The local elections in Wales are out of the way having delivered the predicted gains for Labour. The context is that on the back of the UK entering a double dip recession, the Westminster coalition parties have been punished in Wales, England and in Scotland. In France and Germany the Labour-affiliated parties are also making similar gains although on much higher turnouts and in an atmosphere of change. In the British state the situation is much more miserly and we are still seeing the effects of the New Labour era where several million people in the state began an apparently permanent abstention from politics.
Having left some time from the results to write a post I find myself agreeing with Blog Menai's assertion that the results are not really a disaster for Plaid Cymru as some have pointed out (perhaps trying to further various agendas). They basically reflect the opinion polls that have been taken by Yougov in January, February and then the week before the election. The only deviation from Yougov's polling is that the Tories were expected to finish a strong second and even hold up their vote. They have failed to do so.
In the end Plaid Cymru finished second out of the four parties in Wales. They have taken major losses and are down to 166 seats, from 207 (roughly). The Tories are much further behind in 105, and the Lib Dems are in a distant fourth. This is the situation Wales is in, with a return to Labour hegemony, and I don't really see how Plaid could have altered that in the course of six weeks or so under Leanne Wood, without having a national media.
Realistically thinking about the impact of coalition government policies on Wales, and their mishandling of the economy, the best position that Plaid Cymru can achieve is regaining second place in Wales. They have cemented that at these elections, albeit by default rather than through their own efforts. Second place in Wales is the main way that Plaid has been able to challenge Labour hegemony since devolution began. And to ever reach first place in Wales you probably can't do a leap from third.
Another fact to bear in mind is that Plaid Cymru is the only party that took any seats off Labour (9 in total). The Tories also failed to make any inroads against Plaid with the exception of winning 1 seat off the nationalists (cancelled out by Plaid winning 1 seat off the Tories). This is good news because taking rural or seats off Plaid was a huge plank in Andrew RT Davies' pre-election strategy. I am fully aware that this sounds like a desperate search for positives (and some independents who beat Plaid may have been Tories) but those are at least facts. Although the real story is Labour taking many seats from everyone, there are at least some communities where even in this environment people switched from Labour to Plaid, or from the Tories and Lib Dems to Plaid.
It is deeply disappointing to have gone through another election where Plaid has slipped back but if you read Blog Menai, there is a point that Plaid is the only party that could actually have the answers to Labour's failures in Wales. No other party can do it and no party other than Plaid will ever reduce Labour hegemony in Wales. That is why Labour enjoys the Tories existing in Wales and wants the Tories to be the main opposition in Wales; because Labour will never lose power to them.
Between now and the 2016 Assembly elections major events will happen over which Plaid or even Labour have no control, and some interesting scenarios could happen in which there are huge opportunities to push Wales closer to independence. It is already the case that a more independent Wales than we have now is inevitable. Considering how weak Wales is as a nation- we are nothing like Scotland- that shouldn't be taken for granted.
There is no point therefore agonising over what were the third best local election results in Plaid's history. The only thing to do is to keep building the case for Wales to move forward as a nation and aim to get Plaid back into second place in Wales. If Plaid can regain second place Labour will not be able to take Wales for granted. So after taking a massive hit, Plaid is definitely down, but still in the game.
If you are interested in the latest Welsh YouGov polls there is a series of good blog posts at Red Dragon White Bull, showing each aspect of the polling (without any analysis, unfortunately). Things haven't really changed since the last Assembly elections, with all the parties in the same basic order. The Tories have become slightly less popular and Labour have correspondingly gained- with the exception of the Labour regional list vote which in this poll has inexplicably dropped off and Plaid's has gone up. There is a poll for local elections but national pollsters don't usually cover local elections. The rating for Leanne Wood is pleasing although it is too early for that to mean anything. But in terms of tomorrow's results, expect big Labour gains.
So what else does the poll hold?
There are findings on Welsh fiscal autonomy. Importantly, there is an obvious plurality in Wales in favour of Wales controlling some degree of fiscal autonomy. It isn't clear what this would actually entail because the polling quite confusingly offers the tantalising option of the Assembly controlling "all taxes"- something that is not currently on offer. A more popular option is of Welsh control over "some taxes", which sounds more realistic but again could have a wide definition.
In a referendum this would obviously translate into a majority. You don't have to be an expert to know this. It has now been confirmed across a range of polls and is basically common sense. It is absurd that a town council has more tax varying power than our national legislature and in any referendum that would probably be the simplest message that would work. But it would be a waste of time.
Accordingly, a plurality of those sampled (44% to 41%) believes a referendum on these issues is not needed. Politicians are elected to take these decisions and ordinary people do not need to be hassled and bothered with these seemingly constant referenda. This is against the position of the Labour and Conservative parties, and is in line with Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. It just shows that being right doesn't always mean electoral success, and electoral success doesn't always mean being right!
Holding a referendum on every issue under the sign isn't necessarily a sign of a healthy democratic country. It suggests a massive lack of confidence amongst the politicians in the Labour and Conservative parties- or perhaps reveals their huge internal contradictions.
There shouldn't be any fear about a referendum on fiscal powers, when the various parties find a consensus. It would pass with virtually no effort. The argument has in fact already been won. But can you imagine the question on the ballot paper? Can you imagine the turnout? The question would be more confusing than last year's referendum, and the turnout would probably be lower.
The Labour and Conservative parties need to realise that a referendum on these issues would be time consuming, costly and unnecessary. If they honestly think one is required or that the people of Wales are undecided on this they need to take a look at their own party manifestos, their own submissions of evidence to the Silk Commission and everything experts such as Holtham have been saying. Instead of hiding behind referenda they should have the courage to go and ask their London hierarchies for permission to simply implement these reforms, once consultation with the public has taken place fully, and indeed once there has been further polling which would still be useful.
Click on Wales today is reporting that the Silk Commission is divided over holding a referendum on proposals involving tax devolution. Those on the Commission who feel that one is needed are completely out of touch. The Welsh public doesn't enjoy referendums. The Holtham Commission has already spelled out an evidence-based case for borrowing, taxation and a fair funding formula. We seem to have a completely timid and conservative political lead from the Labour and Tory parties in Wales, when at the same time they are devolving income tax and borrowing powers to Scotland without a referendum. Something isn't quite right there!
Labour and the Tories both have slightly different reasons for wanting to delay progress by insisting on the need for a referendum on these kind of issues. But what they have in common is the fact that the requirement for a referendum is designed to cover up the fact that they are playing catch up with this argument and were never as progressive as Plaid Cymru or the Lib Dems. They are latecomers to this bandwagon. If they had seen the light ten years ago, Wales would now have a better range of options when it comes to responding to the recession.
Leanne Wood in a key article has called for the Welsh Government- which professes to uphold social justice- to take up their previous promise to "shield the people of Wales against the Tory cuts".
The timing is incidental because this week Plaid Cymru has been the first party to draw attention to the forthcoming Tory-Lib Dem cuts to council tax benefit. This benefit is being devolved to Wales, Scotland and English local authorities after a 10% cut. The 10% shortfall amounts to £40m in Scotland. The Welsh shortfall is estimated to be around £23.4m.
In reality devolved governments cannot stop all of the Tory cuts, because the budgetary implications would be massive and it would often not be legally possible. Labour deploy that rhetoric knowing they will never have to deliver on it. Except for now.
In this particular case Labour could stop the cuts because it is affordable to do so. In a move that would amaze their traditional supporters, the Labour Welsh Government has explicitly refused to do this.
Labour has already said in its own Government consultation exercise it "is not in a position to make up any shortfall". The SNP on the other hand has made up the shortfall this week saying it wants to "protect the vulnerable". The protection will cover the 2013/14 and in future years they will identify what is affordable for local and central government to pay out.
Is it affordable for the Welsh Government to keep paying this benefit for one year in Wales? In this case yes. The benefit is paid to extremely poor people including pensioners and carers. The £23.4m could according to Plaid Cymru be found from £80.6m which is coming to Wales next year in Barnett spin-offs. There are not many opportunities to actually cancel out Tory cuts to Wales, so this is a very rare chance that must be seized and show that there is an alternative.
The Labour Local Government Minister is saying today that he wants to protect local authorities "from the worst of Tory cuts".
As these Tory cuts to council tax benefit are approaching, Labour is choosing to jump out of the way rather than pick up the shield.
Over at the thought-provoking Welsh Agenda attention has been drawn to one of last week's major Welsh current affairs stories. It's hard not to find yourself nodding along in agreement with Welsh Agenda's point that nowadays you're more likely to find insightful political coverage at the Communist Party's Morning Star newspaper than from Welsh papers, and in this week's Star they ran a particularly insightful piece by Jonathan Edwards MP about the AWEMA scandal and its implications for our young Welsh democracy.
It is a fact that while the Morning Star was examining the corruption at AWEMA, a major story in our own national newspaper last week was about the number of security guards at the Assembly. Apparently at 64 there are too many of them, because that is more than the number of AMs. Presumably, the numbers of vital security personnel at our national parliament-in-waiting should be tagged to the number of AMs, rather than being based on a security audit that evaluates the safety requirements of the Assembly's varous buildings. This is a wholly bizarre point and came from the Taxpayers' Alliance and David Davies MP. If the Assembly had 80 members, something that was mooted by the Richard Commission and is still possible, then the headline would presumably have to be changed.
The story itself then bamboozles any reader with an array of uninteresting statistics and year-on-year financial comparisons to do with the Assembly's security payroll. Apparently the Taxpayers' Alliance and the right-wing Tory MP David Davies are also concerned that "hundreds of thousands of pounds" have been wasted on redundancy packages, because the independent body running the Assembly decided to hire new staff a short while after allowing voluntary redundancy. In fact the new arrangements will save £130,000 per year, so any wastage will have been made up for within the next term and a half. That however isn't the point- the Taxpayers' Alliance wants voluntary redundancy rights to be eroded, in Wales and the rest of the state. Their problem is with the redundancy payments themselves- what the right-wing TPA calls "huge golden goobyes"- not the hiring of new staff!
Just after reading the security story though I did read Matt Withers' column in which he entertainingly writes how the council elections tit-for-tat is obscuring the discussion of the real issues. It's a very good point. Like any media you have to take the rough with the smooth and hope there is something for everyone. The good stuff is out there- alot of us would like to see more of it.
The local elections campaign in Wales is unfortunately being marked by negativity. Labour and the Tories are now trading Western Mail front pages over who has candidates that have been controversial on social media. Labour has accused the Tories of fielding "vile candidates" and presumably as retaliation the Tories have exposed the social media antics of a Labour candidate. Does anyone expect voters to be motivated by this?
The main problem is that because of these tit-for-tat stories nobody is airing any ideas about local government. Wales has 9% unemployment but nobody seems interested apart from Plaid Cymru. The positive note is that Plaid is setting out what local authorities should be doing. Protecting services is a given, but local authorities should also focus on job creation in order to counter the current environment of austerity being perpetuated by the Tories. Because of the legacy of the One Wales government, the cuts to local government funding are challenging but not as bad in Wales as they are in England.
Plaid Cymru already controls several local authorities and they have been doing a pretty good job. Where Plaid has had influence there has been no mass issuing of redundancy threats to workers as Labour-run councils have done. There is no Plaid Cymru equivalent of Russell "five jobs" Roberts. Councils aren't perfect under any party's control, and people will always rightly find fault in them, but could it be that Plaid attracts integrity and good governance? In England voters are crying out for a party like Plaid. No wonder the old parties want to talk about anything other than local issues.
As George Orwell said, "in times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". Local elections should be about local issues. This doesn't mean they will be fought on those grounds. But at least voters in Wales have a positive option. It could be much worse.
The other day commentators rightly criticised the Tories in Wales for using their manifesto to highlight issues that are not affected by the local elections.
Unfortunately Labour can't do any better. Their entire appeal this time around is based on not being the Tories. This is very negative and they are not even going to publish a manifesto. There isn't really any need for them to do so and they have now given up even pretending to be proactive. They are simply the non-Tory party.
Labour in Wales has urged voters to use the local elections as a "referendum" (no jokes about Peter Hain's attempt to derail the last Welsh referendum, please) on the Tory budget, and to send Cameron a message. The Tory-Lib Dem coalition obviously has a Westminster majority though, and are not going to suddenly withdraw their spending plans when they hear the Welsh local election results coming through. Presumably Peter Hain knows this. My understanding was that we already sent Cameron a message last May, but nobody was listening.
Plaid Cymru aren't the Tories either. They are the only party arguing that local authorities should use their considerable spending power to create jobs and help local economies. Nobody else has as relevant a message in these troubled times.
But unfortunately the absence of a comprehensive Welsh media means this message will not really be heard by many people. Labour are coming into these elections from a very low base in 2008 under Gordon Brown's disastrous leadership, when Plaid achieved their joint-best ever local election results as a party.
In the UK opinion polls Labour is currently hammering the Tories, even with Ed Miliband having a low personal approval rating. In Wales the Tories are probably even more unpopular than they are in England. Labour is going to do very well and their results will look even more flattering than usual because of the awful 2008 base they will be starting from.
Wales will therefore probably return to type in May and vote the same way it has been doing for generations. This voting pattern has not prevented Tory rule and never will, and Wales now has the weakest position within the UK of all of the constituent nations. As the economist Gerry Holtham once stated, this is because Wales does not offer a political threat. We can send as many pro-Labour messages as we like, but the UK-level election results are not determined by the handful of seats in Wales.
So if Wales "sends Cameron a message" again in May, it won't really make a difference. We will wake up the day after the elections with the Tory-Lib Dem coalition still in power and the work against them will have to go on. Labour will have even more hegemony in Wales but what will they do with it?
Today the world is marking Palestinian Prisoners' Day to recognise almost 5,000 people that have been kidnapped by Israel over the years, for their efforts against the disappearance of Palestine from the map.
Around 1,200 captives in Israel are embarking on a mass hunger strike against so-called "administrative detentions" in which Israel holds prisoners indefinitely without bringing charges against them (usually because the evidence would not stand up). These people- including many women- do not know for how long they will be held. They have virtually none of the rights which are extended to prisoners in the more civilised countries.
It is vital to recognise that Israel has been forced by resistance to release prisoners in the past. For example, Khader Adnan (accused of being a leader of a "terrorist" group but with no actual charges brought against him) carried out a 67-day hunger strike and in February succeeded in winning his release. Recent history is littered with examples where Israel has been forced to release prisoners without ever bringing charges against them, including the use of prisoner swaps. This implies as it once did in Ireland that the men and women being held are not common criminals are political detainees or prisoners of war. This immediately gives them certain rights under international law.
Currently the peace process is stalled and there is sporadic violence between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza. The West Bank-based leadership is engaing in a diplomacy campaign to gain international recognition of Palestinian statehood which would give them a foot in the door when it comes to further negotiations.
The statehood campaign is not over yet, but it does not show signs of succeeding in reviving the stalled peace process. The United States will withdraw funding from any international bodies that give Palestine membership and they have already done so with UNESCO. Israel's colonisation of the West Bank and theft of its resources has barely slowed. This means an ever-growing Palestinian population is being confined to a shrinking geographical space; a demographic recipe for disaster. Make no mistake, these people are likely to turn to violence as any other movement would, if they are denied civil and political rights and cannot obtain them through diplomacy.
Given a recent BBC report demonstrates also that young Palestinians in Gaza are growing up in a state of -permanent siege, what hope is there for these people?
The only way forward, if the statehood campaign loses momentum, is force world public opinion into a decisive shift against Israel's government; most importantly public opinion in the Western countries which can influence Israel. This has to include demands for sanctions, travel bans and boycotts of Israel until it changes its policies towards the Palestinians. If it changes its policies to meet international law and to respect human rights, these sanctions could then be removed. This is the kind of pressure that helped sink apartheid South Africa and it is the same strategy that is needed to force a change in Israeli policy and an eventual co-existence of the two nations. This is why it is relevant to mark Palestinian Prisoners' Day in Wales and other countries in Europe.
Welsh democracy needs strong opposition to the Labour party. Labour has been in power for the entirety of devolution- rightfully so, because the people of Wales generally support them. However, due to the relatively fair electoral system in place in Wales, Labour has also had to concede demands to Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems through sharing power. Both of those parties have made their mark on the emerging Welsh state- particularly Plaid when you consider the One Wales programme. The Tories alone have not tasted Welsh government thus far. And their current actions appear to be pushing them further away from power, rather than propelling them towards it.
This is illustrated by the story around their local elections manifesto for this year. The manifesto is made up almost entirely of policies that are not under the remit of local councils and not affected by the local elections. The manifesto consists of pledges such as freezing council tax, reforming school funding and absurdly, the Severn Bridge tolls, which are covered by legislation under the remit of the Tory UK Government. This is not credible and is a gaffe. It is completely obvious that when the Assembly is back in session Labour will go to town on them and attack them for producing this fantasy manifesto. Labour's various shortcomings will go unremarked. This is a running theme and when it's a failure at the Welsh end of Conservatism it also is more relevant and convincing than blaming London because it relates the political battle directly to the Senedd.
It probably isn't fair to blame the rot on Andrew RT Davies. Previously it was under Nick Bourne's leadership that they published a calamitous "shadow budget"- a pledge to virtually bankrupt Welsh local government, education and transport by ringfencing health spending, which coincided with Davies standing down as the party health spokesperson (though a connection between the two events was denied). Suffice to say, none of those ideas could be implemented by a non-Labour coalition because they would effectively destroy Welsh society. Outside of Wales there are also obvious problems. The Welsh Tories remain wedded to David Cameron, a UK Prime Minister who will never receive a plurality of support from Welsh voters. Cheryl Gillan remains their Welsh Office Secretary, despite not being accountable to a single Welsh voter.
A party can be on 20-25% of the vote forever but unless they are an attractive potential coalition partner it isn't going to make a jot of difference. Wales remains the least Conservative of the various UK nations, because the Welsh branch has failed to make itself relevant. Although I am opposed to Conservatism there is no denying that they do represent a section of the Welsh population and should be bringing better ideas to the table. But at the moment Labour are being let off the hook.
This is not gloating at the misfortunes of the Conservatives in Wales. It is not healthy for Labour to be unassailable at the Welsh level. It doesn't bode well for the generation of ideas, scrutiny of the sitting welsh Government, or for cross-party working on issues of mutual Welsh interest. It certainly doesn't help Plaid Cymru's fortunes. But the Labour party in Wales will be kept relatively comfortable until the Conservatives fall behind Plaid Cymru.
Since the last set of elections it has been clear that Wales is being let down by its Government and isn't going to improve as a country until there is some kind of political change. But this is also going to be the case for as long as we have an Official Opposition that isn't worthy of the title.
As other bloggers have noted, the Welsh media is currently focussing on the Government's free prescriptions policy for unknown reasons, with a trail of negative stories about the policy. This gives a platform for the Tories who are the only party that supports charging for NHS-proscribed medicine. Unfortunately for them, the Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish policy of not charging is quite popular so it's mystifying that this is a major theme in Welsh politics. There must be some kind of hope amongst sections of the media that people out there are opposed to prescriptions and want to suddenly start paying for them. My feeling is that people are worried about health facilities and ward closures, but not about medicines.
Wales doesn't have a very large tax base but we do raise more than enough revenue to cover all of the Assembly and Welsh Government's expenditure. The costs of devolution can all be met by Welsh revenues. Our prescriptions are therefore not being "subsidised by England" whatsoever. The costs of the entire Welsh NHS are covered by Welsh taxes.
Free medicines are now a completely normal part of health provision across all of the Celtic countries in the British state and in several other European countries. They aren't really "free", but everyone is sharing the cost through taxation in line with the socialist principles inherent in public health provision. In England they have a market-based model supported by all three major parties, in which the "customer" pays for what they need directly. There is simply no reason why we would copy England in this case, because English policy is the aberration.
My stance is that I don't see why anyone would oppose this completely normal part of healthcare provision. At the same time, because it is such a common sense policy, I don't see it as a shining achievement of Welsh devolution either, anymore than I attach the same prestige to running a hosptial or opening a GP clinic. It's more the fact that Labour and the Tories have continued to charge for medicines in England that is the story. This is nuts and bolts stuff and i'm only blogging about it because of the disproportionate amount of coverage generated by prescriptions. The net result of that coverage, if sustained over a long period of time and backed up by misused stats, is that some people in Wales could stop seeing free prescriptions as one of the benefits of devolution and start seeing them as a drain. But I don't see such a small amount of useful expenditure ever becoming an election issue.
Both John Dixon and Syniadau have mentioned that there is some kind of emerging media campaign against the idea of free prescriptions. Inflated figures and misleading statistics have become the norm as the Welsh papers persevere in rubbishing this mundane and harmless policy. Syniadau in particular has pointed out that political opposition to the policy is simply pointless and usually based on flawed figures. The Tories in particular are trying to make some kind of left-wing point by arguing that "top earners" (hardly abundant in Wales) are exploiting the system to get their hands on medicine that they could afford to pay for.
The idea that there are millionaires in Wales using their presumably valuable time to get prescriptions and queue up for NHS medicines is surely a joke. Wales deserves better politics than this. There are real problems with the health service, but sharing the cost of medicine across society is not one of them. Isn't it the case that the Tories have an ideological opposition to social benefits generally? If so, they should come out and say it, rather than using left-wing cover and class war credentials.
The real story here is nothing to do with the prescriptions policy but is more to do with the quality of the Tory opposition. Democracy needs a recognisable Government and a strong opposition to kepe them in check. If we have poor quality opposition, we are going to get a complacent Government. That is arguably what is happening at the moment in Wales. The best way to scrutinise the Welsh Government is to criticise the unpopular things they do; not the popular things they do. I could write a shopping list of reasons to criticise the Labour Welsh Government. Free prescriptions wouldn't be on it.
Politics at the British state level has been shaken in recent weeks by the maverick George Galloway's incredible achievement in the Bradford West by-election in England. By all accounts he waltzed in a few weeks before election day and pasted the Labour party, chalking up a 10,000 majority over his Labour rival.
I don't feel strongly either way about George Galloway as a politician. He was a strong opponent of the illegal wars that Labour entered into, and is a longstanding friend of Palestine, Cuba and Venezuela. As he is a commentator I do listen when he has something to say on foreign affairs because I know it will be forthright and unapologetic, if not easy listening. As a maverick, quasi-independent MP who will never hold political high office, I don't see why people would prefer that Bradford West elected a generic MP from the mainstream parties.
Where i'm less sympathetic is when it comes to Galloway's personal style and his many contradictions. Galloway's personal vanity has shone through in recent years and he is more of an elected one-man roadshow than a serious political force. He isn't relevant to domestic politics in Wales and his recent political adventures in Scotland were also pointless and out of touch. I would not want him as an MP representing anywhere in Wales and due to the existence of Plaid Cymru would always be able to vote against him. But these factors also mean that his presence is not a problem. Because he will never be able to mount a party challenge at the British state level, there is no risk to us in Wales from having Galloway as a voice within Westminster.
In politics as it is played out in England and particularly the neglected inner cities, George Galloway's election is simply a good thing. It will shake up the complacent British political class that has taken people for granted for far too long. Put simply, there are huge problems with politics in the British state but Galloway is not really high on the list.
In the Independent today a commentator points out that the reasons for Galloway's victory are completely legitimate. Although not really relevant to Wales, the conditions in Bradford West are indeed replicated in several English cities and larger towns, where a significant section of voters that traditionally supports Labour has simply been failed by a stagnant and unconvincing leadership under Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, along with the ongoing failure of the Labour party leadership to apologise for their dire foreign policy record.
The London-based commentariat has been scrambling to denounce Galloway as a "disgrace", or a "charlatan", and so on. But in doing this they are covering up for one of the most dormant and distrusted political systems in Europe, as well as giving away their lack of self-confidence in their own system. Attacking Galloway is a waste of time and simply makes him look even more independent and victimised.
Galloway will never exercise political power in Wales. He is not a problem for us or an adversary for us. Instead, his presence at Westminster, even if based on irrational personality politics and showboating, will be a thorn in the side to the cross-party British political class that has failed Wales for so long. His mere existence at Westminster is a problem for the Labour party- especially as later this year further issues around the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will be discussed. If on the one hand you support the sanctity and sovereignty of Westminster and the importance of Britain's role in the world, it is obvious that Galloway is an annoyance that threatens to unsettle the normal order of things.
But if on the other hand you believe that the system of traditional Westminster parties is discredited, is moribund, and is standing in the way of the Welsh nation, then there is actually a need for as many people to undermine that hegemony as possible.
The fact that Labour lost to him in what should have been a safe seat shows the limitations of the Labour party and that it is not an invicible machine. I don't hesitate in concluding that George Galloway's election victory will be a good thing for Westminster, and on balance, a good thing for Wales.
Weeks after receiving official Welsh Government backing, the new nuclear power station at Wylfa B has fallen through, though there is a chance the site could be used by different companies in the future. It all depends on conditions in the market, the amount of UK state subsidy available, and other factors to do with the viability of the site.
There has been a long debate across the western world about nuclear power and whether it is necessary to bridge the gap between a transition from the dirtier fossil fuels into renewables. What is becoming clear is that governments in the polluting world have generally slept on the job when it comes to getting renewables underway, but in the British state under Labour rule we were worst than the most.
But the main reason Wylfa B was backed by a broad range of Welsh politicians was to do with jobs. Anything that involves substantial amounts of jobs will receive official support in Wales, because we are so relatively poor.
This is concerning to me because Wales' defencelessness has led to an ideas gap where we are just waiting for the next big project to come along and save day. Inevitably, those projects are out of Welsh control and depend on decisions made outside of Wales to go ahead. When they get turned down or cancelled there is then bitter disappointment and frustration, and the people of Wales must probably be dealt a massive psychological blow when they see that these economy-saving projects are being cancelled.
Meanwhile, what is most telling is that there is no alternative jobs plan for Ynys Mon waiting on the shelf to be brought out and put into place. There is too much faith in the nuclear industry which as we have seen from Fukushima and the fallout in Germany, is quite volatile and needs constant state funding to succeed.
Likewise, in the south of Wales the hopes of "thousands" of jobs were pinned on the St. Athan college, which would have been a site where British state military training could be centralised. St. Athan was different to Wylfa B and much less realistic, because it was a PFI deal (the largest PFI deal in history). However as it unfolded, the estimates for job creation kept changing (getting smaller and smaller), public sector bailouts were needed to keep the whole effort afloat, and the companies running the show were laid open to some keen questions by the investigative journalists at Private Eye.
But because St. Athan received almost blanket backing from official Welsh politics and the media, anyone who questioned the project could be casted as being "anti-jobs" or "irresponsible" which is what the Labour party did. The really irresponsible thing to do was to sink hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into the St. Athan blackhole, which has led to no significant job creation. Again, as is common with these giant promised projects the site might be used in the future for related activities, but we'll be looking at a handful of jobs rather than the thousands that were promised.
Similarly, the Severn Barrage is often dangled tantalisingly as a giant development that could enrich parts of Wales. It isn't even clear that the British state can build things like the Barrage anymore. They have surrendered much of their engineering prestige and any such project would be dependent on foreign good will and expertise. Something will be done with the Severn tides but it would take a large amount of public spending to make a Barrage viable. A Barrage may happen in the future but it would be foolish to make plans based on it. It is completely out of our hands.
Wylfa B isn't or wasn't quite in the same league as St. Athan or the Severn Barrage because it was based on something that looked like it was going ahead and was feasible as part of the UK Government's energy strategy (though not the Welsh Government's energy strategy). But the disappointment is the same.
We could yet see a new reactor at Wylfa B in the future. But Wales is not going to be made prosperous by people riding to our rescue and delivering these massive projects. Even with the previous Wylfa plant Ynys Mon's GDP was not very high. Putting all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea and it is a shame that an alternative plan hasn't been put together for Ynys Mon in case of Wylfa B being postponed or delayed. We also lack the economic and fiscal levers needed to develop Welsh economic policies or to direct the state's resources.
More and more I am sensing that politically the Labour party in Wales needs the battle to be a straightforward, left versus right, Labour versus Tory contest. In such circumstances Labour can never lose because the right-wing opposition is basically even worse- a case in point is that in yesterday's Assembly regional pay debate the Welsh Conservative and Lib Dem groups both came out against the plans of their Westminster counterparts. So nobody will even defend George Osborne's plans, meaning Labour is unassailable from the right. Having Plaid as a rival leftist party to Labour annoys them and complicates the Labour-Tory polarisation and in yesterday's debate Mick Antoniw tellingly spent more time attacking Plaid Cymru than he did George Osborne.
The problem with Mick Antoniw's comments on local or regional pay is that he has used selective quoting and I will go into that later in this post.
Plaid would then support Wales-wide national bargaining; not localisation. This already happens in Scotland- where it was introduced under a Labour-led government. In Scotland this is not regional pay- it is national Scottish pay. Pay has been protected by Scottish Labour and the SNP within that system. Is Labour calling for this to be undevolved? The answer is obviously no.
In trying to deploy this spoiling tactic of independence or British unionism for the northern isles, the Lib Dems are claiming that these island groups possess a significant amount of Scotland's oil wealth and that their separation or continued union with the British state would in the words of one Scottish Lib Dem MSP "ruin the SNP's economic case for independence".
Although legally part of Scotland since the 15th century, these previously Scandinavian-ruled islands have a unique regional identity and culture. Traditionally they have been sceptical to rule from the central belt and have expressed their relative individuality much in the same way as the rural parts of Wales used to- by voting for the Liberals and then the Lib Dems.
However, as the Guardian coverage of this story notes, the SNP's popularity in the northern isles is very much on the rise. A Shetland islander was elected as a regional MSP for the nationalists in May. In supposedly anti-Edinburgh Shetland the SNP was just 287 votes behind the first placed Lib Dems in the regional vote. This does not suggest to me that there is a groundswell for Shetland nationalism but rather clear evidence of Scottish nationalism. The footnote to the Guardian story suggests that on the Shetland islands the Lib Dem efforts are very much being seen as a parochial way of kickstarting the debate about getting a fair deal for the islands within any future state, rather than trying to break up Scotland or ruin the SNP's economic policy.
Furthermore, Shetland islanders overwhelmingly backed the 1997 Scottish Parliament referendum by 62% to 37%, which was the most recent time they were asked about Scotland's constitution. In Orkney it was 57% for and 42% against- the least enthusiastic Yes in Scotland but a pretty clear victory nonetheless- and in May 2011 the SNP came within 800 votes of taking the Orkney constituency from the Lib Dems. This is the reality of the political situation in the islands.
Although Alex Salmond has written off the case as "not serious" and Nicola Sturgeon said correctly that these island groups are "not nations", the SNP MP Angus MacNeill has stated that the islanders do have the right to self-determination and autonomy within Scotland, and would be allowed to benefit more from the natural resources in their waters than they do under Tory London rule at present. The Shetland islands already has an oil fund of £300m which they retain independently as part of the UK, an arrangement which the SNP has said will continue under Scottish independence.
The United Nations charter safeguards the right of self-determination for peoples, but obviously across the world what this means in practice is contested. Self-determination in Orkney or indeed in Wales doesn't mean automatic independence or sovereignty- it includes the right to give away sovereignty or belong to plurinational states or unions such as the British state or the European Union, or indeed to belong to Scotland. Voters in Orkney and the Shetlands since devolution began have never expressed democratically or politically that they are not Scottish or that they want any home rule other than normal local government.
And on that basis the key to understanding this story is that there is no independence movement in Orkney or the Shetlands. The islands are legally part of Scotland just as Monmouthshire is legally part of Wales. They do have a unique culture and local traditions but they are not recognisably a nation in the way that Scotland or Wales is, not least because their people have never politically consented to express their nationality in any meaningful way.
The ballot papers at election time in the Orkney and Shetland islands show (more or less) the Scottish Lib Dems, Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservative and Scottish National parties contesting elections. Liam MacArthur MSP, now heading up the self-determination drive, was elected as a Scottish Lib Dem not an Orkney Islands Lib Dem. There has been no political objection to this state of affairs over the years, certainly not from the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems are a federal unionist party. They have never bothered, despite holding these constituencies since the beginning of universal suffrage, to form Shetland or Orkney federal parties, and that says it all. This is nothing more than opportunism- but it should make us think twice about peoples and their right to self-determination. There are many states and unions across the world that contain more than one nation, or more than one region or people, and it isn't inevitable that they should all be broken up. But quite simply, the British state does not deliver for its constituent nations, and this is something that is true in both Scotland and Wales.
According to news ahead of their upcoming budget, the UK Government wishes to follow through on its earlier threat to implement regional pay. Under regional pay rules, the UK Government would set public sector pay rates in a "localised" manner so that public sector pay would go down where private sector pay is low. Although lacking any sound economic basis, their hope is that the private sector will then somehow grow in those disadvantaged areas, even though workers there will have less money. The various left parties in the state are against regional pay including the nationalists in SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the two nationalist/republican parties in the north of Ireland.
But is there a contradiction between nationalists wanting to break up the British state, and also wanting state-wide pay rates for parts of the public sector? Furthermore, with Plaid Cymru in mind in particular, doesn't "localising" pay rates support decentralism and on a more abstract note, wouldn't it "reduce the Welsh deficit" over a longer period?
The answer to the first two questions is "no", but aside from the economics being wrong it's a superficially complex issue that needs explaining, and is clouded by the use of the word "regional" and what it means to different people.
The Scottish Government Finance Minister John Swinney has launched an outspoken attack on George Osborne's regional pay agenda this weekend, calling the plans "a disaster" and saying the SNP Government will "vigorously oppose them". Mr. Swinney also noted the likely effect on Wales and the north of Ireland in his comments to the media.
If these plans were introduced in Scotland they would take money out of the Scottish economy (as they would do in Wales or the English regions), resulting in increased poverty and then the multiple side-effects such as people having more social spending needs and entitlements. That money would not be replaced by private sector growth at a sufficient rate. We know the economic recovery in all parts of the British state is fragile, and the SNP Government's economic strategy is to use state spending to drive the recovery. Rightly or wrongly, that is their agenda and that is the mandate they have from the Scottish people. But Scotland will be in the firing line when it comes to these plans. Scottish women workers have an even bigger wage gap between the public and private sectors than the Welsh gap between the two sectors.
In Wales do we really believe that there are businesses out there waiting to get started up but unable to do so because of "high" public sector pay? We know there are highly-paid people in the public sector at the executive level but usually that was introduced to "compete" with the private sector- and now we absurdly have to lower pay for ordinary workers (DVLA staff and so on) to carry on that competition! Will a succesful Welsh economy be built on the back of low wages? It isn't likely. As Mark Serwotka says these plans would institutionalise poverty and regional disparity, which is already at shocking levels in the UK as pointed out by Gerry Hassan. One of Swinney's key claims is that this will undermine "economic confidence" in the peripheral parts of the state.
Although these plans are being dubbed "regional" or even "local", implementing them does not give an ounce of extra power the Scottish Government, Welsh Government or to local authorities. The Welsh Government would not get any say in the new pay rates or conditions. The UK Government and Treasury will still set these pay rates. They will just do it according to a set of formulae that reflect negative local circumstances. They aren't putting anything under Welsh control or influence. So we are not really defending a UK-wide system of pay bargaining, but advocating one fairer and more progressive form of UK-wide bargaining over another, unfair and punitive way of doing the same job. Likewise there are EU-wide blanket workers' rights that are also desirable; it wouldn't make sense to object to them just because they aren't Wales-specific. It depends on the interests of Welsh workers.
Nationalists would therefore presumably support the Welsh Government setting national pay rates for Welsh workers, on the basis of being fairly funded according to our needs. Welsh Governments of all political colours could then negotiate a fair wage with the unions and make the case for putting wages up or lowering them at the expense or advantage of other budget lines. Some pay decisions are already influenced by the Welsh Government and the last Labour UK government set the precedent for regionalised pay in the courts service. Nationalists support national pay not regional pay and as far as independence goes, it has to be agreed that such a thing is only possible on the back of economic development, not economic collapse.
Ultimately if the UK Government wants to slash pay in the non-devolved fields it can't be stopped. There is also already a differentiation in police pay where the Scottish Government paid its police more generously than the UK Government (on behalf of England and Wales), and the Welsh Government has previously (in line with Scotland) implemented pay rises for nurses at a quicker pace than the UK Government has done in England. We don't live in a strictly unitary state anymore and as long as the various parts of the state are fairly funded by the centre, pay settlements should be decided by the national governments. In the policy areas where Wales has influence the terms and conditions should be controlled by Welsh Ministers as Plaid Cymru recommended before the previous elections.
Labour at the time rubbished such a proposal but went on to endorse it a few months later with Carwyn Jones admitting; "Ultimately we may have to look at taking over pay and conditions here in Wales. It's not as easy as it sounds. There are real issues in terms of how that's done. But if we're forced into that situation, better that than have people's pay cut by the UK government in London". Although this is welcome it is a poor bargaining tool. It is a bit like the debate over Remploy. There was reluctance to really press for those factories to be "devolved" and a new deal put together until the last minute when the cuts had pretty much been signed off; there was no campaign or real political pressure, and eventually I can forsee Wales being given responsibility for certain pay settlements after they have been slashed, or without being fairly financed. If there is a campaign against regional pay it will be pointless unless it has teeth, because the UK Government is hardly going to just agree to drop the plans because Wales and Scotland have officially objected.
This reactionary policy must therefore be resisted as it would fundamentally damage the Welsh economy, solidify and entrench inequality between Wales and the south-east of England, and disadvantage massive swathes of the state. Such moves are also part of the sinister battle of the sectors which is a typical divide and rule tactic where private and public sector workers are pitted against each other in a game which neither of the sectors can ever win. The two sectors are interdependent and must be developed together, not played off against each other.
Leanne Wood has won a decisive victory in the Plaid Cymru leadership contest, taking 47.6% of first preferences on a party turnout of 76.8%. The race was a battle between three of Wales' leading politicians, all of whom demonstrated a mixture of radicalism and pragmatism. The three acquitted themselves well and when people tried to suggest the contest was resulting in deep divisions it wasn't really believable. The level of discussion was quite high for a modern leadership contest and members had the best of both worlds; three genuinely different candidates who also all had plenty of common ground.
Something Leanne Wood said in her acceptance speech was that while she may not be the leader of the opposition in official terms, she is leading what she called the "official proposition". The Tories have been gaining ground in Wales in recent years but there will always be a ceiling on what they can achieve. They can probably gain some more territory before they max themselves out, but they are not going to ever be in a position to inflict a defeat on Labour- and Plaid Cymru has a policy that they would not serve under a Tory First Minister. This is why Labour strongly favours a return to two party politics in Wales where it is just between them and the Tories. In such a contest Labour of course could never lose. Plaid Cymru is an inconvenient factor that sometimes spoils this, which is also why Labour in Wales talks about Plaid Cymru all the time and has a near-obsession with the party.
The Tories can't be a real opposition to Labour in Wales and the quality of their critique of the Welsh Government is usually sub-standard- time and time again Labour are let off the hook because the Tories call for things like introducing privatisation into the NHS or just spend their time promoting the UK Government. Plaid Cymru is the only actual threat to Labour and the One Wales period was the first time when the imperialist sections of the Labour party had their influence definitively reduced and the focus moved to the National Assembly. Ever since the Assembly was first established I can't remember there ever being a time when the Tories were actually in a position to implement Conservative policies. They alone amongst the Assembly parties have failed to taste power since devolution began, because although they have adapted to the institution this is cosmetic and they have not adapted their policies to suit the Welsh nation. Conservative and centre-right parties are very good at getting into power and causing virtually revolutionary changes in society; just look at Thatcher and Cameron now. There is no point winning seats here and there if you can't convert them into influence and hegemony. On that basis the Welsh Conservatives are constantly failing to make the grade- Wales is the least Conservative (with a capital 'C') nation in the UK.
When it comes to advancing Plaid's political aims the only way it can be done or has been done so far, thinking about the class composition of Welsh society and the underdeveloped nature of the economy, is through matching constitutional progress with social justice and economic development. More powers just for the sake of it won't cut it. This isn't a case of "out-Labouring the Labour party"- Plaid has in fact stood for social justice matched with Welsh nationalism since Gwynfor Evans turned Plaid into a relevant political party that could start to win seats. The maiden speech of Jonathan Edwards MP clarified this better than I could and is well worth a read. What is needed is to out-Plaid the Labour party.
I would also share the caution expressed by Owen Donovan who writes today at his blog that "I don't think this is the start of rapid process towards independence...The hard graft starts now, and it could take decades". We are in the middle of a Labour bounce as they are well in the 40's in the UK aggregate polls. It is likely that there will be changes in Wales due to our own momentum and the issue of Scotland- but it is important to reject the idea that Scottish independence would lead to a surge in support for Welsh independence. It might well lead to a national upturn (and it's a fact that our funding arrangements are linked so there will be issues tor esolve), but we are very different countries. We are going to have to rely on our own efforts.
This is echoed by John Dixon who is talking about managing expectations. Labour is currently rebuilding its vote rather than losing its vote. In spite of Ed Miliband's lack of consistency, they are starting to do better across most polling and in Wales it will be even higher because Carwyn Jones is also a popular leader. There are huge challenges. In authorities such as Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent and Newport where hundreds of thousands of Welsh-identifying people live, Plaid Cymru doesn't actually exist as an active political party. But if we're looking to the next few years- when Labour will find themselves back in power and actually making unpopular decisions- instead of the next few months, the prospects will look better and perhaps active branches can be built in those areas.
Plaid Cymru's achievements this far have been considerable. But no nationalist could really be satisfied with the current condition that Wales is in. There seems to be an unwritten assumption that we should always settle for second best and to be a second-rate country. My feeling is that the best is yet to come. If Plaid unites behind its new leader, has some self-confidence and self-belief, and makes it clear they are in Welsh politics for the long haul, then another Wales is indeed possible.
Posts
