Polls apart?
Thanks for the comments after yesterday's first effort. Just to remind you, this is Adrian Masters moonlighting from Dragon's Eye and masquerading as Betsan. Only in a cyber-sense of course.
If you like what you read, remember that I wrote it. If you don't ... it wasn't me guv - look, it's Betsan's name at the top of the post.
Talking of guvs - or Govs - the YouGov poll has provided a great deal of excitement in Welsh political circles. As one colleague of mine said, it's like Christmas time for anoraks.
There's plenty of detailed analysis elsewhere so I'll just concentrate on one aspect - what it tells us about the trio trying to take over Welsh Labour and particularly the attitudes of voters towards them as First Minister.
The poll shows that 32% of voters generally think Carwyn Jones would do fairly or very well as First Minister, compared to 22% who think that of Huw Lewis and 27% for Edwina Hart.
Labour voters spread their support more evenly: 45% said Mr Jones would do fairly or very well. Mr Lewis and Ms Hart each scored 41%.
But 26% per cent of Labour voters said Edwina Hart would do very badly or fairly badly compared to 12% who thought the same of Carwyn Jones and 14% who thought the same of Huw Lewis.
So how are the three responding to this first big survey of how they appeal or not to voters?
At the risk of sounding as if speaking to the spokeys is what I do all day and everyday, here, as a public service, is what they've told me today:
A spokesperson for Carwyn Jones said, "The real votes that count in this election are those of party members and those in the affiliated organisations in which the ballot has not yet started. What this poll does, however, is to confirm our view that Labour needs a leader for the whole of Wales."
A spokesperson for Huw Lewis said: "These figures really chime with our own analysis and it shows that everything is still to play for. Our figures have consistently shown that we are ahead with the membership and the broader Labour family; our extensive phone contact has shown us that, and these figures would seem to underscore where our strengths are.
People respond positively to Huw, in North Wales, in West Wales - right across the country there is a genuine and growing connection with his message. Whilst other candidates currently have slightly better recognition, that is not translated into popularity.
People who meet Huw and hear him speak respond well to him, that is why it has always been our objective for Huw to speak to as many members as possible - he really is the campaign's greatest asset."
Edwina Hart said: "This straw poll shows quite clearly that people know me and know what I stand for. As a minister you have to take tough decisions which not everyone may agree with - but I stand by those decisions because I believe they are in the best interests of the people of Wales.
I'm very heartened to find as I meet Labour people face to face during this campaign that I am building up a great level of support."
I'm Betsan Powys, BBC Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Our petition is lodged, carefully worded so that the WAG shouldn't dismiss it without a very good reason.
It is written .....
We call upon the National Assembly for Wales, to urge the Welsh government to petition the British government, to modify the law relating to constitutional referendum in Wales, so that the current simple majority is replaced by a sixty percent of the electorate majority as a requirement to succeed.
Aditional information as part of the petition .....
This petition is in response to the previous referendum held on 18 September 1997, where a simple majority succeeded.
The turnout for this referendum was only 50.1% of the electorate.
Of this the Yes vote received 50.3%.
Of this the No vote received 49.7%.
If this result were applied to a referendum that substantially changed the relationship of Wales with the remaining United Kingdom, 6721 voters could take Wales into independence. It is not enough that politicians say it would not happen, the people of Wales needs such assurance written into the British Constitution.
Can we expect the support of FiDafydd and chums?
Complain about this comment
Welcome Adrian Masters....
Huw Lewis the peoples choice might become Labours saviour, many who deserted to the Plaid camps will return when he demonstrates to the grass roots a vision linking the past with the future, sidestepping "New Labour" follies.
Good luck to the man, as Conservatives are much too far away to succeed in Caerphilly, both Labour MP Wayne David and AM Jeff Cuthbert get our votes to keep out Plaid.
Complain about this comment
Hi Adrian'
plenty of detailed analysis elsewhere some links please.
I've managed to track down some details, The poll covered a great deal.
The race for FM isn't of great importance for many.
So far I've managed to get these details:
Referendum "More Powers"
Would Vote Yes- 42%
Would Vote No- 37%
Don't Know/Wouldn't Vote- 21%
General Election tomorrow:
Labour--- 34%, (-8.7%) (20seats - 9)
Tories--- 31%, (+9.6%) (10seats + 7)
Plaid---- 15%, (+2.4%)
Lib Dems- 12%, (-6.4%)
UKIP------ 4%
BNP------- 2%
Greens---- 1%
Others/Independents- 1%
This was a YouGov’s internet survey of 1,078 people conducted on October 21-23.
Just after the Question time.
My initial comments;
1/ Polling in Wales is notoriously difficult, the number surveyed is small given the patchy nature of opinion.
Actual results will probably be significantly different.
2/ Expected confidence probably +/- 2%, so Plaids result suggests support is firm, they have not lost ground. But they can claim a gain!!!
3/ Haven't figured out the likely balance of power in the Assembly yet.
4/ The referendum support is not as solid as the yes campaign would hope.
Only 42% in favour, with 37% confirmed No, and 21% undecided or not voting.
Complain about this comment
"Our petition is lodged, carefully worded so that the WAG shouldn't dismiss it without a very good reason."
Democracy is a pretty good reason to reject it Stony. Would you need 60% of the electorate to vote to abolish the Assembly?
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid I didn't understand Dewi, your first sentence.
The petition relates to a constitutional referendum.
Complain about this comment
Again a positive poll - all set for a proper Government in Cardiff by 2011-12 and then down to the serious business of stripping away excess power and cost at the London end.
The state of the parties is interesting. Labour not quite imploding as muich as some might expect, while the LD's look dismal. Back to the rainbow in 2011?
Complain about this comment
"..... to modify the law relating to constitutional referendum in Wales, so that the current simple majority is replaced by a sixty percent of the electorate majority as a requirement to succeed"
I mean that this criteria would also apply to any move to abolish the Assembly would it?
Complain about this comment
Re 6
So it would require a 60% vote to abolish the National Assembly? Clearly by the results of this one poll, though, it is purely an academic question.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Dewi, our petition relates to all constitutional referendum, no matter what specific aspect of the constitution is the issue, what's good for the goose etc......
Complain about this comment
No FiDafydd, the objective of the petition is not to abolish anything; it is a better way forward, a way that requires the electorate to engage with political ideas.
via a dongle at Fleetwood, watching the sun set on today.
Complain about this comment
Re 4
Another question was asked as well, apparently: whether or not the National Assembly should have the same law-making powers as the Scottish Parliament. The result here was that 62% were in agreement with the proposition. More than encouraging. More than Stonemason's 60% threshold!
Another encouraging element was that people have far greatest trust in the National Assembly and AMs than they do in Westminster and MPs.
Also, a current line among some on here is that Labour supporters hate the coalition with Plaid; well it seems that Labour supporters are increasingly of the view that Ieuan Wyn Jones would make an excellent First Minister!
It's a small increase, granted, West-Wales but it is an increase, and it probably means (at least)an extra two parliamentary seats for Plaid - and Westminster can hardly be seen as a Plaid priority any more, nor where they can expect the strongest electoral support.
Complain about this comment
#12 FiDafydd, it's about democracy, translate the .....
62% that are in agreement with the proposition.
..... into 60% of the electorate in a referendum, you would need a little over 1.2 million to say yes. Sounds a very fair proposition to me.
Are we to understand you will support the petition ?
via a dongle, back in Blackpool, still much to think about.
Complain about this comment
Adrian...
So effectively, considering that there is a vast and empty gulf between the population of Wales and the 'memberships of Labour, and affiliated organisations' why are the general public being bombarded, from all sides of the media, with something that only concerns Labour, and those 'affiliated organisations'.
If the general population WERE interested, they would join either the Labour party, or one of those aforementioned affiliate groups...they don't, so why does the media bother?
Especially when it turns into a three ring circus, such as at present.
Have the newshounds got nothing better to do than waste their, and our time filling these blogs and the media with such inconsequential pettiness?, which is little more than.. 'too much unnecessary information'.
In realistic terms, what has it to do with anyone, outside of those previously mentioned 'clubs', what the Labour party gets up to, or involved in.
It is only when the Labour party sits in the Assembly, or Westminster, in dominion over the state, that it becomes of interest what it has on its manifesto.
Truthfully, most people couldn't giver a hoot who is the leader, even if like Brown he comes from within the parliamentary group or is elected. Then, when the electorate becomes familiar with him, or her, and what his direction the party takes thereafter do they show any interest. John Smith's early demise proved that..
Maybe the whole country would sit bolt upright and take serious notice if a door was opened to let through the likes of those, myself included, who have been stunned by the incompetence of the Assembly over the last ten years.
I don't really expect it to happen, as should the whole population be given chapter and verse of antipathy to the Assembly WAG, it would not doubt mean that should they then desire the abolition, if our stance was substantiated by their approval, of the Cardiff Bay lot, there may well be more than a few hacks out on their ear for lack of something however trivial to report to their editors.
Complain about this comment
Message 2.
Stonemason. Just to point out that your figure of only 6721 voters being needed to change the result from YES to NO, is too generous to the YES 'side'.
In fact, it would have needed only 3361 voters to have changed from YES to NO to have resulted in a No result.
To have a referendum which decided constitutional change run the same as say, a general election, is simply crazy. I suspect that the nationalists/devolutionists on here know damn well that the whole Welsh referendum debacle was farcical.
Their mantra "Thats democracy" shows either their complete ignorance of the constitutional situation or, more likely, are cynical attempts to try and stifle the protests of those who know only too well that something stinks in their nervous refusal to have a third and final referendum. This in spite of the fact the second one was allowed after the first resulted in an overwhelming 4 to 1 victory for those against devolution.
There must be a third "best of three" devolution referendum. I'm sure IWJ and Rhodri Morgan know in their bones that would be the correct thing to do. The fact that they both keep very quiet indeed about this shows clearly that they are afraid of the Welsh voters..they should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
Noah
There is little democracy in Wales, debate is stifled, IWJ and Rhodri Morgan have done little for the very people they take an oath to serve.
It seems that "Public Service" has been replaced by "Self Service".
via a dongle, with a large malt, Highland naturally.
Complain about this comment
More Plaid Yougov panelists support Carwyn than Labour ones? Wonder Why?
Complain about this comment
Re 17
More intelligent?
Complain about this comment
Message 12
And we all know who's behind that poll, don't we?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/betsanpowys/2009/10/poll.html
Guess which organisation they belong to:
http://www.iwa.org.uk/publications/agenda/agenda_articles.php?cat=6
I don't know why they don't just go the whole hog and invite Robert Mugabe to carry out the next one. It might even be more accurate...
Complain about this comment
#18
That must be an oxymoron FiDafydd, More intelligent coupled with Plaid.
Complain about this comment
18...
Correct, between one chimpanzee and another.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, if the antis are this rattled after one opinion poll, then bring on the referendum! Even the joker-in-chief, Noa, can't hide his horror at what this poll suggests are the views of the Welsh nation as regards further, better, stronger devolution. Rants and petitions seem to be the order of the day!
I can't wait for further polls, as a very clear pattern is emerging.
Complain about this comment
One thing about it, if the nationalists believe their own daft polls, it plays right into the hands of the 'No' campaign.....
Complain about this comment
What makes you think this was a Plaid run poll, paranoia and delusion seems to be the way ahead for the rabid antis....
And before people get carried away with what Stonemason is proposing, he isn't proposing a 60 vote in favour, he is suggesting that for any constitutional referendum to pass it would need the support of 60% of the electorate, not of those that vote. So if there was a proposal to transfer taxation powers to the National Assembly and there was a 60% turn out, you would need a unanimous vote for it to pass. Not really democratic.
The fact is YouGov is widely respected - some caution should be applied as polling is in its infancy in Wales, but still good on trends. Clearly overwhelmingly people are pro devolution in Wales. Less as enthusiastic on voting yes in the forthcoming referendum even though they want equality with Scotland.... all very interesting, something for everyone other than the anti devolutionists.
Complain about this comment
Lyn_Thomas at #24 believes it undemocratic to engage the whole electorate on issues that require a referendum.
The greatest challenge for democrats is to force politics to engage with the electorate, particularly the very important matters (referendum), to raise political awareness, and then to have the electorate engage with politics. My proposal to raise the requirement to 60% of the electorate voting for a proposal via a referendum, will by definition require that the whole population be actively engaged. This is democracy.
The one electorate becomes important because the one is part of everyone.
via a dongle, mulling the words of Lyn_Thomas (Betsan's Looking Forward #29 ) who calls me Nazi when I ask for democracy, it's a strange country the separatist mind.
Complain about this comment
Actually I am not calling you a nazi, but you get the analogy - you regularly attempt to smear Plaid people by the use of such an analogy, I don't think its good politics or in any way accurate, yet you feel free to use such analogies and even go further. Tell you what I will not apply them to you if you stop using them with Plaid?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In order for a bit of reality in this yes vs no debate I would urge people to listen to the 1st hour of yesterdays BBC Radio Wales phone in with Jason Mohammed. It will be on the bbc iplayer.
To me it proves itself as a useful bit of information as for once it is clearly the voices of real Welsh people and not just a fudged opinion poll conducted by closet nationalists and gravy train riders.
I think after listening to the radio show you would have to agree that it is an absolute domination for the no more powers p.o.v. .... and that's before you take into account that the BBC researchers will have been trying to get a balanced debate by deliberately allowing a similar number of 'yes' and 'no' supporters air time. The fact that they couldnt find a similar number is hilarious.
This is a similar situation to what I've seen in previous BBC radio Wales phone-ins on this subject too. Isn't it strange that polls with WAG and IWA involvement always show different.
Complain about this comment
"It's only an internet poll", but YouGov's track record is very good.
Complain about this comment
Re 28
Trolls inhabit the airwaves as well...
Complain about this comment
Following the numbers #71 Lyn_Thomas your preference is not democratic because it does by design, disenfranchise a huge number of people, the people who for many reasons choose not vote on the very important issues.
The majority that I have spoken to, those that choose not to vote, come in two groups, the first group who admit they do not understand what the election is about, the second who have come to believe their vote counts for nothing.
Both groups are an indictment on the state of politics in this country, an accusation that politics is passing them by, and your proposal that keeps debate largely within political chambers confirms my belief that you and yours care very little about the electorate.
You need to remind yourself about the people who create the reasons for a referendum, they are politicians, these are the very same people who engage in pork barrel politics; if this group wish to take their constituents somewhere new, it should be their duty to explain exactly what is intended and allow and encourage any opposing viewpoint. It is called democracy Lyn_Thomas.
via a Lancashire link, the sun is shining presently.
Complain about this comment
no 30:
pointless response!
Why dont you actually listen to it and then tell me that this overwhelming majority of people who called in questioning the wisdom of further powers for Wales are trolls. To any rational person it would appear from that radio phone-in that it is in fact the other side of the argument who are 'trolls' (whatever that means)
It's always the same with you nationalist Plaid activists isnt it... if anyone has anything to say that you dont like then you are falling over each other to brand them 'anti-Welsh'/'trolls'/'not true Welsh' etc etc. Never willing to listen to the concerns of your fellow country folk are you.... Lord help us if we ever have to live under a Plaid dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
30.As the possibility of a referendum looms large the 'No' campaigners
are becomming more vociferous and lo and behold they are being heard. On
the radio,in the press(Western Mail to boot)on the blogs,in the pub,in
the streets in the workplace the debate has finally begun. In my patch I have never doubted that the will of the majority was against full powers and devolution and recent mutterings have confirmed that.What was the
result of the poll 42/37 the gloves are well and truely off.Now all we
want is our politicians to have enough guts to show their colours and
present a case that their constituents want and not what their outgoing
leaders want.A fair presentation(Not the biased blurb of the WM duo of
Tomos Livingstone and David Williamson) from the media would be appreciated.
If there's anybody out there from True Wales or other 'No' organisations where,how and when do we get some 'No'leaflets. This Yougov poll gives us the momentum the unpopularity of the government and yes vote lobby (people are sick to the teeth of the spiel) despite years of promotion the motive and the will of the people the spur.
Onward and Upwards!!!!
Complain about this comment
Re 32
Silly response!
I said yesterday that the antis have gone into overdrive over the result of just one poll, and all of you seem to be in a foul mood - once again.
It was just one poll, but carried out by a well-respected company, and using sound parameters.
You may not like it, but it is far more stringent than a phone-in on Radio Wales!
Complain about this comment
33....
Not to worry Gnatty, True Wales has matters in hand.
Fi Fi, you will not be concerned to study just how that poll was framed, how the questions were loaded, and how they were based on the simple concept that what is in the pipeline from the nationalist side of the matter was, more or less, perceived to be already under way. The reason why you will not be concerned is because you are one of those thinking it all wrapped up.
It isn't, and the opposition to it all will become more and more evident, as soon as this ridiculous three ring circus of the leadership is behind us.
Complain about this comment
33. thegnatswatter
Try:
truewales345@googlemail.com
I believe a new campaigning website will be launched over the next few days, too.
The fight is on!
Complain about this comment
Re 35
mapexx,
What PROOF do you have to say that this poll was 'loaded' or in anyway unprofessional? Proof not instinct or innuendo.
Complain about this comment
36. Three converts today so far? How many converting days to Christmas? It's going to be like taking candy from babies. 37.003%
Complain about this comment
It is apparent that democracy frightens the extreme left wing Nationalists who frequent hereabouts, as do notions of freedom of speech and expression. How do you tell people their thoughts are of no importance in the grand scheme of things, grand coalition scheme of things that is.
via a dongle, following a damp walk along the pier.
Complain about this comment
2 Stoney - Your petition may not be rejected for being legally incorrect, but it will never see the light of day.
If you wanted a qualified majority of say 55%, 60% or 66% of those voting then you would have a valid point. But this proposal is nothing more than blatent gerrymandering and would not be accepted in any democracy anywhere in the world. (I dont think North Korea counts)
Complain about this comment
The accusation of "blatant gerrymandering" is insulting, but I will ignore it.
Why is democracy such a problem, if the politicians are able to make a substantive case that the vast majority understand and approve, what is the problem, if the reverse is true then it is correct that politicians heed the will of the people, if a constitutional referendum is not supported by an overwhelming majority it is not wanted.
Could it be that politics in the mind of penddu and chums is reserved for politicians to the exclusion of the little people, maybe, if people could see their opinions mattered and were valued maybe everyone would express their opinion and vote, would we have 90% turnout, who would benefit from such a vote?
via a dongle, looking forward to meeting the person confident enough on these pages to forecast the demise of a proposed democratic process, a politician perhaps, what flavour we wonder.
Complain about this comment
37.....
Follow the link in message 36.
That is proof enough for me.
Complain about this comment
Re 42
There is no link in no.36 - just an e-mail address!!
Is the mention of a website that has yet to be launched what you refer to as proof enough for you?
Complain about this comment
41 - By Gerreymandering I refer to the practice of inventing electoral arrangements so as to give a desired result. If you want to make a popular mandate, then first insist on compulsory voting - then apply a qualified majority to those actually voting. That would be fair to all concerned.
But your method presumes a negative vote on those staying at home (or dead) and as such is undemocratic.
But what do I care - this petition is going nowhere.
Complain about this comment
Re 41
Stonemason,
You need to calm down. Every message from you has become a string of generalities about how you alone are the great champion of democracy, and all the rest of us are wrong and evil.
I would be far more impressed by your protestations if it wasn't for the fact that you are driven by one over-riding consideration, your detestation of the emerging Welsh democracy voted for in a perfectly democratic and fair referendum. No one was excluded.
Any look at democracies all around the world will show that what you're asking for in Wales - as far as I can see, and you can correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't apply anywhere else on the democratic planet.
If you look at Switzerland, probably the country that makes most use of referenda, the general turn-out is aroung 43-44%. I've never looked on the Swiss as the enemies of democracy, but, Stonemason, you probably know better don't you>
Legislation created from prejudice is never a very good idea.
Complain about this comment
#42 mapex55
I think you mean the following link True Wales
Complain about this comment
Australian republic referendum, 1999, turnout %95.1
Italian divorce referendum, 1974, turnout %87.7
New Zealand House of Representatives, 1999, turnout %84.8
No prejudice, democracy, Australia has the ideal criteria that mapex has called for, I note that penddu mentioned it, the compulsory vote.
By calling for %60 of the electorate to approve there can be no doubt a real mandate by the voters has been given.
Complain about this comment
47...
Actually Stoney, I am on record as saying I would accept a simple majority of one, but only if the franchise was taken up by 100% of those entitled to vote, with no exceptions, under severe penalty, for failing to register and vote.
Exceptions being for a small number, due to crippling ill health, absence form the region for genuine reasons, and or, DEATH !!
All others to pay for the privilege of either abstaining, spoiling their voting slip, or failing to turn up.
But not to be too contradictory, I would accept a 60% result.
If pressed.
I can see no satisfactory reason for such to not be put in place, they are quick enough to slap speeding cameras all over the place, which effectively means we should all obey the limits, but as in the matter of failing to vote etc, if you contravene the rules it costs.
And I consider doing a bit of speeding, where appropriate, far less a 'crime' than failing to register your vote.
In fact registering and keeping tabs on the electorate for voting purposes should be a doddle in these days of data bases.
They can read a car registration number and check instantly if the car is insured, with an MOT certificate,. so again I say it should be a doddle to check on who is voting, or has voted.
On a personal basis in a matter so important to democracy, although I am wary of all the snooping going on by the various authorities all over Britain, this is one bit of snooping I heartily would support.
Now I wonder which little nat nut is about to cast doubts, or a shadow over that suggestion?
Before they do, I will say this, they must be very sure of unfavourable results if they cannot accept such a regime.
Complain about this comment
Stonemason your proposal is undemocratic because you ascribe a no to all those that stay at home, you decide that their abstention means a no vote, for that is what it would become under your proposal. Thus you are determining the intent of people that you can have no idea what their intent is. Its gerrymandering because you are rigging the system to perpetuate the status quo regardless of those that have an opinion, ie who vote, want. The best you can say of the people who don't vote is that they either don't care one way or the other or are happy for others to decide for them. Anything else is spin and deceit.
Complain about this comment
49.....
There is open simple way to prove you right or wrong as the case may be.
COMPULSORY voting.
Immediately followed by a fully publicised and openly and fully discussed electoral campaign.
As I have said before, if the whole population has the vote, and uses it, even if there are 1 million 999.999 against and 2 million and 1 for, I will accpet that result, but I do not acceopt the result we had in 1997 because, effectively, about 50% of the population never gave the mandate for what has occured in their name since.
If you wish to claim by staying away they did, then I can just as easily say the opposite.
So let us see how brave our heroes in the Bay of O' Pigs really are, they are so very very good at passing laws or wanting to, let us see them pass a demand for compulsory voting.
If they dare.
I will accept what the outcome will be, even by one single vote, the question is, will you?
By the way, you have been rigging the vote since 1997, regardless of the wants and needs of the people of Wales, by these perpetual opinion polls,with which, you lot are constantly attempting to 'rig the votes' yet further. with leading questions and questionaires slanted to obtain the result you are lookinmg for.
Never mind the plethora of questions with which you bombard a very minute, and no doubt 'chosen' selection of persons, let us have the one deciding question, the option between 'do we keep the assembly?' or 'does it go?'
But such a poll only after weeks of equal and counterbalancing publicity from those who oppose.
If you are so fired up by 'democracy', then you should have no objections to that.
Complain about this comment
#49 Lyn_Thomas
It is not a proposal, it is a petition.
The system proposed in the petition is neither unfair, or gerrymandering, or rigged, or spin, or deceit, have I missed any of your inflammatory labels ?
It is democracy that imparts no advantage, that calls for the participation of elected and electorate, a call for politics to engage with the electorate so that the people who matter, voters, are able to say they understand the issues, feel their input has value, and most of all that they participated rather than remained passive observers.
This is democracy.
via a dongle, mellow in red rose country.
Complain about this comment
Re 46
So mapexx, is Roll_On_2010 right about the link? - I notice that you were too embarassed to answer.
