English cash (‘Three Lions’ cash as you call it) is funding our whole devolution jaunt.
It isn’t.
While it has been proven quite well that Wales is dependent on recieving more income from the Treasury than it generates for the Treasury, the cost of the National Assembly and it’s entire budget and all of the services it is responsible would easily covered by taxation raised in Wales (according to the infamous 07-08 Oxford Economics report that said we would run at a £9bn independence ‘deficit’).
What ‘three lions cash’ is paying for is parts of UK expenditure on top of that, things like welfare, defence, etc.
That was less a party political opportunity the BBC gave Plaid Cymru but a chance for Plaid Cymru to put the record straight regarding the funding Wales gets on behalf of everyone in Wales regardless of their political persuasion.
The fact that little detail was put across is a consequence of the UK ( and probably majority Wales) audiences/BBC establishment’s lack of knowledge and perception that we just want more.
@Brian,
Paxo had the figures that EaG was referring to (by the Treasury) IN HIS HANDS, but didn’t want to read them out.
EaG conceded that that there has to be cuts, but that Wales is missing out in the calculations BEFORE cuts are taken into account.
@Illtyd Luke
Fair cop – but defence, welfare and of course ‘etc’ make up a fair chunk of a sovereign nation’s balance sheet.
@Rhys – He may well have had – my point wasn’t that EaG was wrong, just that he wasted an opportunity to push Plaid policy: Saying you want more money for Wales (even if we are entitled it) doesn’t constitute much of a position. Why do Plaid think they will gain more voter backing than any other Welsh party who makes this point (as they all do)?. ‘Wales deserves more money’ isn’t a manifesto for UK-wide change, for which the electorate clearly has an appetite.