Showing posts with label Wales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wales. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, October 19, 2009
Labour's Boris
Boris Johnson. Since 2007 he is the only Tory to head a government, namely the devolved government of London. As such he is effectively the highest ranking Conservative in the UK.
The polls suggest that in around eight months time that will no longer be the case.
Instead Labour, who once led the governments of the UK, London, Scotland and Wales, will be reduced to leading only one of Britain's governments: Wales. This time next year the highest ranking Labour politician in these isles will probably be the First Minister for Wales.
But Labour's own "Boris" won't be the inimitable Rhodri Morgan. Oh no. Rhodri's tenure as First Minister will end in December when the results of the long and tortuous Welsh Labour leadership contest are announced.
Actually the contest only decides who will lead the Labour group in Cardiff Bay; technically the leader of the Welsh Labour Party is whoever leads the UK Labour Party. But as the entire Welsh party is involved in this election the winner becomes (just as Rhodri Morgan did) the de facto leader of the party in Wales. Unless your name is Don Touhig, of course.
The electoral college is comprised of three blocks: the elected politicians (AMs, MPs and MEP), the unions, and thirdly the party membership.
There are three contenders, none of whom are household names. Bridgend AM Carwyn Jones is the favourite, but hard on his heels is the Health Minister and Gower AM Edwina Hart. The third and least likely to win is Merthyr AM Huw Lewis.
The polls suggest that in around eight months time that will no longer be the case.
Instead Labour, who once led the governments of the UK, London, Scotland and Wales, will be reduced to leading only one of Britain's governments: Wales. This time next year the highest ranking Labour politician in these isles will probably be the First Minister for Wales.
But Labour's own "Boris" won't be the inimitable Rhodri Morgan. Oh no. Rhodri's tenure as First Minister will end in December when the results of the long and tortuous Welsh Labour leadership contest are announced.
Actually the contest only decides who will lead the Labour group in Cardiff Bay; technically the leader of the Welsh Labour Party is whoever leads the UK Labour Party. But as the entire Welsh party is involved in this election the winner becomes (just as Rhodri Morgan did) the de facto leader of the party in Wales. Unless your name is Don Touhig, of course.
The electoral college is comprised of three blocks: the elected politicians (AMs, MPs and MEP), the unions, and thirdly the party membership.
There are three contenders, none of whom are household names. Bridgend AM Carwyn Jones is the favourite, but hard on his heels is the Health Minister and Gower AM Edwina Hart. The third and least likely to win is Merthyr AM Huw Lewis.
Unfortunately none of them have been to Oxford, appeared on Have I Got News For You or insulted Liverpool.
We'll let you know who is to become Labour's Boris in December. Until then, iechyd da.
We'll let you know who is to become Labour's Boris in December. Until then, iechyd da.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Ministers to launch Welsh blogger cull
The Wales Office is preparing to start blogger culls across Wales for the first time in history, it can be revealed.
The culls could start within weeks after the completion of a Government report into the role that bloggers play in spreading the ideals of Welsh nationalism among Cambrians.
In the expectation of an imminent release of licences to kill bloggers, ministers have earmarked areas of the country where the cull could begin, while MI5½ is conducting four secret trials to find which are the most effective ways of killing bloggers - snaring, trapping, shooting or gassing. The use of trolling has been discovered to be "ineffective".
A move to permit culling, however, would be certain to provoke ferocious opposition from geek welfare groups, who insist it is not necessary and believe the spread of nationalism is due to centuries of bad government.
The Government research, by Paul Flynn MP, began last week when it was discovered that there has been a surge in the prominence and number of nationalist-leaning blogs in Wales.
However, the final report, which ministers will receive later this month, is expected to acknowledge that culling bloggers can be an effective means of maintaing the status quo. Wales Office officials have already indicated that following its publication they would struggle to justify any moratorium.
Paul Flynn and Peter Hain have been involved in discussions about preventing any moratorium. The latter of the two will make the final decision.
There were 788 new suspected outbreaks of nationalist tweeting in January and February compared with 7 in the same period of last year. There are reports of nationalism spreading to domestic voters, which has provoked fears that this could lead to growth in support for independence.
Outbreaks have caused many voters to leave the Labour Party, while some desperate councillors are carrying out illegal culls.
The Friends of Paul Flynn Society claims that before the advent of blogging nationalism was almost non-existent, but its introduction allowed the ideology to spread.
Paul Flynn MP said: "The Government can't walk away from its responsibility this time. The scientific evidence from the report will prove they must act. The anger and depression of the Labour Party in Newport, I mean Wales, is unbelievable. We need to move ahead with a cull as soon as possible."
Although the Flynn report is expected to say that removing bloggers can play a positive role in tackling nationalism, it will also warn of the possible dangers of perturbation, where bloggers that escape the cull relocate elsewhere and help to spread their ideals.
This will give ministers two options: to apply for a licence to cull throughout the whole of Wales, where research suggests the benefits of culling outweigh the effects of perturbation, or to demand small, targeted culls, in areas which are bordered by rivers, railways or coastlines.
Don 'Kill-a-Crachach' Touhig MP, a supporter of the scheme, said: "The hints we're getting are that there will be limited licences issued. If they allow us targeted culls against the Nat nerds in the hot spots, then in two years, we will be on top of it."
This entry also appears on ORDOVICIUS
The culls could start within weeks after the completion of a Government report into the role that bloggers play in spreading the ideals of Welsh nationalism among Cambrians.
In the expectation of an imminent release of licences to kill bloggers, ministers have earmarked areas of the country where the cull could begin, while MI5½ is conducting four secret trials to find which are the most effective ways of killing bloggers - snaring, trapping, shooting or gassing. The use of trolling has been discovered to be "ineffective".
A move to permit culling, however, would be certain to provoke ferocious opposition from geek welfare groups, who insist it is not necessary and believe the spread of nationalism is due to centuries of bad government.
The Government research, by Paul Flynn MP, began last week when it was discovered that there has been a surge in the prominence and number of nationalist-leaning blogs in Wales.
However, the final report, which ministers will receive later this month, is expected to acknowledge that culling bloggers can be an effective means of maintaing the status quo. Wales Office officials have already indicated that following its publication they would struggle to justify any moratorium.
Paul Flynn and Peter Hain have been involved in discussions about preventing any moratorium. The latter of the two will make the final decision.
There were 788 new suspected outbreaks of nationalist tweeting in January and February compared with 7 in the same period of last year. There are reports of nationalism spreading to domestic voters, which has provoked fears that this could lead to growth in support for independence.
Outbreaks have caused many voters to leave the Labour Party, while some desperate councillors are carrying out illegal culls.
The Friends of Paul Flynn Society claims that before the advent of blogging nationalism was almost non-existent, but its introduction allowed the ideology to spread.
Paul Flynn MP said: "The Government can't walk away from its responsibility this time. The scientific evidence from the report will prove they must act. The anger and depression of the Labour Party in Newport, I mean Wales, is unbelievable. We need to move ahead with a cull as soon as possible."
Although the Flynn report is expected to say that removing bloggers can play a positive role in tackling nationalism, it will also warn of the possible dangers of perturbation, where bloggers that escape the cull relocate elsewhere and help to spread their ideals.
This will give ministers two options: to apply for a licence to cull throughout the whole of Wales, where research suggests the benefits of culling outweigh the effects of perturbation, or to demand small, targeted culls, in areas which are bordered by rivers, railways or coastlines.
Don 'Kill-a-Crachach' Touhig MP, a supporter of the scheme, said: "The hints we're getting are that there will be limited licences issued. If they allow us targeted culls against the Nat nerds in the hot spots, then in two years, we will be on top of it."
This entry also appears on ORDOVICIUS
Monday, May 11, 2009
No welcome in the hillside for Gurkhas
Miss Wagstaff singles out those Welsh MPs who voted against the motion on Gurkha Settlement Rights.
Below is the full list of Welsh MPs and how they voted. With 23 Labour MPs against, 5 Labour MPs and two Lib Dem MPs absent, and only a total of 10 MPs (the 3 Plaid MPs, the 3 Tory MPs, 2 Lib Dem MPs, the independent MP Dai Davies and only one Labour MP - Julie Morgan) voting in favour of the motion, the Gurkhas have little reason to feel welcome in Wales.
When the new Armed Forces Day is held later this year, we will no doubt see many of the 23 sycophants who put their party before their principles prancing around waving Union Jacks and telling us how much they support the Armed Forces.
Indeed, as Miss Wagstaff points out, John Smith is already having his picture taken alongside uniformed Gurkhas.
What a bunch of hypocritical spineless opportunist bastards.
On top of everything else the Gurkhas have done, they have been deployed here in Wales on various occasions, not only to protect the endangered Red Kite from egg robbers, but in times of crisis such as the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001.
NO
1. Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire) Labour
2. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) Labour
3. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) Labour
4. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) Labour
5. Wayne David (Caerphilly) Labour
6. Hywel Francis (Aberavon) Labour
7. Nia Griffith (Llanelli) Labour
8. Peter Hain (Neath) Labour
9. David Hanson (Delyn) Labour
10. Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) Labour
11. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) Labour
12. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) Labour
13. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) Labour
14. Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth) Labour
15. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) Labour
16. Jessica Morden (Newport East) Labour
17. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) Labour
18. Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) Labour
19. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) Labour
20. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) Labour
21. Mark Tami (Alyn & Deeside) Labour
22. Don Touhig (Islwyn) labour
23. Alan Williams (Swansea West) Labour
ABSENT
1. Martin Caton (Gower) Labour
2. Paul Flynn (Newport West) Labour
3. Siân James (Swansea East) Labour
4. Martyn Jones (Clwyd South) Labour
5. Betty Williams (Conwy) Labour
6. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) Liberal Democrats
7. Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire) Liberal Democrats
AYE
1. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) Conservative
2. Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent) Independent
3. David Davies (Monmouth) Conservative
4. David Jones (Clwyd West) Conservative
5. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) Plaid Cymru
6. Julie Morgan (Cardiff North) Labour
7. Adam Price (Carmarthen East & Dinefwr) Plaid Cymru
8. Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) Plaid Cymru
9. Mark Williams (Ceredigion) Liberal Democrat
10. Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central) Liberal Democrat
This entry also appears on ORDOVICIUS
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The Sound of Stupidity
Image c/o Cambria Politico
The hilarity surrounding Hain's Obama moment continues, this time ensnaring the Welsh Secretary and the First Minister of Wales who - according to Hain's "exciting new Labour supporting website" - had given the site these glowing endorsements:
"This brand new political website is definitely one to watch!"
- Rt Hon Rhodri Morgan AM, First Minister for Wales
"I welcome this important new initiative. We must not surrender the internet to our opponents."
- Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, Secretary of State for Wales and Minister for Digital Inclusion
The BBC's Vaughan Roderick asked the First Minister a few awkward questions concerning that endorsement during a news conference yesterday:
Vaughan: "Do you regret giving a quote to the website and have you asked the people behind it to apologise to the Deputy First Minister?"
Rhodri Morgan: Let this be the only further question on the website. Look, let's be clear. There was no advance authorisation or awareness on my part or the Secretary of State's part or Labour Party Wales' part of the plans to develop this website. None whatsoever. So the website was developed by a team of Labour supporters as a way of getting into new media engagement...a lot of excitement after the Obama election victory and everyone says "oh isn't it brilliant the way they've done the new media engagement the way they've got all these websites springing up from everywhere" and you know they've had a go at doing it. Now,you know, we were not aware they were doing it, didn't approve the contents, weren't aware of the contents, style or anything whatsoever. So you know that's all I can say.