But if this is the link, God help you, as they seem to be clueless about the country they claim doesn't deserve to exist as a democratic entity. When you read of Offer's Dyke, you just despair!!!
Re 51
Still claiming the moral high ground, Stonemason, without answering ANY of the arguments made against you? No response to the fact that no other democratic nation has set 60% as a threshold. Listing a few occasional high turnouts, is ridiculous.
And just remind me, what percentage of the vote did Thatcher get before setting out deliberately to destroy whole Welsh communities?
Complain about this comment
Its anti democratic because it makes all those that don't/can't vote count as a no vote, it is anti democratic because you are deciding how they are counted and not them. I am afraid that if people don't vote their views don't count. I have some problems with compulsory voting, I think voting is a civic duty but I accept even then some have objections to taking part in the political process (why they hold that view I will never understand but some do). I think its just morally wrong to say that those that don't vote should be counted as a no vote, that is rigging the system. And given stonemason's proposal you are talking about a massive majority of those voting to ever achieve change, a tiny minority of those that vote will be given a veto.
Complain about this comment
One other thing, what is a constitutional change? The UK lacks a written constitution. We are governed by laws which can be said to have constitutional status, but we also have conventions and traditions that would elsewhere be part of a constitution. There is no one document that encompasses them all. A example of a constitutional change would be when the conservatives lost the MPs in an election that served as law officers. In the past these had been treated in the same way as ministers and were always drawn from the Commons or the House of Lords - Thatcher simply ignored that constitutional convention and appointed them without giving them seats in the Lords. Should that have had a referendum before she could do that, it was certainly a change in the constitution? Also the National Assembly gains legislative powers via Acts of Parliament, it could be argued that each transfer (of which there are a dozen of so a year) are changes in the constitution, should each of those be subject to a referendum? Who decides, in our unwritten constitution, what constitutes a constitutional change? How much of a change does it need to be before a referendum is called.
As you can see Stonemason your proposal if flawed, plus its anti democratic. A dead duck I would say.
Complain about this comment
via a dongle, a busy day.
Lyn_Thomas, there is no flaw, inclusive democracy rarely is.
Complain about this comment
We can get ourselves tied up quoting all sorts of precedents here, but choosing a government is a much less serious business than changing constitutional arrangements.
At any election there will always be a proportion of the electorate, who aren't sure, misunderstand the issues, swayed by personalities or propoganda, maybe simply get it wrong, and a large group who for whatever reason don't vote!
After the event if 50% or more of all the electorate are unhappy, the reality is not what they were led to believe - that is a recipe for trouble and disent.
Any government is likely to be representative of less than 50% of the electorate - they get on with the job, at the next election, if we think we got it wrong we throw them out.
Constitutional change is more serious, this is not who but how, and getting another referendum to change what is done is difficult.
Unlike government elections, Referenda are not automatic, we have to live with the result.
We have to be sure what is done, is acceptable to a substantive majority not only at the time of the Referendum by years into the future.
Currently our politicians are playing fast and loose with our Constitution, Sovereignty and the powers they hold.
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the Lisbon Treaty, but the rerun of the Irish Referendum because they didn't give the right answer, the failure of Brown to give us a promised Referendum.
There are serious democratic issues here. We are being manipulated.
Hain and the "Wales 2006 Act" is a typical example, of how politicians manipulate authority, to avoid fulfilling unwelcome assurances, and ignor the basic democratic constraints of a free society.
For me;
A simple majority is acceptable for electing a Government.
For Constitutional change we need to revise the way we do things.
1/ We need to define when and how referendum should be held, and how the questions are phrased, it is obvious that the currently proposed questions on Welsh devolution are unacceptable.
2/ A simple majority of those who bother to vote is inadequate.
A margin or a minimum turnout has to be set.
An alternative is a simple majority but if the vote is close (within 1 or 2%) then the referendum should be rerun.
It has become apparent that we can no longer trust our politicians - the expenses scandal is only one issue, there are many others.
Here in Wales the One Wales Agreement does not reflect the votes of the people, our politicians are not acting in our interest, but in their own narrow party objectives, and that of minority pressure groups.
Properly constituted Referenda, can perhaps help resolve the current democratic deficit in the UK.
Here in Wales, where it seems we are going to have unsatisfactory Coalition Governments without a mandate, for some time, this brake on the WAG is essential.
Complain about this comment
Then tell me how we define a constitutional change when there is no written constitution. The constitutional convention was that ministers were chosen from members of the Houses of Parliament, the law officers were treated as ministers. The by executive action, not even a vote in parliament, the constitutional arrangements were changed to say that the law officers did not need to be members of parliament. Now in other written constitutions the law officers are mentioned specifically, with their mode of appointment and relationship to the legislature and executive spelt out. Yet not in the UK. Also every transfer of power to the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government is a constitutional change, it happens a dozen times a year, should there be a vote on each transfer? Who decides what is a constitutional change in a country without a written constitution? None of these points are being answered. Deeming people to have voted no because they don't vote is not democratic to me. Stonemasons extreme request for 60% of the electorate to vote for before anything passes defies any description of being democratic. Having said that he is on record as saying that on the matter of Welsh independence one voice against should block it...
Complain about this comment
Lyn #57
You are playing games - you know very well what the difference is between electing a Government, and deciding the limits and constraints on Government.
While accepting that you are working for a particular structure of Government in Wales, a structure you know is unacceptable to the majority. - Of course you want a voting system that will give you the best chance.
Surely this is beyond politics or political posturing.
You should pause and consider how we put in place a referenda system that ensures unambiguous support of the majority of the Welsh People.
Its called "democracy" and real "democracy" is about the will of the people.
When dealing with how we are Governed. It is a lot deeper and more serious than electing governments -
We have to get it right, beyond dispute.
Complain about this comment
Lyn #57
Re, Your comment;
every transfer of power to the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government is a constitutional change, it happens a dozen times a year, should there be a vote on each transfer
I assume you are referring to the powers granted under the "Wales 2006 Act".
We were assured that no more powers would be granted to the Assembly without the assent of the Welsh people.
As pointed out above Hain and the "Wales 2006 Act" is a typical example, of how politicians manipulate authority, to avoid fulfilling unwelcome assurances, and ignore the basic democratic constraints of a free society.
Just because in this instance your political agenda benefits, doesn't make it right.
The fact that you (and the party you support) are not "up in arms" to get matters put right, says a lot.
Complain about this comment
Lyn_Thomas, at #53 you wrote....
I am afraid that if people don't vote their views don't count.
This autocratic view is not uncommon amongst the political estate, it makes governance so much simpler, unfortunately it is undemocratic because by default it is possible to ignore the peoples rights to express themselves, you do not need an undisputed mandate from the electorate, in fact the people are held in contempt by politics.
At #54/#57 .....
An excellent example would be the splitting of Justice for Wales from the Justice that exists for England and Wales.
Tax raising powers is another example, as would expanding the sphere of influence that the Welsh Assembly Government has, naturally this list is not exhaustive, but you get the drift.
I'm afraid opposition to my petition will come from those that have an agenda that requires speed, or an agenda that would do best with least discussion, much like the despicable Statutory Instruments at Westminster. I am sure there are similar examples in Wales.
Democracy needs to be re-established as the peoples right, not an option to be offered on occasions.
via a dongle, reading of that Great and Terrible King.
Complain about this comment
Again you avoid answering the questions. And again you have taken it upon yourself to decide how those don't vote are counted, that is not democratic. They may genuinely not know which way to vote, be content to let the majority decide or are plain apathetic. Counting them automatically as a no is taking away their right to abstain. That is not democracy that is rigging the vote. So the administration of Justice counts as a constitutional change but not giving legislative power over school transport? Seems inconsistent, and who judges whether something is a constitutional change when there is an unwritten constitution. I don't think you have thought this one out.
Complain about this comment
West Wales so you would have us vote on each transfer? In which case just about every act of parliament now has clauses relating to Wales and gives powers or removes powers from the National Assembly, we would be in a state of continuous voting!
Your assertion that the people would be consulted I think only really holds for large scale transfers, not every tiny dot and cross on a piece of paper. The old National Assembly pre 2006 had some primary legislative powers, the GOWA 2006 expanded on that, but provided a mechanism via referendum for a larger transfer of power. So I think in spirit that promise, if it was ever made, has been kept. More important was the legal split between the National Assembly as a legislature and the Welsh Assembly Government as an Executive. Even under the pre 2006 legislation the National Assembly gained powers via Acts of Parliament, should each of those have been subject to a referendum?
Complain about this comment
Lyn_Thomas, you asked the question ....
..... how those [who] don't vote are counted
.... they are not counted, the criteria is, a certain number of people [%60 of the electorate] have to approve [a yes vote], if the required number of yes votes are not counted the referendum fails.
What's the problem, you cannot support a majority of a few thousand people taking the remaining %75 into a new legal system? That is not democracy.
From your words you seem to approve of a minority administration that does not include the people in its deliberations, that is not democracy.
Complain about this comment
Lyn - you are either naive, or being disingenuous;
Actually probably playing politics - you well know the constraints and limits here.
It is quite clear: - The Welsh people had a referendum in which they agreed the range of competences for powers to be transferred to the Devolved Government.
The narrow margin of that consent received, sets a duty on those in power to behave honorable in all matters relating to the subsequent Act.
At the time of the Referendum it was made quite clear, by all sides, that before more powers or areas of competence could be granted, the assent of the Welsh People would be sought in a referendum.
In #61 You say,
So the administration of Justice counts as a constitutional change but not giving legislative power over school transport.
Well yes it does, The people of Wales have not agreed that we should have different rules and laws from the rest of the UK over things like school transport.
That is the principle - the area's of competence within which the Welsh Government is able to make and vary laws and rules, from those set by Westminster, was clearly agreed in the 1997 Referendum.
Every thing else is outside the responsibility of the devolved Authority and forbidden territory.
The Devolution Act of 1997 was quite clear on the limits of the devolved Authorities powers.
It was also made quite clear that before further powers were granted, we would have a Referendum.
The Wales 2006 Act was clearly against the wishes of the Welsh people - Hain agreed that he would loose any Referendum on it, that was why we didn't have one.
The answer is simple don't waste time effort and our money meddling outside the responsibilities the Welsh people agreed you should have - every thing else is the remit Westminster and the UK Government.
If you want the "Wales Act 2006" to be democratically valid, or need any other powers - Ask the Welsh People if you can have them.
Complain about this comment
Remiss of me FiDafydd, not replying to you at #52 ...
..... no other democratic nation has set 60% as a threshold.
... because no other country has not ventured in a certain direction does not make it wrong ... just different. Great Britain, as the cradle of democracy, has led the world in democratic government, the assumption here is that the people are as important as the government.
Complain about this comment
65 - Cradle of democracy??? I think that Rome and Greece might have something to say on that....but to get back to your proposed petition it is quite obvious why this approach has not been adopted anywhere else in the world - it is undemocratic and plain bonkers.
If your petition is accepted for publication by the petitions committee, what would you consider to be an acceptable number of votes for it to be considered further by the Senedd?? 100?? 1000???
Complain about this comment
The "Cradle of [modern] democracy"
Your insult does what .......
The petition has to be accepted if it is within the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government.
The petition asks the Assembly to ask the Welsh Assembly Government to ask the British Government; why would either say no to a democratic request, the request is to examine the proposition that the current simple majority for Welsh referenda is undemocratic, were 60% of the electorate the required margin it would be a sure and just mandate to proceed.
A single vote should be sufficient, in fact just the submission should be sufficient, should not every citizen have a voice in government?
Complain about this comment
I don't think the UK can claim to be the cradle of democracy... after all the vote was only given to all on equal terms with the abolition of the University vote post 1945. Other countries have a far better claim on a whole range of criteria for democratic... Finland and New Zealand beat the UK for granting the other 51% of the population the vote - ie Women... Other countries had parliamentary assemblies before England/The UK - ie The Isle of Man, Iceland. Other countries had manhood sufferage before the UK. Its a bit of airbrushing of history trying to say the UK was first or the greatest etc.
Your definition of democracy seems to mean that a majority of those that vote can not decide a matter, or even a majority of the electorate. You demand a near impossible threshold. You determine that those that don't vote have voted no. You are no democrat.
West Wales you have made your position clear, you regard every transfer of power to the National Assembly to be undemocratic. I have yet to see proof that there was a promise for a referendum on any further changes. Inherent in both acts is a mechanism for transferring powers - I don't think this is other than a fringe issue.
And Stonemason once again you fail to say what constitutes a constitutional change - you need a definition.
Complain about this comment
Re 66
You've picked a figure out of the air to secure democracy in Wales! - so that 59% in your eyes would be undemocratic, and why not ask for 61%?
No, I'm afraid your idea of democracy is flawed. You cannot assume what is in the minds of those who have the democratic right to vote, but for whatever reason decide not to use it. Are you really that arrogant?
Complain about this comment
Actually FiDafydd Stonemason is on record as saying one descenting voice should be enough to block a nation from becoming independent. So essentially he believes that he has a right of Veto over the future of Wales. Why he is promoting this to the National Assembly when he knows it has no powers on this matter I have no idea, its a political stunt designed to invalidate any referendum vote on the GOWA 2006.
No definition either as to what a constitutional amendment is, given the unwritten nature of the UK constitution and the fluidity of its constitutional provisions, see the example of treatment of ministers and people who act in a quasi ministerial role. Witness the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties and the GLC in the 1980s. A myriad of what in other jurisdictions would be regarded as constitutional changes are not treated as such in the UK. Before we mandate referenda to change the constitution we need a written constitution.
Complain about this comment
67 As I understand it, your petition is first judged by the petitions committee to ensure that it is offensive, libellous, irrelevant etc, and providing that it meets those basic requirements it is published for a set period of time.
Assuming you pass the first hurdle, the petition needs to collect signatures - It is only after the petition has closed and signatures are counted that it is referred back to the petitions committee - who then decide whether the petition should be considered further. One solitary uppoting vote is unlikely to carry much weight, so I repeat my question -how many votes would you see as justified?
If the committee decides that the petition has merit and support, only then would it be passed to the Senedd floor for discussion. You would then need to pass a majority vote (would that be 50% of those attending or 60% of the total??? ;o)) to pass it to the WAG for action. I have absolutely no doubt that it would not pass this vote - because as anyone can see - it is undemocratic gerrymandering and no sane politician would put he or her name to it.
Complain about this comment
71 I am missing a 'not' in that first sentence!!!
Complain about this comment
We understand the process penddu, thanks all the same.
With regard to the protestations from Lyn_Thomas and FiDafydd, democracy seems to be in the eyes of the beholders, I remind you of the earlier referendum where approximately 3000 votes carried the day .....
..... aproximately 1000 to 1 on a very important constitutional issue.
1000 of the population to 1 winning vote, democratic it was not. This petition asks for democracy.
Complain about this comment
For me the great unanswered question is. Who the heck are the 1% who think defence and foreign affairs should be in the hands of local government???!!! They can't even empty the bins properly mun!
Complain about this comment
I can only agree with Lyn and penddu and their sheer common sense.
But let me pick you up on another sentence of yours Stonemason in your no.65
" Great Britain, as the cradle of democracy, has led the world in democratic government, the assumption here is that the people are as important as the government."
Forget the 'cradle of democracy' bit which has been well and truly debunked already, it's the end of that sentence that I find incredible. Until recent FOI legislation - not passed by a Tory government of course - the level of secrecy practiced by the British state was extraordinary. It's still pretty bad.
Also, and it's that woman Thatcher again; there was little sign of the little people having much power against the state then - a politicised police force during the miners' strike, GCHQ and a general unacceptance that she could possibly be mistaken about anything when she was actually wrong on most things. And all this with a percentage mandate of, at best, the mid 40's. It was a nightmare time when it was the will of the people of Billericay that held sway here in Wales. We were effectively powerless and disenfranchised. That is one very good reason why we got our National Assembly in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Re 73
Ah, but it is true, Stonemason, that you have stated in a previous blog that one person should be able to frustrate the will of the vast, vast majority. So, your democratic principles are dubious at best, I'd say! I'll repeat, legislation emanating in prejudice is not a good idea.
Complain about this comment
FiDafydd .....
I refer you to #2
..... how important is the "one", in a democracy the one is very important because it is part of everyone.
You still do not get it, where a referendum does not achieve a majority of the electorate, it is undemocratic. We are not talking of emptying the bins once a week instead of once a fortnight, issues such as that cause little disruption, and are easy to remedy; it is the question of how many people from the population are the minimum needed to take Wales somewhere quite different.
A 3000 majority is not enough, not even 50% + 1 of the electorate is enough, as you know I personally think it should be much higher, so high that the minority can be bought out lock stock and barrel by the majority, but in a democracy I submitted to the majority of 95%.
There is a massive advantage in having the 60% majority of the electorate as a minimum, the politicians will need to engage with the people in a transparent way and encourage debate, they will have to work hard to convince the voters that what they propose is the only way.
via a dongle still, ......
Complain about this comment
And still no answer on what constitutes a constitutional change in a state where there is no written constitution. And no explanation of how the 60% is chosen and no acceptance that its undemocratic because it makes assumptions of the views of those that don't/can't vote. This is a recipe for no change ever and total deadlock. Unworkable, anti democratic and just down right wrong.
Complain about this comment
A "Constitutional Referendum", would be a referendum relating to the status of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom, applicable where a successful referendum would alter the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom.
There is a referendum in the offing, it, if successful, will alter the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. Such occurrences are rare, but very important, change still occurs, deadlock is replaced by working together ....
.... very hard work, very democratic, it must then be right.
Complain about this comment
Re 79
Every single transfer of powers alters Wales's relationship with the UK. So it follows that you would want a referendum every other week. I think you might struggle to get 60% to turn out every time in that case. But, of course, that's what you want isn't it? The idea that you're doing this for the sake of democracy becomes more of a sham with each message you post. Sadly.
Complain about this comment
73 You claim to understand the process so how about an answer to my question in 71 - How many signatures for your cause would constitute success????
Complain about this comment
So only on matters relating to Wales or ones relating to anything else to do with the running of the state?
Complain about this comment
I'm not going to comment further specifically about the petition, no more grist to the spoilers mill, until I hear from the petitions staff, except to say [from wiki] ....
.... referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens' participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.
A "Slow Movement" possibly, better to be safe than sorry in a divided Wales.
Complain about this comment
Re 82
Excellent question! There seem to be very few answers, though - generalities yes - specifics, answers; none. Nothing as messy as this deserves to get anywhere near the realms of legislation. But no one, from this evidence, need worry about that; legislation emanating from prejudice is never a good idea.
Complain about this comment
#84
In general terms .....
..... you wish the "Status quo" to continue because it suits the objectives of you and yours.
..... others wish for a more inclusive politics, where the views of people are relevant; a more considered politics, where speed is less important than making good legislation.
In specific terms .....
..... there is a movement in politics towards inclusiveness, fairness, appropriateness, you just have to consider why Llais Gwynedd [Voice of Gwynedd] sprang into life; it was when the local people realised their needs were being suppressed by the wishes of a national party that the new politics of Gwynedd arose.
It would be interesting to hear the views of someone like Barry Morgan Archbishop of Wales, how would he react to the petition.
If there is a prejudice FiDafydd, it is a prejudice in favour of democracy.
via a dongle, ..... two more days in Lancashire.
Complain about this comment
Lets look at how this might work.
Last UK general election the turn out was 61.4% So if we had a constitutional referendum under Stonemason's rules the yes vote would need to be 97.72% if we had the same turn out to pass.
For turn out based on the 2001 turn out.... well turn out didn't hit 60% so you would need 101% of the vote to win.
For turn out based on the 1997 turn out of 71.4%, 84.04% of the vote to win.
For turn out based on the 1992 turn out of 77.7%, 77.23% of the vote to win.
I think you can see that this makes a nonsense of the democratic process, creates a near impossible hurdle for any referendum to pass. Given that there are a dozen such changes to the powers of the National Assembly a year I don't think turn out could be sustained.
Complain about this comment
To the moderators - can you please explain why my message in 81 is in moderation????
Complain about this comment
In non-specific terms Lyn_Thomas it does work, as an example, it works very well in Switzerland, a country offered by the separatists in Wales as an example of good governance, there is a tradition of the referendum, it works, people are important .....
..... you make issues where none exist, why, to cast doubt as the the validity of the proposal, why shouldn't the electorate of Wales say yes or no to constitutional issues as they do elsewhere, but with an indisputable majority.
It will be interesting to read your opposition in print, to read how you oppose the democratic right of the people of Wales to decide on issues that will effect their lives and the lives of generations to come.
Complain about this comment
Re 85
Stonemason,
You keep on digging...
There is an enormous contradiction or a gaping hole in your argument - that no amount of claiming that you are the saviour of democracy will put right!
"..... others wish for a more inclusive politics, where the views of people are relevant;"
You couldn't give a damn what people think, because you have decided that you know better, and that you will decide for them. Whether we like it or not, people can, and people do decide not to vote. You have put yourself up as a King Solomon who knows exactly what they think! Hardly democratic, hardly making the views of people relevant.
Could you tell me please whether Switzerland demands that very same 60% of the electorate? It does work in Switzerland, you're right, and they accept the turnout as an integral part of the democratic process. So, you're inconsistent - again!
So, yes, there is a prejudice here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy...
Complain about this comment
If I remember Switzerland requires a majority of those that vote in a majority of cantons and a simple majority of those that vote over the whole country. No 60% of the electorate to vote in favour. I am fully in agreement that major changes to the constitution need the consent of the the people - and would set the bar at 50% of those that vote. I have shown that the 60% requirement is nothing more than a blocking mechanism leading to permanent stagnation and no change ever. The translation into actual percentages voting yes for recent elections is telling.
You would use this mechanism for all constitutional changes no matter how minor where ever it occurs in the UK constitution? What is the UK constitution? We had great offices of state put out to commission - IE the Lord High Treasurer is now a commission of the lords of the Treasury (Chancellor, Financial Secretary, The Whips, First Lord of the Treasury etc)...First Lord of the Admiralty used to be a ministerial position but is now administrative, that is a constitutional change, abolition of the GLC and the Metropolitan County Councils, was that a constitutional change, changes in the composition of the House of Lords, is that a constitutional change, if so why aren't you demanding a referendum on that? At one time Ministers had to resign their seats and fight a byelection to retain their seats as there was a ban on holding offices of profit under the crown and being members of parliament, that was replaced with an exception limiting the number of ministers of the crown, that is regularly altered, should that be submitted to referendum? Each treaty we sign puts limits on the powers of parliament, do they all require a referendum?
Note at no time have I opposed the democratic right of the people of Wales to determine their own future - what I oppose is you deciding what their opinion is and giving legal effect to that view.
Complain about this comment
Lyn_Thomas, the petition relates to Wales, it is concerned when attempts are made to unravel the constitution, loosen the string that binds us with the United Kingdom.
I understand your motives when you would deny democracy to the electorate in Wales, only through the use of a simple majority in a country with a low voter turnout do you and yours believe it possible to achieve your aims and objectives.
This is why you object to the proposal.
Let me remind you of what was written earlier .....
It is democracy that imparts no advantage, that calls for the participation of elected and electorate, a call for politics to engage with the electorate so that the people who matter, voters, are able to say they understand the issues, feel their input has value, and most of all that they participated rather than remained passive observers.
..... people matter more than politics.
At the moment the Swiss are considering a ban on the use of the alcoholic drink "Absinthe",....... would you and yours ask the people directly for such approval.
via a dongle, with a haircut ready for the postponed Interment on Monday.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Stonemason, your definition of democracy does not fit the norm, in a democracy you do not decide how people want things to turn out by pre-guessing their views. You wish to automatically count those that abstain as a no vote, you are no democrat.
From your posts its clear you have no desire to actually regulate the constitution, and fail to recognise that for what you want we need a written constitution, you are fixed only on Wales. Again you repeat the lie that devolution = independence, "the petition relates to Wales, it is concerned when attempts are made to unravel the constitution, loosen the string that binds us with the United Kingdom." I wish the United Kingdom dissolved, its past its useful life, its an irrelevance in the modern world - however the majority that want devolution don't want this outcome, they just wish for the majority of decisions that are made about Wales to be made in Wales. The level of devolution we get will be as much as the people of Wales wish. Yet you wish to rig any referendum on the issue to deny the people their views. I repeat the person who is not a democrat here is yourself. You have already said that one voice should be enough to stop independence, your voice presumably.
Complain about this comment
When you write Lyn_Thomas .....
I wish the United Kingdom dissolved,
..... then petition the Assembly for a referendum, I am sure such a petition could garner sufficient votes to galvanise the WAG into action.
What fraction of the electorate would suffice to win through, a quarter plus a thousand or so possibly.
Democracy ? ...... you cannot fool all the people all of the time,
Complain about this comment
the final paragraph of #93 was cut short. cont....
Democracy ? ...... you cannot fool all the people all of the time, though you have tried many times, Llais Gwynedd [Voice of Gwynedd] has said no to your autocratic politics, people deserve more, 60% is another step on the way to democracy.
Complain about this comment
Re 92
Stonemason,
I believe you realise that you have lost the argument, because you refuse absolutely to engage with any of the points made against you. Platitudes alone will get you nowhere, I'm afraid. And, once more - legislation borne out of prejudice is never a good idea.
"At the moment the Swiss are considering a ban on the use of the alcoholic drink "Absinthe",....... would you and yours ask the people directly for such approval. "
- no I wouldn't, it's what I believe parliaments are for. Are you seriously suggesting that you would? But of course it won't require 60% of the Swiss to vote, will it?
Complain about this comment
The "engagement" needs to be retained for a presentation.
Where you write .....
.... - no I wouldn't, it's what I believe parliaments are for.
..... you demonstrate the contempt politics and well funded interest groups in Wales has for the electorate.
Democracy is damaged by such statements and influences, you obviously believe that your opinion carries greater weight than your neighbour, I disagree, your neighbours are entitled to be heard. The need for greater democracy is particularly necessary when the result of a referendum is non-reversible. The proposed petition would ensure the various groups engage with the public rather than hide behind organisations and conventions, no longer would it be permissible to irreversibly change our constitution without every citizen knowing the consequences, understanding the importance of voting.
No more comments from me until Wednesday when I will be back in Caerphilly.
Complain about this comment
Stonemason why don't you answer the questions put to you... I don't think you know much about Llais Gwynedd to make the pronouncements that you have. If you want autocratic I suggest you look at the record of the Prime Minister you like the most, her abolition of the Met Counties and the GLC against the wishes of the vast majority of the people's wishes, the construction of a myriad of joint boards and quangos to replace them, to me that is a fair approximation of autocratic.
Who decides what is a constitutional change? Under the current unwritten constitution many changes are made - do you want all changes subject to your 60& rule or only those relating to Wales?
Complain about this comment
Re 96
I think you must be rattled after having the nonsense of your petition pointed out to you. How else can you explain telling me that I have contempt for democracy by supporting parliamentary democracy?! Do you no longer believe in parliamentary democracy then? I'll ask again, though I have no expectation that you will answer this or any other question, do you really believe there is need for a referendum regarding the banning of a brand of alcohol? What do you think politicians should be paid to do then? And does this mean than not only do you not see a need for a National Assembly but that is also true of Westminster?
And of course you also say:
"Democracy is damaged by such statements and influences, you obviously believe that your opinion carries greater weight than your neighbour"
I'm sorry? Where is the logic there? I'll tell you where the lack of logic is, however - it's in trhe fact that you personally are going to decide what exactly 40%, 50%, 60% of the Welsh electorate believe at any one time. Doing exactly what you bizarrely were accusing me of in the above sentence.
I think this debate is now over, as you have no answers to any questions. But I'll say this one final time, legislation borne of prejudice is never, ever a good idea.
Complain about this comment
Wlll I guess we will just have to wait on this one, but I think this is one daft idea, I am not sure that the petition will actually go forwards as it falls outside the remit of the National Assembly, but then it was never meant to succeed - its designed to fail so Stonemason has yet another complaint about lack of democracy. I wonder if he has any other support for it?
Complain about this comment
Stoney bro has asked the wag to petition the government, read number 2 comment properly, it is well within the remit of our local governance. It seems that plaid is not interested in the rights of the case, but only with how it might effect their plans.
It will be interesting, depending upon how wag deals with this petition, its obvious the people will get to know how much it cares for their opinion. There is the prospect of the Unionists using the petition as the first step in clipping the nationalist wings. WAG will realise it is the ideal opportunity to debate local democracy, as will the conservatives who see localism as better government.
Complain about this comment
Re 100
"There is the prospect of the Unionists using the petition as the first step in clipping the nationalist wings."
So, this is all about politics, and nothing to do with democracy! This is just what some of us have been pointing out for days. Nice of the antis to confirm this, though.
Complain about this comment
It has nothing to do with democracy and all to rigging elections. I don't think it is within the remit of the National Assembly and clearly from Stonmason's replies it has nothing to do with the constitution as a whole and all to do with making it impossible to give the people of Wales any more power over their own affairs.
Complain about this comment
Stoney bro will have to answer for himself, but what I see are three parties with the interests of the people versus a party with its own nationalist interests at heart.
The Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats have the insurmountable task of doing best for Wales with the 5% Damocles sword of separation from within Plaid Cymru hanging on every decision.
Let me remind you, Cicero asked - "Does not Dionysius seem to have made it sufficiently clear that there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms?" [Cicero, Tusculan Disputations]
Take away "Damocles fear" and anything is possible.
Complain about this comment
And Plaid - whose very existence is about the needs of the people of Wales, to enable the people of Wales to take charge of their own destiny - is not about working for the best interests of the people of Wales. Now strangely enough I think all parties believe that they are there to serve the interests of the people, I'd even include the conservatives in that. Yet you try to make out Plaid to be something different. Have the decency to acknowledge that we are all striving to represent the wishes of the people of Wales.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear we not only have lost the plot but the compass as well.
Firstly as Lyn points out there are problems with our unwritten Constitution and making Constitutional changes, in a way that, has the agreement, and meets the aspirations of the people.
The choice of GLC was bad; firstly it was supported by the majority of Londoners but opposed by the rabid left. Secondly it was local Government reorganisation.
There are far better examples.
In the UK as Lyn rightly points out we do not have a written Constitution - but we do have a Constitution codified in law and precedence.
Minor Constitutional changes usually get popular consent, through the election of a Party whose manifesto clearly lays out the proposed change.
Major change involving transfers of sovereignty and separation, should require consent by referenda - but there is no legal definition or process to trigger one.
It is up to the honesty of Government, to accept the need, and duty to call a referendum.
Recently, particularly in the last 10 years, government have made major constitutional changes, despite promises, without the consent of the people.
Our political leaders are dishonest, dictatorial and have no regard for democraticy or our Constitution.
These precedents give attractive opportunities to minority groups to make constitutional changes against, or without, the consent of the people.
In Wales we need a referendum to sort things out - If we are going to have a referendum, lets get it right
As pointed out above, there is a major difference between electing a Government and a Referendum.
Governments have to be reelected every 5 years, There is no system for the people to revise a Referendum decision.
A simple majority is acceptable to elect a Government, if we get it wrong we can try again.
A referendum normally offers no second chance.
We the people and the Government have to be sure that the answer reflects the will and intention of the people. Its in no ones interest to get it wrong.
Stony was slated for pointing out;
Currently one person can decide to block,
but Remember
One vote can carry.
An opinion poll properly conducted has a margin of accuracy of 2 to 5%.
Similarly studies show elections have margins of error.
Cross's in the wrong place, spoiled papers, misread instructions, a large number don't vote, etc.
Also importantly a vote held the next day may give a totally different answer.
Those who don't vote may have abstained, may not care, may have been unable to get to the ballot box.
They cannot be counted as Yes's or No's - in an election they have abstained.
In a referendum they're view is unknown, but they may be an important factor in public acceptance in the future.
Consider a referendum to get rid of Devolution.
There is a 20% turn out and the proposal was carried by 10 votes!!
Does that reflect the wishes of the Welsh people.
It would be the cause of major discontent for years.
So to be sure we get an answer that fits the long term desire of the majority;
We need a minimum turnout for the result to be valid, - a margin of say 5% to carry or block.
Or
The a minimum percentage of the electorate for or against to decide the proposition.
Complain about this comment
Lyn #104
And Plaid - whose very existence is about the needs of the people of Wales, to enable the people of Wales to take charge of their own destiny - is not about working for the best interests of the people of Wales.
that is nonsense - Plaid has nothing to do with the interests of the Welsh people - it exists only to further the aims of a minority group of activists.
Complain about this comment
Re 106
Now who's lost the plot?!
Complain about this comment
On that basis West Wales, the Labour Party is an organisation dedicated to furthering the aspirations of a few activists, likewise the Tories and the Lib Dems. Talk some sense and we might have some common ground, insult us and lie about us and we have nothing to say to each other as the basics of decent discussion are absent.
Complain about this comment
The abolition of the GLC was opposed by the vast majority of Londoners. So local government changes aren't constitutional? Without a written constitution what is? Also no constitutional changes involving separation (other than in 1922) have occurred, separation is a very loaded word, it involves images of walls and barbed wire, Wales floating off into the Atlantic - I would suggest you avoid using such loaded terms - it just clouds the issue.
Complain about this comment
Lyn #108
I don't think we should pursue this, we both, as well as many others know the score.
#109 - The GLC!
As pointed out above in #105;
Minor Constitutional changes usually get popular consent, through the election of a Party whose manifesto clearly lays out the proposed change.
In the post Wilson/Callaghan Britain, Livingstone's high-spend socialist policies put the GLC into direct conflict with government attempts to rebuild the economy.
Abolition of the GCL was a key promise at the core of the 1983 Tory Election Manifesto. Tories won remember!
In 1985 the Abolition bill was passed despite the strong objections and dismay among Socialists, especially Labour Councillors.
However as with many issues there was division between the political elite and Joe Public - the Abolition was warmly welcomed by the long suffering ratepayers.
There was a problem - Abolition of the GLC left a major gap in the capital's political structures. There was no longer any single, local organisation to take a democratic lead in tackling Londonwide issues like transport, planning and regeneration.
in #109 you also say;
separation is a very loaded word
Well now - separation of Wales from the UK so Wales is an independent self governing unit, is what Plaid's agenda is all about.
Separation is not a loaded word, it simply states the facts.
But I do understand in the "World of Spin" where nothing is what it seems - it is a word Plaid would prefer was not used, at least not yet.
Now all this is dross - this from #105 is the important issue here;
Consider a referendum to get rid of Devolution.
There is a 20% turn out and the proposal was carried by 10 votes!!
Does that reflect the wishes of the Welsh people.
(Surely) It would be the cause of major discontent for years.
I'd be surprised if you didn't agree with that!
So how about;
To be sure we get an answer that fits the long term desire of the majority;
We need a minimum turnout for the result to be valid, - (plus) a margin of say 5% to carry or block.
Or
A minimum percentage of the electorate for or against to decide the proposition.
Well - any comment
Complain about this comment
Separation is a loaded word, because it carries extra baggage, no one is going to build a wall on the border, indeed as fellow EU states England and Wales will be sharing the advantages of Europe wide open borders. The ties of family and friendship will still exist and indeed I imagine many things will be decided at an all Britain level by mutual consent post independence.
Of course if a derisory turn out votes in favour of something then that devalues the vote. Many countries set a minimum turn out level for a referendum to be other than advisory, none that I know of have a minimum requirement for the electorate to vote in favour. That is gerrymandering.
Complain about this comment
Separation is neither loaded or ambiguous, walls are as effective built in stone or constructed as a philosophy, and Lyn_Thomas's "derisory" has yet to be quantified.
The 60% is very real option, the first obstacle in its way is the petitions committee, is this group democratic in nature or does it pay lip service to the rights our predecessors fought for, the presiding officer is next, will he remember his obligations towards democracy, then the debate, how many will put democracy before partisan interests. All this in Wales .....
..... before heading for Westminster ............. where at the moment there is autocratic Brown at the helm.
The hypocrites amongst the population pay lip service to democracy, it is fine when convenient, when it will achieve a particular aim, otherwise bury it in the dross of governance.
... back from temporary exile ....
Complain about this comment
First response .....
Thank you for your e-petition regarding the above [Sixty Percent Majority Needed to Modify the Law Relating to Constitutional Referendum]. The Petitions team are currently looking into the issues raised by your petition, and will be in touch shortly to confirm whether it is admissible.
An interesting response, why should the petitions team be considering issues if the petition is lawful, it is certainly within the remit of Welsh government to petition Westminster, and this is all the petition does, it asks the Welsh government to petition Westminster, on behalf of Welsh petitioners, to modify the laws relating to Welsh constitutional referendum, so that an electoral minority is not able to take the people of Wales to a place it has not approved with a real majority.
Is the petitions team applying reasonableness, the world of politics is very interesting when the philosophy of democracy is introduced.
Complain about this comment
113 SM - Just to see how the petition system works, I have also entered a petition - non-controversial and meeting the stated rules for admissibility - and have recieved a similar response to you. It is nothing sinister, just an indication of due process being followed.
ps You still havent answered my question about how many votes you would consider a success for your petition.
Complain about this comment
The process has changed a little .....
..... the question of votes in the context of the petition could be answered with any figure pulled out of the air, I do not honestly know, it should be sufficient that a petition by an elector when received should be examined for merit to determine whether the topic needs exploration and debate.
The essence of my petition is that "25% of the electorate plus a few thousand extra is not a just mandate for any constitutional referendum to succeed".
Others have quite different opinions, who said "one vote is enough, get over it!" or very similar, it was such expressions that caused discussions at my end of the keyboard, discussions that ultimately caused the petition to be raised.
Complain about this comment
115 but Stoney, one of the criteria specified by the Assembly for consideration of petitions is that they have adequate support (but without defining what this level is). You must realise that if they did not do this then the committee would be forced to spend all of their time reviewing petitions supported by lone wackos (not referring to you of course).
So lets say you get 1000 votes - then I am sure it would be considered further - if only 10 probably not. Get 100?? lets see.
Complain about this comment
penddu, what about the "oddball", s/he might not be noticed but have something important to say, the petitions team would read it, should they have a revised job description to search out .......... for the better governance of Wales.
Complain about this comment
117 SM that is the whole point of a petition - It might be raised by a 'nutjob', but if it inspires others who record their support then it may then be considered further.
But if the author can not demonstrate it has popular support then it should go no further.
Incidentally, I will not sign your petition (assuming it is published) as I blieve it to be undemocratic. But if it took a more balanced and fair approach I would consider.
Complain about this comment
I have some sympathy with your view Stonemason, one person with a good idea should be listened to - but maybe the petitions committee is not the right way, I'd publish in the Western Mail and contact your councillor/AM/MP with it. I can see why the petitions committee would require some evidence of a level of support before they would consider it, that level of support would vary if it was a local or a national issue, so I can't fault them for not giving an actual figure. I can also see why a single person petition would not be looked at, you could have the equivalent of a denial of service attack, where a system gets overwhelmed with frivolous requests designed to clog up the system. By all means continue with your petition, I suspect people in True Wales would be happy to give you numbers, but I really think this is outwith the purview of the National Assembly
Complain about this comment
Map, Gnatty and all you true blue Noes, the only way to have a proper poll is to make sure that only patriots are allowed to vote. Since being a NAT is is to reject the English constitution which we all agreed to back in King Harry's days, they should not be allowed to vote. Spain did this in the 1970s, when they said it would be illegal for NATS to scupper the nations's constitution, so why can't we?
Complain about this comment
Three weeks go by and the petition to raise the referendum stakes in Wales is still in no-man's-land .......... the wheels of government are turning very - very - slowly ........ are they turning at all I wonder ?
Complain about this comment
Four weeks have gone by and the petition to raise the referendum stakes in Wales is still on silent running .......... it's as if I submitted the petition in Mandarin, are they looking for interpretation or impact ........ fortunately democracy is a little like looking into a mirror, you get out exactly what is put in, unless the mirror has a curve, no curve in this petition.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS