Translation of an article by Richard Wyn Jones in the December-January edition of Barn. Originally posted on ORDOVICIUS
That didn't take long, did it? When the new legislative system for a devolved Wales was introduced just eighteen months ago, there were a few of us already predicting that it would be bound to lead to a confrontation between London and Cardiff; to constant interfering on the banks of the Thames and deep frustration on the banks of the Bay. 'What rot, you're raising spectres', was the response of some of our most prominent political leaders. Wasn't there even one highly respected constitutional expert willing to swear that everything would go smoothly?
Now hardly any of those voices are being raised in defence of the LCO system. The fears of the doubting Thomases have been realised. The new system has proved to be unforgivably long-winded and complex. On top of which it is wholly obvious that fears regarding the possibility of 'double scrutiny' have come true. By now the Welsh Affairs Select Committee is acting as a de facto second chamber to the National Assembly. It could be argued, indeed, that Alun Michael (yes, him again!) and David Jones, the two most prominent members of the Select Committee, are now more influential figures in the Assembly's legislative process than any backbencher of the Assembly itself; certainly they are much more powerful than the two AMs who represent the same constituencies as them, namely Lorraine Barret and Darren Millar. If this kind of situation continues, then it won't be an exageration to say that the democratic mandate of the Assembly will be undermined.
Consider for example what the consequence of a Conservative government in London would be - and I still expect to see the Conservative Party to forming or leading the British government by June 2010. If that happens, the Tories will have an automatic majority on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, despite them not being the largest party in Wales. You don't need to be a prophet to predict that this would spay the Assembly. You don't need that much imagination either to foresee the tensions that would arise as a result.
Of course, Rhodri Morgan understands this perfectly. His strategy, it seems, is to try to persuade Paul Murphy to create a 'parliamentary convention' that will mean the Welsh Government can rely on Westminster to pass those LCOs that are needed for the Welsh Government to implement the political programme that is its foundation. Perhaps indeed what will happen, with Orders being drafted in a strict way in order to implement the exact letter of the programme, and not an iota more - at least not in controversial areas. But Rhodri Morgan is also an experienced enough politician to realise that this is not a long-term solution. On the whole such a parliamentary convention would be a fickle thing agreed to in private in order to ease the internal relations of one party. Does anyone seriously expect that a Select Committee chaired by the Conservatives would be bound by such a convention if the Welsh Government requested powers to implement a policy that is contrary to Tory beliefs?
Unfortunately, publicly at least, there is no sign that Rhodri Morgan is seeking anything other than a short term solution to the problem. The problem will be inherited by his successor as leader of the Welsh Labour Party. But it would be pointless to expect any guidance from those who are preparing to fight for the right to succeed him. Rather than challenge the Welsh MPs, the likelihood is that those very MPs will play an important role in the electoral college that will elect the new leader, meaning the candidates will be going out of their way to pet and pamper them.
As for the Tories, the Roberts report, a report described to me as 'a twenty-five thousand word stream of consciuosness' by somebody who should know - has killed any hope for a sensible solution. It appears that the conclusions of Roberts' recommendations will be to uphold the LCO system despite everything the Conservative spokesperson had to day regarding the way that system was drawn up: not in the interests of Wales, but in order to bridge the Labour Party's internal split on the matter of devolution. Once again, you don't need to be a prophet to foresee the Conservatives will one day regret Wyn Roberts' lack of a strategic vision.
What is to be done then? According to Adam Price and Bethan Jenkins, it is time to begin a Yes Campaign for the referendum promised in the One Wales coalition agreement. I disagree. The terrible truth of the matter is that Welsh politics remains subserviant to the rhythms of British politics. There is no hope of starting a Yes Campaign of any substance or value before the British general election. There won't be any cross-party cooperation until that political battle has been resolved. On top of which, until we know with any certainty what the result will be, it's hard to know how exactly to craft the message of any campaign. Indeed, by trying to begin it now, there's the danger that the cause in favour of real devolution will be connected too closely with Plaid Cymru, and with that party alone. Adam Price and Bethan Jenkins hardly need to be reminded of the disatrous results that such a situation had thirty years ago.
Yes, the present constitutional system is wholly insufficient. But no, there isn't a lot we can do about it right now, beyond the important work of drawing attention to all its shortcomings and weaknesses. I realise there isn't much consolation here for anyone who wants an intelligent governmental system for Wales. Nonetheless, that is the reality, and at the moment intuition - seeing things as they are - is much more valuable than embracing reassuring false hopes.
Yes, it would have been wonderful if Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act - the part of the act which forms the basis for the LCO system - had given birth to an effective, transparent and sustainable legislative system. But it was obvious to those who possess some political savvy that that would not happen. The system was defective from the word go, and no attempt at singing its praise would compensate for these shortcomings. And so it was. Looking to the future, at the beginning of a new year, I wonder if I may suggest the following resolutiion for our political leaders? From now on how about adopting a more realistic attitude towards our governmental system?
Yes, there were real and significant gains as a result of the National Assembly's first years of imaginative creativity - or the post-Alun Michael years to be more precise. But it was matters to do with the internal organisation of the Assembly itself that were in the balance: matters that aren't of much interest to anyone outside Cardiff. By now, however, we have moved to a very different political world, a world were Alun Michael is once again a power in the Assembly's internal life. It is now a stubborn struggle between the Assembly and Welsh MPs for power (we should remember that the majority of other MPs couldn't care less). Winning that struggle will depend on having a tactical and strategic vision, and the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that arise. There will hardly be any victory if our leaders continue to insist on seeing things as they'd like them to be rather than as they are. Let the disappointment of the LCO system be a lesson to them.
Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Aberystwyth Answer
Translation of Professor Richard Wyn Jones' column in this month's edition of Welsh current affairs magazine Barn.
"It's winnable, but there's no certainty it will be won." Having been asked so many times regarding the likely result of a referendum on extending primary powers to the National Assembly, my colleagues and I on Aberystwyth University's Institute of Welsh Politics' research team have whittled down our response to ten words. Of course, scholars are famous for responding to direct questions by insisting on weighing up things and turning from the one hand to the other! But in the case of the proposed referendum, the third on devolution, there are good reasons for not offering a more categorical answer.
Our belief that a referendum is winnable is based on the results of the only opinion polls which have asked directly for voters' intentions in such a contest. Here are the relevant results:
As you can see each one has shown a majority in favour, varying from a 3% advantage in the first one, to a much more comfortable lead of 14% in the latest poll. But before devolutionists start celebrating a positive movement of public opinion in their favour, the problem with these polls is that we are not comparing like with like. Each one of the polls has worded the relative question differently:
It's natural that the question has varied. At the moment we don't know for sure what the wording of the question asked to Welsh voters in the referendum will be, and there's room to doubt how many of the public would understand a technically correct question such as 'How would you vote in a referendum to permit the implementation of Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006?' But as research has confirmed again and again that the exact wording of the question is key to the result of any poll or plebiscite, it means there are no means for us to say anything concerning tendencies in public opinion.
Nonetheless, from the point of view of a prospective Yes Campaign, the same variance seen in the opinion polls holds a number of important lessons. While the level of the Yes vote is very consistent whichever way the question is put, the size of support for those against varies greatly. As far as the message of the campaign is concerned, then, it would be wise to underline ad nauseum there are no financial consequences to a 'Yes' vote whilst emphasising also the comparison with Scotland - as longas there is no vote there on independence, of course!
And that brings us neatly to the second clause of the 'Aberystwyth answer'. Yes, the polls suggest there is some kind of majority in favour of primary powers. But there's as much research as you like also showing that the results of referenda reflect the opinion of voters on the social and political context of the vote has as much to do with it as their considered opinion of the specific subjectin question. Or, to put it in more concrete terms, devolutionists have plenty of reason to be grateful for the wave of popular jubilation that followed the defeat of John Major's government in 1997. The spirit of the time was key to ensuring a positive vote. In the same way, the general context of the next referendum will be key in deciding the result of that vote.
What then can be said about the likely context of the third referendum? Remember that the wording of the 'One Wales' coalition agreement allows for all kinds of possibilities. The Labour Party and Plaid Cymru are committed
If I'm not reading too much between the lines, this suggests to me the Assembly will be invited to vote in favour of asking Westminster for a referendum to be held sometime towards the end of the present term (which will end in May 2011), and that if - and only if - there are promising signs of a successful outcome. At the moment, although a No Campaign has been established by the two other Dafydds - Davies and Rees - no Yes Campaign has ventured onto the battlefield. And with the Jones Parry Commission moving forward slowly enough, there's hardly anyone from among those in favour of primary powers - apart from a few prickly Liberals - who are worried about it.
It's easy to understand why the Welsh Labour Party wants to wait for as long as possible. Calling for a referendum is bound to cause a split in its ranks. Whilst two out of every three AMs is sure of supporting the call - the necessary majority according to the terms of the 2006 Act - it's possible some Labour AMs will oppose or abstain. And once the call is transferred to Westminster and Whitehall we can be totally sure that a number of Welsh Labour MPs will oppose it. This is the challenge to its internal discipline that the party would prefer not to face until necessary.
But in this case the self-interests of the Labour Party and the interests of devolution's cause more generally coincide - even if for reasons that will cause anguish to the hearts of most Labourites. Although I possess no powers of prophecy, I believe that towards the end of 2011 or indeed in 2012 is the most promising time for a referendum if we want to ensure a victory.
Unless the British Labour government - by some strange miracle - rises alive from the dead, as it were, a Conservative government will be formed in London sometime between now and the summer of 2010. If the latest YouGov poll is correct, then that government will be formed in the wake of a sweeping victory in England, the Tories' best performance in Wales since the dawn of democracy, but unremarkable results in Scotland.
Now, if I was one of David Cameron's advisors, I would urge him to take steps that would dispense for the need of a Welsh referendum at all, by pushing through a small bill through Parliament straight straight after being elected that would (1) implement Part 4 of the 2006 Act, and (2) undo the restriction on 'dual candidacies' in the Assembly elections. This could be presented as a more general attempt to 'stabilize the Union' side by side with different concessions for Scotland. Looking at the Welsh situation, for reasons that I have tried to explain in a previous column, the present 'settlement' only has trouble to offer a Conservative government. A referendum would also harm it as it would be sure to cause a deep rift in its ranks. On the other hand, rejecting a call by two of every three AMs for a referendum would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party's long-term prospects in Wales - and would also lead to a split. But why fall into the trap? By moving quickly in the first months, those months when a new government can do almost anything it likes, it could avoid a lot of pain. But I'm not his advisor and it's hardly likely that anything similar to what I'm suggesting will happen!
By establishing a Conservative government in London, and in the absence of any such imaginative movements, the government in Cardiff will face completely new political circumstances. Very difficult circumstances in many ways, but - because of that - circumstances that couldmake it much easier to mobilise a coalition in favour of a positive vote in a referendum. Specificly, it will be very much easier to keep the Labour Party united.
If we see the expected electoral crash, The Parliamentary Welsh Labour Party's crest will be cut off. But on top of that, depending on the size of the crash, with the Labour Party likely to lose power in Westminster for a decade at least, and perhaps for a much longer, the Labour movement in Wales will have very strong reasons for urging a movement towards full legislative powers if only to insulate Wales somewhat from the policies of Cameron's government. Of course, the support of Plaid Cymru and progressive parts of the Democratic Liberals for a referendum and a Yes Campaign are secure. But I suppose that members and supporters of those parties will contribute even more fervently in the face to face struggle with a Conservative government in London - especially so if that government loses its starting sheen before calling the referendum.
That then is my suggestion if we are for ensuring an affirmative vote in a referendum on Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act. If a Conservative government is elected in May 2010, the Assembly should wait until the beginning of spring of the following year before passing a motion formally calling for a referendum. (And if we want to be truly Machiavellian about the whole thing, it would be best to have a few skirmishes with the London government in the meantime in order to demonstrate the failings of the present system.) If London is unwise enough to reject the call, an Assembly election can be fought in 2011 on the basis of giving the Welsh people the right to choose. On the other hand, if London agrees then the vote can be held in the autumn of 2011, or better still from the point of view of devolutionists, some time in the spring of 2012.
The problem with this layout, of course, is that it is impossible to foresee what other developments will occur in the meantime, and what their effect will be on public opinion in Wales. What if there is a referendum on independence in Scotland in the meantime? Or an economic crash on the scale of the 1930s? Or...who knows! Remember the uncharacteristicly wise words of Donald Rumsfeld about the 'known unknowns' and the 'unknown unknowns'. But by trying to consider the likely effects of that which is now very likely, namely a Conserrvative government in London, it seems to me that this layout excels any other layout that has been suggested until now. Has anyone got a better idea? How would you make winnable a winner?
Professor Richard Wyn Jones is Director of the Institute of Welsh Politics at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University. This translation was originally posted on Ordovicius
"It's winnable, but there's no certainty it will be won." Having been asked so many times regarding the likely result of a referendum on extending primary powers to the National Assembly, my colleagues and I on Aberystwyth University's Institute of Welsh Politics' research team have whittled down our response to ten words. Of course, scholars are famous for responding to direct questions by insisting on weighing up things and turning from the one hand to the other! But in the case of the proposed referendum, the third on devolution, there are good reasons for not offering a more categorical answer.
Our belief that a referendum is winnable is based on the results of the only opinion polls which have asked directly for voters' intentions in such a contest. Here are the relevant results:
As you can see each one has shown a majority in favour, varying from a 3% advantage in the first one, to a much more comfortable lead of 14% in the latest poll. But before devolutionists start celebrating a positive movement of public opinion in their favour, the problem with these polls is that we are not comparing like with like. Each one of the polls has worded the relative question differently:
'If there was a referendum on turning the National Assembly for Wales into a Welsh Parliament with full lawmaking powers and the power to levy taxes, how would you vote?' was the question in June 2007. All talk of levying taxes was dispensed with by February this year: 'If there was a referendum on turning the National Assembly for Wales into a Welsh Parliament with full lawmaking powers, how would you vote?' Again different wording was used in the latest opinion poll: 'If there was a referendum tomorrow on extending full legislative powers (similar to the powers of the Scottish Parliament) to the National Assembly for Wales, how would you vote?'
It's natural that the question has varied. At the moment we don't know for sure what the wording of the question asked to Welsh voters in the referendum will be, and there's room to doubt how many of the public would understand a technically correct question such as 'How would you vote in a referendum to permit the implementation of Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006?' But as research has confirmed again and again that the exact wording of the question is key to the result of any poll or plebiscite, it means there are no means for us to say anything concerning tendencies in public opinion.
Nonetheless, from the point of view of a prospective Yes Campaign, the same variance seen in the opinion polls holds a number of important lessons. While the level of the Yes vote is very consistent whichever way the question is put, the size of support for those against varies greatly. As far as the message of the campaign is concerned, then, it would be wise to underline ad nauseum there are no financial consequences to a 'Yes' vote whilst emphasising also the comparison with Scotland - as longas there is no vote there on independence, of course!
And that brings us neatly to the second clause of the 'Aberystwyth answer'. Yes, the polls suggest there is some kind of majority in favour of primary powers. But there's as much research as you like also showing that the results of referenda reflect the opinion of voters on the social and political context of the vote has as much to do with it as their considered opinion of the specific subjectin question. Or, to put it in more concrete terms, devolutionists have plenty of reason to be grateful for the wave of popular jubilation that followed the defeat of John Major's government in 1997. The spirit of the time was key to ensuring a positive vote. In the same way, the general context of the next referendum will be key in deciding the result of that vote.
What then can be said about the likely context of the third referendum? Remember that the wording of the 'One Wales' coalition agreement allows for all kinds of possibilities. The Labour Party and Plaid Cymru are committed
'to move forward as soon as is practically possible to get a successful result in a referendum on full legislative powers under Part IV, at the end of this Assembly's term or before.'
If I'm not reading too much between the lines, this suggests to me the Assembly will be invited to vote in favour of asking Westminster for a referendum to be held sometime towards the end of the present term (which will end in May 2011), and that if - and only if - there are promising signs of a successful outcome. At the moment, although a No Campaign has been established by the two other Dafydds - Davies and Rees - no Yes Campaign has ventured onto the battlefield. And with the Jones Parry Commission moving forward slowly enough, there's hardly anyone from among those in favour of primary powers - apart from a few prickly Liberals - who are worried about it.
It's easy to understand why the Welsh Labour Party wants to wait for as long as possible. Calling for a referendum is bound to cause a split in its ranks. Whilst two out of every three AMs is sure of supporting the call - the necessary majority according to the terms of the 2006 Act - it's possible some Labour AMs will oppose or abstain. And once the call is transferred to Westminster and Whitehall we can be totally sure that a number of Welsh Labour MPs will oppose it. This is the challenge to its internal discipline that the party would prefer not to face until necessary.
But in this case the self-interests of the Labour Party and the interests of devolution's cause more generally coincide - even if for reasons that will cause anguish to the hearts of most Labourites. Although I possess no powers of prophecy, I believe that towards the end of 2011 or indeed in 2012 is the most promising time for a referendum if we want to ensure a victory.
Unless the British Labour government - by some strange miracle - rises alive from the dead, as it were, a Conservative government will be formed in London sometime between now and the summer of 2010. If the latest YouGov poll is correct, then that government will be formed in the wake of a sweeping victory in England, the Tories' best performance in Wales since the dawn of democracy, but unremarkable results in Scotland.
Now, if I was one of David Cameron's advisors, I would urge him to take steps that would dispense for the need of a Welsh referendum at all, by pushing through a small bill through Parliament straight straight after being elected that would (1) implement Part 4 of the 2006 Act, and (2) undo the restriction on 'dual candidacies' in the Assembly elections. This could be presented as a more general attempt to 'stabilize the Union' side by side with different concessions for Scotland. Looking at the Welsh situation, for reasons that I have tried to explain in a previous column, the present 'settlement' only has trouble to offer a Conservative government. A referendum would also harm it as it would be sure to cause a deep rift in its ranks. On the other hand, rejecting a call by two of every three AMs for a referendum would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party's long-term prospects in Wales - and would also lead to a split. But why fall into the trap? By moving quickly in the first months, those months when a new government can do almost anything it likes, it could avoid a lot of pain. But I'm not his advisor and it's hardly likely that anything similar to what I'm suggesting will happen!
By establishing a Conservative government in London, and in the absence of any such imaginative movements, the government in Cardiff will face completely new political circumstances. Very difficult circumstances in many ways, but - because of that - circumstances that couldmake it much easier to mobilise a coalition in favour of a positive vote in a referendum. Specificly, it will be very much easier to keep the Labour Party united.
If we see the expected electoral crash, The Parliamentary Welsh Labour Party's crest will be cut off. But on top of that, depending on the size of the crash, with the Labour Party likely to lose power in Westminster for a decade at least, and perhaps for a much longer, the Labour movement in Wales will have very strong reasons for urging a movement towards full legislative powers if only to insulate Wales somewhat from the policies of Cameron's government. Of course, the support of Plaid Cymru and progressive parts of the Democratic Liberals for a referendum and a Yes Campaign are secure. But I suppose that members and supporters of those parties will contribute even more fervently in the face to face struggle with a Conservative government in London - especially so if that government loses its starting sheen before calling the referendum.
That then is my suggestion if we are for ensuring an affirmative vote in a referendum on Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act. If a Conservative government is elected in May 2010, the Assembly should wait until the beginning of spring of the following year before passing a motion formally calling for a referendum. (And if we want to be truly Machiavellian about the whole thing, it would be best to have a few skirmishes with the London government in the meantime in order to demonstrate the failings of the present system.) If London is unwise enough to reject the call, an Assembly election can be fought in 2011 on the basis of giving the Welsh people the right to choose. On the other hand, if London agrees then the vote can be held in the autumn of 2011, or better still from the point of view of devolutionists, some time in the spring of 2012.
The problem with this layout, of course, is that it is impossible to foresee what other developments will occur in the meantime, and what their effect will be on public opinion in Wales. What if there is a referendum on independence in Scotland in the meantime? Or an economic crash on the scale of the 1930s? Or...who knows! Remember the uncharacteristicly wise words of Donald Rumsfeld about the 'known unknowns' and the 'unknown unknowns'. But by trying to consider the likely effects of that which is now very likely, namely a Conserrvative government in London, it seems to me that this layout excels any other layout that has been suggested until now. Has anyone got a better idea? How would you make winnable a winner?
Professor Richard Wyn Jones is Director of the Institute of Welsh Politics at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University. This translation was originally posted on Ordovicius
Friday, September 05, 2008
David Davies says No
Translation of a post by Vaughan Roderick, posted earlier today on my own blog:
Monmouth MP David Davies's decision to launch a campaign against increasing the powers of the Assembly hasn't caused much surprise in the Bay. David's opinions (and those of the two other Conservative MPs from Wales) are well known. What is strange perhaps is the timing - remembering that the results of Wyn Roberts' review of the party's policy on devolution haven't been published yet.
In one way David's plans aren't a problem for the Conservative Party. It has been known for some time that the party would allow its members to campaign for either side in a referendum. There are plenty of Tories who would work energeticly for a Yes vote including almost every one of the party's AMs as well as a number of prospective candidates who are likely to be MPs after the next general election.
It's possible to argue that David Davies's announcement is more a problem for those who oppose further devolution rather than a blessing. In the two previous referenda the main problem for the No campaigns was the lack of willingness from prominent figures in the Labour Party to cooperate with the Conservatives.
In 1979 there were two No campaigns - one made up of members of the Labour Party and one for everybody else. In 1997 although Conservatives made up most of those working for the No campaign new faces were used as its leaders. Ironically enough Nick Bourne and David Davies were two of those faces. Nevertheles, apart from a handful of people (including the unforgettable Carys Pugh) there were hardly any members of the Labour Party prepared to publicly associate themselves with the campaign.
Now perhaps I'm wrong about this but it's hard to believe any important Labour politicians would want to associate themselves with a campaign established by a Conservative - especially a Conservative like David Davies.
That could be a huge problem for those opposing further devolution in the next referendum because that vote will be held under the conditions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referenda Act 2000. That law allows the Electoral Commission to give assistance to the Yes and No campaigns in a referendum but only to one of each. In order to receive that assistance the campaign has to prove that it represents a broad swathe of those attempting to ensure the one result or the other.
It's possible that David Davies's decision to try and establish a group by himself will be more of an obstacle than a help when attempting to create an united No campaign. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for promonent labourites (somebody by the name of "Kinnock" perhaps) to make the first move?
NB Readers unfamiliar with Welsh devolution should note that any referendum on further devolution for the Assembly would - following the rules laid out in the Government of Wales Act 2006 - only bestow full legislative powers in those areas already partially devolved to the Senedd. A Scottish style parliament would not be on offer without Westminster first passing substantial changes to the 2006 Act
Monmouth MP David Davies's decision to launch a campaign against increasing the powers of the Assembly hasn't caused much surprise in the Bay. David's opinions (and those of the two other Conservative MPs from Wales) are well known. What is strange perhaps is the timing - remembering that the results of Wyn Roberts' review of the party's policy on devolution haven't been published yet.
In one way David's plans aren't a problem for the Conservative Party. It has been known for some time that the party would allow its members to campaign for either side in a referendum. There are plenty of Tories who would work energeticly for a Yes vote including almost every one of the party's AMs as well as a number of prospective candidates who are likely to be MPs after the next general election.
It's possible to argue that David Davies's announcement is more a problem for those who oppose further devolution rather than a blessing. In the two previous referenda the main problem for the No campaigns was the lack of willingness from prominent figures in the Labour Party to cooperate with the Conservatives.
In 1979 there were two No campaigns - one made up of members of the Labour Party and one for everybody else. In 1997 although Conservatives made up most of those working for the No campaign new faces were used as its leaders. Ironically enough Nick Bourne and David Davies were two of those faces. Nevertheles, apart from a handful of people (including the unforgettable Carys Pugh) there were hardly any members of the Labour Party prepared to publicly associate themselves with the campaign.
Now perhaps I'm wrong about this but it's hard to believe any important Labour politicians would want to associate themselves with a campaign established by a Conservative - especially a Conservative like David Davies.
That could be a huge problem for those opposing further devolution in the next referendum because that vote will be held under the conditions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referenda Act 2000. That law allows the Electoral Commission to give assistance to the Yes and No campaigns in a referendum but only to one of each. In order to receive that assistance the campaign has to prove that it represents a broad swathe of those attempting to ensure the one result or the other.
It's possible that David Davies's decision to try and establish a group by himself will be more of an obstacle than a help when attempting to create an united No campaign. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for promonent labourites (somebody by the name of "Kinnock" perhaps) to make the first move?
NB Readers unfamiliar with Welsh devolution should note that any referendum on further devolution for the Assembly would - following the rules laid out in the Government of Wales Act 2006 - only bestow full legislative powers in those areas already partially devolved to the Senedd. A Scottish style parliament would not be on offer without Westminster first passing substantial changes to the 2006 Act
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)