Vaughan: But you gave them the quote. You gave them the quote.
Rhodri Morgan: Pardon?
Vaughan: You gave them a quote. They quote you on the website.
Rhodri Morgan: Yeah, but its very naughty of the BBC to imply that quote could be construed by anybody as implying approval or endorsement of the content or the style of the website. Since I haven't seen it or read it or had any foreknowledge of it it is very very naughty to imply that the content or style of it has in some way been endorsed by me. Now it hasn't nor by the Secretary of State nor by the Labour Party Wales. Now that's it. This is not about the website this morning. I've said what I've got to say and I've criticised the media for implying I'm associated with this content. I am not associated with this this content and that's it as far as I'm concerned. OK. Least said soonest mended. That's the only question on the website. I'm not going to say any more about it. This is not about the website. this a government press conference not a party press conference, ok?"
The gravitas is killing me.
UPDATE April 2nd: Pants On Fire
It turns out (surprise surprise) Rhodri Morgan actually did have "foreknowledge" of the website. Compare and contrast:
"There was no advance authorisation or awareness on my part or the Secretary of State's part or Labour Party Wales' part of the plans to develop this website. None whatsoever".
Paul Murphy is described as being "livid", but then that's nothing new.
Meanwhile Peter Hain maintains that the site is:
"a daily must-check website for anyone who wants to know what's really going on in Wales. It is a brighter kind of blog, a rare commentary in the digital age that is not mired in the pettiness and nastiness of many other blogs in Wales and elsewhere."
Compare and contrast.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Hain's Obama moment updated
That video has been deleted. Surprise, surprise.
According to Aneurin Glyndwr (aka Assembly Labour researcher David Taylor), "Nats and Tories" are to blame:
Funny that, because a lot of these allegedly "easily offended" persons have made copies of the video - just in case it should disappear. In the words of a friend of mine:
Here it is again, dedicated to Peter Hain, Eluned Morgan and of course David Taylor.
PS Vaughan Roderick reminds us that the video is also available on the BBC's website.
According to Aneurin Glyndwr (aka Assembly Labour researcher David Taylor), "Nats and Tories" are to blame:
It's a real shame that these sensitive souls are so easily offended, and find criticism so hard to take!
Funny that, because a lot of these allegedly "easily offended" persons have made copies of the video - just in case it should disappear. In the words of a friend of mine:
...just in case that unforgettable pearl of a video should disappear - depriving Wales' cultural tradition of one of its masterpieces, I have made a copy so that I can continue to enjoy it - over and over and over again.
Here it is again, dedicated to Peter Hain, Eluned Morgan and of course David Taylor.
PS Vaughan Roderick reminds us that the video is also available on the BBC's website.
Welsh Labour's Wank Tank
In August 2007 An ex-assembly minister published a pamphlet saying the Welsh Labour party is "unfit for purpose" and needs to be radically overhauled. That ex-minister was of course would-be First Minister and Merthyr AM Huw Lewis, who made the call in the first publication from Wales 20:20, a new Welsh Labour think tank set up by Huw Lewis and others to start debate about the party's future.
The 'think tank' describes itself thus:
All very interesting, I'm sure. So what level of debate exactly can we expect to find on the site's forums? Here are just some of the topics you can find there:
college girls are easy msic video teens dildo star (March 29)
adriana lima utube sex bikini juniors in school girls (March 21)
Forced Cum Eating Vids (Feb 10)
Asian Schoolgirl Rape (Feb 8)
...and many, many more.
Yesterday the Welsh blog Guerrilla Welsh-Fare noted:
This has been going on since at least the beginning of February, and taking into consideration Welsh Labour's recent internet own-goal it's hard not to be stricken with awe at the level of fuckwittery exhibited by the Party's interweblings.
UPDATE 16:27 The Wales 20:20 forum has been taken down...finally.
The 'think tank' describes itself thus:
Wales 20:20 is a new organisation with one main aim, namely to facilitate wide-ranging and inclusive debate under the ‘democratic socialist’ banner in Wales. Committed to renewing the Labour movement across Wales and remoulding the Welsh Labour Party as a policy driven, campaign minded organisation, we are governed by three simple principles:
1. To promote debate on a democratic socialist future for Wales;
2. To energise and renew the Welsh Labour Movement towards achieving its full potential, through winning the battle of ideas on Wales’s future;
3. To provide a forum for dialogue with progressives throughout Wales, working for a progressive consensus supportive of Welsh Labour’s vision for the future of Wales.
All very interesting, I'm sure. So what level of debate exactly can we expect to find on the site's forums? Here are just some of the topics you can find there:
college girls are easy msic video teens dildo star (March 29)
adriana lima utube sex bikini juniors in school girls (March 21)
Forced Cum Eating Vids (Feb 10)
Asian Schoolgirl Rape (Feb 8)
...and many, many more.
Yesterday the Welsh blog Guerrilla Welsh-Fare noted:
I know it is difficult to constantly moderate content on debate but the fact that this apparently serious political website has allowed very explicit pornographic images to be left on their site without adult warning open to children is careless.
Huw Lewis’ staff member Luke Holland noted my original blog [published last Friday] so I can only assume the problems have been raised with the people behind Wales 20:20. I hope for the reputation of that think tank and for public decency they take the steps to either clean up the forum or take the link down.
This has been going on since at least the beginning of February, and taking into consideration Welsh Labour's recent internet own-goal it's hard not to be stricken with awe at the level of fuckwittery exhibited by the Party's interweblings.
UPDATE 16:27 The Wales 20:20 forum has been taken down...finally.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hain and Welsh Labour's "Obama moment"
Just when you thought Welsh Labour couldn't possibly get any crappier...Peter Hain and Eluned Morgan launch this site.
Eluned, by the way, penned the lyrics for the above video. I can only describe her satirical skills and witty penmanship as, er, stunning.
The blog states:
This is an opportunity to create a positive and constructive debate about the future of Wales. For too long too many people have been allowed to get away with a cavalier attitude to facts, and shameless and shallow political point scoring rather than a hard debate. Our blog means they won't be able to get away with their dirty tricks any longer. We have found our digital voice and we will be shouting from the virtual rooftops, reclaiming the voice of Wales.
Watch the video again, then make your own jokes up.
Peter Hain - who appeared Thursday night on BBC Wales' Dragon's Eye - described the launch of the site as an "Obama moment" for Welsh Labour. I shit you not.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Learning a lesson
Translation of a post by Vaughan Roderick
I don't know about your area, but here in Cardiff "D" plates on cars are almost as common as "L" plates. They've become so common that people hardly ever comment on them. It's odd to think just how long and bitter the battle over them was.
"D" plates were sold in garages and bookshops for years, but using them was technically illegal. From time to time some sixth former from Botwnnog or Ystalyfera would get arrested by an earnest young policeman for displaying a "D" plate, but the Welsh Office and Department of Transport turned a deaf ear to every plea to change the rules.
The excuses of the Welsh Office were pathetic. They're worth repeating to remind people just how short-sighted civil servants in Cathays Park used to be, and just how disparaging their attitude to Welsh was.
It wasn't possible for them to jump in with the first argument on the Welsh Office list of excuses - the cost - since it was, after all, the motorist who was paying for the plates.
That wasn't a problem for the Welsh Office department of excuses - by far the most efficient department in the Welsh Office. Number two on the list of excuses would do perfectly: "D" plates would, of course, be "unsafe". Were the language zealots willing to see children getting killed for the sake of Welsh?
When that argument failed to convince anyone, they used number three on the list - the border problem - the danger that someone might unwittingly break the law by driving across the border between Powys and Herefordshire.
The Welsh Office didn't just stick with the same old excuses. The intellectual prowess of the staff in the department of excuses was proverbial, and by "thinking outside the box" they produced some completely new and original excuses. It was suggested, for example, that the "L" on "L" plates wasn't a letter, but a non-language symbol ... only a fool would think that this symbol was the first letter of the word "Learner".
I think William Hague decided that enough was enough and, guess what, the A&E; departments and police cells of Hereford didn't overflow because "D" plates had been legalized.
-
Which brings us back to the Newport chip shop. I had thought the Department of Excuses had long since closed, but it looks to have moved from Cathays Park to Gwydyr House. The Wales Office insist there isn't any argument against transferring the responsibility for making legislation about the language to Cardiff Bay. It's the "cost to business" that the Welsh Secretary is concerned about. I predict that questions about safety and cross-border problems will also raise their heads during the select committee's discussions. "The principle is fine, but ... "
The Assembly Government has opened up this argument by agreeing to set a threshold in the LCO on the size of the businesses that the Assembly can legislate for. By agreeing to one condition, MPs have been given an easy way to set other conditions. The Department of Excuses will be working overtime!
Both Rhodri and Ieuan insist that giving way on the affordable housing LCO did not set a precedent. Nonsense. A precedent has been set, and this precedent will enable the select committee to come back and bite their backsides over the language LCO.
Forget the idea that substantial chunks of power will be transferred through orders in council. The opinion in Westminster is that LCOs are Acts, and MPs will deal with them with the same detail as any other Acts. "Settle the constitutional question for a generation?" The Government of Wales Act is already falling to pieces.
Translation contributed to Welsh Noted by MH
I don't know about your area, but here in Cardiff "D" plates on cars are almost as common as "L" plates. They've become so common that people hardly ever comment on them. It's odd to think just how long and bitter the battle over them was.
"D" plates were sold in garages and bookshops for years, but using them was technically illegal. From time to time some sixth former from Botwnnog or Ystalyfera would get arrested by an earnest young policeman for displaying a "D" plate, but the Welsh Office and Department of Transport turned a deaf ear to every plea to change the rules.
The excuses of the Welsh Office were pathetic. They're worth repeating to remind people just how short-sighted civil servants in Cathays Park used to be, and just how disparaging their attitude to Welsh was.
It wasn't possible for them to jump in with the first argument on the Welsh Office list of excuses - the cost - since it was, after all, the motorist who was paying for the plates.
That wasn't a problem for the Welsh Office department of excuses - by far the most efficient department in the Welsh Office. Number two on the list of excuses would do perfectly: "D" plates would, of course, be "unsafe". Were the language zealots willing to see children getting killed for the sake of Welsh?
When that argument failed to convince anyone, they used number three on the list - the border problem - the danger that someone might unwittingly break the law by driving across the border between Powys and Herefordshire.
The Welsh Office didn't just stick with the same old excuses. The intellectual prowess of the staff in the department of excuses was proverbial, and by "thinking outside the box" they produced some completely new and original excuses. It was suggested, for example, that the "L" on "L" plates wasn't a letter, but a non-language symbol ... only a fool would think that this symbol was the first letter of the word "Learner".
I think William Hague decided that enough was enough and, guess what, the A&E; departments and police cells of Hereford didn't overflow because "D" plates had been legalized.
-
Which brings us back to the Newport chip shop. I had thought the Department of Excuses had long since closed, but it looks to have moved from Cathays Park to Gwydyr House. The Wales Office insist there isn't any argument against transferring the responsibility for making legislation about the language to Cardiff Bay. It's the "cost to business" that the Welsh Secretary is concerned about. I predict that questions about safety and cross-border problems will also raise their heads during the select committee's discussions. "The principle is fine, but ... "
The Assembly Government has opened up this argument by agreeing to set a threshold in the LCO on the size of the businesses that the Assembly can legislate for. By agreeing to one condition, MPs have been given an easy way to set other conditions. The Department of Excuses will be working overtime!
Both Rhodri and Ieuan insist that giving way on the affordable housing LCO did not set a precedent. Nonsense. A precedent has been set, and this precedent will enable the select committee to come back and bite their backsides over the language LCO.
Forget the idea that substantial chunks of power will be transferred through orders in council. The opinion in Westminster is that LCOs are Acts, and MPs will deal with them with the same detail as any other Acts. "Settle the constitutional question for a generation?" The Government of Wales Act is already falling to pieces.
Translation contributed to Welsh Noted by MH
Thursday, February 12, 2009
I hate Welsh speakers
Translation of an article by the Labour Party's prospective parliamentary candidate for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Rhys Williams, in the current edition of Barn magazine.
Jonathan Swift said that he hated humanity but loved Tom, Dick and Harry. In my case, I would say that I hate Welsh speakers but love Heledd, Gethin and Glesni.
As one raised in a linguisticly mixed home in the coal mining village of Ynysybwl in south east Wales and who was a teacher in Ceredigion for some years, I have by now little patience for those who in self-pity mourn the decline of the Welsh language in rural Wales.
Over the past three or four years, to my surprise, my personal experiences and subjective impressions have been confirmed by two books – one by a Welsh speaking politician and one about a Welsh speaking politician.
The first is Mab y Pregethwr, Cynog Dafis’ autobiography. Here’s an excerpt from chapter three:
And later, when Cynog started work as a teacher in Ysgol Cwm Tawe, we read:
This is one reader who didn’t share his ‘pangs’ when reading the sad story. The story reflected something that we see all the time among the hypocritical self-pitying Welsh speakers.
The next piece comes from Rhys Evans’ biography of Gwynfor Evans. Unlike the tearful insipid tone of the above excerpts, Rhys Evans’ description of Gwynfor arriving in Aberystwyth in October 1932 to begin his University course is a truly amusing masterpiece:
Fair play to the outspoken boy from Bala. He didn’t suffer from any ‘pangs of conscience’.
According to Ecclesiastes, ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. And behold, on New Year’s Eve, 2006, on the Taro 9 programme Keith Davies, Director of the Welsh Baccalaureate, or Bagloriaeth Cymru, related a story about Welsh speaking parents in Cwm Gwendraeth who were, today, speaking English to their children. And last year Caryl Parry Jones raised fundamental questions concerning the language standard of pupils in traditionally Welsh speaking areas. In the wake of the discussion that followed, it became clear that some commentators also doubted the standard of Welsh spoken by some of the language’s emmisaries, namely the teachers, who have left rural Wales in order to culturize the crude small children of the south and the north east.
Nonetheless, what is even worse than this is the way many of our Welsh speaking communities’ small important people, intentionally or not, use the language either to keep others out or to keep them in their place. That place, naturally, is several steps beneath them! Indeed, in many Welsh speaking communities the ethos of the Freemasons is rampant throughout society. In the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the London Met were accused of ‘institutional racism’ ie, the racism was so innate and profound that the institution was not even aware of its existence.
These days, after living in west Wales for a quarter of a century more or less, the last thing I’d want to be is a ‘country boy’. That isn’t something that has developed recently. Years ago, I remember my father asking, “Rhys, why are you so nasty when you speak about the country?” I should explain that my mother and father were from a rural background.
Reading Rhys Evans’ and Cynog Dafis’ books and listening to Keith Davies on the telly supplied me with objective proof that there was a basis to the opinion I fostered about rural Wales. Before then I feared I might be mistaken. After all, aren’t rural Welsh speakers a friendly and welcoming folk? That’s exactly how they see themselves. But the ugly truth is that these Welsh people, collectively, use the Welsh language as a weapon – either to close people out or to make them second class citizens.
Ych a fi. With ‘friends’ like these, the Welsh language deserves better.
Source: Casau'r Cymry Cymraeg on Barn 2.0. Crossposted on Welsh Noted, where you can also find Welsh author Dewi Prysor's response to the article. Links to some related posts can also be found here.
Jonathan Swift said that he hated humanity but loved Tom, Dick and Harry. In my case, I would say that I hate Welsh speakers but love Heledd, Gethin and Glesni.
As one raised in a linguisticly mixed home in the coal mining village of Ynysybwl in south east Wales and who was a teacher in Ceredigion for some years, I have by now little patience for those who in self-pity mourn the decline of the Welsh language in rural Wales.
Over the past three or four years, to my surprise, my personal experiences and subjective impressions have been confirmed by two books – one by a Welsh speaking politician and one about a Welsh speaking politician.
The first is Mab y Pregethwr, Cynog Dafis’ autobiography. Here’s an excerpt from chapter three:
”As I was on the threshold of our O-lLevel exams, it was arranged for me to stay on in Aberaeron until the summer, where I would find accomodation with Jac and Olive Rees…While I was staying with Jac and Olive, their eldest child was being raised as a monoglot English speaker. When I went, the fledgeling free boarder raised bilingually without difficulty by an English speaking mother, to question Jac about this, his reply was that he had no choice as Olive did not speak Welsh, and anyway, the child would pick up Welsh in the street and in school. But it didn’t work out that way.”
And later, when Cynog started work as a teacher in Ysgol Cwm Tawe, we read:
”But the one I liked the most was Glyn Lloyd, a Mathematics graduate…Sheila (his wife) was from Cardiff, and didn’t speak Welsh. Like Jac Rees, Glyn, from the wholly Welsh speaking background of Rhiw-fawr, Cwmllynfell, was raising his two children as monoglot English speakers, but occasionally suffered pangs of conscience about it.”
This is one reader who didn’t share his ‘pangs’ when reading the sad story. The story reflected something that we see all the time among the hypocritical self-pitying Welsh speakers.
The next piece comes from Rhys Evans’ biography of Gwynfor Evans. Unlike the tearful insipid tone of the above excerpts, Rhys Evans’ description of Gwynfor arriving in Aberystwyth in October 1932 to begin his University course is a truly amusing masterpiece:
”He knew…he would have numerous opportunities to perfect his faultering Welsh there. But from the first day, Gwynfor was disappointed by Aberystwyth. There to meet him on the station platform was Gwyn Humphries-Jones, a boy from Bala who had shared accomodation with him for three years. Gwynfor expected the boy would act as a cultural guide for him, but it wasn’t to be. When Gwynfor asked him (in English) if he would be so good as to speak Welsh with him, he refused, saying he hadn’t the patience. Remembering hiis expectations regarding Welsh in his native area, discovering how things really were was a lesson to the freshman from Barry. It was kind landlady of Ceinfan, his lodgings on Trefor Road, not his Welsh speaking fellow-student, who helped him to perfect his Welsh.”
Fair play to the outspoken boy from Bala. He didn’t suffer from any ‘pangs of conscience’.
According to Ecclesiastes, ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. And behold, on New Year’s Eve, 2006, on the Taro 9 programme Keith Davies, Director of the Welsh Baccalaureate, or Bagloriaeth Cymru, related a story about Welsh speaking parents in Cwm Gwendraeth who were, today, speaking English to their children. And last year Caryl Parry Jones raised fundamental questions concerning the language standard of pupils in traditionally Welsh speaking areas. In the wake of the discussion that followed, it became clear that some commentators also doubted the standard of Welsh spoken by some of the language’s emmisaries, namely the teachers, who have left rural Wales in order to culturize the crude small children of the south and the north east.
Nonetheless, what is even worse than this is the way many of our Welsh speaking communities’ small important people, intentionally or not, use the language either to keep others out or to keep them in their place. That place, naturally, is several steps beneath them! Indeed, in many Welsh speaking communities the ethos of the Freemasons is rampant throughout society. In the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the London Met were accused of ‘institutional racism’ ie, the racism was so innate and profound that the institution was not even aware of its existence.
These days, after living in west Wales for a quarter of a century more or less, the last thing I’d want to be is a ‘country boy’. That isn’t something that has developed recently. Years ago, I remember my father asking, “Rhys, why are you so nasty when you speak about the country?” I should explain that my mother and father were from a rural background.
Reading Rhys Evans’ and Cynog Dafis’ books and listening to Keith Davies on the telly supplied me with objective proof that there was a basis to the opinion I fostered about rural Wales. Before then I feared I might be mistaken. After all, aren’t rural Welsh speakers a friendly and welcoming folk? That’s exactly how they see themselves. But the ugly truth is that these Welsh people, collectively, use the Welsh language as a weapon – either to close people out or to make them second class citizens.
Ych a fi. With ‘friends’ like these, the Welsh language deserves better.
Source: Casau'r Cymry Cymraeg on Barn 2.0. Crossposted on Welsh Noted, where you can also find Welsh author Dewi Prysor's response to the article. Links to some related posts can also be found here.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Kirsty, Elvis and Colonel Sanders
I've taken time off from assisting lycanthropes to translate this post by Vaughan Roderick:
It's hard to believe sometimes that within a few months we will be half way through the third Assembly's term. It doesn't feel like it. Perhaps that's because the coalition talks and Rhodri Morgan's illness meant that months went past after the elections before the 'One Wales' government could start on its real work.
I don't really understand why but recently a few bloggers and journalists have questioned the future of that coalition. They claim that some different coalition could come into being between now and the next election. Perhaps they're feeling nostalgia for that wondrous period of excitement and farce during the summer of 2007! To be honest I don't see why the present government should not continue. There would have to be a serious falling out or one hell of a good reason for either party to break their agreement and turn their backs on their partner.
Nonetheless some still insist that the political climate has changed with the Liberal Democrats having changed leader and with a similar change on the horizon for Labour. There are all kinds of rumours circulating (groundless I think) concerning secret meetings between Kirsty Williams and one would-be Labour leader or another.
Kirsty cut the feet from under such rumours on Tuesday. The only possible candidate she had met was Carwyn Jones, she said, and that accidentally in a KFC restaurant before a game between the Scarlets and the Ospreys. Is it possible that the future of the Welsh government could be decided over a Bargain Bucket and a Viennetta? Hardly.
Those who think Labour and the Liberal Democrats could reach some kind of deal forget an important fact. Due to Karen Sinclair's illness a red-yellow coalition's majority would be an extremely fragile one. Labour has experienced such torture before. Why on earth would a party leading a government with an overwhelming majority choose to put itself back in the situation where every vote depends on Trish Law's whims and Brian Gibbons' ability to press the right button?
From Labour's position a divorce would be painful and dangerous for whoever leads the party. Even Huw Lewis has declared publicly that the party should keep to its word and ensure that the present government serves its full term.
But what about the other partner in this marriage? It's easy enough to argue that Plaid Cymru made the wrong decision by rejecting the rainbow in 2007. If you remember Ieuan Wyn Jones justified his decision to be deputy rather than First Minister by claiming that only a deal with Labour would ensure a referendum before 2011.
Does anyone expect that to happen? I find it easier to believe that Elvis will be discovered working in a chip shop in Treorchy. Nonetheless walking out of the government would be a ruinous blow to Ieuan Wyn Jones' credibility - an admition of a lack of political savvy. As far as I know there are no plans in Plaid Cymru's ranks to change leader and as long as Ieuan Wyn Jones is in charge 'One Wales' is safe.
Kirsty Williams said on Tuesday that she intends to lead her party back into government. I can't see any way for her to do that before the 2011 election.
Posts by Vaughan Roderick are regularly translated and posted on Politics Cymru
It's hard to believe sometimes that within a few months we will be half way through the third Assembly's term. It doesn't feel like it. Perhaps that's because the coalition talks and Rhodri Morgan's illness meant that months went past after the elections before the 'One Wales' government could start on its real work.
I don't really understand why but recently a few bloggers and journalists have questioned the future of that coalition. They claim that some different coalition could come into being between now and the next election. Perhaps they're feeling nostalgia for that wondrous period of excitement and farce during the summer of 2007! To be honest I don't see why the present government should not continue. There would have to be a serious falling out or one hell of a good reason for either party to break their agreement and turn their backs on their partner.
Nonetheless some still insist that the political climate has changed with the Liberal Democrats having changed leader and with a similar change on the horizon for Labour. There are all kinds of rumours circulating (groundless I think) concerning secret meetings between Kirsty Williams and one would-be Labour leader or another.
Kirsty cut the feet from under such rumours on Tuesday. The only possible candidate she had met was Carwyn Jones, she said, and that accidentally in a KFC restaurant before a game between the Scarlets and the Ospreys. Is it possible that the future of the Welsh government could be decided over a Bargain Bucket and a Viennetta? Hardly.
Those who think Labour and the Liberal Democrats could reach some kind of deal forget an important fact. Due to Karen Sinclair's illness a red-yellow coalition's majority would be an extremely fragile one. Labour has experienced such torture before. Why on earth would a party leading a government with an overwhelming majority choose to put itself back in the situation where every vote depends on Trish Law's whims and Brian Gibbons' ability to press the right button?
From Labour's position a divorce would be painful and dangerous for whoever leads the party. Even Huw Lewis has declared publicly that the party should keep to its word and ensure that the present government serves its full term.
But what about the other partner in this marriage? It's easy enough to argue that Plaid Cymru made the wrong decision by rejecting the rainbow in 2007. If you remember Ieuan Wyn Jones justified his decision to be deputy rather than First Minister by claiming that only a deal with Labour would ensure a referendum before 2011.
Does anyone expect that to happen? I find it easier to believe that Elvis will be discovered working in a chip shop in Treorchy. Nonetheless walking out of the government would be a ruinous blow to Ieuan Wyn Jones' credibility - an admition of a lack of political savvy. As far as I know there are no plans in Plaid Cymru's ranks to change leader and as long as Ieuan Wyn Jones is in charge 'One Wales' is safe.
Kirsty Williams said on Tuesday that she intends to lead her party back into government. I can't see any way for her to do that before the 2011 election.
Posts by Vaughan Roderick are regularly translated and posted on Politics Cymru
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Towards a referendum
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.
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.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Roberts Report
This video, much like the Tories in Wales, has absolutely fuck all to say.
As expected, the Roberts report reveals that the Tories are about as progressive as a stick in a bucket of shit when it comes to the question of further devolution for Wales. The conclusion of the review on Conservative Party policy towards Welsh devolution is that there should be a review on, er, Conservative Party policy towards Welsh devolution.
Such dithering on devolution was to be expected. This is after all the party of rabid Brunstromophobe David Jones, Arch-mentalist and leader of True Wallies David Davies and the even more obscure Stephen Crabb. Clearly the views of the party's AMs and its leader in the Senedd are of no consequence. We can now look forward to seeing just how subservient Tory AMs are to David Cameron, and just how irrelevant they are to Welsh politics.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Polling problems
A few days ago we saw that rare thing in Welsh politics: the results of an opinion poll on Welsh voting intentions, taken in September by Beaufort for Plaid Cymru.
Asked how they would vote in both a general and assembly elections, the results for those certain or very likely to vote were thus:
Plaid Cymru described the poll results as showing "...that it is Plaid as opposed to the Conservatives who are benefiting most from the decline in Labour support in Wales."
However, at this point we should heed the words of Welsh poll expert Professor Richard Wyn Jones:
Indeed, my good friend Cai Larsen elaborates on the unreliability of Welsh polls, particularly Beaufort ones, on his blog.
And here they are, put side by side with the actual result, demonstrating perfectly what Richard Wyn Jones had to say on the subject:
Cai continues:
In the comments thread to Cai's post, Alwyn ap Huw adds some additional details concerning Beaufort's methodology:
To close I should also mention that the team behind YouGov this year set up its own online gatherer of Welsh opinion called WalesView. It has yet to publish any results. This post should give you some idea of the difficulty of the task facing YouGov in this field, but they should be congratulated for making the effort.
You can find more details on the results of the Beaufort poll here
Asked how they would vote in both a general and assembly elections, the results for those certain or very likely to vote were thus:
Plaid Cymru described the poll results as showing "...that it is Plaid as opposed to the Conservatives who are benefiting most from the decline in Labour support in Wales."
However, at this point we should heed the words of Welsh poll expert Professor Richard Wyn Jones:
“Opinion polls in Wales are strange things. We don’t have many of them, but what we know is that for whatever reason they tend to overestimate support for Labour and Plaid Cymru, and underestimate support for the Conservatives in particular. We don’t know why that is – perhaps it’s something to do with the way samples are taken, or perhaps because of the traditional anti-Conservative hostility in Wales there is an unwillingness on the part of some to disclose they are Conservative voters."
Indeed, my good friend Cai Larsen elaborates on the unreliability of Welsh polls, particularly Beaufort ones, on his blog.
"Beaufort's record is far from perfect when it comes to predicting election results in Wales.
For example, during the weeks before the 2007 assembly election there were two polls by the company.."
And here they are, put side by side with the actual result, demonstrating perfectly what Richard Wyn Jones had to say on the subject:
Cai continues:
"Now, when a polling company is consistently incorrect there is a reason - and that reason is defective methodology.
"I know nothing about Beaufort's methodology - and to be fair it's quite possible they have thought carefully about their methodology by using British polling methods - but it's impossible at the moment for the methodolgy to be effective. The reason for that is that there isn't enough polling here in Wales, and that polling isn't tested against real elections often enough. It isn't possible for all-UK methodology to work in Wales - the profile of voters is different here.
"An effective methodology evolves over time. For example MORI made a mess of predicting the result of the London mayoral election. Their interpretation of how this had happened is that people working in the public sector are more likely to respond to an opinion poll than somebody working in the private sector - and those people are more likely to vote Labour of course. Perhaps MORI's interpretation is correct, perhaps it isn't - but the point is that it will be proved or disproved in due course. If this additional consideration makes the poll more correct next time, it will remain as part of the methodology. If it does not, it won't be used again.
"I welcome the fact that Beaufort is polling in Wales, and I welcome the fact that Plaid Cymru are commissioning polls - but before Wales can have a system of credible polls there needs to be much more polls in order for a culture of effective polling to develop. The reason why that is not happening is because the Welsh media isn't greatly interested in commissioning polls. Until this changes I won't be able to put much faith in any Welsh poll I'm afraid."
In the comments thread to Cai's post, Alwyn ap Huw adds some additional details concerning Beaufort's methodology:
"Beaufort's problem is that the company doesn't do surveys of political opinion. The company does markeing surveys; the questions concerning voting intentions are a supplement to a questionaire on shopping and the profile of a likely shopper is a very different one to the profile of a likely voter.
"Plaid Cymru used the Beaufort company to hold surveys before the 2005 general election - surveys which showed that Plaid would easily regain Anglesey and which failed to predict the danger of losing Ceredigion. As the company had given Plaid such disastrously incorrect information on that occasion it has to be asked why Plaid continues to use the company. Money, it seems is the answer; a supplementary question on a Beaufort marketing survey costs a lot less than asking MORI to hold a real opinion poll."
To close I should also mention that the team behind YouGov this year set up its own online gatherer of Welsh opinion called WalesView. It has yet to publish any results. This post should give you some idea of the difficulty of the task facing YouGov in this field, but they should be congratulated for making the effort.
You can find more details on the results of the Beaufort poll here
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
Monday, February 11, 2008
Welsh is a piss poor language
Peter Briffa reports the news that some Big Brother conrtestant called Imogen is getting a boob job, at the tender age of 26, because "I’m feeling the older I’m getting the more my breasts are becoming out of shape."
However, watching the video that he posted, two things immediately struck me. First, young Imogen is a rather pretty lass: dark and fun.
However, what really struck me was what a piss-poor, half-arsed language Welsh is. Just listen to a few minutes and see how many English words you can spot being lobbed in to make up for the deficiencies of Welsh.
And they force all children in Wales to learn this language until the age of 16, I believe. It's a total joke...
However, watching the video that he posted, two things immediately struck me. First, young Imogen is a rather pretty lass: dark and fun.
However, what really struck me was what a piss-poor, half-arsed language Welsh is. Just listen to a few minutes and see how many English words you can spot being lobbed in to make up for the deficiencies of Welsh.
And they force all children in Wales to learn this language until the age of 16, I believe. It's a total joke...
Monday, April 30, 2007
And the Welsh...
Having had a little stab at the Scots for being a bunch of statist lunatics, it gives me a great5 deal of pleasure to point out that the Welsh aren't really a whole lot better.
Really, who the hell wants to be ruled by people who have worked for the state for all of their lives? Wat Tyler constantly highlights the problem of the state as "simple shopper" and it is hardly surprising that our various waste-of-space assemblies and governments are unable to negotiate tight contracts and decent deals: they have never had any experience of anything other than the state's standard incompetance.
In the name of all that's unholy, when you vote, vote for someone who has some actual, real-world experience and then maybe we won't see quite so much of our hard-earned money being flushed down the fucking toilet.
But later on, the campaign trail leads to a Baptist church hall where all the candidates have their first public debate. They are not an inspiring bunch.
As far as I can work out, Sir Dai [Llewellyn] is the only one who is not paid for by the taxpayer. The Tory candidate, Jonathan Morgan, a regional Assembly Member (as opposed to a constituency one), is the slickest - articulate, local and full of facts.
The Labour candidate, Sophie Howe, a legal services manager for the Equal Opportunities Commission, bleats the party line about improvements under Labour.
Why, she is asked, have hospital waiting times got longer? 'Because we have been focussing on well-being rather than illness,' she says. Yes, that is what she says.
The Liberal, Ed Bridges, is doing a PhD on public library provision, and the Plaid Cymru candidate, Wyn Jones, hasn't turned up but is represented by a woman who calls herself a political theory researcher.
The Old Etonian party animal no longer seems quite so detached from the real world after all. In fact, he must be the only net contributor to the public purse.
Really, who the hell wants to be ruled by people who have worked for the state for all of their lives? Wat Tyler constantly highlights the problem of the state as "simple shopper" and it is hardly surprising that our various waste-of-space assemblies and governments are unable to negotiate tight contracts and decent deals: they have never had any experience of anything other than the state's standard incompetance.
In the name of all that's unholy, when you vote, vote for someone who has some actual, real-world experience and then maybe we won't see quite so much of our hard-earned money being flushed down the fucking toilet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)