Wives and Girlfriends
A lesson in the need to read your Emails carefully, to the very end.
A note arrives from a member of staff at the National Assembly. It includes, as a footnote, the National Assembly's new "positioning statement". That, at least, is what I'm told I should call it.
It goes like this: "The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people, makes laws for Wales and holds the Welsh government to account".
Notice anything? How about the absence of "Assembly" in the use of "the Welsh government?"
"Ah, you've noticed" comes the response. This was agreed by the four Commissioners at one of their regular meetings earlier this year. It's not an attempt to give the Welsh Assembly Government a new title of course. It simply refers to its status.
I wonder what the "Chief Wag", as Rhodri Morgan was once referred to by Nick Bourne, makes of it?
I'm Betsan Powys, BBC Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
About time to.
Complain about this comment
But what ELSE are we to call it? We don't refer to the UK government as "The UK Parliamentary Government", do we?
As it is (and as we can see so often in the comments on this blog) many people don't know the difference between the National Assembly and the Welsh Government - they tend to call both or either the "WAG".
And that of course gives those who don't like the policies pursued by the Welsh Government the opportuntity to make out that the only answer is to get rid of the Assembly, rather than to elect a different set of politicians in sufficient numbers to form the next Welsh Government.
These people are generally on the right of the political spectrum. Would they say the answer to what they would see as Labour's bad governance at Westminster is to get rid of Westminster? Of course not, they would simply campaign for other parties at the next election.
-
This of course brings us to the heart of the issue. They know full well that the Tories (unless a miracle happens) will never be in a position to led a Welsh Government, because the majority of people in Wales hold more left-leaning views. That's why they're so vehemently against devolution. They'd much prefer a Wales governed from Westminster because they will then, on average, get a Tory policies imposed on Wales half the time.
They are, quite understandably, terrified at the prospect of never having any influence on matters such as Education and Health, where we as a nation tend to have different priorities to those of Middle England. That's why they are so dismissive of Welsh people being able to govern ourselves to even the slightest extent.
Happily they are in a minority, and in a representative democracy (with any half-decent voting system) government policy is framed around what the majority of us want.
Complain about this comment
It's typical example of the undemocratic institution in Cardiff Bay attempting to cover up their nakedness with democratic clothes.
A fairly clear definition of Democracy is contained in the Gettysburg Address:
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people...
That inception of that democratic sham in Cardiff Bay was undemocratic not matter how much they use sophistry to cover their shame.
Only 25% of the people or there about, at the time, of those who were eligible and able to vote did so in support of the Yes vote.
It is not a resounding democratic success story, I would say no matter how much sophistry is used to justify its continuation.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people," it is not.
Complain about this comment
It was a silly name in the first place.
#2
I would get rid of Westminster. The UK gets bad government partly (and often largely) because of the constitutional and political system which has evolved in England down the centuries. Its made politicians more distant from the electorate, and led to arrogance, typified by the current row about parliamentary expenses. The system allows two inept and generally unpopular parties (unpopular in the sense that they never get 50% of the popular vote even though they get a massive majority) their turn in government.
No other democratic nation state in the world has such a system. The UK is a democracy, but with a significant deficiency due to the electoral system and to an entirely unelected second chamber, giving the PM immense powers of patronage. It is also secretive and jealous of its own preogatives.
In my opinion there is no chance of it being reformed because of the vested interests of the two main parties.. they govern, between them, in perpetuity. I doubt that, in the extremely unlikely event of the LibDems gaining power, by for example a Labour collapse because of its dreadful failures, they would ditch the first past the post system, as it would enable them to have the same privileges. Cynically, I think they only favour PR because they are the third party.
Wales could easily become a fully-fledged democracy with an accountable government and legislature, ridding itself of the democratic deficiency and secrecy, by acquiring constitutional legitimacy. The RoI has it, although far from perfect, and Scotland will imo follow pretty soon after the election of a Tory administration in London.
Let's hope it happens soon.
Complain about this comment
WilliamFitz wrote:
It's typical example of the undemocratic institution in Cardiff Bay attempting to cover up their nakedness with democratic clothes.
A fairly clear definition of Democracy is contained in the Gettysburg Address:
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people...
Comment:
So who exactly elected Abraham Lincoln those who voted, or was it all the people?
What do you suggest ? That democracy is by those who get the least votes+ those that can't be bothered to vote...now that's what I really call sophistry!!
Complain about this comment
MH____ at #2 wrote .....
"..... terrified at the prospect of never having any influence on matters such as Education ....."
".....as a nation, Wales spends about 9.5% less per head of the population on education than England .....", Western Mail 10 April 2009.
Whilst the majority hope their children have a full education, the WAG supported by the Welsh Assembly blithely diverts money to other pork barrel projects, happily this information is being disseminated to the people who matter, the electorate.
Negrin as you have said before .....
..... back to Vaughan's blog where we can can have a sensible debate in Welsh".
Complain about this comment
"hey know full well that the Tories (unless a miracle happens) will never be in a position to led a Welsh Government, because the majority of people in Wales hold more left-leaning views."
One suspects that this is only because they are voting with their wallets [quite fairly, "It's the economy, stupid.."] and it is the public and NGO sector which currently keeps many Welsh people gainfully employed.
When Labour have to implement their 'slash and burn' cuts to balance the budget, and then people have to find work in the private sector, with small businesses, they may start to think about voting for SuperKirsty's LibDems and for the Tories in rural Wales as they are the ones more likely to e.g. cull the badgers, rather than Hillary Benn in Westminster.
Is that an argument for or against devolution ? Don't really know - as with anything there are pros and cons, but the 'times they are a'changing', that's for sure.
Complain about this comment
MH--- at 2;
you said
"gives those who don't like the policies pursued by the Welsh Government the opportunity to make out that the only answer is to get rid of the Assembly, rather than to elect a different set of politicians in sufficient numbers to form the next Welsh Government"
Think you miss the point - most people accept the problems in Westminster are because we elected a rogue government.
Nothing to do with politics its flawed people.
The Westminster structure is fine.
We just need a different set of politicians.
With the National Assembly its the structure that is flawed and needs to be put right.
Wag however is infested by a bunch who's aims have little to do with improving the lot of the people of Wales, more about posing, filling their bank accounts, Empire building, and social engineering.
Complain about this comment
#8 West-Wales wrote:
"We just need a different set of politicians."
I'm sure you'd like a return to John Major's 'Back to Basics' approach in the '90s.
Here's some names from that period who didn't appear to live up to Major's policy, look them up, if you don't remember:
Jonathan Aitken
Neil Hamilton
David Mellor
Alan Amos
Tim Yeo
Michael Brown
Graham Riddick
David Tredinnick
Tim Smith
David Willetts
etc
Funny, isn't it, that we have never-ending sleaze at Westminster? We don't hear you rabid unionists complaining about 'cash for peerages' or the activities of say:
David Blunkett
John Prescott
Jacqui Smith
Tom McNulty
Gordon Brown
Alistair Darling
Lord Levy
Peter Mandelson
Keith Vaz
... and one could go on and on...
Your last paragraph sounds like a perfect description of Westminster and Whitehall.
I've pointed out your inconsistent views before. You want special treatment for south Pembrokeshire as part of Wales, but you would deny Wales that right, as part of the UK. That makes you a right bigot in my opinion. It also undermines everything you say.
Complain about this comment
brynt41 wrote at #9 .....
"............ We don't hear you rabid unionists complaining about 'cash for peerages' or the activities of say etc ........"
Ah, but we do (your attribute "rabid" would, we think, be more appropriate to those nation builders in the bay of plenty), but not at Betsan's because she doesn't include those topics in her blog.
I remember the "back to basics", law and order, education and single mum's, I'm surprised you forgot to mention John Major having an affair with Edwina Currie. Once again Betsan rarely includes topics from "Modern Hysterical History".
The future is where the Unionist looks, the Severn Barrage, three nuclear stations in Wales, Education back on track, Health brought in line, Plaid and chums relegated to the also ran lists.
A future for the children......
Complain about this comment
Using the term The Welsh Government is well overdue, the term The Welsh Assembly Government was misleading. As has been pointed out you don't talk about the Westminster Parliament Government.
We need clarity of who is responsible for what. The National Assembly is a legislature, the Welsh Government is the administration.
Simple really, and can we finally burry this idea that only 25 % of the people voted for the National Assembly, well less that 25% voted against, the rest were content to let other s make the decision for them. On the night when it looked like the no campaign would win their representative on the BBC new program was asked if just over 25% of the electorate was a sufficient mandate to block devolution, he replied that in democracy a majority of 1 was sufficient. Interesting the no side seem to have forgotten that. Lets move on. Devolution is a reality, its not going to be abolished, there is no great desire for that other than some of the voices here. Poll after poll shows that. In the last Assembly election everyone had the opportunity to vote for a party that stood on exactly that platform - to abolish the National Assembly for Wales. That party is UKIP. Did it win any seats, no it didn't even come close.
Complain about this comment
WAG is as diabolical as WG .....
as Professor Kevin Morgan said
"..... the absence of a link between prosperity and autonomy as devolution's dirty little secret", he said: "On the basis of the economic trends over the last 10 years, it is at least arguable that we have been devolving our way to relative economic decline.""
"..... the item in the Western Mail was titled "10 years of devolution folly"".
This was the man behind the 1997 Yes campaign.
Once again ..... "devolving our way to relative economic decline." The 25% that voted yes didn't vote for this.
Complain about this comment
#12 TheStonemason wrote:
"as Professor Kevin Morgan said.."
You could also add that he is a member of the Labour Party. He did chair the 'Yes' campaign, but he didn't foresee that Plaid would have more success in the Assembly elections.
The sham devolution proposals were produced by Labour, without any assistance from anyone else. It was to be a Labour fiefdom, particularly when Westminster was run by the despised Tories. They never dreamt that they would have to turn to PC to bail them out, or that it was possible that they could be ousted from power altogether by a rainbow coalition.
Now they're all tories. The sham devolution has turned round and bitten Labour in the jugular in Scotland, but sadly only at the knees in Wales, a little bit higher and it would have been really painful, had it reached the testicular regions. That's why we get anti-devolution howls from the likes of Touhig and Murphy.
Its a pity Wigley hadn't been at Plaid's helm, for its teeth would have sunk deep into the Labour haunches in the Valleys. That was a missed opportunity.
So I would take Professor Morgan's gripes about devolution with a pinch of salt. He should have come clean and pointed out what a weak devolution settlement was being proposed. It was almost designed to fail, but I don't think the Labour donkeys who dreamed it up were that clever or that subtle.
Complain about this comment
For every pound sterling invested in England as "economic development", in Wales the WAG invested two pounds eighty-nine pence.
The result, GVA per head compared with the rest of the UK declined from 77% to 75% during the same period, why? Incompetence by the whole shooting match, every single Assembly member whether government or not.
This was Plaid's Eurfyl ap Gwilym, called expert but in reality copyist, he must be a fan of Liberal Democrat Vince Cable.
Your accusation that devolution was [almost] designed to fail only has credence when it was attacked from within the Assembly by the democratic warfare of Plaid, prior to Labours pathetic alliance it was working as it was designed to, to complement our British Constitution rather than destroy.
Complain about this comment
Wales has done its best, but without the leavers of power it has been restricted. Macro economic power is firmly in the hands of Westminster. We have declined because of Westminster policies, without devolution the slide would be far more severe. Far from being an overwhelming disaster, devolution has enabled us to avoid the worst of the policy mistakes of Labour in London, ie Sats tests, overreliance on PFI and the accompanying costs, Foundation hospitals and a mad competition between hospitals for patients and resources etc...
The Welsh Economy has suffered for decades as has been clearly demonstrated. 10 years of devolution can't undo 90 years of neglect - it will take longer and require the full set of tools to do it.
Complain about this comment
"The Welsh Economy has suffered for decades as has been clearly demonstrated. 10 years of devolution can't undo 90 years of neglect - it will take longer and require the full set of tools to do it."
EEALLY? The "Vote Yes" hype/spin in 1997 was that a devolved Wales would chart its own future...Objective One (remember that?) would "transform the valleys". "On THAT we will be judged." (Rhodri Morgan). No ifs, NO buts., no er, later.
Hey, WHISPER IT SOFT, maybe Wales is dependent upon/totally linked to/embedded into the wider economy... whisper it soft. Wales is not "independent" in any ecomonic sense. Except in your dreams....
Oh, it hurts.
Complain about this comment
If any poster highlights the divisive nature of Welsh nationalism it is the separatist Welsh warrior brynt1 at #2
If ever the windbag's pipe dream of a Welsh State, devoid of corruption, immorality; a State in which only the virtues are permitted to exist, and the economic and cultural link with England severed, the loser will be the Welsh and your economy.
There are already voices in the town and city halls of England complaining of the disproportionate subsidies paid to the Welsh by the English tax payer via the Barnett Formula. And that formula, altruistic in intent, is the fundamental prop sustaining the Welsh economy.
Separatists, of the windbag's ilk particularly, are economic and cultural fools. There are more facets of our common British culture that unite us than those minuscule facets that the windbag would have people believe separate us.
If his opinions are endorsed by the man and woman in the street (and I just hope they are not) then you had all better start practicing the gladiator's salute. All together now, clenched fist over heart - I've seen Welsh rugby player's doing it already :
"Hail emperor brynt1, we men about to commit economic suicide salute thee."
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately WilliamFitz the majority of people are not aware of how important the Barnett Formula is to Wales, and this applies to the other regions.
Without this additional funding we would be well and truly up a creek without the proverbial paddle.
Complain about this comment
Bryn at 9
"You want special treatment for south Pembrokeshire as part of Wales"
Total misrepresentation Bryn - you know very well that I am not seeking special treatment for Pembrokeshire.
I use it as an example of the social engineering that is destroying the Welsh heritage.
It seems from your posts, that anyone who objects to being forced to accept Plaid and the language activists program is denying Wales's right to exist, or anti Welsh.
I and others who post here I have a right to our opinion, we don't agree with you, don't like being insulted or bullied.
So crawl back into your cage - do a bit of constructive thinking (if you are able)Then try rational argument, without resorting to personal abuse and the blind emotional political hate you specialise in.:-)
Complain about this comment
What I don't understand here is that many don't seem to have grasped that post the Darling Budget the scales have fallen from people's eyes and the 'Age of Austerity' [Copyright Nick Robinson] is upon us.
Do people not realise the world has totally changed now, and for the next 30 years ? THERE ISN'T ANY MONEY !! LABOUR HAVE SPENT IT ALL !!
The idea that there will be dosh for language programmes, 'job creation' schemes, subsidising a bloated and inefficient public sector and even front line essential services like health, social care, education and the police is living in cloudcuckooland.
Massive cuts are on their way to Wales. What the WAG should be doing is a 'slash and burn' on spending to cut the council tax so people have a bit of spare cash to spend in the real economy. They should be declaring 'UDI' on rules like the 'Working Time Directive' for a period of 5 years. They should be campaigning for a Welsh corporation tax rate of 25%.
If people really believe the WAG should have more powers, then it is THOSE things which should be targeted, not looking at ways to load more costs onto business.
I hate to resort to the jargon, but there has been a 'paradigm shift' and the Welsh over-reliance on an inefficient public sector will lead to a dramatic rise in unemployment now that they have been 'rumbled', so it is incumbent on the WAG, if it means anything, to make Wales a Celtic Tiger economy, and put aside dogma and political correctness to do so.
Complain about this comment
#20
That's because you can only think 'in the box'... the Westminster box, that is. That's the box that's brought us to ruination.
Its time to think outside the box. A Wales free from the greed and corruption of decades of Tory or New Labour tory governments seeking to please a middle class English electorate. Wales has no hope of a better future under such a failed system, in which the people of Wales have little or no say in what happens. The UK government cares little or nothing about high levels of unemployment or a benefit culture here. All it cares about is London and the south east of England.
Wales and poorer parts of England and Scotland provide cannon fodder for the US' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have you noticed the numbers of adverts for the British Army on tv recently? Wales is certainly being targeted for recruits.
Some of us in Wales want a brighter, better, future for our youth and young people. They have been neglected by decades of London-based governments, resulting in a benefit culture being created in many parts of Wales.
The only solution is for us to have self-determination, and a pride, and confidence in our country and people, which will enable us to forge a prosperous future.
The unionists can only point to failure after failure, and can give us no hope for improvement. All they do is talk down the talents, abilities, intelligence, and resources of the people of Wales, They tell us that we have to be dependent on the handouts of others to survive and get on in the world. That is total codswallop. We are as good as, if not better, than many nations who are more prosperous.
Complain about this comment
brynt41 wrote .....
"We are as good as, if not better, than many nations who are more prosperous."
No one disputes the people of Britain are great, that's why we say "GREAT BRITAIN", that was a shout similar to "three cheers" ......
But nowhere do you or your blog kin explain how the rhetoric .....
"The only solution is for us to have self-determination, and a pride, and confidence in our country and people, which will enable us to forge a prosperous future."
..... becomes reality in the new order.
It is particularly odd as when I look around I see .....
"self-determination, pride, and confidence"
Complain about this comment
MH__ message 2
Sorry to disenchant you MH_, but spinning emotive wonts is no substitute for facts.
2005 general election.
Conservatives vote 297,830 or 21.4% of the vote.
Plaids vote.........174,838 or 12.6% of the vote.
In the recent council elections, Conservatives gained a shed load of new councilors and now control three councils. Labour control 2 councils and Plaidi controls......none!!
So it's abundantly clear that the Conservatives are twice as popular as Plaid, and no amount of needful emotional spin will alter the FACTS.
Complain about this comment
Jack that is spin. The Tories did better than Plaid in the Last UK general Election but Plaid gained more seats than the Tories in the Welsh General Election and got more votes and have more councillors than the Tories - OK they don't control outright any councils, but they have more councillors than do the tories and gained seats too. In UK terms the tories lead plaid, in Welsh terms plaid lead the tories.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure about "plaid leading the Tories" Lyn_Thomas.
But, Plaid are certainly leading Labour ......... by the nose by my reckoning.
Complain about this comment
Just a note on the (above)Plaid-ite comments/idiot-spin re Prf. Kevin Morgan? It is sign of how out of touch this debate has now become that you can cheaply write off his concerns (and hard evidence)because he is "Labour". He was a totally believer in devolution, the joint author of the best book on it, and is in NO way a party "stooge". Anything BUT. I have had, and have, major disagreements with him, but I've never doubted his honesty and intelligence. You would do well to LISTEN. You know how to LISTEN? Perhaps not, you have a "dream". Reality, that's so SO yesterday.
Complain about this comment
Surely the definition of 'chutzpah' could helpfully include a reference to Rhodri Morgan's accusation that the Tories have an agenda of 'public spending cuts'...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8017750.stm
Clearly this has absolutely no connection with Labour engineering a situation where the National Debt is soon going to approach the whole of its Gross Domestic Product ??
Surely this is like a wife maxing out her credit cards, spending all the money in the joint bank account and then tearfully crying 'Help, my hubby has an agenda of wanting to take a scissors and make 'cuts' in my plastic ! Boo hoo...'
Complain about this comment
#26 BLUESNIK wrote:
"Reality, that's so SO yesterday."
'Fraid not Bluesnik. Today's (and tomorrow's) reality for Wales and its people is grim. It is, and will be, much more unemployment, disinvestment, poorer services and higher taxes. In a word, more poverty. We can only blame the Labour party for the mess we're in.
What Kevin Morgan sold to us in 1997 was a re-hash of the 1979 proposals, which I, with a massive majority of my fellow countrymen/women voted down. My reason for doing so then was that the proposals were pathetically weak. It would have created an expensive talking shop. It took 18 years of Thatcherism and Major's sleaze to persuade us to vote for virtually the same thing.
That's how its actually turned out, ten years after the Assembly was created. It hasn't the powers to do very much more than previous Secretaries of State. All it can do is share out the money in a different way, with the benefit of some democratic input. Using the GoW Act the Assembly managed to get just TWO measures through the LCO system last year, and they weren't earth-shattering. Anything in the least controversial gets bogged down in an unworkable procedure where just about everybody has a say and a veto, including an unelected House of Lords.
Its fine for Professor Morgan to say it hasn't worked. What he doesn't say is WHY its a failure. Its because its NOT devolution. A Labour peer, Ivor Richard came to the unqualified conclusion that legislative powers were required to make it work. That is, it couldn't work otherwise. The Labour Party, led by its selfish MPs from Wales, ignored his Report.
We all know that the Assembly is pathetically weak, but to conclude that devolution hasn't worked is an abdication of logic not worthy of an academic mind. Professor Morgan should know better. We don't hear him calling for us to have a proper Parliament. If Wales had a real measure of devolution along the lines of Scotland, or even NI, we'd be in a better position to judge its successes and failures after a decade.
Its a bit like saying you produced a car without an engine, then you give it a kick because it hasn't taken you anywhere.
Complain about this comment
Devolution, it's always someone else's fault when things don't quite work out .....
... the WAG doesn't have enough powers
... others have the final say
.......... and the list goes on and on, and on. It's always someone else's fault.
Except it's not always the truth brynt41.
You have forgotten that the WAG took the decision to spend almost 10percent less per pupil on education, that's 10 percent less than England, and check our children's achievement.
Wales via WAG spends 228 percent of the UK per capita average on economic development, written by Plaid guru, yet we witness GVA decline from 77% in 1999 to 75% of the UK average.
..... and the list goes on, and on, and on.
The Welsh Assembly Government is not so much "a car without an engine", as a "rudderless ship without a crew".
As Professor Kevin Morgan bemoaned the poor quality of AMs, the majority seem to agree.
Complain about this comment
#29 TheStonemason wrote:
"...it's always someone else's fault when things don't quite work out ....."
It wasn't me making that claim, talk to Lord Richard.
You are against devolution, per se, and because of your prejudice and bigotry, you can't accept that something performs badly because its poorly designed, and not fit for purpose. Who knows, you certainly don't, that if Wales had a Parliament along Scottish lines in 1998, then it might have been successful in protecting Wales to a degree from the worst ravages of a failed Labour government.
We in Wales are now facing a prolonged period of Tory government in London, with no Parliament here to counterbalance the evils which will surely come our way.
But then, I'm sure you will welcome it, regardless of the ensuing suffering.
Complain about this comment
And Rhodri said it for Wales .....
..... at the Labour conference in Swansea today, the future is going to be tough,
..... but the future is the Union.
And there we have it, Plaid out, and common sense in. The WAG is back on track talking to Westminster, and about time too.
Complain about this comment
brynt at 30
We in Wales are now facing a prolonged period of Tory government in London, with no Parliament here to counterbalance the evils which will surely come our way
Every labour Government since the war has left the UK deeply in dept, leaving us with a destroyed and broken economy, and bloated wastefull public sector.
Nothing new this time.
The problem is simple labour destroys wealth generation, but spends without any understanding of value for money. Public Service waste is endemic.
It took the Tories 12 years to rebuild our economy, difficult times for many.
Its going to be tough this time - The longer this financial incompetent socialist government stay in power the tougher its going to be for us and our children.
Remember there simply aren't the Taxpayers to soak to pay the bill's,
The government says its going to borrow its way out. So the waste is going to continue.
Who's going to lend these colossal sums, and more importantly, who is going to pay it back and how!
Complain about this comment
message32....
I am sorry to disagree with the gist of your message Westy, but it was NOT Labour who deregulated the money markets and banks, leading us into today's global meltdown, it was NOT Labour that told the world how, by letting the big boys in the City, and other world's Bourses, it was OK to play monopoly with the money of both the people, and the state.
Nor, it is extremely evident by the lack of serious alternative policy, so far missing from the Tory rhetoric, just how they will tackle the Thatcherite monetarist policies that Labour inherited, (and admittedly took advantage of)instead of which we get a perpetual diatribe of small minded insults thrown at the Cabinet, and Party in general.
When Cameron comes out with something rational, and soundly solid in policy, that will enamour him of the world's leaderships, instead of the school yard 'yah boo sucks' type of twitter, he is wont to expound, typical of the old Etonian that he is, then maybe we shall see some sort of future for the British economic turnaround.
Some of us have been here before, we have had Tory leader after Tory leader coming out with the same tripe, about how Labour have done it all wrong, only to get back in power, and proceed to wreck the nation time after time.
IT was not Labour that wrecked industrial capability in the 1950's, nor who filtered billions out of the economy over the same period, building the industrial base of our competitors, nor was it Labour who engineered strike after strike, just as Thatcher did with the miners and steel workers.
It will be Labour who will stand to see the next Tory administration do it all over again and again, and to hell with the people, after all the only ones who matter are those who comprise the 20% who hold the purse strings of the nation, the rest are just layabouts and dole dodgers, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
I could bring my memories forwards for hours, but that would be unfair to those who do not know where I am coming from. Let them read modern history, without reference to the daily rag sheets.
It is not practical to call on the right wing press for evidence, those editions are owned, controlled, and politicised, by those who support the party that would have only the middle and lower earners pay for their lifestyle, as we have done over centuries, and as we get nearer to less a policy, and more of a management, regime, so it behoves the state to extract a much larger share of it's operating costs from those who can afford it.
WE live in a nation wide community and it is 'nationwide' to where we must turn for the costs to fund that community.
Unlike Thatchers little offspring's, Labour is committed to acting with a social conscience.
It recognises the word 'social' for it's true meaning, but if the 'new blood' Tories wish to get to grips with the state, they must first declare their intentions in regards the social requirements of the state, and for state read PEOPLE, and then state what their intentions are to tackle the fiscal mess their party left us with in the last six months.
Nothing at all to do with Labour, as can be assessed from then fact it all began to collapse in that great Thatcherite region of the World, the USA. Where the deregulation by those lurve birds, Thatcher and Reagan, first came into existence.
One could hardly saddle that nation with the title 'socialist', by any stretch of the imagination.
Personally, had I my way in the governance of the State, I would have let the whole lot collapse, and held crossed fingers behind my back, whistling into the wind, as I waited to see the disruption that would have ensued.
That's the fault with having a social conscience, which is the burden Labour has to live with.
Complain about this comment
Mapexx at 33
We're not going to agree on this are we!
I have a totally different view of our economic history, we could debate for weeks - and never agree.
Its all about our world view, personal experience, and emotional attachment to different ideologies.
We tend to believe the message that fits our own prejudice.
Don't confuse socialist policies with a social conscience. Take the current business over the Gurkha's, that's not the behaviour of a government with a social conscience.
Getting Kids out of poverty - you do that by getting parents into employment - not pouring tax payers money into an ever deepening hole.
More to do with jobs for the boys, central planning & control, and the destruction of capitalism.
Remember Wilsons 100 days,tea and sandwiches in smoke filled rooms, Healy tax till the pips squeak, the destruction of our aero industry, Nationalisation of the Motor Industry, Callaghan and the IMF, the winter of discontent.
How about the transparently dishonest budget we've just had.
But as I said above we won't agree, Happy with that, I'll still buy you a beer.
Complain about this comment
message 34....
Believe me Westy, I do not disagree, but what you talk of is mere details.
IT was not a mere detail that de-regulation of the money manipulators led us into today's global meltdown, or the 1 billion plus it cost to wrest the Falklands back from the Argentinians, after the 'ring of steel' was removed, by 'her self', but in the interests of What?
Or that the north sea oil, and gas, has been exploited to very near extinction, due to policies created and operated in the 1980's, one could go on. These were not mere details.
Yes, so Wilson did a few little off the straight and narrow maneouvers, so Healy wished to hit the wealthy for a bit more than they wanted to pay. But what is that compared to the hundreds of thousands put out of work, for political dogma, with nothing in the way of replacement for them to do.
You say getting kids out of poverty, who put them there in the first place.
Labour inherited a dole queue, full of youth, many who now are in their 30's and 40's, many of whom have never worked at gainful employment since leaving school, who was it that generated that regime, it certainly was not Labour.
Nor is the present situation down to Labour policies, but it certainly is the result of policies, put into place and operation, between 1979 and 1997.
As for the recent budget, I heard nothing from the opposition benches, except crticism that offered anything in the way of an alternative budgetary mechanaistation, that coulod be interpreted in an any way a solution to the problems caused during, and by the last Tory administration.
As for a social conscience, you mention the Gurkhas, I have feelings over that, I admit, but who was it that opened the doors to immigrant influx in the first place. What year was it that the SS Windrush crossed from the Windies with thousands who came to man the base industries that the British workforce could not supply labour for?
Who allowed, tolerated, and encouraged the massive inrush of third world persons from the subcontinent, which has led to the fractious nature of our social order of today?
Labour may well have done some rather anti social things over the last few years, but at heart it is a 'social' as well as a socilaist party,
What did Thatcher say?..... "There is no such thing as society", hardly a remark demonstrating the Conservative attitude to a community based social order; one which like it or not we are required to live under.
What will you have, anarchy,? if you say yes, you will fall to your own sword, because the people will do a French revolution, sooner or later.
Or will you opt for social good behaviour? if yes is the answer, then you HAVE to accept the social responsibility that it demands from all quarters of our people, rich or poor alike.
Which, according to all the rhetoric from past and present Tory appearances and stated policies, is not a acceptable.Unless under their right wing, leading to fascist, domination.
Either way, declared intentions and policies will lead to an ultimate collapse of society, with the direst of consequences for those who would demand, via their position as the head of the state, that the hoi poloi will do as it's told.
I remind you, Mm Gullotine is a very simple device, easy to replicate, and very efficient in the hands of a disgruntled population.
Complain about this comment
mapexx
You might like to read "Compassionate Economics by Jesse Norman" and "The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb." Books written despite the current economic crisis rather than because of it.
Your .....
"Or will you opt for social good behaviour? if yes is the answer, then you HAVE to accept the social responsibility that it demands from all quarters of our people, rich or poor alike."
..... this good social behaviour is all around us, unfortunately deregulating the markets (this started during the 1980's) opened the doors to jackals (bankers, politicians et cetera), who after doing their worst opened the door to the herd (us). The greatest amount of damage was done by the herd, we bought and sold debt like shampoo in the supermarket, all the time being urged on by the jackals.
All is not lost, the politics of yesterday, the 25th of April 2009, is already history, what we have is tomorrow .......... this is where left usually parts company with right ......... where the political, social, and economic problems have been laid bare for everyone to see (I might exclude our Plaid friends from that statement as they are unable to see beyond the end of their nose). Because the issues of the last decade or more have been laid bare for all to see, whatever government is elected to Westminster will be coerced by the need to unravel the effects of deregulation, and along the way create a new framework to build on. I am optimistic.
Jesse Norman by the way is the Conservative candidate for Hereford, he writes of ".... investors being encouraged to behave like proprietors rather than speculators would do more for our economy than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages.
A new framework that (possibly with the exception of the extreme left and right of politics) the majority could work with, sounds a little like the ..... cooperative society ..... or BMW bondholders in Germany, politicians do not make businesses' but they can put up the scaffolding in the right shape to support success ..... and hang the jackal from.
In the UK we have another urgent problem to address, little "g" government, there so much of it, unfettered and unelected.
Complain about this comment
message 36....
I take your general points, however, from one of those, a supporter and member of the party, that did the deregulation, which brought the worlds financial regime to the state of disaster, as at the moment, it is a bit rich to say the quote....below...
J Norman by the way is the Conservative candidate for Hereford, he writes of ".... investors being encouraged to behave like proprietors rather than speculators would do more for our economy than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages.
A bit late in the day is he not?
Why was he not making issue of the fact, when his great leader was cutching up to Reagan, plotting it all?
The simple truth is Stoney, there are many in the Tory ranks who are basically rather more socialist in principle, and mind set, than they are prepared to admit.
Whilst the present Tory hierarchy is a bunch of fop's, products of an elitist educationalist establishment, it comes as no surprise that the rank and file, getting ever more left of centre, the lower down the table one sits, are really too damned scared to open up and criticise their leadership for what is patently obvious to those who are not members, that the top table want nothing to do with a social aspect, and to quote Thatcher again, "The wealth will trickle down. "
The truth of course is far from that. The wealth gushed upwards, to such and extent, once the major part of the west's population had been seduced by that promise made, it came as a violent shock to find that suddenly there was no wealth left for any, on the lower levels, to take a bit of.
Assets do not disappear of course, but much of those are now in the possession of those 'speculators', at least the one's who managed to decamp the scene.
Madoff saw the light too late to make a move, even though his attempts at sideswiping some of his illicit wealth to his family was spotted.
Others, of the same ilk managed to clear off, well before the collapse, and for good reason, unlike the rest of us, (not me, as I had been warning of the collapse to come, for over four years on these blogs)those 'in the know' had it all planned out where their escape route lay, both for themselves as individuals, and for the money they cornered and stashed away.
WE have swung to left and right, but over the last twenty years have got stuck in a sort of centre rut, politically speaking, I think it now about time we headed for one extreme or the other.
Back to a grab all political philosophy as surreptitiously being expounded by Cameron, Hague et al, or right back where we were under the old extreme left of the post war period.
In the matter of small 'g'overnment I totally agree with you. it is
overbearing, 85% unnecessary, and nothing but a means to keep people off the dole queue, and as a means to waste our taxes.
Personally I really couldn't care which way the pendulum swings, as with no mortgage to pay for, a decent car in the garage, and, if vitally necessary, a channel crossing to France, in case I do not like what actually occurs as an option, the electorate can do as it pleases.
MY time grows ever shorter, and I am not prepared to go through it all ever again, that is not unless I become dictator of the UK, and am then able to put in place policies that I find the nation needs.
There you have it,
Vote for Mapexx at the next election.
Complain about this comment
I am no supporter of the Labour Party, however Mapexx is right, the current crisis we are in is entirely the fault of the deregulation of the market. Pioneered by Regan and quickly taken up by Thatcher. That was what Labour inherited and if they are at fault is that they didn't re regulate the market (and they have to accept some of the blame for that). Now given the collapse of the banks it is inconceivable that any government would have let them go to the wall. Thus all parties would have done exactly what Labour have done. The sums of money are so large that no amount of bluster from the Conservatives will hide the fact that they would have to borrow as much money as has Labour. Maybe its a sense of guilt that the abuses that caused the great depression have been allowed to happen again due to the ideologically driven removal of the checks to prevent such abuse.
Complain about this comment
Going back to the original question I think the term 'Welsh Government' is clearer than WAG - I have always found the inclusion of the term "Assembly" in WAG unhelpful as it may confuse the distinct function of a government ( administration of power) and the elected body, one of whose key tasks should be scrutiny of the government - along with the development of legislation. It may have sense for civil servants who support both roles which is not the case between Westminster ( Parliament) and Whitehall (civil service)
When Rhodri Morgan became First Minister he wisely made the distinction , but calling the administrative arm, Welsh Government would be the logical development - Any change however should be done openly with no sense of anything on the sly.
In Scotland a similar development has occurred - Its administration started out as the Scottish Executive - but is now called the Scottish Government.
Reading Scottish Government documents with its clear notepaper distinct from the Parliament - The logo of the Scottish Government is the Saltire ( St Andrew's Cross) and that of the Parliament the Saltire with a Crown.
I think that makes it clear what the different 'tins' are for - it is another matter whether the contents of the tin do anything for you.
But I think Welsh Government would be a sensible and logical development - as I hope in time will be a Welsh Parliament.
Complain about this comment
message 38....
I think Lyn you are starting to realise where I stand in all of this.
I find that most who post messages tend to come back at me for one of two reasons, unless of course, they like I, have spent many years reasoning out the undercurrents in political manoeuvring, the first reason being they are somewhat naive, and think on then hoof, without the necessary depth of thought required, or else, they have a kind of death wish.
It matters not which side of the political or party coin one favours. AS I have said before, I favour none, but choose to take on board whatever bits of policy suits my needs.
Unfortunately, one must at the end of the day put one's cross somewhere, and I find it impossible to opt for a certain Party, for the simple reason it has turned it's face from reality, and towards Mammon, this requires a massive degree of personal greed in one's make up; a parameter I do not claim for.
I am a believer in the old adage,....
... 'do unto others as you would be done by'...
which keeps me on a straight and narrow path when dealing with my friends and neighbours, but I also opt for an opposing tack when dealing with the world in general, by opting for the other adage,...
.... 'get the bar-stewards before they get you'...
Regarding those who post messages, in the first case they can easily be sussed out, they either go to some source for historical information they feel will back up their calls and claims, or are antagonised by the plain argument in certain matters that are not to their liking, and take a more violent reaction, which usually ends up in insult, or silly little attempts to trip me up.
Neither will do so, for as I have said, I have been all through the political mill for decades, and have faced the arguments they supply time out of number.
It helps, of course, to have a very good memory, which I possess, and will and do use to full advantage.
So Lyn, maybe we are a lot closer to concert than you may at first have believed.
Complain about this comment
#39 berwickthurso wrote:
"I think Welsh Government would be a sensible and logical development - as I hope in time will be a Welsh Parliament."
So do I! Thanks for your very welcome comments!
Complain about this comment
The Welsh Assembly is a government only in the eyes of nationalists who turn a blind eye to the fact the inception of it in 97 was undemocratic.
London is a major world city, with a complex business, artistic and cultural ethos, underpinned by a complex infrastructure and population, the whole dwarfing the remit of the Welsh Assembly. But it is not a government, except when the term is used in the loosest possible way.
The Welsh Assembly comes under the same governmental aegis as the great metropolitan cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle. But they are not Governments in the way the minority Welsh nationalist in Wales, who have a separatist agenda use the term.
Nothing could be further from the truth in the way the separatists use the term. The nationalists/separatists in Wales are an undemocratic sham and the way they use the term government is straight out of the Humpty Dumpty book of language usage: words mean exactly what they chose them to mean.
Even the leader of the Assembly in Cardiff Bay, who ignored the age old advice to use a long spoon when talking to the nationalist devils but used a tea spoon instead, has realized his mistake. The light from impending political disaster has shown him the way. "The future of Wales", he trumpets "is with the Union."
There is hope yet for the vast majority of the Welsh who in culture and language are little different from we English.
Complain about this comment
42 - William Fitz is still banging on with his anti-Welsh tirade - the latest being:
"The Welsh Assembly comes under the same governmental aegis as the great metropolitan cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle."
No it doesnt - it is a National Assembly established by the Government of Wales Act(s). The cities you refer to are all established by Local Government Acts as cities/metropolitan authorities.
You can keep repeating your incorrect opinions as often as you like, but the facts speak for themseelves - You are wong - again.
Complain about this comment
42 - Like your regularly repeated statement that the 97 referendum was undemocratic. It wasnt - it was close. Just because you do not like the outcome, does not make it undemocratic.
If this is so undeomocratic, and we live in a democracy, then please direct us all to the dissenting voices in 97 (before the result) who said that the result should be determined differently....
Complain about this comment
Well I would direct you to the Scottish results in 79 and in 97 for examples of democratic referenda (And the Scots live on the same island)not that it would have any bearing on nationalist thinking in Wales.
And will you please note that it is not an "anti-Welsh tirade"; but you could call it having a pop at the undemocratic Welsh nationalists.
No other democratic country that I know of would have allowed such a fundamental change to a constitution to take place on such a miniscule "winning margin" and turnout.
Complain about this comment
As the glorious Winston said once.........
..."one vote is enough"..
Thank the lord we have to count votes in Wales these days rather than weigh them......
Complain about this comment
The Scottish result in 97 was conducted under the same rules as Wales. They may have had a larger winning margin, but the Welsh result was equally valid, and a margin of 1 vote either for or against was enough.
The rules were published and agreed by all in advance. You dont like the result, but it has stood the test of time, with all opinion polls showing an increasing majority if favour of MORE devolution.
Find another drum to bang.
Complain about this comment
42, As of today, we can now 'legally' have number plates like these on our cars - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/British_car_registration_plate_CYM.svg
Willam Fitz may choose to have the Union Jack or St Georges Cross on his car - but he may not have a symbol or designation for his home town of Newcastle - bacuse it is a city not a nation like Wales.
Complain about this comment
Re 42
What a sad little man WilliamFitz is! Rather like Dr David Starkey ...
Complain about this comment
A general message to those who bang on about democracy being 'by one vote is enough...'
Yes, I have to accept that, under present terms, however, a message from another person, on another message board I find quite appropriate in this debate,....
Quote...
"We are told that as the people of Wales decided on devolution in 1997, the existence of the Assembly can never again be up for discussion and that those who oppose it “must move on”.
Yet when the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly against devolution in 1979, those who had supported it failed utterly to accept the majority view “and move on”. They went on campaigning remorselessly for their beliefs.
So I see no reason why those who oppose devolution should not do likewise, for however long it takes to bring about the ending of devolution, and the dissolution of the assembly."....
Unquote...
Maybe you can understand why we are opposing the Assembly/WAG, having read that comment.
The simple reason being BECAUSE WE CAN DO, and if you lot do not like it, try re reading that above quote a few times, prior to sending in any more of your messages.
Complain about this comment
Mapexx, I have no problem with you wanting to oppose the Assembly, and if you believe that there should be a referendum to abolish the Assembly at some future date, then feel free to campaign openly for that result.
But please stop harping back to 97 - there was a debate - a set of rules - a vote - and Yes won (even if by only 1 vote - the rules were met).
Democracy works in both directions, and if you think that you can get enough support for abolition, then get out there and win it. But I think you will find that popular opinion has moved a long way in the last 12 years, and you are now in a diminishing minority.
Complain about this comment
in reply to Peddu at #47
The only drum that needs banging in the deaf ears of Welsh nationalists is a great big democratic drum.
And at # 48
And there’s as much regional fervor for their Geordie heritage in Newcastle as there is the region of Wales. And we have a far more rousing regional song than the Welsh regional song. And nationalistic symbols on cars, along with flags and other nationalistic paraphernalia are only for charlatans. I’d much prefer the simple term, democrat engraved on the number plate.
In reply to Fidafydd at #49
I'm always as happy a Welsh AMs when they collect their expenses from the gravy train in Cardiff Bay. "Little", I most certainly am not. I'm six foot six and weigh two forty five and there's not a man who can beat me alive, so there.
David Starkey, what's this? Is he your new bete noir? Don't tell me he's taken the place of Ann Robinson? Oh god, whatever next.
Complain about this comment
52 - why cant you just be positive towards your region instead of trying to drag our nation down to your level?
You will not find anyone in Wales who will begrudge you any of your wishes - why do you find it so important to tell us what we should believe??
Complain about this comment
When one region of the UK has a set of rules applied to a referendum, other regions having similar such referendum should have the same rules applied. What happened in Wales in respect of the 1997 devolution referendum was not democratic.
mapexx is correct, the blackhead is wrong.
Complain about this comment
Penddu # 53
This is a BBC blog not a Welsh nationalist's blog. And I was born in Newport before the town and county were ceded to Wales without asking people if they wanted a say in the matter. I pay my License Fee and therefore no matter how much you dislike it I can post on this blog as on other blogs. As I've said to you before you are a potential ethic cleanser.
And please don’t tell me that the EDs were resoundingly defeated a couple of years ago. We all know what can be agreed when the full weight of government is behind a previous conceived agenda. Just like the shenanigans that went on at the 97 referendum.
And the Scots though on the same Island as the rest of us required a 40% Yes vote before they put through devolution. That is why I say your devolved Assembly is a sham, no matter how much you shout to that it isn't.
Complain about this comment
SM you are wrong - the same rules applied in Scotland and Wales in 97.
The result may have been closer but both met the rules.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Williamfitz, Newport and Monmouthshire were always Welsh. I had hoped that myth had died a natural death. Monmouth was attached to the Oxford circuit, the other Welsh Counties to the 4 circuits of the Courts of Great Sessions. However it was seen as part of Wales, subject to review by the Council of Wales and the Marches. While some may have considered (erroneously) that Monmouthshire was English I don't think John Frost of the Chartists who marched on Newport would have thought so. Some English minority party stood on Monmouth is English recently and got a derisory vote. I think you just like stirring the pot rather than are a serious debater here.
Complain about this comment
Re 57
Let's not go there again, Fitz has only recently been trounced on this subject.
Complain about this comment
55 - You are simply wrong on Monmouthshire. It is and always has been in Wales. Move on.
And you are wrong on Scottish referendum in 97 - it only required a simple majority same as Wales.
What else are you wrong on?
Complain about this comment
55 oh and the EDs were not soundly defeated - they were simply ignored as an irrelevance by almost everyone. Nothing to do with government agendas - it was a reflection on how the people of Monmouthshire/Gwent consider themselves - Welsh.
But as I said to Mapexx earlier, I am a believer in democracy, and if you think there is public support for your beliefs then get out there and campaign for it. Maybe you can increase the ED vote to more than 1%...
Complain about this comment
Message 60...
Yes, get out there and campaign for whatever.... only to have the likes of you come on this board condemning us for so doing.
WE can't win...(yet to be tested)... for winning, it seems.
It's about time you left your antipathy to OUR campaign until the time comes to place your cross on the ballot slip.
However I note you had nothing to say about the comment I placed on the board from A.N.Other in message #50
Once beaten soundly in 1979, you lot carried on demanding a further refendum, but no,... you demand we shut up in calling for another to test whether the people will really keep on that route to independence.
I would suggest that if another referendum IS called for, it's result be the final one, with no further mandate being sought, by either side.
BUT...Only as long as the vote is compulsory, though. Otherwise, with a low turnout, and a marginal result either way, we will be yet again, and again, and again, etc,... be pestered with demands for more referendums in future.
Complain about this comment
Mapexx - Following the 79 result the issue of devolution in Wales was dead for 10 years or so - but where as 1 week is a long time in politics, 10 years is an eternity, and there was a whole new generation to vote in 97 - You can not make referendums/elections results stand indefinitely.
There will be another referendum, and I would be happy to agree with the principle that for constitutional changes a winning margin of 55% should be achieved (of those voting - not the electorate). And I would be happy to agree to some basic rules along the lines that a losing referndum can not be repeated for say 5 years in the case of a narrow loss - or say 10 years in the case of a heavy loss (not going to argue too much about the actual numbers - just the principle).
But any rules have to be fair for all sides, and be adopted for all constitutional type votes, applying to UK and EU referenda as well.
I have previously agreed with you that voting should be compulsory, but that does not mean that non-voters can be presumed to vote one way or the other - and that was an unfair restriction on the 79 vote (but it did not have an impact in Wales)
Complain about this comment
Democracy? In the UK? ...
How about an elected second chamber in Westminster?....
Archbishops, the aristocracy and retired grandees of political parties presiding over the will of the electorate...
How about an elected Head of State?.....
This is achived through marriage (but not with catholics)...
How about an elected Prime Minister?.....
Who is appointed by the unelected hereditary head of state and can only be sacked by their direct intervention...the current encumbent did not stand for general election in the counrty as have many others before him .....
No 'elected' government in the Uk since 1922 has polled over 50% of the electorate -
2001 = 59% turnout -
2005 = 61% turnout, returning a government with 35% of the votes
Democracy in the UK? - yes, good idea...when can we have it??
Complain about this comment
#57
What brio, what chutzpah is contained there in that little bit of prose. But wait, what is this? Something is happening to me; a change is taking place. A great Welsh wave of character changing logic is washing over me. I beat my breast and cry out, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.
I have at long last seen the light, and I’m truly amazed it's taken me so long to understand the truth of the matter. You might think Lyn that this is just a put on, a load of old cods wallop but it's not. And someone like you, possessing such a clear understanding of the past, will know that the historical past is full of mind altering events. You just have to think of Saul on the way to Damascus, or Archimedes and his eureka moment to get some idea of how deeply your truth has affected me.
With hand over heart in that poignant way you Welsh do when singing your national song, I'm going to appraise all the institutions I've been in touch with over this issue, of your great mind changing truth (mind warping institutions like the old Welsh Office and the Ordinance Survey). It is they and other sources too numerous to mention who've led me along this sad and lonely path.
They were the ones who supplied me with contrary - and I now know it, thanks to you, to have been erroneous - evidence on Monmouthsire's legal status before 1972.
Very generous public servants that they are I'm sure they'll be as astounded by the concise, coherent, logic you have used in coming to your great truth that contrary opinions to yours are a myth, as I have been.
Your intelligence is wasted on this blog. A person with such analytical skills as you should surely be applying them in solving border disputes around the world. Very soon countries, when faced with an intractable problem, would be able to apply the Lyn Thomas test of historical veracity.
Oh damn, look at that, a squadron of flying pigs – Gloucester Old Spots by their markings - have just dipped their wings in salute as they flew past my window.
Complain about this comment
#63
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The institutions of this country are a sham. All of them. They all need reform. Perhaps you Welsh would get the ball rolling by urging your politicians to put another referendum to the people, asking them, if in these Credit Crunch times they think the frippery and unnecessary extra tier of government in Cardiff Bay is affordable.
Complain about this comment
I'll agree to that if you English could reciprocate....
by urging your politicians to put a referendum to the people asking if they want Wales as part of the UK anymore
- we do seem such a strain on your pocket in these days of Credit Crunch,
- maybe ask them for a referendum on the wars being fought in your name in the middle east
- maybe ask them on a referendum on sustaining the bunch of hangers-on at Westminster
- and the hangers-on in Buckinham Palace
- show us the way...
Complain about this comment
If that unnecessary extra tier of government in Cardiff Bay which is partly funded by the English taxpayer was abolished then I think the answer to your first point would be Yes. As I'm sure it would be if you changed the region of Wales for the region of Yorkshire, or any other region of Britain in the referendum question.
And the wars being fought in the Middle East and else where are not solely being fought or prosecuted in the name of England but also in the name of the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots.
Again the "hangers-on" at Westminster come from all parts of Britain and not just England. A combined effort would be necessary.
And again with the unelected head of State we have: a question to change the constitution would have to be put to all the people not just the English. We are all still part of the British whole and long may it remain so.
Complain about this comment
The point though is having a vote, referendum, consulting the electorate.....
as far as I can see democracy does not exist in the UK - a hotpotch of well-heeled people who have been in power forever, and intend to remain so by hook, or by hook.....
Let us go, it would be easier for you then surley......
Complain about this comment
message 68.....
Let 'us' go? ....'US', to whom are you referring?... 'US',... the Welsh?
It may not have entered your head that, so far, only a very FEW of 'us', that is those who feel they have an axe to grind, and make it known to a small degree, are just that, a very FEW indeed.
I know the old saw about all the Cymraeg speakers are not nationalists, as a some have appeared on here to say they are not, but if we opt for an approximation of the number who use the language, and say as many as 20% are for further powers etc., that leaves a massive two and quarter millions(OK so I include kids and those who have no vote for whatever reason) who have expressed no interest, which was, more or less, backed by the number who actually voted in the '97 referendum, where the result was something like 25% in favour of the devolution when all votes were counted.
So the REAL bottom line is, you cannot claim for 'US', as, unless and until, all of 'US' have been included, by compulsion if necessary, I would demand, you can include 'US' out, and talk about those who you feel will be there in support.
What did I say?....20% .....and that whilst being generous to you.
Complain about this comment
69 - here we go again - more dodgy supposition built on prejudice. Lets stick with real objective data:
There were two recent opinion polls on this subject, which both showed similar results - Around 20% wanting to abolish the assembly - Around 20% wanting the status quo - Around 60% wanting more power
So yes "Us" sounds like a fair description.
Complain about this comment
message 70....
I just knew I was being over generous.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, old son.
As Hyacinth Bucket says, 'That doesn't boil any parsnips'
Complain about this comment
Re 69
It may be the usual rubbish message, but at least in the content of one sentence there is at least the very small possibility that mapexx may be getting nearer to understanding one point:
"I know the old saw about all the Cymraeg speakers are not nationalists, as a (sic) some have appeared on here to say they are not"
It's a small mercy, but hey ...!!
Complain about this comment
Semantics and statistics, it seems, is where the weak hide - there might be just a few of us, but as the great English poet John Lennon said - ..."we are not the only ones..."
Anyway enough of us turned out in '97 to swing it
same will happen again in 2010....
Complain about this comment
message 73.....
.....Not if compulsory voting is the order of the day.
Complain about this comment
74 But it wont be will it?
(and as I have said before - I agree with compulsory voting in principle - for all elections)
Complain about this comment
This is Wales is it not - compulsory voting means tribalism, always has, always will - people forced to vote will vote as their parents have, and so on.
This of course means that in Wales we will have a high proportion of Labour voters at any future election, always have and always will.
Labour supports a referendum - they have to, or they have to form a minority government and take the blame for all problems percieved as relating to the government by themselves - a year or so from a general election for the Assembly with a general election for Westminster happening in the same timeframe where Labour are probably going to get a good kiking by the mostly conservative electorate in England.
That ain't going to happen, no politician is that stupid.
So Labour supports a referendum and will back it, have to back it or lose power.
If only compulsory voting was introduced - it would be a walk-over for pro-devolutionists and then there would be the next step for the Welsh Parliament - independence (but only this qickly with the help of compulsory voting)
Complain about this comment
message 76....
I am quite prepared to accept that devolution, separation, independence, or whatever, could be the outcome, but what I cannot take is to be told by a group that wins by only a margin resolved by about a quarter of the electorate, that they have a mandate from the whole region, then carry on as though that was the case.
I also cannot accept that 'tribalism' would be a factor if compulsory voting came into force.
Why should it, any more than at the moment, where it definitely is present, via the language card being played for all it's worth?
Speak Cymraeg, you are Welsh, speak English... bugga off across the Severn where you belong.
That IS tribalism at it's extreme.
Complain about this comment
Re 77
And here I was thinking that mapexx was beginning to see just a little, little bit of sense as far as the political and social leanings of Welsh speakers are concerned - and then we get the same old wholly nonsensical and prejudiced gibberish here!
I think people should ask themselves and search their own consciences as to who is prone to play the language card.
Complain about this comment
message 78....
Taking the 'one line, and out of context bit', again I see..
Some day you may learn to refer to the WHOLE message, not just the one line you think makes your point for you.
What YOU cannot seem to understand is, without your chance to slip in the bit about the language, simply because it is in existence, we would NOT be having any sort of debate, on devolution, separation, or independence, because tha whole matter revolves around that language, without it Wales would be what is has been for many centuries, a region of the UK.
As others, even Cymraeg speakers have stated, their language is being abused, by being used as a weapon to berate the non speakers with, and as a tool for the purpose of furthering independence demands.
Not that it matters as far as you are concerned, being not Welsh yourself, but just a muck stirrer coming onto these boards to create mayhem.
Complain about this comment
Mapexx - you are the oly one who keeps coming back to langauage all the time - but every opinion poll shows that you are wrong.
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"
You never come up with any meaningful or objective statistics, which leads me to one simple conclusion!
Complain about this comment
Incidentally - I am an English-only speaker. Not that I consider that relevant.
Complain about this comment
Re 79
Again, it's a very difficult sentence to understand, but I can only conclude that mapexx concedes that Wales IS a nation when he says ...
"because tha (sic) whole matter revolves around that language, without it Wales would be what is has been for many centuries, a region of the UK."
Good stuff.
Complain about this comment
messag 80....
There is but one objective or statistic that matters to me, and it's called an election, be it general, or referendum.
Message 87...
Picking me up on typo's again are you. (sick),
Why does it matter to you?, the language is not one of your capabilities anyway.
Stick where you belong, over in England, or is it Ireland?
You certainly do not give any indication of any Welsh connection.
This region does not need the likes of you to support it's future.
You are a DANGER to it, as your constant responses demonstrate.
At least Penddu has the honesty to decalere he is Cymraeg illiterate.
Complain about this comment
83 Hang on - I did not say I was illiterate - I have a basic level of understanding - I fail to see how anyone raised in Wales can not - but I am not a Welsh speaker
Complain about this comment
message 84...
No you did not,... I did, for the following reasons.
Unless one can hold a fluent conversation in any language, as far as I am concerned, one is illiterate in that language. Or read and write with full understanding, the same applies.
I for example, can read to a limited extent, French, I can, to a very limited extent do a bit of Arabic, German, and even Cymraeg but that does not make me literate in any of those languages.
Ergo, in those languages I am illiterate. Now according to the degree of literacy you hold in Cymraeg, you are either fluent, or illiterate.
Which simply means learned in the subject. A few words here or there does NOT one make literate, the opposite in fact, considerinmg the potential for mistakes and therefore misunderstandings..
End of.
Complain about this comment
Re 85
Sorry to disappoint you mappy, but I do in fact 'speak both spokes'. English is very much my second language, but I regard myself as being fairly literate in both. But I have only published in Welsh.
Complain about this comment
Ahh, another example of the world accrding to Mappex...
There are varying degress of fluency but lack of complete fluency does not make me illiterate. It simpy means I am not fully fluent.
I am literate in English and arguabally French - I have varying degrees of literacy in Italian, Welsh, Arabic and Russian.
Just because something is not black, does not make it white.
Complain about this comment
Re 85
mapexx
You recently said:
"There is but one objective or statistic that matters to me, and it's (sic) called an election, be it general, or referendum."
On the basis of that effort how literate in English do you have to be, to be accepted as actually being literate in mapexx's world?
Complain about this comment
message 87....
I perhaps should have not used the word 'illiterate'
but consideruing your responses, I am now convinced the use was correct.
You certainly are one for arguning a moot point.
So when you originally stated
"Incidentally -I am an English-only speaker. Not that I consider that relevant".
What you really meant was "I am a monoglot English speaker".
Having not been more explicit, you left yourself open to being called illiterate in Cymraeg, and since your subsequent messages have not altered that original statement to any great degree, I maintain you ARE illiterate, that is (oxford Dict:) learned, in Cymraeg.
The knowing of a few words, the ability to read same, and the inability to utilise, beyond a mere scartching of the surface of the labguage, by being aware of the meanings of a some place names, or an occasional Bora Dda or Nios Dda, does niot a learned person make. Therefore illiterate is applicable both to you, and me.
As for the other clown who will insist in sticking his oar in, try learning English as she is spoken.
As for being published in Cymraeg, (NOT Welsh you note) I would need proof of that.
Complain about this comment
Mess 77 - It is basic to the democratic process - that the majority vote carries the day. Do you not understand that?
Do you honestly not understand that?
It does not matter if you personally do not like the result, the result stays the same. Those who were bothered to vote did so - the others take the result and live with it.
The people of Wales have spoken, and the process (it has always been a one-way process everywhere its happend in the world) of devolution continues.....
Complain about this comment
message 90....
NO I cannot accept it, I accept that a margin of one would be to my liking if ALL were given the correct information, but they were NOT so given.
The run up publicity was skimpy, misleading, and in the final analysis, nothing more Thanh FALSE.
In other words the electorate were bamboozled.
In that I state that the electorate showed little interest, because they were fed a ration of crap.
The whole matter was subject to a covert, warped, and corrupt agenda.
In answer to your final remark, the people of Wales have NOT spoken, those who have were those with the emotive insensibility that comes from the promotion of nationalist ambition, filled with false patriotic rhetoric.
Total failure of the electoral, and democratic, system.
Complain about this comment
Its a failure of the democratic system because you did not like the result.
It was a vaote taken by those who were bothered to go out and vote. Those who heard all the rubbish from the politicians either voted or did not.
What covert agenda by the way - that the Labour party secretly wants independence - or that Plaid Cymru are so strong that they can force the hand of Westminster?
And why are you surprised by this - was not the rubbish spouted by the 'No' campaigners in 1979 not proof enough that any future referendum would be the same scare mongering and false information.
If the information given out was so bad then the opposition to devolution in 99 di their jobs very badly.
True Wales should take serious note of that if they are not to be the whipping boys at the next referendum.
Complain about this comment
message 92....
Let me assure you, I am very cognisant of what was expressed i the pre 1997 run up to the referendum, nowhere did I see any reference to 'further powers' being sought, or LCO's that would transform the 'Assembly' as described, into some sort of ertzatz government for Wales.
I think that most who subscribe to this message board, taking a similar line to myself, also will affirm that to be the case.
They, as can be comprehended from their obvious political acumen, and who are not slow in political interpretation of the propaganda dished out at the time, must be, in your mind, so stupid as to be bamboozled.
The truth is, we and I refer to the majority of the electorate, were fooled into accepting what was on offer, and nothing more, we were not given to understand there was a hidden agenda, by I care not who. Be it Labour or Plaid, or both in tandem, as seems to be the case..
It is now patently obvious, that such an agenda was in operation, or was very soon, after control was taken, designed and developed.
That was NOT part of the mandate we gave, in our vote.
We gave our franchise on the understanding a sort of council would be set in place, to take up the reins, once the Welsh Office was dispensed with.
True Wales will hammer on until our message gets through, that we are being waltzed towards a situation that will be disastrous for our region of the UK.
If you were to tell your wife to be, you would look after her, then after the marriage she finds you not do what you said you would, but now expect her to go to work, have ten kids, eat one small meal a day, paint and decorate the whole house, go shopping, drive you like a chauffeur, do the housework, do the garden, build the fences, and all else that YOU should be doing, but you would be simply taking her wages and paying the bills with them, and at the same time employing staff to wash your feet, fork the food, that your wife has cooked, into your mouth, in other words, become a supernumerary, all at your new wife's expense, do you think she would have married you, if you had told her your intentions in advance of the wedding?
Of course not, but once the signature was on the certificate, it would be too late. The only option to escape and divorce.
That is the position we feel we are in, and we wish to go for a divorce, a dispensation of that marriage we were conned into.
Which, by the way, is our democratic and legal option.
Have you objections to that?
Because if you have, they had better be excellent ones.
Complain about this comment
The truth of course is that you should have been much more stident in seeking a proper outline of what was on offer before the referendum - The title of Assembly should have given you the insight that is was more than 'a sort of council' which in itself is vague.
The truth was that the opposition to devolution were more interested in scare-mongering than the truth - something that seems to be happening again now like in '79.
The truth of it is that the Welsh electorate who can be botherd to vote see through it now, any referendum in the future will only increase the majority in favour.
That's how it is, the world changes and matures, people move on, upwards and onwards
Complain about this comment
message 94....
As I have mentioned before, my memory is excellent, and no matter how you wrap it up in phraseology, the Welsh people, especially those in the Anglo speaking areas were NOT given any hint whatsoever of the underlying potential for what has occurred.
What you fail to realise is the fact that initially Plaid were nowhere, until the elections that took place a couple of years ago, when, on order to maintain control, Labour were on a hiding to nothing unless they became partners in crime with Plaid, who had raised their numbers in the WAG.
Prior to that it was not possible to expect that such a axis of evil would take place, therefore the potential for what has since ensued was not even on the horizon.
I would go as far as saying, should Labour, or any other party, but Plaid, get a majority in the WAG in the next round of elections or referendums, the chances of further devolution and extra power will diminish accordingly.
They will no longer have either the financial leverage to wield, or the necessary strength to push for it, as Westminster, ever mindful of fiscal probity in these hard times ahead, will ensure no such will be tolerated.
If a Tory government is returned, you can lay your last quid on either a stricture of immense proportions, or a dissolution of the devolutionary process in it's entirety.
That said, I would still require that any further election, or referendum, be conducted on a compulsory basis only, just to show, or even prove, the true feelings of the population of this region...Wales.
Not that it would come to much good, because the outcome would still be subjected to approval, and acceptance, by Westminster.
I accept that entitling the resultant 'council' in Cardiff Bay 'The Assembly' should have had a red flag before it, giving warning, but thanks to that subsequent local result, causing the situation towards full devolution to accelerate, few could have envisaged the speed at which we arrived at the recent demand for further powers, and that LCO which would, without doubt having been accepted in London, driven yet more LCO's through the Senned.
Thankfully, so far, Murphy has blocked any further progress along that route, and with the financial meltdown fresh in Labour and Tory minds, I feel it likely that any such LCO's, or demands for increased powers, will fall on stone deaf ears for the foreseeable future.
In fact, if I were an Assembly member, I would be casting about for alternative employment, especially when they start coming out with such comments as, taxing the wheelie bin, for which we already pay substantially to our local authority. Such plans will certainly alienate many, and no doubt quite a few in their present army of support.
I will concede on one point, taking that last bit into account, if the Assembly wish to remove local councils, to do it all itself, I may be persuaded to join the ranks of support.
But sod paying double, which in effect, means paying more than treble, whilst we have this third tier, in Cardiff Bay.
Not to mention the 9 billions in subsidy Wales was coated with last year, and which will be somewhat reduced year on year, for the next ten, under the present administration in Westminster.
Or, should Cameron's lowlanders get control in May 2010, a reduction, year on year, of potentially double what Labour has indicated.
That, notwithstanding the results of a referendum in Wales, which I am certain will be cast to one side, if not totally eradicated, should the Tories gain control.
If one thinks Labour has hit with sharp strokes in this present climate, just wait until the opposition gets their mitts on the Exchequer, then Wales will REALLY feel the pinch. You'll all be praying for Maggie to return, as she was a pussy cat compared for what her successors have in store for Wales.
Complain about this comment
Mess 95:
Its winning an argument that matter to you is it not? What happens to Wales and the people of Wales is secondary - you bang on about representation and democracy when it suits you yet say :
"Thankfully, so far Murphy has blocked..."
We do not directly elect the Welsh Secretary, this does not matter to you because it suits your purpose - the people of Wales can suffer. Maybe we should elect the Secretary directly or have the Assembly send a Secretary to the cabinet as an ambassador for the Welsh people?
I get the feeling that you relish bad economic times because it will prove some point of argument at the expense of real people:
"Then Wales will really feel the pinch..."
I can actually fel you quivering in anticipation at the thought - does not matter that Wales and the Welsh will suffer again this time around and do so propotrionatley more that the rest of the uk etc..... ask yourself why is it that the Welsh get clobbered more than the rest of the union - are they lesser, are they more expendable - does Westminster care...?
Complain about this comment
message 96....
Excuse me, but WE DID elect Murphy,... he was elected by the voters of Torfaen, the constituency he trepresents in Westminster, which in case it escapes you, has the legislative imperative over what happens here in this region..
As for your claim I relish the down turn, yes I do, if only because it puts a severe crimp in the overindulgent aspirations of people who would take Wales down a path to some sort of fantasy land, which is ridiculous in this modern age.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, others who opted for similar ambitions to yours, are now reversing at a pace, and their nationalist programme is thrown out.
The liklihood of Wales being taken along the route you seek to advocate diminishes, especially now that the piggy bank has been found empty.
However, I do not relish any downturn that causes friction, and fractious behaviour between the various people of this region, not that I would expect it to, as all that sort of nonsense seems to emanate from the minuscule Plaid/independence element. And being in a extreme minority, once reality takes hold, I fully expect similar results to that which has now happened in the Spanish Basque region, where the nationalists have been somewhat trounced for the first time since the death of Franco.
For thirty years the ETA, a sort of more extreme version of the Free Wales Army/IRA, whatever, have attenmpted to gain their demanded hopes, only to be crushed by those they expeceted, and even declared to be, their backbone of support.
Likewise, the realisation of the futility, will strike home here in this region, once it is seen how others, with a far greater level of demand and claimed support, could get it so wrong.
I hope to see a greater rise of affluence, and settled civic social life here in Wales, once we have terminated this sham we call a Assembly Government, an overblown apology for a true legislature, if ever there was.
But of course, first we must wait until the resurgence of the economy, with a renewed commercial sector in Wales coming through, unless and
until that occurs, I am afraid talking up the situation is so much hype, without solid backing.
Solid backing that all the Assembly rhetoric cannot generate, especially as it will insist on enforcing such as the rulings of the LWB, onto every menu it involves itself in constructing.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me - you might have voted Paul Murphy as the MP for Torfaen (turnout 57% 2001) - but NO ONE voted him to be Secretary of State for Wales - he was appointed by the Prime Minister who is appointed by the unelected head of State.
I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that you do not care for the people of Wales; "..I relish the down turn, yes I do, if only because it puts a severe crimp in the overindulgent aspirations of people who would take Wales down a path to some sort of fantasy land, which is ridiculous in this modern age"
You'd rather the Empire back then - no Wales anywhere execpt as a small and insignificant part of England?
Thanks for nothing pal.
Complain about this comment
message98...
You have a cheek stating I do not care for the people of Wales, by taking the comment OUT OF CONTEXT you do not make a valid point.
I qualified my comment by referring to a portion of the people, ...
.....if only because it puts a severe crimp in the overindulgent aspirations of people who would take Wales down a path to some sort of fantasy land, which is ridiculous in this modern age"...
Take care what you complain about, at least as much as I do in
composing my prose.
Now to mention the Secretary of State for Wales.
The first being he, like all the 'ministers' in the Assembly WAG are 'appointed', not elected into office.
(I will concede, as I do not know for sure, that those worthies may be elected once in the Assembly, but they are NOT elected to their office by their constituents, no more than is Murphy by his).
Secondly, there is no ruling that says a Prime Minister has to be elected to office.Tnhe PM is a member of Parliament, and doesn't even have to be a member of the majorityu party.
He can be accepted by the Monarch for various reasons,...
A: He is the leader of the main party,
B; he is elected by his party, or...
C: he can be elected by the HOUSE.
My advice would be for you to gain some degree of knowledge of how the political system works, here in the UK, not just snatch and grab some untenable ideas from the atmosphere, in the hopes you may have hit on the truth.
This is NOT a Republic, we do not have a President, ergo: no Presidential electoral college is required.
I do not say Wales is a small insignificant part of England, so your sarcastic thanks are undeliverable.
What I do say is, the region is a part of the UK, for historical and political reasons, and until and unless you can dig a three mile wide trench between us and England, to gain an island status, that is how we shall remain.
Political conveniences can be, and often are, overturned, according to the mores and assumptions of the times.
I suggest you do your best to convince the major part of our population, that your ideas for their region, surpasses those of others who oppose yours.
No amount of political gerrymandering will create a silk purse from a sows ear, just the reverse is proficiently being tackled by the nationalist elements on our behalf.
But thanks very much pal, we don't appreciate their efforts, and more to the point, we will do all we can to stymie their agenda and thwart their misconceived ambitions.
Complain about this comment
Mess 99: Yes I know that the UK is not a republic, that's the problem, or one of them at least. Governments here are appointed and not elected and more to the point the unelected Head of State is the only person who can sack them.
In terms of putting your words in context - the context of truth is that you welcome a down turn so that the political aspirations of some are weakened bu we will all suffer in an economic down turn aside from people like Paul Murphy who are in very safe seats and can do as they wish.
It should be noted of course that in economic down turns in Wales there has historically been an upsurge in the call for more deveolution - as when Thatcher and her gang kicked the living daylights out of the Welsh economy, so I don't regard your strategy as being a fruitful one from your political point of view:
"But thanks very much pal, we don't appreciate their efforts, and more to the point, we will do all we can to stymie their agenda and thwart their misconceived ambitions" - even if that means more suffering for the poorest in Wales - that's alright is it - because it furthers your own political agenda?
In terms of some three mile trench (why 3 miles?) have you noticed that Northen Ireland and the Republic have only been seperated since 1922? where's the trench in Ireland then?
Complain about this comment
message 100....
I know you cannot see it, but you and I are actually reading from the same book, but just placing slanted viewpoints, according to our respective backgrounds.
I would say I am a fair age compared to you, and have been through it all, politically speaking.
I have had the Tory varieties to live under since 1936, the year of my birth, I lived through the decline of my grandfather, as he spouted Tory dogma until his death, in virtual penury.
I have also seen the decline in the Labour Party, from it's hey days, through it's destruction by University Smart Alec's, and latterly, well heeled toffs, such as Blair and Mandelson.
The record on Brown is not yet complete, and we should not be too hard on he, until his term is run.
However, there is a sense of renewal in the air, but until, and unless, the rest of the pro Thatcherite element are eradicated, the Parliamentary Party is heading for a severe lesson at the next general election.
Name calling of MP's is not a valued, or valid, means to get a satisfactory end result for Wales, so Murphy does not suit you, so what?
I doubt he knows, or cares, one whit what you think, or I for that matter. But this is a discussion blog, where we can air our diverse views.
Try to be perceptive in your political outlook, as Kennedy famously said,...
.....Think not what your country can do for you, think what YOU can do for your country....."
The reference to the three miles wide trench, was in response to the perpetual call for separation and independence. Written in, as a point of sarcasm.
Yes, I am well aware of the contiguity of NI and Eire, but therein lies a totally different kettle of fish.
NI is a construct, developed in earlier times, for the express purpose of creating a geopolitical divide, and across religious boundaries.
Please tell me what sort of equivalent divide we have between Wales, and our eastern neighbour?
The ONLY one, as I and others see it, being a Language, used by a tenth of our people to any great amount on a daily basis, all of whom, with limited exceptions, can and invariably do, use the major tongue, English, as it suits circumstances.
We all live virtually identical lifestyles, shop in the same shops. watch the same TV programmes, (except a very small minority of our folk who, occasionally, turn to S4C) go to similar locations for our holidays, got to almost identical pubs, drink the same booze, all have extended family that live all over the UK, and the globe, all want the same all of the time, within personal parameters.
All..ALL... ,Except for a maddening minority that wish to upset the status quo with their perverted ideas on political severance from the main trunk of our geopolitical base.
Tell me do, how would our lives change for that declared 'better' if we told the UK to sling it's hook?
Don't be shy, be explicit, and specific, and to the greatest extent you can manage, in extolling the virtues of separation, and ultimate independence.
But to educate you slightly, in the matter of the recognition of the Irish republic.
Once the dominance of Britain came to it's conclusion, after the WW1, it became politically fashionable to expedite the reclassification of colonies and protectorates, purely for political, and mainly, economic reasons.
Most were 'liberated' not because we wished to 'set them on a course to independence, but because we could not contain their aspirations on any economic basis.
India being the prime example.
Also we wished to obviate ourselves from the perceived, and ultimate, fracas between the Hindu and Islamics there.
We saw it coming, and hastily departed, leaving Hindu and Muslim to sort it out, after we designed a partition that, to this date, has not particularly suited all concerned,.
Ireland,(Eire) or as it became known, the Irish Free State, came about for ulterior reasons, namely, American Political pressures.
The American Irish placed a massive 'lobby' in the corridors of power in Washington, which led to diplomatic pressures being exerted, that made it imperative for us to release Eire from it's ties to our State.
Rather a different scenario for Wales, I must say.
Wales has no great American lobby in Washington, to put the same sort of pressures on Westminster.
(in that, I do not imply a national status for Wales)
Governments ARE elected, it is only Cabinet, and the arrangement of their committee Chair's, that are 'appointed' by the PM.
Prior to which events, the PM is 'officially' appointed by the ruling monarch, this due to the UK being a titular Constitutional Monarchy.
The removal of the incubent of the office of PM can occur
only after certain events, namely...
A: a general election
B: a vote of no confidence by the Party, or House, in the PM,
C; death in office of the PM, as per John Smith and
D: In the extremely unlikely event that the Monarch could cause a constitutional contretemps by constitutionally removing (sacking)the PM.
As I said, without rancour, you need to brush up on your knowledge of our constitution.
I mean no offence to you in the matter, but it would appear the education system is not up to teaching our civilians the finer points of our constitution.
We went through it, when I was at school, but it appears it no longer matters, to our leaders, that our people have full knowledge of the rules and laws we live under.
Complain about this comment
It is irrespective if Murphy suits me - he was elected by a majority of the people who voted in that constituency - that's their choice and he answers to them. I respect it, but also couldn't care a hoot what he or you thinks of me either.
By referencing Kennedy we are on the verge of going down a debating cul de sac because it uses the word 'country' and talking about the definition of that word leads nowhere - we will have different viewpoints and they aren't going to change despit the number or size of posts by one side of the argument or another.
Bu you do not need to lecture me on the politics of Ireland - I was born and grew up there - the problem is that you talk about the partition as if it were some centuries ago - it was only two generations ago.
I agree with you that language is one of the cultural markers that separates Wales from the rest of the UK - the difference between us is that I live in a community where Welsh is used by the majority of the population in north-west Wales. There is no great problem with any language issue here except when workers are threatend with the sack for speaking their native language in a community where that language is the vast majority language by a manager brought from England who can't speak that language. The problem ain't the language there.
As for educational achievments which you seem to be inordinatley poud of your own - at least I have learnd the native tongue of Wales (albeit badly) and love to hear my children speak it - I tend to speak more English than Welsh to my friends in the pups also, they don't complain, don't abuse me for this and I'm accepted for what I am. Could you do that MAppexx?
You also have a fantasy history of the decline and utter disappearance of the British Empire as well - letting all these countries go for economic reasons - because you couldn't afford to keep them (shades of the white man's burden maybe?) Well what about Wales then - this region is also very expensive for the English to run, once that penny drops, and the tories realise that majority governments are theirs in England for evermore once the disproportionate number of Labour MPs sent to Westminster from Wales is cut....
You did not see anything much 'coming' in India either - Churchill was all for a bloody retreat from India, and it is down to the humility and humanity of the Cangress in India that the British Raj were not torn physically to shreds before 1947.
Do you really think that you had to release Ireland from the Uk because of American pressure - and if that's true what wimps. The real truth is that you were forced out and I have kinsmen who gave their blood after the end of the Great War to further that aim as proff of it (other relatives died for the British Empire on the fileds of Europe and the seas of the empire).
As to your point about elected Govenments - they do not exist in the UK -the unelected Head of State choses to appoint the First Lord of the Treasury, who then choses his/her government. The PM does not have to be an MP. The PM goes when the head of state says so - there is nothing in fact constitutionally preventing a corpse from being the PM.
The only thing stopping these things from happening is that the head of state will not act against the will of Parliament - they have bad familial memories of doing so in the past.
One last point - I am a citizen, of the Republic of Ireland - you, you are a subject of Queen Elisabeth II, but no citizen.
Complain about this comment
message 102...
Apart from a a slight difference of veiwpoint on some details I tend to agree with the general tenure of your message.
However do not think because you have managed to get to partial grips with a commercially and international socially useless language, you have anything to boast about.
For me, I would no more wish to learn another language, than fly to the moon. The matter of language has been resolved by the wholoe world cleaving to English as it's first, or second, language, globally.
I am very good at many things, self taught, but I would not begin to make issue of it if you could not match me in whatever of those things I am particularly excellent, or even marginally, good at.
We all have our skills.
That is from you, a rather pathetic call.
AS an Irishman, you are singularly uninformed of the histooy that went on beteween the USA, and the British government, over the matter of self determination.
Had the Americanms not vetod it, as they also did over the British and French involvement Suez, Egypt in '56.,it would not have surpised anyone if the Goverment of the day did not send in a massive military presence to curtail DeValara, his pressure group, and their demands. But you have your version , I have mine.
Same applies to the matter of partition in India.
Britain could NOT afford to take arms against the rising tide of national endeavour, therefore it WAS economic. No matter how else you put spin on it. India knew it, and struck whilst the coffers were bare, Fortunaletly for many, between Britain and Hindu India, consessions were agreed, that steered the bloodshed onto Pakistan.
The government of the UK resides in the party that gets the most seats in an election.
Pretty basic political stuff actually.
The ensuing progress is then set in motion by certain 'constitutional' niceties.
Upon 'appointment' by the monarch, the PM, whoever that is, becomes the leader of HM government, and in order to restrain chaos, he chooses a number of ministers to join a Cabinet, for the purpose of carrying out, as near as possible, the mandate he and his party presented to the electorate.
So don't try to be a smart alec and tell me how our constitutional arranmgements are made. I am well versed in them,.
I will agree that I am a 'subject', and that grieves me immensly, hence my perpetual call for this state to correct a wrong, by drawing up a written consttiution which would make me a 'citizen' of the consequent republicand-monarchy, if that can be an accepted, temporary, contradiction in terms.
I am thinking the Netherlands here.
But as far as the difference between 'citizen' and 'subject', I suggest a trawl througn what it means for you, against what it means to me.
You have obligations placed upon your head, that do not hang over mine.
I am bound by laws, that can be changed, by Acts of Parliament, you are under an obligation to attend your constitution, which could easily provoke egnimatic problesm such as, 'the right to bear arms' over in the Constitution of the USof A., as an example.
I do not know the Irish constitution, so cannot make further comment.
Please exccuse any typo's in this, as my task bar has disappeared, and I no can longer access the spell check.
Complain about this comment
Re 103
Your arrogance and rudeness are like no other on this board! Are your standards the standards of all born in 1936?
John Smith was not PM when he died, or at any other time in his life. One of the important things of those who have been well educated, or claim to have been well educated, is to present actual facts.
Complain about this comment
message 104... I would try reading most of your output to make a seriopus study of absolute rudeness, but top marks for s[pottin whjat I could claim as a deliberate mistake. I will not though as I admit to overlooking the fact of the matter.
I should have added, 'had he achieved the office upon leading the Party to victory'. If indeed he had done so. We were never to know, even though the pundits put a Labour loss down to his demise.
Marks out of ten for the first abrasive part... minus 25,
Out of ten for spotting my error... 10/10.
Complain about this comment
Mess 103: Thanks for your sarcasm, very much enjoyed it when spotted. I am no linguist and can speak my first language, a bit of Spanish and some Welsh (very badly but enough to be understood because I can't drop my accent at all - more importantly for here, enough to understand) I'm ashamed that I have only a fistfull of Irish terms and phrases. But I am open to other language speakers and do not consider them odd or a threat as you so obviously do. Why the anger Mapexx, why the fear.....?
You are plainly not well versed in constitutional issues as you claim.
Your understanding of past British Imperial history is less accurate than The Lord of The Rings is as a gardening manual.
Do you honestly believe that India decided to wait until the end of WWII, providing many thousands of soldiers and seamen and airmen to help fight facism in the World whilst having a cunning plan to wait for the war to bankrupt them and then take their country back? Would it not have made more sense for India to strike when the Empire was at its weakest - during the Second World War, when they had their largest ever number of armed and trained soldiers available?
No of course not, they had a plan to implement so that the British would have to withdraw at some point in the future. Now I see it: "I was blind, but now I see...
I accept that you have no knwoledge of the Irish Constitution as stated but you do use the example of the American one - but have you not noticed all the ammendments made to the constitution ove the 200 years of its existence - it is changed regularly by common consent (vote), its written on paper not stone.
The UK has no written constitution - you have to prove your rights in a court of law with reference to past legal decisions (laws ratified or changed by an unelected second chamber and assentes by the unelected hereditary head of state). How's that more free than a written constitution?
Complain about this comment
message 106....
I agree that there was a simmering ferment in India, but the bulk of India was pro Britain, for historical reasons, that is why the population lined the streets to join up, when it became clear that Japan had it's eye on expanding it's empire, China first, India next, having swept through the lesser nations on the way.
The main problem was not whether Indian was to be off loaded because England could not hold it together, but because the impending dispute, which had been the subject of prewar discussion, and negotiation, broken off by that war, came to a head, when Britain was at it's weakest.
When the money, to uphold the area, had dissipated, control was lost..
The Partition into Islamic Pakistan, and Hindu India, which was not fully resolved, due to the matter of Kashmir, and had the war not come between the early part, and it's ultimate far too hastily conclusion, it left much to be concluded in a worthwhile manner.
At such a juncture, Britain was on a hiding to nothing.
The resulting massacres, on both sides, with Kashmir still undecided, has led to the present day. The matter still being unresolved, and still a cause of irrational friction where the two nations meet.
Regarding what I said about the written constitution of Ireland against the unwritten one of the UK, did I actually say anything different to what you have written in your last message?
However, in reference to that of 'amendments', I am given to understand, that although amendments are made, and as you say there have been many, over the last 200 years, unless they reinforce the tenor of the original, they cannot be enforced.
This is why, according to my American contacts, it is impossible, without a cancellation of a clause in the Constitution, ( which cannot be allowed, apparently), not just an amendment, America finds it almost impossible to trash the gun laws, and why the gun lobby, and the NRA, invariably get such attempts cast down by the Senate, and the judiciary.
This why they have amendments, and not removal of constitution clauses, the clauses cannot be removed under the original terms of that constitution.
Having made those comments, I must here say that should we become integrated into Europe, on a fully immersed basis, that is, become as Ireland seems to now be, a fully constituent region within a superstate, then we will bypass the requirement to have our own 'written' constitution, as the European one will be our governing repository of political exactitude.
One the other hand, I cannot see the UK EVER opting to have an individual written constitution, as any attempt would be obfuscated by over a thousand years of statute and precedental law making, not an easy thing to throw out.
I am of the mind to say, it is more this that prevents a full integration, rather than a matter of entering the Euro zone, and an alteration to the present currency, by opting for the Euro at no matter what exchange rate.
The European constitution would be pre-eminent, over our existing legal structure, and it is this that worries our establishment more than anything else.
It already sets aside existing British law, the latest being that regarding the permanence of the DNA data base, which now has to be rationalised, in favour of those who have not been criminalised, yet are still included, for a variety of of non criminal reasons, by previous Acts of Parliament, under a varity of Police and Criminal legislation.
Complain about this comment
MAybe the UK, when it becomes a full part of the EU Superstate would consider having their own written constitutions like the member states of the USA.
The reason there is not one yet for all of member states in the EU is down to certain countries rejecting it by use of a referendum.
What is there to fear of an introduction of an uniformed set of rules for all regions of the EU held in common? I can't see the problem myself - although to be fair this thread or site even might not be the right arena for discussing it.
I still don't agree with your interpretation of Indian history though, but will not list all the atrocities perpetrated by the English during the 20's there, as I think its rather counter-productive to the current debate.
Complain about this comment
message 108,...
considering your partial agreement with me on them matter fof the EU, and your remark re the futility debating the matterb of India, I mwill respond with just this
It seems you cannot get above fretting about the 'at ground level' activities of the British in India.
Two points, British mismanagement was almost invariabnly during the 'reign' of a private company, that virtually 'stole' India, and set up it's own realmdom.
As I recall, Britain was only keen on India as a staging post to the far east, trade at first, until it saw what the East India Company was raking in from it's new possession.
The East India Company. It was that company the instituted the Raj, that did most of the constructional works, both in building and engineering, not to mention constructing a 'civil service' type Empire of it's own. Which ultimately facilitated the eventual take over of the company assets, by the British goverment
It was the same company that turned farmland into poppy fields for the express reason of making opium to sell to the Chinese, which in turn led to the Boxer rebellion, which again, in turn caused the British state to take over the East India company..
British involvment was very much concerned with Russian Imperialism at the time, and had a good relationship with much of the hierarchy of the north Indian states, where Islam held a degree of sway.
Recruitment amongst northen tribes became normal, in order to have sufficient force on hand to repel, or at least deter, any actions by Russia.
Antagonistic Islam had already raised it's ugly head, and one trick which was used by that fractious element caused great problems, as the Indian Sepoy regiments, being mainly Muslim, were impelled to rebel, due to lies being told that the grease for their rounds of ammunition, which they often licked to aid insertion to their weapons, was in fact Lard, or pig grease. This led to the Sepoy Uprising/Rebellion, which was put down rather viciously.
Once that problem was out of the way, and the British Military establishment took control over the whole territory, massacres, and atrocities in general, were strenuously curtailed.
In the main, as a reaction to activities by insurgent factions, some did take place for certain, not all were recorded however, at least by those who perpetrated them.
Much that came back to the UK, was shunted into 'dead letter' files, to appear many decades later, bit by bit
I am not saying there were no incidents at all, but they were not as frequent, or as deliberate as previously, when the rise of insurgency first came about.
Anyway, I am really not concerned with ground level details, it interests me far more to look at the overall and general politial picture, I leave it to you to dig out whatever it is you wish to find for use in your anti British campaigns.
Complain about this comment
After a marathon post which lasted nearly as long as the Raj you say that you have no interest in ground level details. I don't have to dig for anything -you give it to me on a plate.
Only two things - first thank the lordy you have seen fit and have accepted that you were wrong on the EU. Second define British - I thought that we were talking about the English involvement in India, there can be no british because its a geographical term and Wales is only a region of England after all.
Complain about this comment
message 110....
One of us cannot read correctly it seems, pleas eelighten me, just where did I say I was wrong on the EU, all I said was ....'I partially agree' with what you said. That was a generalised term, the important word being 'partial'.
My! some folk do have problems.
Complain about this comment
message 110....
Again, forgot to mention the last bit...
I suppose it has to be said, but as I stated in the Raj length post you were rather scathing ovetr, British is a generic term that refers to the whole of Gt Britain .
The Empire which overtook the subcontinent, was not, in case you have just woken up, the English Empire, it was, and is still, referred to as the BRITISH EMPIRE.
Now, I begin to realise that all those lessons you bunked off from, are being sadly missed, and I can now begin to understand why the Education Department are so keen on truancy these days.
Instead of reacting by shooting from the lip, sorry,... hip, get your history book out, or trawl Wiki for info befoe adding any further schoolboy bloopers to your last one.
Complain about this comment
message 110 again...
Wales is a region of the United Kindom, NOT England.
I cannot be held responsible for your lack of understanding geopolitical definities.
So....
Eire, or the Republic of Ireland, is a nation state on the island of Ireland, and NI is a region of the same United Kingdom, that encompasses Wales
Like Wales and England, NI and the Republic of Ireland, share a geographical entity, but unlike Wales and England, they do not share a geopolitical unity. Simple really when you think it over.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS