Welsh Ramblings

Long live the union

2012-01-25T16:59:00.005Z

As a committed supporter of trade unions, the stagnant leadership of the movement in the Wales and the UK is a source of frustration and disappointment. The term lions led by donkeys has rarely been more true. With the UK having poorer workers rights and entitlements that most of the mainland European countries, despite having over a decade of Labour rule, it is clear that the Labour-affiliated trade union leaders have utterly failed to use their influence or their significant financial clout.

Whether I lived in an independent Wales, or the British state, or any other country in the world, I would support trade unionism and remain convinced organised labour is vital to any democracy.

But the news of the new appointment of a Regional Secretary (seriously- Wales is not even a nation ) for Unison in Wales is utterly shameful. The union bureaucracy has appointed a person that:

* has never worked in Wales.

* has "admitted she knows very little about Wales".

* and "doesn't even know who Carwyn Jones is".

It gets worse when we can see from the report that at least one of the other candidates for the role was Dominic MacAskill, a longstanding grassroots socialist who is not a tribal Labour party member and has been involved in Welsh politics for decades. Perhaps that was his downfall.

The reality is that appointing someone such as MacAskill would have shaken up the consensus that Unison has with the Labour party in Wales, because he would have insisted on criticising the Government when it was fair to do so, and if it was in his members' interests. Unison has therefore chosen to import a "professional" careerist candidate instead. This is all part of the trend in the Labour-affiliated unions to "modernise" and abandon any sense of militancy or radicalism, becoming toothless and co-opted into an increasingly right-wing Labour party in the process.

The conclusion is that Unison doesn't understand devolution, and in fact doesn't realise that Wales is a nation. A pro-Welsh challenge to the bureacrats in the trade union movement is desperately needed, particularly as governments across Europe are normalising an agenda of austerity and neoliberalism. Genuinely Welsh trade unions, as is the situation in Catalonia, would be a clear step forward.

Problems for Labour

2012-01-23T18:58:00.001Z

Since Ed Balls and Ed Miliband set out a more centrist approach to public sector pay and cuts, Labour's opinion poll ratings have fallen. The Tories have opened up a 3 point and then a 5 point lead in two successive Yougov polls. Apparently, they would need a 7 point lead to win a majority in a British state election. All it would take is a domestic or international event to fall in Cameron's favour (an incident around the Malvinas perhaps) and they could entrench that lead.

Alternatively, there could be a UK Government crisis just around the corner and Labour could pick up again, in spite of the line that Balls has taken. But what is indisputable is that right now Labour are not in the place they want to be as the UK opposition party, and their leader is not getting through to the public. In their quest to appeal to a tiny but all-powerful slice of the electorate in England, they have forgotten all about the kind of people who created their party in the first place.

Clearly the New Labour leadership is engaged in the game of "triangulation". They would have been told that the most important sections of the electorate in Middle England want a more "credible" line on the economy and cuts, defying the reality that austerity is choking off the economic recovery across the whole of Europe. It looks like this stance has driven more of their voters away than it has gained any. If you want pay restraint and cuts, you may as well vote for the Tories from whom you'll get the real deal.

Furthermore, in the British system (as in much of the world) a leader's personality and style is as important as any political agenda, and affects how they can communicate their vision. News is now breaking that Ed Miliband's personal popularity is at abysmal levels across the different nations in the British state. In Wales he is not dissimilar from Nick Clegg in terms of being disliked.

So even though austerity is completely failing to turn the economy around in the whole of Europe, people don't understand what Labour's alternative is. In recent weeks all three of the UK party leaders have said they want "better capitalism" (Ed Miliband), "responsible capitalism" (David Cameron) and a "John Lewis economy" (Nick Clegg). If they all believe in the same thing, we should expect that one of these visions will be implemented in the British state at some point. Except as John Dixon says, the debate will simply move on to whatever else is the flavour of the month.

The only silver lining for Labour is in London where Ken Livingstone is now ahead of Boris Johnson, having set out an agenda that is clear and easy to understand- and crucially, different to Boris Johnson's platform.

Labour politics has an essential role to play in mitigating the excesses of capital. Trade unionism and democratic socialism in particular is central to Welsh history, as Gwyn Alf Williams pointed out. You have to ask, what is worth preserving about Britain if the electoral system means that only a conservative party can ever rule? Social democratic parties in generally are usually supposed to betray their support once they get into government, but in this instance Labour have pulled off the feat of doing it in opposition.

The latest True Wales foray

2012-01-17T18:08:00.000Z

True Wales have made one of their first major statements since they found themselves on the wrong side in last year's referendum.

There are two sides of the coin when it comes to True Wales. In one sense, it is refreshing that they are an alternative voice to the consensus that loosely supports devolution. With the referendum and the tactics involved in that out of the way, there is a chance for them to make public statements and contribute to democracy in Wales without having the discussion centred around wild claims or inflatable pigs. On Twitter, they offer a non-establishment commentary about politics and are usually respectful and engaging with other people from the political community. The claims they make range from the fanciful to the crude, but they have a right to have their say.

But the other side of the coin is that no amount of good will towards their participation in the debate can disguise the fact that they don't obviously represent anyone. They don't have a grassroots or a rank-and-file, and it is difficult to imagine that they have a membership base anywhere near the likes of the Communists, the Greens or the minor political parties in Wales.

Insofar as the extensive research by Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully shows that there isn't some kind of non-voting "silent majority" lurking out there that wants a return to flat out London rule, True Wales doesn't have a discernible way of achieving its complicated programme of enhanced grassroots devolution in Wales. There isn't a political party in existence that advocates their unwieldy platform of "better devolution through having less powers", and they wouldn't ever put up candidates in elections. Initially there was an understanding that they emerged from the virulently British Labour tradition in the south-east of Wales. But these days it appears that their leading activists identify increasingly with UKIP, because they have argued that a nationalist conspiracy exists in the Labour party in Wales, and they have taken up libertarian stances on issues like taxation, the size of the state and also a Eurosceptic position.

But who could argue with Rachel Banner's "I told you so" proposition that days after the referendum was over, we had more Assembly Members, Welsh taxes, and an abolition of the Welsh Office being discussed by mainstream Welsh politicians? True Wales are keen to point out that Carwyn Jones spent alot of time saying that fiscal powers weren't on the menu.

In truth, the First Minister also linked a "Yes" vote to the possibility of Wales being fairly funded, very early on in the campaign. So when Rachel Banner claims that "the Holtham Report was treated as some dirty little secret to be kept under the Assembly mattress till the referendum campaign was over", that isn't strictly true. The stronger voices that played down the referendum could be found on the Westminster benches, where Labour's MPs portrayed it as a purely anti-Tory vote. True Wales spent their campaign calling for those same MPs to have power over Wales-only legislation.

Further, an elephant in the room for True Wales is that the Silk Commission which True Wales is now complaining about was instigated at Westminster, rather than by the Assembly Members that they regard with suspicion.

On the economy, Rachel Banner's point that "the more sluggish the Welsh economy, the more politicians will call for macro-economic powers...Our economic debilitation is a golden opportunity to make a nationalist strategy seem credible", reads like a statement of the obvious. There's an inaccuracy when it comes to "macro-economic powers", however. True Wales has made this glaring error before because macro-economic policy refers to powers over currency, interest rates and monetary policy. At a time when even the SNP will leave these powers with Westminster, it's implausible to claim that Welsh politicians have been calling for them, and it's actually impossible for the Silk Commission to advocate them.

In closing, True Wales is always worth looking at because they're the only voice openly opposing the principle of self-government for Wales, and they will always get some coverage by default. But it would be a mistake to suggest that they have a point or that they represent a significant part of the Welsh people. It's ironic that an organisation which exists to criticise the "Welsh bubble" has literally only ever been heard of by people that inhabit it. What is more interesting is that the anti-devolution tendency in the Labour party appears to be asleep at the moment. Even with drastic cuts to Wales' representation at Westminster looming, there is no sign of the Kim Howells-style current. Have they now been finished off for good?

The Balkanisation of England

2012-01-16T11:25:00.005Z

One of the most pressing issues in the current revolution in the British state is that the English question now seriously needs to be addressed. In recent years, to even suggest there was such a thing as an English question was to invite ridicule and accusations of right-wing nationalism.

But now the scenario of a reconfigured British state is unavoidable. Paul Murphy, the Labour MP for Torfaen, has come around to the idea of devolution to the English regions. This is the second time he has expressed this sentiment. In one sense it is welcome that he is contributing to these debates, as a former Minister involved in constitutional affairs and the peace process in Ireland.

However, English public opinion appears to support an English Parliament, not regional assemblies. Murphy obviously supports regional devolution because Westminster is virtually already an "English Parliament" numerically speaking, and will be even more so when the numbers of non-English MPs are reduced. His argument is a utilitarian one, to enable the British state to function better, and to possibly give Labour a number of regions (particularly in the north of England) in which it could consolidate power. The Labour MP Wayne David recently made similar points along these lines in the debate about the Silk Commission, arguing that devolution was about bringing democracy closer to the people, rather than about national identity.

That is a comfort blanket argument. The fact that Wales and Scotland have distinct national identities was and remains a huge factor in making devolution begin and then deepen. In England there are relatively strong regional identities (Yorkshire immediately springs to mind), but a broader English patriotism and desire for English nationhood appears to be in the ascendancy as a response to the decay of Britishness. It isn't clear that people in England would vote to dilute the centralism of Westminster. Rather than wanting to assert valid regional identities, public opinion in England might well support reclaiming Westminster as an English, not a British, parliamentary body.

While this is all a welcome debate, and shows that things are shifting, it puzzles me that those kind of Labour MPs always used to talk about Welsh nationalism as promoting the "Balkanisation of Britain"- dividing a great nation into fragmented parts. How then are those same men now keeping straight faces as they campaign for the Balkanisation of England?

Wales at the Dublin summit

2012-01-13T17:13:00.005Z

The British-Irish Council, formed as part of the peace process, has traditionally attracted little attention. But the fact that the British state is currently disintegrating means that today's summit in Dublin is at the top of the political agenda. We should get used to these kind of multilateral meetings because this is increasingly how the British Isles is going to look when you have each nation now increasingly developing self-government. This week's MP cuts in Wales are a part of this trend. The focus is moving away from London rule towards home rule, in line with Ron Davies' famous prediction.

The Guardian is carrying a report about today's Dublin meeting and it is the most-read story on their website. The discussions between Alex Salmond and Nick Clegg dominated the day, but the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones also made some comments which represent an evolution of his views about the future of Wales.

These developments raise all kind of questions. For decades now Wales has been submerged within an awkward union state, but how many people were aware that places like Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man have native governments more powerful than our own? Whatever you think about Welsh independence, it does not follow that we have to be stuck in a nightmarish "England and Wales" entity if and when Scotland achieves either independence or devolution-max.

Furthermore, the detail of the summit shows how much things are changing. Martin McGuinness is still considered a terrorist in some circles, yet he was at today's summit meeting with Alex Salmond, Carwyn Jones, and Nick Clegg as the Deputy First Minister, along with his Unionist colleague Peter Robinson, all on statesmanlike terms. This demonstrates that old tensions can be bridged by the various nations and territories working together. Alex Salmond for his part has always avoided referring to the situation in Ireland, because of the sectarian implications in Scotland, but speaking to RTÉ today he said that "I am sure many people in Ireland will remember that sometimes people who are in leadership positions in big countries find it very difficult not to bully small countries. What we have seen over the last week is a most extraordinary attempt to bully and intimidate Scotland by Westminster politicians." The sub-text here is that although the SNP rightly wants to be as normal and inoffensive as possible in gaining independence, there is a problem in that David Cameron represents an imperialist country and will do all he can to interfere with Scotland's affairs.

Turning to Carwyn Jones' comments, while I won't pretend they are official Labour policy, they represent another change in his public statements. The Welsh Government website preceeded today's summit by saying that the main item for discussion would be youth unemployment. Something tells me that won't be the main news story tomorrow in the Welsh press. Was it planned for him to start talking about a redrawn residual British state?

Instead of covering his remarks on youth unemployment, the Guardian says that:

Jones told the Guardian that a convention should look at following the example of the US. The House of Commons would be balanced by a new upper house that would ensure Wales and Northern Ireland would be strongly represented. "Why not have an upper house with equal representation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland – same as the Senate," he said. "It would be more of a federal structure. It is up to the people of Scotland what they do but it is certainly not the case that somehow things would carry on as normal."

The First Minister's previous vision for Wales' future was extremely limited, in setting out a conservative system of three tests, which looked more like three entirely reactionary and subjective hurdles any new powers for Wales would have to leap. This vision, flawed as it was, has already been overtaken by events. I could say alot more about his stances on various issues about devolution but it's enough to say that the Welsh national interest needs to become his main principle. That is not the same thing as the Labour party's interest, and on that basis I simply don't see a long-term future for Wales having a Secretary of State or Wales Office, whether it's Cheryl Gillan or Peter Hain.

Another issue here is that Carwyn Jones' US-style solution might have to apply even if Scotland rejects independence and votes for devo-max. Scotland under devo-max presumably would lose almost all of its House of Commons representation, enough to tilt the electoral map irreversibly in favour of England.

These developments aren't necessarily a major problem for Carwyn Jones, who would become the First Minister of a relatively self-governing Wales in some kind of re-negotiated union with England. They do however present a problem for the reactionary brigade of Labour MPs from Wales who won't really have a purpose in the future and are doomed to "wither away", as Marx would have said.

The bigger question then if we have a re-negotiated UK after Scotland leaves is does Wales become a European Union member-state on its own terms? A post-Scotland UK will be too ideologically diverse to have a consistent policy on the EU. It won't make political sense for the three remaining UK constituent parts to be represented by the same Prime Minister in Europe. Carwyn Jones has already set the scene for this by arguing that Cameron is "isolationist" when it comes to Europe. What is clear to me is that the idea that governing Wales would now just be about "delivery" has been shown to be massively flawed.

Boundary changes announced

2012-01-11T16:19:00.004Z

A consultation has now opened for the Tory-Lib Dem boundary changes for Westminster elections. In Wales, as predicted the number of seats is being reduced from 40 to 30. There will no doubt be all kinds of discussions now about community and local issues, but this blog is not really relevant when it comes to thinking about boundaries. There is also alot of speculation about which party has benefited and which MPs will lose out, but basically at any time where you dramatically redraw boundaries there will be winners and loses. The inference from Martin Shipton is that Labour and Plaid haven't done that badly as things stand. That still means all of the various parties will lose out in some way and the ins and outs of that could be debated at length without really getting anywhere.

What is more interesting from a national level is the macro-political situation. The nature of the British state stipulates that if Wales had 40 MPs, and we elected a Labour MP in every single constituency, Wales could still be governed by the Tories. Presumably there would be political consequences if that ever happened, but at present we are being ruled at the "highest level" by a government that comprehensively lost the UK elections in Wales. The situation becomes even starker when you reduce Wales' representation to 30. There is no mitigating against it; Wales simply doesn't count for much in Britain, because of the maths. These days, Westminster elections are usually won or lost in Middle England.

With that in mind, we should acknowledge that a situation where the "highest level" is no longer Westminster will be healthy for Wales. The reductions aren't completely fair because significant powers have not really been passed down to Wales as a result of the referendum in 2011. But in British politics fairness doesn't normally decide things, and you have to take what you can get. Despite some short-term loss of representation, in the longer term these cuts will be worthwhile because the National Assembly will now have more constituency members than Westminster. That means the National Assembly will become the primary focus for constituency representation in Wales.

With the exception of the Plaid Cymru MPs, I am not persuaded that we get good value for money from most of Wales' 40-strong complement. The Plaid MPs have a unique role as nationalists, but when it comes to the other parties their MPs are becoming as outdated as the role of Secretary of State. During the most recent period of devolved government it has seemed that they are increasingly trying to make themselves relevant by reviving all kinds of committees and at one point positioning themselves absurdly as scrutineers of native Welsh legislation. It completely backfired and we ended up with democratically agreed Welsh laws being bogged down and held up in Westminster bureaucracy because of a system set up by the Labour MPs that our nation has loyally dispatched to Westminster for generations. We must avoid a repeat of that kind of dependency culture in Welsh democracy. We should be reliant on our own Assembly Members.

For too long the impression has been that Westminster is superior to the National Assembly, because it is an imperial parliament, and is older and appears more authoritative. A reduction in Welsh MPs, regardless of the ins and outs of what particular boundaries might be used or which parties will gain or lose out, will give fresh impetus to the campaign for Welsh democracy. The argument for more capacity in Wales will now become more persuasive. Reduced Welsh representation at Westminster means that Welsh democrats have a much stronger hand in calling for increased home rule, more Assembly Members and more decisions to be taken in Wales.

I don't envisage public opinion in Wales significantly disagreeing with having fewer MPs. In fact Yougov polling appears to show that most people in Wales believe the National Assembly should have more influence on our affairs. If Wales as a nation sends out messages opposing these proposals it suggests that we do not have confidence in our own Assembly representatives to be further empowered and strengthened. On that basis i'm respectfully disagreeing with the Plaid Cymru and Labour party opposition to these changes.

Regional pay versus national pay

2012-01-10T16:17:00.005Z

The Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards has captured the Welsh news agenda today by staging a Westminster debate on "regional pay". The case against regional pay is overwhelming. Apparently the debate was poorly attended, but more importantly the coverage of the event is relatively strong at the BBC, on Wales Home and with the speech visible here.

If public sector pay was levelled down to match Welsh private sector wages, we can only imagine what the comparative GVA figures between Wales and the UK would start to look like. Simply put, you don't build a modern Welsh economy on the back of people having less disposable income. The idea that the private sector magically expands when you slash public sector wages doesn't ring true- there is certainly no sign of such a thing happening in Wales. Without claiming to be an economist, surely we would rather see investment in skills and infrastructure, not slashing pay, as the way to revive the Welsh economy.

Once, there presumably would have been a party of labour to make points about these issues. But the glaring problem is that the Labour party attempted to introduce regional pay when it held power, successfully bringing in regional scales in the courts. It follows then that some comrades from Labour party have been questioning, on Twitter, Plaid Cymru's position and arguing that Plaid in fact supports regional pay because they argued for the devolution of teachers' pay and conditions to Wales. Peter Black made this same argument (which says it all really). They are completely wrong and there is a clear difference.

Under regional pay the usually right-wing UK Government would set centrally civil service pay with varying rates for each region (sic) matched to local market conditions. This means a low rate for Wales and higher pay for the south-east of England. A race to the bottom. Plaid is rightly opposing this today.

Under Welsh pay the usually left-wing Welsh Government would set pay (for whatever areas are devolved) based on the Barnettised pot from which Welsh wages are already paid out. They could even make pay better if they used money from other areas to boost it, or they could keep it broadly the same, or reduce pay if they so wished and spend the savings on other things. This would entail taking too much responsibility for our own affairs when it comes to the attitudes of some of the imperialist sections of New Labour. Plaid supports Carwyn Jones taking over pay but his own supporters seem to be terrified of the idea. In the face of George Osborne's hardline agenda, I fail to see why alleged socialists in the Labour party are against this. They fail to see the extent to which the New Labour agenda is returning to UK-level Labour party thinking, at a time when even Ed Miliband is seen as too threatening to the vested interests in Middle England.

The reality is that Labourite critics of devolving pay and conditions are defending the status quo in which George Osborne can vandalise the Welsh public sector without having any kind of electoral mandate from the Welsh people. With a shackled and harmless Labour party clinging to London rule, the dystopian future for Wales will be permanent submergence in Tory England.

War of words

2011-12-30T12:05:00.004Z

The year is ending with a protracted war of words between Cheryl Gillan and Carwyn Jones. It says alot that Cheryl Gillan writing a blog post can become the main news story in Welsh politics. But although the spat between the two is largely superficial, the concerns Gillan has about the First Minister are interesting. Alan Trench has commented on Twitter that this might represent two competing visions of devolution, but as much as that would be healthy for the Welsh debate, what is striking in this argument is the absence of Labour's "vision".

Following on from the disagreement over David Cameron's marginalisation of Wales at the EU, Gillan is now arguing that the First Minister is "effectively arguing for independence" and "trying to run a Welsh foreign policy".

To an extent, in technical terms she is correct. Wales can't be directly represented in Europe, as things stand. It has to go through UK channels. Perhaps the Welsh Government could make a request to the UK Government for more representation or direct meetings with EU officials, but at the moment it has to be pointed out that Alun Davies was at the EU only a few weeks ago as a Welsh Minister. What has happened now is that the UK system has proven to be inadequate because there is a political difference between what David Cameron wants from Europe, and what Carwyn Jones wants (and indeed what Wales needs) from Europe. Wales would have to be an independent European member-state to not be represented by David Cameron in Europe. Carwyn Jones simply does not have that aspiration. Labour has interestingly clarified in its response to the initial blog post by Cheryl Gillan that it seeks "as strong a Wales within the union as is possible".

If you read the Western Mail article about this "blistering row" you can see that the quotes from the various party spokespeople quickly degenerate into each of the London parties accusing each other of being "isolationist". Of course they're both wrong, but this is the quality of political leadership Wales is now lumbered with both in Cardiff and London. It's a smokescreen to allow both Labour and the Tories to pass the buck, while Wales faces a generation of malaise.

The real test, if this political row continues, is to have Labour expand on their idea of "as strong a Wales within the union as is possible". Is this Labour party policy? What does this actually mean? And has Peter Hain signed it off?

It would be nice to have a definition at a time when the political landscape in the British state is changing quite dramatically. To his credit Jonathan Edwards has been trying to get the British parties to start expanding on their views about Wales' future, at a time when we have a Silk Commission and the likelihood of changes in Scotland. It is not surprising that Wales is in such an exposed position constitutionally when you consider that our ruling Labour party does not even have a policy on this, and is in fact two different parties sharing the same name for convenience.

Labour's throwaway line about "as strong a Wales as is possible" could imply a more federal relationship between Wales and London. I doubt they are even thinking about it seriously, or have permission from Peter Hain, their Westminster leader, to draw up a policy of their own. Whatever they might have in mind, it would surely have consequences for their levels of representation at Westminster and ultimately their ability to win British state-level elections. We have to wonder whether Labour's pessimistic rearguard of Welsh MPs would be happy with any more Welsh sovereignty than we have now. I strongly doubt it.

Nadolig Llawen

2011-12-25T15:25:00.002Z

Moving out

2011-12-20T15:07:00.004Z

The news that the Welsh Government is moving out of the Wales Office in London is hardly revolutionary. It won't mark a transformation in how Wales is represented, because that's ultimately up to the actions (or inaction) of Wales' Labour leadership.

But moving out of the suffocating confines of the Wales Office is symbolically important. From now on the Welsh Government's main representation will be in a standalone office- an embassy in all but name, according to Welsh Agenda. This is an alternative to being stowed away in a tiny room in the colonial Wales Office. The BBC report states that they could rent quite an appropriate amount of floor space for a pretty low price.

Whether it is Peter Hain or Cheryl Gillan occupying Gwydyr House, the fact is we cannot trust an English-based Secretary of State to handle our interests. Peter Hain has more legitimacy as he is elected in a Welsh constituency, but the First Minister of Wales should always be the main democratic representative of the Welsh nation. There is a direct line of accountability between him or her and the people of Wales, whereas the Wales Office is now quite redundant and pointless. Eventually the position of Secretary of State for Wales should wither away; a process that today's announcement will help rather than hinder.

Cheryl Gillan's comments to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on office-space spoke volumes; "they (the Welsh Government) are of course welcome to come and use the facilities in Gwydyr House any time that they want to, provided that it does not interrupt the business of the Department." London will always be vitally important to Wales, so it makes sense that we will now have independent representation there instead of second class status tucked away in Cheryl Gillan's cupboard trying to "not interrupt" the really important stuff that the Wales Office allegedly does.

The UK Government is spooked by the idea that Wales' Government is stirring in its sleep. In the BBC piece they have resorted to the good old line about "separation", and "Wales ploughing its own furrow". This is the most trusted fallback of any Unionist party when they know they have lost the argument.

However, while these developments in London are welcome they will count for little if the First Minister doesn't soon update the people of Wales with an account of his negotiations to secure borrowing powers and a fair financial settlement. It's good that Labour are starting to act like a Government but this is only to head off criticism from Plaid and to try and land blows on the Tories. It is also playing on my mind that opening a Welsh Government office in London is something that should have been done years ago, and we have lost alot of influence over the years by not standing up for ourselves, in comparison to Scotland which wields a huge level of political clout. Let's see if the welcome rhetoric from the First Minister about standing up for our interests in Europe and London can be backed up with substance.

Carwyn as leader

2011-12-14T17:56:00.003Z

Coming as it did at the end of the current Assembly term, Carwyn Jones' intervention this week on Europe didn't get the coverage it deserved. Most people in Wales will be unaware the First Minister ever made such dramatic comments. But despite that, the First Minister has genuinely rattled a UK Government that has previously been capable out outmaneovuering him.

All of the opposition parties are accustomed to accusing Carwyn Jones and his administration of inactivity and sluggishness. And in reality, what he has done should be part of the normal duty of any government when responding to global events. But the choice of words is significant, as is the fact that diplomacy is a non-devolved issue.

We have previously been lectured in Wales that Ed Miliband is in fact the Welsh Labour leader on non-devolved issues. But the First Minister has thankfully contradicted that by making this statement and also using the official Welsh Government website to refer to the "Welsh national interest", a concept that does not have a very long history in Welsh politics but is something that will become an increasingly important point of reference.

Carwyn has said that "For the first time, I am now seriously concerned about whether the interests of Wales can be advanced effectively in Europe by the UK Government. For those of us who are committed to the United Kingdom, and the place of the UK within the European Union, this is a deeply concerning position to be in".

The First Minister has made the argument that the UK Government's actions are threatening to break up the United Kingdom by handing all kinds of propaganda victories to Alex Salmond's SNP, who plan to hold an independence referendum in several years' time. At this stage SNP support has now breached the 50% mark and independence support is up to 38%. Another few years of austerity could do the trick. But whatever happens, the Scottish Government is only getting stronger in the way it stands up for Scotland.

The SNP, for their part, welcomed the Labour First Minister's comments. Imagine that- nationalists and Labour working together. Alex Salmond is also calling for a UK-wide jobs summit that Carwyn Jones would do well to take heed of. Having commited to not co-operate with the UK on the issue of regional pay, it is worth looking for allies and for Carwyn to see the SNP as like-minded leftists on a UK level.

The UK Government reaction to Carwyn Jones' statement was telling. Usually, when someone starts using the term "separatist agenda" it means they have lost the argument. They don't like that he is "speaking on matters he has no responsibility for". They are clearly rattled by the prospect of the First Minister speaking out and adopting a more muscular approach.

Jonathan Edwards MP may have been scorned by Peter Black when he suggested the Welsh Government should start preparing positions to take if Scottish independence happens. But in the real world that is exactly what the Welsh Government is starting to do, according to Nick Powell. As Vaughan Roderick has hinted ("Christmas present for Jonathan (Edwards)"), such preparations are under way. Jones has said that "we can't carry on as we are now"- there would be a need for new negotiations and some kind of convention between the remaining nations within the state. For Wales to not strengthen its position in what is left of the UK would be unthinkable, because if we did not achieve some kind of entrenched autonomy or sovereignty we could disappear or be in England's shadow forever. This shows that Jonathan Edwards was right to get the ball rolling and this is a debate he can claim credit for starting.

But despite all the questions these events have thrown up, one thing is certain. The Labour party in Wales simply will not have the luxury of just managing the devolved areas and implementing a pre-ordained manifesto. This was already clear to alot of commentators in the aftermath of the May elections across the state. There was a sense then that things had changed, before the issue of Europe even came up. But it is now becoming even more obvious and undeniable. We are not living in times that allow such a narrow managerial focus. It's not in the Tories' interests to give Labour in Wales a free ride.

The Tories in Westminster don't really care about how Labour manages the Welsh budget. It doesn't affect them and Wales doesn't offer an alternative that could win Labour elections in the crucial Middle England swing seats. If Carwyn really wants to stand up for Wales- and we clearly need someone to do that in these troubling times- it's in the non-devolved areas where he will have an impact. It's up to him whether he wants to rise to that challenge. In standing up for Wales he would have to confront the UK Government as well as sections of his own party. No easy task, but that is what will mark whether he is going to be the "Labour leader in the devolved areas only" or an actual figure of national relevance leading an entire country.

I'd like to thank Alex Salmond for standing in as Welsh First Minister during this period so far. But it isn't healthy to rely on another country to drag us along in their wake. We need real Welsh leadership during these times. We're not quite getting it yet, but if Carwyn makes these kind of interventions people will start to notice that we exist and to treat us with some respect.

Delivery versus dogma

2011-12-11T11:09:00.004Z

It is very interesting that when Jonathan Edwards MP raised questions about Scottish independence and the implications for Wales, Peter Black of the Lib Dems quickly jumped on Edwards' comments- saying they constituted "fantasy politics", a call for "separation" and also "political irrelevance".

Peter Black did exactly the same thing a few months ago when Elin Jones made the same point- he argued that Plaid was "on the fringes" of politics.

Why is Peter Black so intent on responding to every emergence of the Scottish question in Wales with a cry of "irrelevant"? Scotland's position determines how much money we get every year. It has been the backdrop to the Holtham Commission which now forms the basis of negotiations between Wales and the UK, and also the Richard Commission that Peter's own party secured and which formed the basis for the Government of Wales Act 2006. Scotland has always had a huge impact on Wales- their resounding "Yes" vote in 1997 just before ours no doubt set the scene. But suddenly, if you want to discuss the dramatic situation in Scotland you are now "irrelevant".

I noticed that in both cases, Peter has put forward his own solution. To Elin Jones he said that the alternative was to concentrate on "issues such as the economy, education and the health service". To Jonathan Edwards, Peter Black counters that "the most urgent issues facing the Welshh Government today are the economy, an under-performing education system and the health service".

This is an ongoing theme amongst the British political parties in Wales. If we "concentrate" on what they call the "bread and butter issues" everything will eventually work out. We can leave constitutional discussions to the grown ups- the Salmonds and Camerons, presumably. Wales is a tiny country anyway and shouldn't have an opinion on the really big issues.

The fact we don't have any powers to alter macroeconomic policy doesn't even occur to these parties and their representatives. True Wales made precisely the same argument during their doomed referendum campaign. "Welsh politicians should be focusing on Wales' failing education system and not constitutional tinkering", they claimed.

I am not at all convinced that this idea that "delivery" will lead to real improvements at a time when the British parties have made massive cuts in Wales. Labour in Wales have made it their central theme. Andrew RT Davies upon taking up the leadership of the Conservative group warned that a crisis was looming unless devolution "delivered". But you can't deliver much at all if someone else takes away your resources to do so, as Carwyn Jones has quickly learnt.

Wales does not have the constitutional or fiscal mechanisms to deliver an authentic economic direction for our country. On health and education, Welsh politicians have been concentrating on them for over a decade with mixed results, and will no doubt continue to do so regardless of what happens to the UK state. It isn't an either/or choice. In terms of the overall levels of money given to Wales, it is a fact that we are not given as much as our social needs require. These are constitutional issues and they are related to the Scottish question.

The reason anyone who raises these questions is branded as "irrelevant" or "on the fringes" is because the British parties don't want these questions answered. They are scared of change and want a return to harmless two party politics in Wales.

What the British parties would benefit from is for Welsh politics to be dumbed down and to have a very narrow focus on public service delivery. Westminster will always then be the primary tier of attention, and Wales can be used as a platform to try and return to power in London- Welsh elections can be like warm-up games before a major tournament. This is the cul de sac that the "delivery" agenda will lead us down. Welsh politics is already in a state of decomposition after the false dawn of the "Yes" vote in March. The media is disappearing and the national political culture is stale.

Talking about the "bread and butter" issues all day long won't solve them until we actually are given the real tools to do the job. This is why things like the Holtham Commission, Richard Commission, All Wales Convention etc have taken place. Devolution is under constant review, and the Scottish question will once again cause huge ruptures. Experts and leading figures like Gerry Holtham have mentioned this. There have been q&a panels involving Daran Hill and other commentators. Carwyn Jones has alluded to Scotland's relative gain from the Barnett formula in his most recent press conference. But every time a Plaid politician does so, their opponents inexplicably ask them to be quiet and concentrate on the county council stuff.

Wales will become isolated, ignored and marginalised if we become obsessed with delivery instead of democracy. We are already on the way but the medicine of delivery being prescribed by Peter Black will do nothing to lead Wales through the stormy constitutional situation in Britain and Europe.

Right for the wrong reasons

2011-12-09T16:50:00.002Z

David Cameron today looks like a completely isolated figure, having capitulated to British nationalism, City of London interests, and right-wing Eurosceptics. We can only imagine how the eternally pro-Brussels Lib Dems must be feeling. The chances for the British state to be included in a new European deal were scuppered because the Tories and their Lib Dem allies cannot accept a very modest financial transactions tax.

But Wales joining in with a Europe of permanent neoliberalism and austerity? No thanks! It says it all that the part the UK did not object to was the idea of sanctions to punish Eurozone states that overstep deficit limits. Could a post-industrial country like Wales ever sign up to a union that makes Keynesian economics illegal? If economic policy in the Eurozone is set by Treaty, it raises questions of what choice voters will really get at election time in those countries.

Just because we oppose Cameron, doesn't mean therefore that the Merkel-Sarkozy project is a good thing. He has simply objected for the wrong reasons.

The European deal would end national control over taxation and budgetary policy in the Eurozone- and any new independent states in Europe would have to grapple with that treaty. Many of us have such an aspiration for Wales, and it is also partly why Scotland says it will now keep the pound after independence. The near future sees Wales as a part of the UK, and it is not at all clear that the Eurozone- the main market for Welsh exports- will be secured by a further dose of austerity. The markets (the key indicator for whether neoliberal governments are appeasing high finance) have not yet rallied, for example. A bailout fund of Euro500bn will be required to prop up the new fiscal union- enough money to keep Italy going for just fourteen months. It isn't a viable long-term solution.

Under the new rules, member-states will not be allowed to run genuine Keynesian deficits, according the commentary from Newsnight's Economics Editor Paul Mason. Chris Dillow calls it "the end of activist fiscal policy". The proposals are the opposite of what Plaid Cymru argues for in Wales and the UK. The new system would not allow any flexibility for unforseen stimuli.

Welsh nationalists are arguing for Wales to take the steps towards having our own taxation policy, and maintaining or even increasing state spending (from both Welsh and UK sources) to improve Wales' deficient infrastructure. We are in complete contradiction to what Merkel and Sarkozy desire, which is a single fiscal policy for the entire Union- not unlike the Tories and usually Labour want a single fiscal policy for the whole British union. We will have to face up to that, because mainstream nationalists in Wales have used Europe as a comfort blanket on the basis that it isn't British and offers a convenient safety net, and also because mainland European capitalism tends to be more humane than the Anglo-American brand. With these strict fiscal conditions, the human face of European capitalism has become something less friendly and more rigid.

Plaid Cymru has often raised concerns about the type of Europe that has been created over the years, but the situation this week has undergone historic changes that need to be adapted to. These are some of the biggest events in the EU and the Eurozone in history. All of the economic certainties that accompanied the rise of the Euro are gone. There is nothing "pro-Europe" about allowing a virtually Thatcherite Europe to be created by the conservative governments in France and Germany. Should we expect anything more from the ultra-centralist French state?

Welsh nationalists will have to start being far more critical of the European project if it becomes less accountable and more centralised. This means playing a full role in the EU and arguing for an alternative Europe. This would be part of our duty as Europeans. That's a campaign that David Cameron won't be signing up to any time soon! He is quite happy with Merkel and Sarkozy's strict fiscal conditions, and only disagrees with the separate issue of a bankers' tax.

This is a debate that will roll on, and all eyes will now be on the Eurozone to see whether tightening austerity will help stabilise it. If it works, the conservatives on mainland Europe will be vindicated to some extent, but more likely is that imposing austerity in the Eurozone will extinguish demand in the same way George Osborne's policies have depressed the economy in Wales and the UK. Hopefully my instincts will be proven wrong.

"You're always asking for more powers and more money"

2011-12-08T19:20:00.000Z

A saying goes that the best lie contains a grain of truth. That is the best way of reading the comments attributed to Cheryl Gillan, Secretary of State for Wales, that were reported by the Western Mail last week.

Gillan stated that-

“I’m always hearing how the Welsh Government doesn’t have enough powers or enough money and it’s always the fault of Westminster. I think the real message for hope is that now the challenge is really lying with them in a big way.”

This is a dishonest message. None of the powers gained in the March referendum have a direct effect on the economy. Wales is now able to make laws in a much easier and streamlined manner. That is important. But we cannot yet alter any rates of taxation, raise any money, or control any meaningful economic levers.

The Wales Office has gone on to argue today that-

"We're now pretty hacked off with the first minister and his colleagues constantly complaining they haven't got the money for this or the powers to do this.

"They have got the money - they've got £15 billion to spend."

I don't see how politically literate people could believe the Welsh Government has the necessary powers or resources to do the job the people of Wales deserve or to be accountable and responsible for any significant part of Welsh economic life. Why else would the Silk Commission have been established? The throwaway line that "they've got £15 billion to spend" masks the fact that in fact our capital spending allocations- the part of state spending that most directly supports the economy- has been slashed by about 40%.

This doesn't mean letting Labour off the hook. But to criticise other parties you should base your arguments in reality. The Tory narrative that Wales now has all the tools it needs is a joke really when you consider how well resourced Scotland is compared to Wales, and how the various Unionist parties are pushing through extra powers for Scotland.

But as has been said above, the best lie contains a grain of truth.

Something is not right in the Welsh Government. The small things that Gareth Hughes notes add up. The Welsh Government no longer bothers briefing journalists about its "work", which it used to do when Plaid Cymru was in power. While Scotland is developing a "Build for Wales" proposal and at least showing some economic ambition, Wales has not brought forward any comparable ideas. In the field of legislation, they have brought forward fewer laws than any other UK parliament. You could argue that Labour in Wales doesn't do ideas, beyond the stale business of running a mundane council-style administration. The examples of inactivity and drift are so plentiful that I don't need to list them all here.

They are making it too easy for the Tories to penalise Wales. They should not have claimed to be aiming to "stand up for Wales" if they simply don't have the Salmond-style clout to do that. On the BBC story today Carwyn Jones himself is noted as saying that "Scotland appeared to be doing better" out of the current financial situation. This is because Scotland offers an alternative and has stood up for itself. Carwyn Jones, as much as his heart is in the right place and he is a good devolutionist, can't even stand up to Peter Hain on FPTP, let alone the UK Government on fiscal issues.

Can we really blame Scotland for avoiding most of the cuts whilst Wales is taking a hammering? Not really. Their people have a government that demands respect and has ambitious plans. Wales has a government constantly on the defensive and bases its entire existence on "not being the Tories". The results so far have not been good. Wales is simply not getting a hearing under this Labour government.

Bad for business

2011-12-02T20:20:00.000Z

Without particularly going into the crumbs that are being given to Wales as a result of George Osborne's Autumn Statement, it is striking that Cheryl Gillan described Osborne's package as "pro-business". To me, this illustrates the utter fallacy that is at the heart of right-wing politics and is almost always never challenged, even by parts of the left.

How can an economic policy that downgrades growth and forecasts rising unemployment possibly be "pro-business"? I am no economist but surely if business was predicted to do well, unemployment would be projected to fall, not increase. It doesn't help private businesses if you put loads of public sector workers into the dole queues or reduce their wages. Those people have less money then to spend on private sector goods.

It is assumed that right-wing politics is generally better for business, but historically that isn't the case. From Thatcher through to Blair and Brown we have suffered centre-right Tory and Labour governments whose main focus was to be ostensibly "pro-business". Sections of the Labour party are still obsessed with this, even though their doctrine led to a near-collapse of the global financial system. The results were nothing short of catastrophic for the long-term future of the Welsh economy in particular. Neoliberalism effectively destroyed the UK's industrial and manufacturing position and oversaw a huge redistribution of wealth to the richest people in society, along with a shift of economic influence to China and the other BRIC countries.

We now have state-rescued banks (an aberration of how capitalism is supposed to work) being unwilling to lend money to small firms without having those loans underwritten by the Chancellor using public money. In any other decade, that would be called socialism.

What has been implemented across the western world is socialism for the rich; corporate welfare, in which an elite section of capitalism is given a safety net by the taxpayer. Yet in Wales most businesses are not banks, they are more likely to be small firms involved in their communities and dependent on locality for survival. They get all kinds of Government help but generally, if they make too many mistakes they have to close. They are struggling in these difficult times because the cuts agenda is destroying economic confidence; people are spending less.

George Osborne's Autumn Statement, with only a tiny spin-off for Wales, was not a "pro-business" gesture. In the UK and in Wales we have been sold a huge lie about right-wing policies being "pro-business". To be really in favour of business you have to support wages going up rather than going down, and people having a good pension so that they can continue to use their spending power after retirement. This is very basic stuff but the unholy alliance between the Tories and New Labour completely cemented the false economy of privatised profits and socialised debts. Throughout the Blair and Brown years, real wage growth was negligible, and the illusion of credit was encouraged to make people think they had exponentially better living standards.

Now that the days of the credit boom are over, it is time to expose the contradictions that lie at the heart of Thatcherite, New Labour and conservative politics in general. If you are a Welsh business, the likelihood is that cutting off Government spending will harm your prospects. It will take time to overturn this "big lie" but it is something that will become more and more apparent in the coming years, especially if global economic growth continues to outpace the development of natural resources.

But less optimistically, there is no evidence that the Labour party is in any fit state to take up this challenge. At the UK level they have no interest in supporting workers' struggles, and at the Welsh level there is hardly anything going on at all beyond the stale business of managing decline. Whoever becomes Plaid Cymru's next leader would do well to suggest how Wales can resist the Tories' reactionary agenda and at the same time break Labour's managerialism. Once that's sorted, it'll be plain sailing!

Welsh votes row- a definitive update

2011-11-24T18:45:00.002Z

The ongoing saga of Labour's attitude towards voting in Wales has been gurgling away this week. Competing factions and viewpoints within Labour don't seem to want the story to go quiet.

There does appear to be a strategy from at least one section of the Labour party to keep injecting life into this story, in order to draw attention to what they call Cheryl Gillan's "no mandate" position, and to try and divert the political focus away from the confusion and controversy about the FPTP clause that Peter Hain has railroaded through against the wishes of the party's AMs. The Gillan-focussed strategy is mainly being undertaken by Carwyn Jones and his closest allies, and this week they have made an appeal to David Cameron about not changing the electoral system, and in the Assembly they have also tabled a Statement of Opinion (the Welsh equivalent to an Early Day Motion at Westminster) on the matter.

The party- in truth, two anonymous sources from within its ranks- had erupted this week into what Adrian Masters called a "furious row" with the Electoral Reform Society, a completely inoffensive and neutral organisation that advocates the hardly revolutionary concept that everyone's votes should be equal. Betsan Powys notes the "nasty" nature of the argument between the two sides.

However, what really caught my eye was Vaughan Roderick's incisive blog post in which he questions why the Welsh Government and the Labour party in Wales are injecting oxygen into this debate and keeping it alive. To take Vaughan Roderick's comments further, it is worth asking why Labour has suddenly become obsessed with the entirely valid idea that the people of Wales should decide their own democracy.

This is a departure from history. Labour has always advocated coterminosity between the Assembly and Westminster, a stance which removes the direct right of the people of Wales to determine their own electoral system by linking such a decision to Westminster. As Marcus Warner argues, Labour was in power at Westminster for the best part of a decade and not only upheld coterminosity (it took the Tories and Lib Dems to remove that), but ensured that Westminster, not Wales, was in the driving seat.

This whole row simply did not need to happen. There could have been a consensus on just retaining the present system, which is what Carwyn Jones wants, except Peter Hain made it clear early on that having varied boundaries would be "disastrous". Politically, the buck stops with him. All we are seeing now is the fallout within the Labour party from his proposals. That is why the people defending him in the media are only anonymous sources and not Labour politicians. Annabelle Harle, a Welsh Labour Executive member, has even issued an article at Click on Wales arguing that Peter Hain's plot for FPTP was "out of the blue", "a random pronouncement", "a ridiculous idea", and that she is "at a loss" to understand why complete FPTP for Wales would be jusitifable or defensible.

Definitively, Annabelle Harle sums up the voice of democracy by stating "it is one thing to win fair and square; it is another to skew the system so that your opponent can never win". This is the most honourable and democratic statement I have seen from a Labour figure during this whole row.

Alan Trench points out expertly that the Assembly and Westminster boundaries are decoupled. The Electoral Reform Society wouldn't have needed to produce any kind of report about FPTP for Wales if Labour hadn't absurdly made it their official policy due to an intervention by the former Welsh Secretary. An intervention which, by insisting on coterminosity and Westminster being in the driving seat, completely contradicts their sudden conversion to wanting the people of Wales to make that decision.

The ERS report on FPTP is considered by a "senior source" in Labour to be "guesswork...'research' by a Plaid Cymru supporting academic...anti-Labour propaganda...to further their agenda for proportional representation". In Scotland, the same party can be found just last week supporting an ERS Scottish report that advocates more proportionality!

All people are talking about now is FPTP and you can see why the Labour AMs wanted to reject that clause, but were defeated in their own party. This is also why Annabelle Harle has raised her concerns today, knowing they would be widely circulated and taken into account. It also explains the sudden surge in activity from Carwyn Jones and his AMs. The Welsh faction of the party is now left trying to defend the indefensible, and what was once a credible statement is now built on sand because of the meddling by the London-based tendency.

This is a farcical situation. The ascendant faction within the party wants Labour in Wales to remain a harmless appendage to their London ambitions- a glorified B team where Ed Miliband and Peter Hain are "leaders for Labour on the non-devolved issues", which for now includes electoral systems. Politically, the non-Assembly side of the party is now orchestrating the show and going right over the head of their Welsh counterparts.

The bottom line from Alan Trench is that "Labour has largely lost control of the agenda when it comes to the Assembly’s electoral system, and doesn’t like where this might lead". In reality nothing will change. The Tories don't intend to alter the system, but the row has revealed that if they wanted, they could do so at a whim. In the process, a quite reactionary aspect to the Labour party has been revealed. The way forward would be to drop the support for FPTP and for all four Welsh parties to clearly sign up to supporting more proportionality, and STV. Nobody would then have an in-built advantage and everyone's votes would be equal.

"Spanish" elections and the centre-left

2011-11-21T17:45:00.000Z

The election results from the Spanish state illustrate perfectly the political deficit that is implicit in all of the western and central European crisis countries. The centre-left PSOE has been ousted by the Partido Popular, the centre-right Spanish nationalist party founded largely by reformists from the tail end of the Franco dictatorship.

Mariano Rajoy's PP will inherit from the PSOE a devastated country with 23% unemployment and widespread talk of an emigration generation. Tax receipts are simply not high enough to cover essential public spending. The Spanish state's bonds situation is dire, and they are considered "next in line" to be hit by an economic crisis of existential proportions, after Greece and Italy.

In the context of such crippling unemployment, a flat jobs market and the austerity programme implemented by the outgoing PSOE, it is difficult to believe that the PP has won an absolute majority. The PP is even more right-wing than the social democrats who themselves didn't adovcate let alone implement the "Plan B" that their UK equivalents in the Labour party are signed up to, but effectively proscribed the same medicine that the PP is offering.

Spanish voters (though not the Basque and Catalan electorates) have simply opted to switch the rosette colours of their governing party. There is little prospect of any actual change in Spanish politics. The PP's solution to the Spanish state's woes comprises yet more austerity. They are utterly tied to the same economic model as PSOE. They have made populist gestures about protecting pensions, health and education, and only cutting "superfluous spending" and bureaucracy, but you sense that if resolving the crisis was that easy, the centre-left would have had no problems. Spain is well past the point of looking for efficiency savings and trimming the fat. The PP will have no choice, if it wants to please the markets and European neoliberalism, but to further disfigure the livelihoods of the Spanish peoples.

Would the situation in the UK be any different now if Labour had remained in power after 2010? Accepting that the scale is different and that the British economy has not dropped off as badly as the Mediterranean countries, Labour would still have had to make massive cuts to accommodate the discredited free market economic model that they remain aligned to. The November 30th strikes for example would simply be aimed at them rather than the Tories. Many of the "reforms" that the Tories are pushing through, on pensions, welfare and even student fees, were inherited from the Labour party. Alot of people in the UK- even workers- in the period of a Labour austerity government would switch their allegiance to the Conservatives even if the Tories offered more of the same, because they assume that just changing the party in power would solve the state's ills.

This is the cosmetic illusion of democracy that is to a large extent a cornerstone of the European liberal countries. The major parties of the centre-left and centre-right are effectively all the same when it comes to significant economic questions. There might be disagreements about the scale and speed of cuts and tinkering with the edges, but all of the centrist parties still believe that the basic system in place in Europe now, whereby real wages have stagnated at the expense of a tiny wealthy elite and look set to continue to do so, is correct. Even though European capitalism is more humane than the Anglo-American flavour, and workers tend to have more rights and protections, the basic structural problems are still with us and have to be paid for by somebody.

Does anyone believe that if Ed Miliband was in power currently at the UK level, we would be any closer to the "good capitalism" that he is championing? We experienced over a decade of Labour rule immediately prior to and then during the financial crisis, yet ultimately their deregulation and laxness paved the way for the current crisis. If Labour didn't deliver a fair society during the good times (the UK became less equal during their tenure), it is an illusion that they would be any better during a deep crisis in which they have the markets to satisfy as well as the electorate.

Footnote- although widely described as "Spanish" elections, in the Basque country and Catalonia the results are different due to the prevalence of nationalist and autonomist politics. In the Basque country in particular the pro-independence left has managed to contest the elections for the first time without being repressed and blocked by the Spanish judiciary, and has achieved a strong showing. The PP vote actually decreased in the Basque country. In Catalonia the results are also different to the Spanish picture. See Syniadau for more information.

Three Tests

2011-11-16T22:45:00.000Z

When it comes to Labour's current orientation in Wales, it is evident that in their minds further devolution does not take centre stage. They prefer to focus on the delivery of public services. At the same time, the manifesto on which they were elected in May 2011 did include a number of commitments that would need more substantial devolution than was on offer in the March referendum.

Furthermore, since May the political agenda in Wales has been generally shaped by events outside of Labour's own control. All of the traditional British parties are now signed up to integrating some kind of financial element into the devolution settlement, and will be considering how to do that through the Silk Commission, and also the inter-governmental negotiations between Cardiff and London.

With this in mind, it is interesting to see that Carwyn Jones, during a speech this week, attempted to set out a way in which Labour can get a grip with these issues and approach them in a coherent way. We therefore have a theory of Three Tests that further Welsh autonomy must meet in order to warrant the support of the First Minister.

But while we might hope that a coherent way forward for the ruling Welsh party could have been set out, the reality is that the First Minister's position is as cloudy as ever.

The three tests are that further devolution must-

* benefit the Welsh public.

* be accommodated within existing Welsh Government structures.

and * have a limited impact on the wider UK.

Agreeing with John Dixon, for me the first test is a given for anything that might ever happen in Welsh politics. Self-rule and eventually full independence are a means to an end; the only way we can create an alternative to the broken politics that dominates the British system and does so regardless of which London-based party has power. Devolutionists, who don't support independence and are not always nationalists, also support this because they believe self-government in certain fields brings democracy closer to the people and that in itself benefits the people of Wales. On that first test, there wouldn't be any disagreement from any reasonable person.

But the second two tests are far murkier, and almost impossible to define. We can use current examples where there are areas of policy the First Minister wants his hands on.

For example, Carwyn Jones wants to control the rate of Air Passenger Duty in Wales. If the Welsh Government could reduce that tax, Cardiff International Airport could receive a boost in attracting new air links and become more competitive than Bristol. That passes the first two tests for further devolution, yet surely it substantially disadvantages other airports in England? Whether that constitutes a "limited impact" on the wider UK is anyone's guess, but could be hotly contested. When looking at the debate about powers over renewable energy, the situation becomes even less objective.

To use another example, if the Welsh Government eventually is granted the ability to borrow money, a result Labour party profess to be actively campaigning for, that could add billions of pounds to the UK's debts. Again, whether that impact is "limited" or not depends entirely upon your political stance, or your commitment to immediate deficit reduction in the case of borrowing money.

What is stark is that Carwyn Jones' three tests are not only completely subjective and unworkable, but will need to be thrown out of the window when it comes to most of his own demands. Back to square one it is then!

Labour: against Welsh democracy

2011-11-13T16:04:00.009Z

Labour's devolution settlement in Wales ensures that Westminster politicians control our electoral system. Under Labour's murky, unclear settlement, they have always advocated coterminosity- meaning that constituency boundaries should be the same for both Assembly and Westminster elections. This is in order to make life easier for the professional political parties, but means that when Westminster boundaries change, Assembly boundaries have to also be altered, without any kind of electoral mandate being necessary.

The system Labour legislated for and upheld for over a decade means that an English Tory MP can now make changes to the Welsh electoral system. It may be morally wrong, but it is completely legal and acceptable under the British state's unwritten constitution.

The way to clear up this confusion is quite simple but it would mean that the British parties would have to put their self-interests aside. Let Wales decide and let Wales be responsible for the state of its own democracy. Labour has this weekend trampled on that principle and ruined the prospects for solidarity against Welsh constituency changes by lining up behind a plan that the Electoral Reform Society calculates would have given Labour 70% of Wales' seats on 42% of the vote in May.

Labour AMs were being rumoured last week as having a clear and solid position- against changing the Welsh system because there has been no electoral mandate to change it. Obviously, their own legislation means that the Welsh system has to change every time the Westminster boundaries are redrawn, but their opposition to altering Wales' boundaries was at least understandable.

Mick Antoniw AM had previously made a dignified statement in support of keeping the system the same as it is now, but also rejecting Peter Hain's preference for total FPTP. That was the original Welsh Labour consensus.

The Welsh Labour Executive has now completely ruined their rumoured stance firstly by swinging behind FPTP (and actually now backing a reduction in PR) and by linking Wales' electoral system to the Westminster AV referendum. These are categoric mistakes and represent a climbdown from Welsh Labour's original position.

Labour has made a strategic error in siding with Peter Hain's plot, that would represent a blow to democracy, pluralism and policy innovation in Wales. His influence on this process has been wholly negative, and the Welsh faction of the Labour party appears to have caved in to his designs. The hopes and respect we have invested as a political community in Carwyn Jones, on the basis of him appealing to other parties for ideas and contributions, have been severely set back.

Progressive Welsh elements will not side with Labour if they are committed to stitching up Welsh elections to foster a one party state. For democrats, in order to increase proportional representation in Wales, we should consider supporting any Tory or Lib Dem proposals that would serve that objective, because we now need a bulwark against any system that could overcompensate a party and produce undemocratic election results.

It cannot be credible for Labour in Wales to be fighting against FPTP in May, then campaigning to restore it in Wales just six months later. For the First Minister, it represents a clear indication that the Shadow Secretary of State is the real leader of the party in Wales.

Update- the Western Mail reports that the Labour AMs on the Welsh Executive Committee voted against FPTP. This brings Labour's "no mandate" claim into question, seeing it is clear that interests based outside of the Assembly are orchestrating party policy on what should clearly and explicitly be an Assembly issue.

Wales- not getting good Marx

2011-11-10T15:11:00.006Z

The prospect of a Welsh Government Minister referencing the works of Karl Marx would normally be a cause for celebration from these quarters.

But when it is used as a jokey excuse for not actually doing anything about the economy in Wales, such a spectacle makes you wonder about the actual quality on offer in Welsh politics and hammers home the underlying weakness of the Welsh system; there is probably no point in the Welsh economy succeeding because Labour, the hegemonic party in Wales, has accepted that the situation of being compensated for Welsh poverty by the Treasury is completely normal and doesn't need to change.

It is nice or even fun to talk about reading Marx and being a fan of the Morning Star newspaper, but Edwina Hart is actually destroying the prospect of socialist politics in Wales by sheer inactivity, offering no threat or challenge whatsoever to the Tories (who, if you are a genuine socialist, should not be allowed to have their hands on Wales' policy levers) and on a Government level, managing Wales to death. It is a strange kind of pretend socialism that doesn't live in the real world. "Isn't it funny that she reads the Morning Star?", you can imagine people laughing it off as a nice personal touch, even as the amount of money the Minister can spend on keeping people in jobs is being slashed. The Morning Star is a great newspaper and advocates a range of economic proposals that are now mainstream, such as redistributing wealth, having a transactions tax at the EU level, and also things the Welsh Government could do like investing more in public transport, having a bailout for workers rather than bankers, and installing insulation in houses. Socialists support a state role in the economy; this means Wales as well.

It is strange to me that Edwina Hart (one of the Labour Ministers I have historically supported, especially when she was Health Minister) allegedly knows and reads about these left-wing policies but doesn't want to implement any of them in any significant way.

Her decidedly non-Marxist contribution this week has been to second the leader of the CBI in Wales to work in her department for six months. It's true that he will no doubt bring in some expertise and be able to work with Wales' beleaguered private sector. But it won't change the underlying factors at all. In six months' time the economy, based on current indicators, will probably be even worse and more workers will be out of jobs.

The managerialist Labour mindset seems to accept Wales' lot and the fact that we don't enjoy macro-economic powers, without logically arguing that they themselves want to deploy those levers in the future. Politically, to have a Welsh Government in the future that can exert a level of influence over the country's economic direction, they would have to be proving at the moment that they desire such a status and have the ideas (socialist ideas, if Edwina Hart was actually being serious) to fulfil such a challenge. They show no signs whatsoever of having that ambition. At times, the situation is actually embarrassing.

There has been a fair amount of debate on the Welsh blogosphere about this week's criticism of the Welsh Government over their sheer inactivity over the state of the Welsh economy. A clear problem is that when Labour's shortcomings are exposed, the Tories are allowed a comment and repeatedly they let Labour off the hook by offering "solutions" that completely miss the point. This makes Labour's job easier and blogging needs to step up to help ensure that the Tories don't get to be the main opposition to Labour when it comes to ideas.

For example, Dylan Jones-Evans' blogpost here criticises the make-up of the economic advisory panel that the Welsh Government has to consult. But really, it wouldn't matter if you stacked the council with millionaires (a bit like the UK cabinet), because all they are debating is how to dole out an ever-shrinking pot of money. It isn't mature or serious economics at this stage, although in the future Wales needs to have that role. The only point where Dylan Jones-Evans is right is when he speaks about the need to be active and avoid defeatism. People will see it as natural that the Welsh Government should have economic muscle, when they show that they want or need those abilities.

But at least we can now tell from Betsan's blog that Labour is under some pressure on this front. I hope that Betsan Powys is right and that the "headaches are starting to mount" for Carwyn Jones because so far the Welsh Government has not delivered the goods. This is supposed to be the "decade of delivery". We're the better part of a year into the "first Welsh Government" and nothing of note has happened that wasn't planned under the One Wales banner.

Even accepting the limits on what they are allowed to do- limits this blog has criticised at length, the response from the Welsh Government spokesperson to Plaid's criticism is in my opinion, mediocre. It leads by referring to the idea that they are doing something; they have said they will set up enterprise zones across Wales. A deal worth just £10m over five years, copied from the Tories in England. I'm not sure how Marx would have felt about that, but it's hardly got me rushing to the barricades.

Wales "could be mugged"

2011-11-07T10:21:00.005Z

An early distraction in the debate around the Silk Commission is the claim that the Westminster Government could use the process as a way of "repatriating" or "mugging" powers from the National Assembly. Martin Shipton suggests that the suspicious floating of this idea constitutes a "row breaking out".

There is no prospect whatsoever of this happening. There is a theoretical possibility of powers being taken away from Wales at any time; but it would cause a democratic crisis. If anyone thinks the Tories would pursue that cause through the Silk Commission, they are either seriously wrong or playing political games.

But it is alarming- though sadly unsurprising- to see that an official Welsh Government spokesperson is quoted in the Western Mail story of giving oxygen to these claims. The official Labour Government spokesperson argues that "the Secretary of State and her junior minister are now trying to overturn the will of the Welsh people, by crudely attempting to mug the Assembly of its powers".

Is that really the motivation of Cheryl Gillan? If it is, why did Peter Hain, Paul Murphy and the other Labour MPs fail to level such an accusation against her during the debate at Westminster? It is striking that Labour wasn't showing such a concern for the Welsh people during that debate; their only concern was for the health of the British state and Wales' dependent existence within that crippling and stagnant arrangement.

In this version of reality, the Tories, with Nick Bourne on the Commission no less, would squander their expensive Welsh cosmetic surgery in order to take powers away from the Assembly just a year after the referendum. It would be political suicide. I'm not buying it, but it says it all about the quality of leadership in Wales that this is the level of political critique emerging from our country's Government.

If Wales really does face the prospect of being "mugged" in the coming years, then the Welsh Government has to ask itself why this is happening on their watch. Can you imagine Scotland or even the Stormont administration being "mugged" by the Tories? They wouldn't dare. Wales is now in its weakest political state since the episodes surrounding Alun Michael's tenure over a decade ago.

A comment on social media last week said that this is the first time that devolution has been taken out of Labour's control. They should be reclaiming this Commission as a major way of advancing the fiscal interests and progressive agenda they signed up to during the One Wales period. Instead, it seems they want to pour as much cold water on it as possible.

Peter, Paul, or Phil?

2011-11-05T11:15:00.001Z

We have heard in recent days about unsurprising divisions between Labour's AMs and Peter Hain over the Welsh electoral system.

But a common position is emerging over the Silk Commission, at least amongst Labour's MPs from Wales. Broadly speaking, there is some sense in the warning that there are pitfalls when it comes to making Wales more economically self-reliant. Fairness and accountability are two sides of the same coin. So Peter Hain's position on fiscal reform has a basis in reality, to an extent. It would be madness to simply "turn off the tap" as he is suggesting could happen.

That's why so many people support a needs-based reform of the Barnett formula. It is a matter of justice and fairness. We are in the fiscal position we are in because of what has taken place under London rule. Although obviously nationalists, the late Phil Williams and now Jonathan Edwards MP are effectively wanting more money from Treasury, not less money. This is a reality nationalists have to face up to.

Where Labour are wrong is in their mindset. They think these structural problems are fine and don't want the situation to change. John Dixon has pointed this out superbly.

They have some facts on their side- usually the ones they have converted to. And they only converted to the cause of fairness for Wales late in the day. Indeed, Peter Hain at Wales Home indulges in some historical revisionism. The Barnett formula, he argues, worked perfectly well until quite recently. Nia Griffith MP also supported this line on this week's impressive edition of the ITV's Sharp End programme. Their line is categorically untrue. Phil Williams, who is to be relied on at length on Welsh economic issues, was raising the iniquity of the Barnett formula in 2002 when we were being short-changed by a New Labour government.

Phil Williams was right. He didn't suddenly become right because Labour lost power. He had worked the issue out scientifically and dialectically. It was and is a matter of science based on Wales' underdevelopment and the fundamentally unjust nature of the British state. Labour cannot accept this because their politics is based on parties switching power at election times to tinker with the edges of the system. The revisionist position is natural to that mindset. Everything can be explained away by the idea that the Tories came in and the system suddenly stopped working.

This is the trick that has been used in Wales to repeatedly justify political conversions. Now that we have devolution, the British parties are changing their minds on a whole host of issues, short of independence. When it came to the discredited LCO system, Peter Hain for example justified his u-turn by arguing that the system worked when Labour was in power, but then it stopped working the day after the Tories got in.

The problem is that the likes of Peter Hain and Owen Smith are correct to explain Wales' weaknesses and why there would be- under present conditions- such a massive blow to public finances if we turned off the Treasury tap. The same argument cannot be made in Scotland, but in Wales it is unfortunately true, as much as we'd like it not to be.

Where my political tradition differs from Labour then is in this; Hain and Smith don't want to fundamentally alter the present conditions. They want things to stay the same and for the dependency on Treasury transfers to continue. Hain explains this away as part of the natural order of things. He's right to say it's not our fault- we have been misgoverned.

Phil Williams explained that in the post-war years Wales was a net contributor to UK finances. We had a massive industrial base. It was squandered by rule from London. We are now deeply dependent on public spending to recover from the lasting effects of switching from an industrial economy to a services economy in a short space of time. Because as the Labour MPs have pointed out, it's actually normal for Wales and all parts of the UK outside of the south-east to be dependent on handouts. It is a completely natural situation in the UK. The British parties have no particular interest in changing this.

The Commission should save themselves some work and realise that some people have been working on these issues for decades, before it was fashionable to be concerned about Welsh finances. They must revisit Phil Williams' work and give the people of Wales an explanation for why we are in this situation and why we have suffered from more or less permanent economic stagnation for several decades.

It would however be quite dangerous if the people of Wales learnt that we were once net contributors to the UK Treasury. It's far safer to follow Peter Hain and Paul Murphy's advice and explain that permanent Welsh stagnation is completely normal.

If we could move the future and look back into Welsh history we would see that Phil wanted things to move forward, but the likes of Peter and Paul had a vested interest in putting the brakes on Wales' development.

"No Team GB" has already won

2011-11-04T14:25:00.006Z

The saga around Team GB, the near-unprecedented concept of an artificial British football team for the London 2012 Olympics, has been elevated to new heights during this past week. The passions and protests amongst Welsh football fans are reaching fever pitch.

The latest developments have made something clearer than ever- this whole issue is completely political.

Adidas, the corporate sponsors involved in promoting Team GB "fans' shirts" (not replica shirts, but supporter shirts aimed at commemorating the absurd foundation of the false team), has singled out Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey as part of the new commercial advertising offensive. They are not giving any other British Isles players the same attention- they are only prominently advertising the two young Welsh players.

On the political side, the British Olympics Association has renewed its attacks against Wales' footballing independence, undermining a proud history and heritage that marks our nation as one of the original founders of the world's most popular sport.

Some Welsh fans have initially turned their fire on Bale and Ramsey, for seemingly going against the FAW's principled stance at a time when the Welsh team is finally undergoing a brief renaissance. Who can blame the fans for feeling this way? Welsh Olympic sporting history is rife with examples of our success being co-opted into the British narrative. Effectively, when we do badly we are Welsh, and when we do well we suddenly become British and can be patronised and validated. The perception is that our world-class players, Bale and Ramsey, are thus being poached from us and will become British for a month in 2012.

The real problem is not the two Welsh players or the choices they make. On an individual basis, they have expressed a desire to play for a Team GB under certain conditions. But they are just pawns in the wider game which is about capitalism; sponsorship and commercial revenues to make up for some of the huge public expenditure that has been splashed out on London; including the withdrawal of public money for grassroots sport in Wales in order to fund the Olympics.

The two players have been singled out unfairly in a high-pressure environment, where they are both already contracted to Adidas. The BOA did it before during this saga. They planted a story in the Welsh and UK press saying that Gareth Bale would be allowed to take legal action against the FAW if they forbade him from competing at the Olympics. This is an outright bullying stance. Bale had no intentions of even going down that route, but the BOA was trying to drive a wedge between the athlete and his national association.

Aaron Ramsey has now tweeted that "there is no way I would play for Team GB if it damaged Wales' identity". But whatever now happens, it's clear that Wales' independence has already been compromised and our reptuation damaged. Psychologically, the Welsh fans who pay their money to see games have already been dealt a blow.

What is also now obvious is that the spontaneous, grassroots No Team GB campaign has achieved huge successes in raising the awareness of their cause. It is to their credit that a completely fan-run campaign has challenged the sporting giants like Adidas, the British Olympic Committee and all the commercial and corporate power that they can muster.

Nobody with a conscience could now really argue that the No Team GB campaign is in the wrong. The fact that the campaign has already mired their games in controversy, and reaffirmed their identities, is a victory. It is also a vindication of the campaign that if and when a team does go ahead, there will be continued protests, and that the established fanbases won't support it. A fan-run, grassroots campaign cannot be expected to win a victory against the Olympic edifice.

But what the campaign has done is to make sure that the Team GB project has been exposed as being based on hypocrisy and greed. There isn't really a sports journalist or fans' spokesperson who will now see Team GB as having any credibility, because of the dishonourable way it has been cooked up and enforced on us. So while Team GB will go ahead, it has been utterly discredited.

The price of freedom

2011-11-01T18:13:00.004Z

Unesco is one of the world's most important international organisations. It safeguards humanity's educational, scientific and cultural assets and achievements, including our world heritage sites.

Palestine contains religious sites integral to two of the world's major religions.

Yesterday the Unesco's member-states voted to admit Palestine as a full member. In doing so they defied the unjust international order. The announced was greeting with jubilation. The result of the vote was overwhelming- 107 in favour, 14 against, and 52 abstained. This is another success in the campaign for the international recognition of Palestine.

However, the success comes with a price. It is a credit to the states that voted "yes", and shows how brave their stance was, that Unesco will now suffer a massive funding cut. US law stipulates that any UN organisation that admits Palestine must face a withdrawal of American financing. The United States is thus penalising one of humanity's proudest institutions for the literal crime of admitting Palestine.

They do have a history on this. The USA boycotted Unesco from 1984 for two decades because it had a "disparity with US foreign policy goals".

The United Kingdom abstained from the vote- to their partial credit. That at least is more credible than the 14 so-called free countries that lined up to prevent the Palestinian people from exercising their rights at Unesco- the United States, Canada, ten EU countries including Germany and France, and others.

The withholding of funds from Unesco is a blow to the world's shared cultural heritage, and an act of supreme arrogance. The United States risk isolating themselves from this and other UN agencies because when a member-state withholds its payments, they can be suspended and then expelled. The Palestinian leadership will now repeat this tactic with the myriad of other UN organisations. Most of the world will be supporting them, except it seems for President Barack Obama, who allegedly was supposed to represent freedom and change.

But on a positive note, we can at least extend our warmest wishes to the Palestinians as they take up their rightful place in the international community.

Labour, obesity and taxes

2011-10-31T18:00:00.000Z

Some interesting dynamics are emerging around the story about a mooted but impossible Welsh tax on fatty foods.

On the same theme, Matt Withers wrote an interesting piece earlier this week in which he noted the defining feature of government in Wales as "banning things or giving them away for free". Labour in Wales, with the support of other parties, has tried to carve out their own style of politics by promoting a public health and environmental agenda, including outlawing things that might harm the public. Withers suggests that this might show an "illiberal" streak, but the story about obesity shows that the Government has to set down at least some markers about how we live as a society.

At this point alot of right-leaning or libertarian critics might become wary of Labour's perceived "nanny state" agenda, but the louder message has been that some critics don't like the idea that Welsh democracy as a whole seems to concentrate on trivial or peripheral issues to the detriment of the ever-present questions about Wales' economic viability. This was particularly visible over the debate about outlawing the defence of "reasonable chastisement", and also the levy on plastic bags. The entirely valid cause of more cycle paths has also come under fire through no fault of its own. We've got to the point where the administration is finally called the Welsh Government, but only four years after Scotland did the same thing. It's promising but where we are now is a foundation to build on, rather than a real government.

In the main, the debate is about what the Welsh Government can actually do. There is a democratic deficit, as Alan Trench notes in the Matt Withers article, in the way that the Welsh Government can give things away for free, but can't model society in the way it likes. He is right to argue that "if you’re seriously going to be progressive, actually you need to control not just the distributive end of what you’re doing, not just giving things away for free, but also the source of income to pay for it". And when it comes to the economy, which is very much seen as the realm of serious politics in these troubled times, Trench points out that "the main area of regulatory activity relates to the running of the economy and that’s one area where the Assembly has no powers at all, or very limited ones".

To go back to the original BBC article, the Welsh Government's response was politically interesting. A Labour Government spokesperson is quoted as saying-

"We do not have the power to levy tax. However we are open-minded on the case for further reform, including the possibility of devolving some tax-varying powers.

"However, any move towards tax devolution would only be worthwhile as part of a coherent package of reforms that also included real change in our priority areas of fairer funding and borrowing powers."

There are huge risks implicit in any fiscal reforms that might come from the Tories. They could be used, if implemented unfairly, as a tool with which to reduce state spending power in Wales, which would make even more people unemployed, destroy services and cause general harm to our society.

The equation changes if fiscal reforms could be implemented fairly. It is hard to expect fairness from the British state. After Plaid Cymru suffered an electoral defeat, it seems too easy that the UK and Welsh Governments would agree to give Wales several hundred million pounds per year, and also give the Welsh Government some real economic muscle.

But there is cross-party support for the agenda that Wales should be fairly resourced, and Labour's statement above shows that they are not fixed in one position (as I have argued at length) and are, in their own words, "open-minded" about changes to the system. For all the criticism of Labour's Welsh Government as being directionless , the upside is that because they are not in the driving seat they have to keep some doors open. Similarly, there are many reasons to critcise the UK Government, but in their defence they have said they want consensus and democracy, rather than enforcing any changes on Wales from the outside.

What is certain is that a consensus must be forged in the next twelve months in Wales, based on the principle that Welsh democracy should be about more than "banning things or giving them away for free". At a time of rebellions across the world against the existing order of things, we should be aiming to put real power in the hands of the Welsh people.