Holiday reading
I know it's terribly last year now but think back, a moment, to the sudden resignation of the shadow health minister in Cardiff Bay as 2010 drew to a close.
The consensus was that Tory leader, Nick Bourne, had some problems to contend with within his group but that he'd played that political bouncer pretty well after it was lobbed at him, seemingly out of nowhere.
Andrew RT Davies's decision to spend more time helping out Tory election candidates with their campaigns rather than promoting his party's flagship policy was one of those bizarre political events where sometimes a leader just has to hold up his hands and say "I'm as mystified as you." That's exactly what Nick Bourne did and he got some credit for his candour.
At Assembly level, if anything, there was a show of unity behind Mr Bourne. Colleagues rallied round, both publicly and privately.
But is there quite the degree of unity of approach between the Welsh Conservative leader and the Secretary of State for Wales? I ask the question because of this article by Cheryl Gillan, published in the traditional news desert between Christmas and the New Year.
Tensions have been simmering under the surface between the two sides for some time but what we get is an unvarnished critique of the Assembly Tories' strategy - and a warning.
After the standard issue dismissal of Labour's record in government and a recognition of the slow but steady resurgence of the Conservatives as a force in Wales, come these quotes:
"As a party we must build on our success in Wales. In the months ahead we must be bold.
"But we must also be responsible in what we say, do and promise. The decisions we take and the arguments we make must look to the long-term, rather than simply for short-term gain.
"That was Labour's way - going for the headline but failing to provide the finance to fund their schemes or the business case for their populist policies."
Hang on a minute. Surely a comparison with Labour, those shameless merchants of spin - as the Tories would have it - is about as barbed an insult as exists in the Conservative lexicon?
Is this the Secretary of State openly warning the Welsh Conservative leader that he's in danger of getting it badly wrong?
The situation seems to be this.
At present, the Conservative group in the Assembly feel aggrieved that the big ticket items like St Athan, rail electrification and prominent items like the protection of the S4C budget aren't being delivered even though their party is in government. There's a tendency within the group which sees the Welsh arm of the party being betrayed by their colleagues in the UK government, leaving them with precious little to sell on the doorsteps as the election approaches.
Meanwhile Westminster Tories think their Cardiff Bay counterparts are allowing Labour and Plaid to let rip into the UK coalition government far too often and far too easily and should be acting as a much more effective firebreak as the implications of the deficit reduction plans become clearer.
Add to the picture the botched handling of the NHS funding pledge and the so-called "Shadow Budget" which looked very much like a two page press release and what they see is further evidence of a lack of cutting edge.
That sort of narrative had only been whispered thus far but it's said out loud by Cheryl Gillan later in her article:
"We must counter Labour's attacks on what Conservatives are trying to achieve and hold Labour and Plaid to account for the decisions they have taken - and continue to take on the areas over which the Assembly Government has control, such as schools, the NHS, and local government."
The implication of these words is that neither of these things are happening at the moment and Mrs Gillan clearly believes that Mr Bourne and his colleagues are in danger of "letting Labour off the hook" as a result.
In 1974, Edward Heath went into an election asking "Who governs?"
Are the Welsh Tories in danger of going into an Assembly election with the same question being asked about their own party, with the answer being - either Nick Bourne or Cheryl Gillan - but we're not really sure?
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
I'm Betsan Powys, BBC Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
And What are the Welsh Tory party going to do? It's one thing to be in opposition with the hope of being in power but can anyone see a Conservative administration in the near future or even the distant future?
Will they form a coalition with the Lib/dems and Plaid in 2011? Of course not. Plaid are comfortable with Labour and there will be no Lib/Dem Assembly members.
But the main thing is that Westminster Tories want Nick Bourne to be spearheading the non stop vilification of Labour from within Wales. The Assembly isn't like that. It's soporific for all concerned. There is too much concensus. Further Powers? No opposition! Welsh Language measures? No opposition!
I watched a debate on Education (direct funding for schools, a Conservative debate.)
Where was everybody? Ieuan Wyn Jones, fresh from a speech about the importance of the futures of Welsh children, couldn't be bothered to attend.
Where was the passion? Where was the evidence that anyone CARED about Welsh children or that the humiliation of the PISA report and the consistent underperformance of Welsh schools had made any single member take an interest?
Where were the Tories ridiculing the failure of Labour/Plaid Education policy?
The problem is a deep one. It has a lot to do with the dominance of Labour over a long period and the nature of the electoral system in Wales.
Where is pressure for change going to come from exactly?
Complain about this comment
"Who governs?" ...... an appropriate question, when applied to WAG and Assembly ...
The main weakness of a unicameral system can be seen as the lack of restraint on the majority, particularly noticeable in parliamentary systems where the leaders of the parliamentary majority also dominate the executive. There is also the risk, depending on how seats are allocated in the legislature, that important sectors of society may not be adequately represented. courtesy of wiki.
... what chance has the Conservative or Liberal Democrat representatives of influencing the "democratic" process at Cardiff Bay? ... no chance.
So who does represent the views of the disenfranchised West of Offa's Dyke? ... no one.
Complain about this comment
It is a major problem of the Assembly. Concensus politics leaves portions of the public unrepresented as Stonemason says. Consensus politics is no politics at all.
In Wales it is serious that two main ideological strains in the politics of the Assembly go unchallenged. Not by politicians. Not by the media.
No political representation and no unbiased media and no questioning academics within Wales.
We have a perfect "democratic" dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
1+2. Absolutely spot-on. The unholy alliance between PC (Independence Party) and Old Labour is a recipe for disaster on democratic grounds and actual performance in over blown state sector. We have a virtual total one-party state with all parties agreeing on more-powers and organizing the provision of services to individual taxpayers and mendicants on the 1945 model. To be fair to Tony Blair and David Cameron they are both trying to give greater independence/responsibility to individual people to organize their lives,including how they receive the services to which they are entitled. This is totally opposed by One-Wales as the provider unions wish to keep the top down and secretive services.The welsh media as well are virtually on-side as no opposition to nation-building is ever written about or heard on BBC CYMRU who seem determined to have "border" actually in place sooner rather than later. I suppose that when Albania over takes us,the retort will be "more powers" and the guillible welsh will fall for it hook line and stinker. Our only hope is to galvanise the apathetic who do UNDERSTAND the current mess but seem to be brainwashed into actually doing NOTHING about it.
Complain about this comment
Now that True Wales have had their usual rant, let's get back to the subject!
This conflict between the Welsh Tories and 'HQ' in the shape of Cheryl Gillan is going to be one of the most interesting tussles of the year, in my view. Nick Bourne, by embracing the new reality of Welsh politics has rejuvenated the Conservatives in Wales. No longer are they seen as the 'English' party, and as a result they have gained Westminster seats, and now Gillan appears to be trying to bring them to heel!
There is a natural conservative constituency in Wales that has, for too long, had no real voice in government, and it is up to Nick Bourne, in how he deals with this attack from Gillan to ensure that the Welsh Conservatives retain a distinctive voice.
Gillan has amply demonstrated in the short time that she has been in government that she just doesn't understand Wales. John Redwood in a skirt!
Complain about this comment
As Stonemason has said the Welsh Conservative Party (or its leadership at least) have "gone native". If Stonemason and others from the Objectivist right feel that they are unrepresented in the National Assembly then they should form a party and stand, at least the electoral system we have year (for all its many faults) will give them a fairer crack of the whip than does the Westminster system. A unicameral system with first past the post does lack many checks and balances that one elected under pr does. A second chamber is not a guarantee of review and restraint, just look at the most decisive and regressive measure of the last 50 years, passed with no blocking by the House of Lords, the Poll Tax. True Wales used to warble on about lack of scrutiny if this referendum is won, forgetting that Westminster does not even see, let alone inspect any Welsh measures produce. IF there is a consensus in Wales then its because there is wide agreement. Much of the opposition at Westminster is synthetic, yah boo stuff. Ritualistic and faux passion. Give me the more rational debate in the National Assembly Plenary and the tighter analysis of the committees, together with pre-legislative scrutiny every time.
Complain about this comment
Re 5.
Nick Bourne, by embracing the new reality of Welsh politics has rejuvenated the Conservatives in Wales. No longer are they seen as the 'English' party,
Meanwhile, in the real World the actual facts and figures are there for all to see. Ignore polls made by 'interested' parties in Wales, think back to the proper polls like the European and General elections.
Welsh Labour accused the three Conservative MPs of being enemies of devolution, if devolution was popular their vote share should have been devastated.
Shall we remember what actually happened to the vote for, David Davies, David Jones and Stephen Crabb? Let's start with Stephen Crabb, then check out the other two, and the five new Conservative MPs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/w25.stm
Complain about this comment
At the Assembly the majority also dominate the executive, a democratic desert or might that be a democratic dessert for the unicameral "democratic" dictatorship.
A magnificent dessert, with a WAG cherry at the top, or might that be a poison chalice for the unwary to sup from.
Complain about this comment
What a naif Ms. Gillan is, and suffering from short term memory loss. Does she not understand that there is a real gap between Welsh politics and the Westminster sort? She should at least glance at the early years of the Assembly. Did not Tony Blair's Chosen One come a cropper? There is a distinction and it is worth remembering it. Apparatchiks don't go down well here. Redwood in a skirt, I liked that.
Regards, etc.
Complain about this comment
Stonemason, at the moment there is no second chamber in the National Assembly and Westminster does not scruitinise Assembly Measures, which is Assembly legislation. If you think that the chamber should control the executive, as they do then where is the democratic deficit?
Complain about this comment
10. what nonsense, the LCO is scrutiny, it sets boundaries for legislation.
There is no chamber able to bring WAG to account, if there were we would know exactly how the £1 billion mis-used NHS budget was used, as a prime example. As it is, the minister in question refused to inquire of this democratic deficit, democracy perchance.
Complain about this comment
Scrutiny of the LCO is not scrutiny of the legislation, because once the power is granted then legislation can be made anywhere within that area. Parliament is not meant to and can not bind future actions. IT may try to so circumscribe the LCO in such a way that it can only pass one piece of legislation under it, but that would run counter to the intent of the act. There is a chamber to hold the WAG to account - that is the National Assembly for Wales - Clue they are different bodies.
£1billion was quite a claim, I have yet to see it justified. Seemed a throw away quote to me. I am sure such a claim could be made of the NHS in England, it depends on what the person meant. It was a very bold claim - perhaps someone could do some more digging, but extraordinary claims need extraordinary justification. Making the claim does not equal that its true.
Complain about this comment
The boundaries set by the LCO system are sufficient for this democrat; with regard to the chamber, you might like to explain how one third of a membership can provide effective scrutiny when the two thirds comprise political associates of the incumbent administration.
The £1 billion as an amount, although large, is not as important as the ministers arrogance when she dismissed a call to determine the facts. A bold claim maybe, but currently a claim that remains unanswered, at the very least one would expect the minister to have called on the official to explain the statement in full, and in public as a democratic process.
The Assembly and some of its component parts might seem to have a democratic clarity, unfortunately clarity of speech is not a common attribute.
Complain about this comment
I can understand the feeling that Assembly Conservatives have about their lack of influence over big ticket items. They should reflect on the days when Nick Edwards and Peter Walker (sad passing) would bang the table at Cabinet to get the best deal for Wales. Loss of influence in Whitehall is one of the costs of Devolution we all pay. Anybody know how much further Devolution will cost us all?
Complain about this comment
Stonemason, I think you will find that the committees of the National Assembly have been rather good at holding the government to account, and with backbenchers from the governing parties keen to show their independence there is far less partisan voting in committee than in Westminster. Back in the days when there were massive majorities in the Westminster Parliament for the Conservatives with a supine House of Lords were you out there decrying the lack of scrutiny?
Again where is the evidence that £1 billion has been wasted, I would say you need some firmer proof before public money is wasted examining spurious claims.
So if an LCO is sufficiently wide to permit almost any legislation you would be happy with that? Really I think you need to examine the scope of some of these LCOs. I am a democrat, but I don't think an appointed second chamber is very democratic, neither do I think that it is democratic that MPs with no connection with Wales should have any say in what the boundaries of any Welsh legislation should be. What special qualities or qualifications do they have that Welsh politicians elected by the Welsh people by a far more democratic system don't have. Or is this just a party point?
Complain about this comment
If you are unable to detect the allusion of effective scrutiny I recommend you pay particular attention to the body language of the first minister during his question time, notice the dismissive tone of voice where concerns are raised by the one third who do not comprise the WAG supportive element. Your vision of the Assembly and WAG is with respect somewhat tinted with rose tinted spectacles.
Proof, this would be the commodity I would have demanded when a report was made during committee, I doubt :I would have allowed the man to leave until I had determined exactly what was meant, after all, politics is the servant of the people not its master in a democracy, the people are far more forgiving of error when it is not hidden rather than swept under a carpet like household dust.
These lands are not a federal construct, we are an integral part of the United Kingdom, the LCO process has the advantage that our representatives at Westminster can examine the effect WAG might have upon our constitution before the fact rather than where legislation might have a destructive effect upon it.
Without the LCO I return to my original question and belief related to the posting by BP, ... who does represent the views of the disenfranchised West of Offa's Dyke? ... no one.
Complain about this comment
But as I have said the limited scrutiny by Westminster via LCO is the lesser route by which the National Assembly gains powers to legislate in an area and the LCO process does not scrutinise any legislation produced under the powers granted by it. So no effective scrutiny from Westminster over the finished product.
Are you seriously saying that PMQs are effective scrutiny of the government at Westminster? Its just a bit of playground yah boo politics that is good theatre but effectively worthless as a constitutional check on the executive. I might add that the level of control over the executive in the National Assembly is several orders of magnitude greater than you get at Westminster where the Royal Prerogative is a cloak behind which governments of all completions can hide. If anyone is wearing rose tinted glasses its you Stonemason. The UKs constitution is not yet federal, though its moving in that direction.
Who is disenfranchised in Wales? If you are do something about it, stand for election to the National Assembly, minority views have a far better chance of being represented in the National Assembly than they do at Westminster due to the more democratic and representative nature of our electoral system.
Perhaps the minority viewpoint you expose is too small to gain representation.
Complain about this comment
At 4:29pm on 07 Jan 2011, Lyn David Thomas wrote
"neither do I think that it is democratic that MPs with no connection with Wales should have any say in what the boundaries of any Welsh legislation should be."
From that statement I think you would agree that the same applies to Welsh MP's for legislation that only applies to English, Scots or Irish.
This is where democracy in the UK has slipped behind the rest of the world, why do we need so many MP's across UK when 3 out of the 4 countries have their own legislature for most areas.
I agree in home developed legislation, but there are areas of legislation for the whole UK - defence, foreign policy etc that requires a combined approach but this should now be underataken by a much reduced HoC.
In USA with a population 5 times the UK they have less national representatives 535 in total, than UK who have 650 MP's and 740 Lords.
Reducing the numbers in Westminster should then filter down to greater responsibility for NafW where you would hope the greater responsibility would attract some serious contenders for AM. This could allow for increased numbers of AM's with some MP's (reduced number) representing Wales on a UK national basis.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with Welsh MPs not voting on English matters, the problem is the funding formula where money spent in England = money given to Wales. This link needs to be replaced with a needs based formula and with that gone there is no reason why Welsh MPs should ever vote on purely English matters. There is no optimal size for a legislature, and one where the executive is drawn from the legislature is going to be bigger than a separate executive and legislature. The size of the Lords is certainly disproportionate. You could probably halve the size of the Commons if the executive was not drawn from it, but with around 100 members on the payroll vote you need at least that number of back benchers from the ruling parties, plus the opposition, so that would suggest that to make it work you would need 300 - 400 MPs total. Most upper houses are 1/2 - 2/3 the size of the lower house so the limit of the upper house should be around 200 - 250 members.
As for the National Assembly, given its range of responsibilities 60 is probably the bare minimum that you need to give party balance on the committees, which is what you need for effective scrutiny. If Wales was independent I'd suggest a National Assembly of 80 - 100 members would be about right. Incidentally AMs work out considerably cheaper than MPs, so we could happily reduce the number of MPs while increasing the number of AMs at no extra cost to the public.
Complain about this comment
17 ...
I wrote earlier elsewhere ...
the words
… duties should be applied reasonably and proportionately.
… provided sufficient protection for people against possible excesses of government when included in one particular LCO. Bravo Lord Davies of Oldham.
... a perfect example of good scrutiny that did in fact modify "the finished product".
Complain about this comment
And as any lawyer will tell you that is a general duty anyway and so and empty and redundant phrase. And of course it did not result in a law its self.
Complain about this comment
... thank goodness for such empty and redundant phrases that remind the electorate that excesses can be challenged and remind politicians they serve in the interests of all the electorate.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS