It turned out that anything but brotherhood and understanding had broken out at the Finance Committee meeting in Cardiff Bay. Perhaps it should be renamed the Feisty Committee.

Chair Angela Burns had been told that the Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, would after all release to the committee the Ministerial Advice he's been given on the Heads of the Valley road, the advice they've been putting pressure on him to disclose for some time now. That's the good news. The bad news is he won't be handing it over until the end of term.

That means the committee won't have a chance to discuss it unless they meet during recess. That, said the Chair, was exactly what she'd ask them to do unless the paperwork turned up earlier, upping the ante and the pressure on the DFM.

While the cameras were turned on, things were heated enough. When they'd been switched off the accusations really started to fly. Plaid members accused others of targetting Mr Jones in order to undermine the coalition - in other words being considerably less bothered by the future of the Heads of the Valleys road than knocking the coalition off course. In return one member reportedly shouted back in less than brotherly fashion that "it's not this committee that's undermining the government it's your ... Minister".

Meanwhile it's been announced that Paul Starling, a man who knows a thing or two about making his voice heard and his feelings known - formerly of the Welsh Mirror - will be standing for People's Voice in Torfaen at the General Election. It's unlikely the incumbent, the other Paul - formerly of the Wales Office - will be tempted to raise his own voice in response. That's not his style after all. Unlikely, though, that brotherly love will be the theme of the battle in Torfaen.

And sticking to the subject of peace, understanding and brotherly love, just a thought .What happens if David Cameron decides that his Director of Communications Andy Coulson - formerly of the News of the World - is somehow tainted by the allegations surrounding the paper and should no longer remain in the job? Any number of ifs and buts there I grant you but ... just wondering whether a certain Welsh speaking press adviser is polishing up his CV?

Back to the Eisteddfod tomorrow but this time, to sing with the choir. In other words it's competition day. Just as well I did my bit for brotherly love and international understanding today then.

Labour's Commissioner, Lorraine Barrett, said that were "bits and pieces" in the report that not all AMs would like but "you can't unpick it". The recommendations are tightly woven, of course, for exactly that purpose.

There it is then. Our house, here in Wales, is in order. The changes will be accepted as a job lot. No tinkering. No unpicking. What you saw on Monday is what they will get.

I haven't spoken to a single Assembly Member who thought their hands were anything but tied - tied by an entirely justified public anger at greed and the sorts of claims made with abandon ... elsewhere. Right principles, they say but wrong targets.

The Commission includes representatives of the four parties and they'll be acutely aware that there are colleagues who feel utter fury at the lengths to which Roger Jones and his panel has gone to scrap and tighten allowances.

Even the most furious accept that AMs are not inately less greedy, or more public spiritied than those MPs who hit the headlines for getting away with excessive expense claims. Their argument says that the system - hand in hand with the culture here perhaps - has simply never allowed them to line their pockets, not freely at least. It might have felt like "a sweetshop" to some as panel chair Roger Jones put it but others stuck to a sensible diet. In future it'll be the F plan all the way.

The Commissioners will have been just as aware that some are happy to accept the new system is just and fair but are concerned that if "the best people" - whoever they may be - are to be attracted to the job of an AM in future, then £53,108 won't cut it. Will lawyers, school heads, medics, any number of officers in local government, men and women with experience in the private sector be beating a path to the returning officer's door for just over fifty grand? it is a rhetorical question but you know what they think the answer is. No way.

But you won't hear any of this, not for now. AMs don't expect arguments like those to hold any traction for a long time to come. They know too that if the principles are indeed spot on then you'll expect AMs to abide them - targets or not.

Today I'm reminded of Andy Capp and his wife Florrie and those annuals my brother used to get in his Christmas stocking, year in, year out. There was always a Chocolate Orange and for me, the Twinkle annual until I argued Father Christmas should give in and let me have the Jackie annual instead. Big brother stuck with Andy Capp throughout and so it became my favourite too.

One Andy moment has stuck with me. He's sitting on a bench, a beer in his hand, watching Florrie mowing the lawn in the midday sun. "Oh you shouldn't be mowing the lawn like that love" he says. Wow. A new, politically correct Andy? No. "You should be doing it like this. Get yer back into it!" or words to that effect.

Why did it spring to mind? Some chauvinistic commuter who tutted at the way I was lugging my laptop and shoulder bag on the train to Paddington? No, it's thanks to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and their report on the Welsh Language Legislative Competence Order.

In essence the upshot of the report is this: in principle? Yes, we agree that in future it's logical and appropriate that legislation with regard to the language ought to be made and put to work in Wales, where it's spoken - or as they put it "located in its social context". In other words they agree that the powers ought to be transferred to the Assembly Government, in principle.

Ah but principle must be turned into practice and there, the problems begin or as Andy would put it, "you shouldn't be doing it like that!"

The LCO as it stands lists the types of companies and bodies that would be affected by future measures, or laws. It states too that organisations who get more than £200,000 of public money would have to comply with future regulation with regard to the language.

Wrong call, says the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. At best you'll end up with anomalies, at worst you'll end up in court. You need clarity. You need drafting with a clearly defined scope.

So how do you do that?

"We suggest that a more sophisticated and appropriate way of dealing with the issues of definition would be for this Order to contain clear principles against which the Assembly Measures can be tested. One way to achieve this would be for the Welsh Assembly Government to insert in this draft Order tests that have to be met by any Measure subsequent to this LCO, rather than trying to insert definitions themselves in the text. These might include a test of reasonableness, a test of proportionality, and a consideration of the cost to demonstrate that the application of any Measure to particular
bodies or organisations will, in the long term, provide a cost-effective benefit to the public
in terms of the use of the Welsh language".

I get the idea but I'm not sure what that would mean in reality. I'm not sure the Welsh Assembly Government does either. You can certainly create future measures with principles in mind - principles like reasonableness, proportionality and so on - but can you transfer powers simply based on those principles?

The £200,000 threshold, says the Committee in its most damning passage, seems to have been chosen "more or less at random" and why include utilities and telecommunication companies in the scope of the LCO but leave out banks or insurance
services? They know the answer but know too it's not the sort of answer that can be included in the wording of an LCO. That's the political compromise struck between the Wales Office and the former Secretary of State.

What now? If there's substantial redrafting required - and it's hard to see how that will be avoided - the LCO will have to come back before both scrutiny committees in the Assembly and in Westminster. They'll have to get a move on, just like Flo. The job must done and dusted before a General Election remember.

But bear this in mind: Andy Capp wanted the lawn mowed. He wasn't out to stop Flo. He wanted the job done and he wanted it done properly. Put like that, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee might not mind the comparison after all. Not so sure about the Assembly Government.

If anyone is thinking of going into Assembly politics in future because their living room is looking a bit drab, they'd better think again.

The independent panel looking at salaries and allowances has spoken and its spoken very bluntly.

Bottom line? If the panel's package of 108 recommendations is adopted, then Assembly members will be accepting that any opportunity they had to make money beyond their salaries will be gone. I use the word 'opportunity' because here's another bottom line for you: Assembly members never did milk the system to the extent some of their colleagues in Westminster did - a point the panel made over and again.

They weren't that oblique in making it either: "We would merely note that the actions of some Members of Parliament regarding their expenses claims have reflected badly on politicians in general, and inevitably Assembly Members have been tarred with the same brush in the eyes of the public".

Still, the door to those who fancied a bit of extra cash, "a trip on the gravy train" as one of the security staff here put it angrily the other day, was ajar. Now it's slammed shut.

Second home allowance as we know it? Gone.
Food allowance? Gone.
Link between MPs' salaries and AMs' salaries? Gone.

Does the panel think Wesminster ought to follow in these very footsteps? Absolutely. Does Roger Jones think Christopher Kelly. looking into expenses and allowances in Westminster, ought to follow in these very footsteps? "I can't see as how he can avoid it" came the response.

If you expected a whitewash, you were wrong. It's anything but. It had to be if there was any chance of the public believing it really means things are changing.

The Assembly Commission meets tomorrow night. If it votes to accept the panel's recommendations - and at a bet, it will - then what a message for Westminster. We did it - your turn now.

Health officials kept saying it would be coming soon and they were, of course, right. Why would Wales be immune? And with it has come the need to pay for the swine flu vaccination programme.

The question is, who pays?

Rhodri Morgan has written to the Chancellor in the past few weeks and his letter - probably - went something like this.

Dear Mr Darling,

This pandemic is what I'd call an exceptional emergency situtation so the costs should be borne by you lot. It should come from UK Government reserves. Yes, I know that health is devolved - it's about the only area of responsibility the man on the Canton omnibus knows is devolved - but this is the kind of one-off serious situation that affects the whole of the UK and so Westminster should foot the bill.

Yours ...

The costs of buying enough vaccine for us in Wales and administering it is likely to run into tens of millions of pounds. No surprise then that the First Minister's counterparts in the Scottish and Northern Irish administrations sent similar letters to Mr Darling some time ago.

But Mr Morgan's, remember, is a Labour-led administration and his case won't have been helped by Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for Labour in the Scottish Parliament. She's called on the SNP to explain why they won't pay. Why are they, she demands to know, "apparently unwilling to pay for flu vaccinations when health is a fully devolved policy area".

Mmm. Thanks Cathy Mr Morgan must have muttered under his breath.

She told the Times "The Treasury have made it absolutely clear that Scotland will be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK and the Health Secretary (Nicola Sturgeon) needs to concentraet on doing her job. The public will not forgive anyone who plays politics at a time like this".

I assume that 'anyone' includes the Labour First Minister in Wales?

The signs are that the Treasury is siding with Ms Jamieson in this one. Health is devolved. You wanted it? You got it. In good times and in bad.

If Mr Darling stands his ground what does that mean? It means the Assembly Government would either have to find the extra millions from within the health budget or raid its reserves - and those of you with good a memory will remember this and realise it will really not want to do that.

Will he have read the Western Mail, who've shone a light on individual AMs who claim more than others for food and whispered to himself, not for long? Mind you he might have noticed that most claim nothing or next to nothing.

On Monday we find out what they think AMs should reasonably be allowed to claim for and what, in future, they should not.

Let's take a punt - not an informed one, I stress but it's not hard to work out which allowances might have caught Sir Roger's beady eye.

I'm prepared to bet my own mortgage that the rules surrounding the second home allowance will be tightened until some AMs' eyes water. Fewer who live within commutable distance of Cardiff Bay will be allowed to claim (following in the example of those - like WAG Ministers Andrew Davies AM and Edwina Hart AM - who could claim but don't).

Will they be allowed to buy at all? Or will they have to spend their allowance on renting properties? No more buying flats whose value can shoot up. No need to tell that to those who bought after the 2007 election, who'll have seen the value of their flats plummet. Can't you just see some transitional arrangements coming into place, allowing those who've already bought to keep their properties but preventing those who move to the bright lights of Cardiff Bay after future elections from following in their footsteps?

What about salaries - should they be linked to MPs' salaries and then there's pensions? Payments to those who lose their seats or who choose to stand down. Researching today's story alongside my eagle-eyed colleagues, I certainly spotted examples of AMs who'd stood down voluntarily - in other words they knew exactly when they'd be going - but who'd continued to claim top whack in office rent for three months after their departure - as per the current rules.

Will Sir Roger mind that some AMs claim next to nothing for offices and others seem to pay an arm and a leg? Will he say he doesn't mind if the political party happens also to be the landlord but insist that rules around fair rent, proper agreements are tightened? What about regional members? Should they share offices? We know he's been considering whether their role, their job is different to that of constituency AMs. How might that effect the way they can claim their allowances in future?

Toll on Monday. (That should have read Roll obviously ... though come to think of it - tariffs/bells tolling .. quite an apt typo!) In the meantime I'm off to meet an estate agent who might persuade me to start renting a rather nice, empty and large office on a High Street ... somewhere.

He is Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Deputy First Minister, a man who "comes across like a good country solicitor" according to fellow Plaid member Adam Price , a man who came across like the Scarlet Pimpernel this afternoon, according to his fellow Assembly Members.

They seek him here, they seek him there ... or more appropriate after this afternoon's events perhaps, now you see him, now you don't.

The Deputy First Minister was in the chamber earlier, answering questions and facing flak. There's growing cross party pressure on him over the alleged delays in the scheme to dual the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. At economy questions today, he faced the wrath of Huw Lewis, whose increasingly vociferous campaign on the issue is reaching new levels of anger. He was joined by Mike German from the Lib Dems, and William Graham from the Tories - both reflecting deep unease that there are still no confirmed start dates for several key stretches of the road.

And as the rhetoric gets stronger, the positions become more entrenched. Mr Jones' opponents claim that precious capital resources are being sucked into improving north-south routes - at the expense of east-west, particularly the A465, the dualling of which is seen as vital to the economic regeneration of the Heads of the Valleys area. It's claimed what amounts to a Plaid Cymru nation building exercise is holding up much needed help for one of Wales's most deprived areas.

Not so, says Mr Jones. I've told you and I'll tell you again. I inherited the reprioritisation programme from my (Labour) predecessor in the job, who in turn made his decisions on the basis of expert advice on the complex issue of programming trunk road improvements. All I'm doing is sticking to a time table set by a Labour Minister.

The conflict derives from the four yearly cycle of announcing priorities for trunk roads - which means when it "crosses" ministers - 2004 report under Andrew Davies, then 2008 report under Ieuan Wyn Jones. There's no obvious way of divining who made which decision and when.

But having faced down the barrage of criticism in the chamber, Mr Jones then decided to hit the road himself.

He was gone.

Who stood up on behalf of the government to respond to a heated debate on the way they've handled the recession? John Griffiths, a deputy Minister in the Education department.

Where was Mr Jones, AMs demanded to know? The Minister for the Economy had "urgent ministerial business" to attend to, ventured Mr Griffiths. In fact his own appearance showed that there was joined up working between their respective departments.

They didn't buy it. The urbane and rarely ruffled Conservative Economy spokesman David Melding raised his voice. That in itself deserved raised eyebrows. This was "truly pathetic" he said. Was this "what passes for leadership in the Welsh Assembly Government?" The Lib Dems, with Jenny Randerson leading the charge, went for "a discourtesy" to his fellow AMs.

Even the - Plaid - chair of the committee, Gareth Jones couldn't help adding that he'd been "a little surprised" by the Deputy First Minister's absence.

So where was he?

He had "a long standing engagement dating back months to attend a conference this afternoon on the economic crisis organised by the Welsh Governance Centre." And anyway given the Enterprise and Learning Committee's report covered the work of the education department as well as the department for the economy, it was entirely appropriate that the Deputy Minister for Skills should respond to the debate.

We seek him ... and find him in the Hilton Hotel, where his speech, according to some anyway, was shifted from a quarter past four to four o'clock. Maybe.

What's significant here? That Mr Jones is gaining a reputation amongst an increasing number of AMs for not responding quickly enough to their queries, not taking them and their job of scrutinising what he does seriously enough; that it's hard to avoid the feeling he's being targetted by those who suggest that being DFM and holding such a crucial portfolio must be very hard work indeed. You know what they mean - perhaps a bit too hard these days.

Mr Jones may argue, as a good country solicitor might, that the facts suggest otherwise.
He's answered questions on the government's handling of the economy many times before .The ProAct and ReAct schemes - yes, those again - have generally gone down well. His department is working overtime to respond to what is a global crisis.

But perceptions and reputations are equally important and a good country solicitor ought to know that too.

Then in 2011 it was Labour's turn to launch their election manifesto (or 'Mamifesto' as one of Leighton Andrews' mates thought it should be called with its pledge to supply extra support for childcare via "mobile mammas") and gave us "11 for 11".

We should, then, not be surprised that tomorrow, two years into the term of the Labour/Plaid government the coalition partners will be launching One Wales 24, a document marking the half-way point in the One Wales programme and a promise of 24 special events happening up and down the country. See what they've done there?

It's not yet online. It will be first thing tomorrow so when you can take a look at it and when we're not up to our eyes trying to make sure a complex story that involves each of the four parties and a lot of money is ready to be broadcast before the end of the week, let's debate it.

In the meantime the sobering thought that when I did run an online search for 24, what came up? Jack Bauer, who else and these adjectives all used in just a few paragraphs to describe his very own 24: "addictive .. acclaimed .. suspenseful .. trend-setting .. compelling .. astonishing .. momentous and shocking".

No pressure then on the script writers of One Wales 24.

Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas was out to ooze authority and use his three minutes to say "nah nah nah nah nah" to those in Westminster who've dared suggest that MPs are 'independent' agents. They are not, he said. They are public servants and therefore directly accountable - as are Assembly Members - to the public for everything that they claim.

That is why you can hover your mouse on this and at a click, read AMs expenses for 2008-09. That is why, from this Autumn, you'll be able to click month by month if you're interested and find out what your Assembly Member has spent and claimed back from the public purse.

And let's give Lord Elis-Thomas his due (in lieu of expenses for coming in early to do the interview.) He has presided over an institution where those who work in it, for it, visit it can utter the word transparency without blushing. Along with the Assembly Commission he has decided that not all publicity is, after all, good publicity and that coming clean, going for the option of disclosure is better than being dragged kicking and screaming online and only then when the thick, black pen has done the rounds.

But hang on a minute. Just before we get too carried away with our virtue here in Wales - as though there's something in the water that makes Cardiff Bay more virtuous than Westminster - let's cast our mind back a few years.

Yes, there were the iPods, the sofas, the tvs and bathroom makeovers. But I'm thinking institution here, not individuals.

It was only a few years ago that Freedom of Information bids to the Assembly enquiring about AMs' expenses were turned down. Openness? What openness?

As late as April 2007 - in other words after the 2006 Government of Wales Act had created the situtation where there was an Assembly Commission in a position to respond - we sent an FoI bid to the staff of the Presiding Officer requesting access to expense claims and Additional Costs Allowances. The final paragraph went like this:

"I understand that the individual expenses claims of members has been publicly available in Scotland since 2005. I trust that as part of its ongoing commitment to transparency and openess the Assembly will wish to follow suit". As it so happens, back then, no it didn't.

Back came the response:

"The files referred to in your request contain information which is considered to be personal to the Assembly Member concerned, and where relevant, the staff who work for them and third parties. Therefore the release of this information would again not be consistent with Data Protection Principles and are, therefore, also exempt under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst it is possible that the files contain information that may not be personal information then the cost of reviewing each of the files and redacting any personal information would be disproportionate.

However if you are able to be more specific with your request we can give you a breakdown of Assembly Members expenses".

It didn't wish to emulate the Scottish transparency then ... but it does now. It took another bid before the door finally opened. The software used to put all claims online today is the same as that used by the Scottish Parliament. The principle is the same here too: your claims are generally based on receipts. If you're out of pocket, you get to claim it back.

And there are more reforms on the way, ones that will inevitably touch things like the second home allowance that has almost become a dirty word to uttered only very quietly and within the confines of the Fees Office.

Sir Roger Jones' recommendations will be made public a week today. The man must feel ever so slightly like a striker facing an open goal. Who's going to argue with him when he has 2, 251, 968 Welsh voters on his side?

Foreign affairs, yes, they would be reserved. But the panel has had a moment to think. That doesn't mean, says Helen Mary Jones, that Ministers in Wales can't raise a voice about issues like asylum seekers. What about Ama Sumani, says the Archbishop, who was deported despite receiving life-prolonging treatment in a Cardiff hospital? Legal powers are one thing. Moral powers are another.

Lord Richard Livsey is short and sharp: what should or would trigger a referendum?

Richard Wyn Jones evokes his "several" dead grandfathers to explain why he's not a betting man. By several, we take it he means two. Forget 'should' then. What WILL trigger a referendum? David Cameron taking over at Number 10.

Tristan Garel-Jones isn't sure how to answer the question but IS sure that if there is to be a referendum, then the talented Welsh men and women who don't happen to live in Wales, maybe because "they've reached the top of the tree in London or in Paris," should be allowed to vote. No! shouts the audience. So what are we saying to young, ambitious Welsh people asks Mr Garel-Jones who make it to the top? Gee, ta, says the audience, jam packed full of people who are on their way to the top in Wales, if not there already.

What are we saying to Sir Emyr he adds? I don't know what his personal life is (perish the thought that the man should have one until the ink on his report is dry) but does he get a vote? What about the Welshman who happens to have become Archbishop of Canterbury?

The other Archbishop, the one who has at least reached the top of the tree in Wales, tries to answer the question posed, as does Sir Emyr. The referendum should be held when the politicians choose to hold it and they won't hold it until they're quite sure it is at the very least winnable. His job is to set out the arguments but the real job, he smiles, is working out which are the killing arguments.

Nick Ainger wants to see a referendum triggered but is entirely clear that it ain't going to happen. If Labour and Plaid pulling together barely scraped a yes vote last time round, there's no way it'll be won any time soon. If it's lost? Then what does that do to the crediblity of the Assembly, that ten, twelve, fifteen years down the line the people of Wales can't be persuaded to give it more powers?

It's over to the audience - still smarting and feeling dissed by Tristan Garel-Jones. "I'm going to set up a new organisation" says a woman who has jumped to her feet, "Madams (as least I think she said Madams ...) for Sticking to the Point and Answering the Questions! A large part of the audience loves it.

"I'm a proud Welshman" says the next to get the microphone, "that's why I want a referendum so we can say No for once and for all". The other, smaller part of the audience loves it.

Time to vote. If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote?

87% would. 13% would not.

And if you voted, would you vote to leave things as they are, or vote to give the National Assembly law making powers all at once?

64% want law making powers; 36% don't.

Is that nearly three quarters asks the compere, clearly thinking with some pleasure that these public events are all over.

Sir Emyr jumps in. Nearly two thirds I think you'll find ...

Time for refreshments and "a treat" - arias sung by a young Chinese opera student who is probably hoping to reach the top of the tree in her own country. Beats a curry.

It is now.

As I arrive at City Hall Derek the weatherman is setting up to give you his version of the weather. There's thunder on the way. Inside the All Wales Convention is setting up to try, once more, to gauge the political climate ... Thunder on the way? Or a damp squib?

Outside too a group of No campaigners, people I've got to know on first name terms over the past few months and a gang determined to use this last opportunity - the last public event held by the Convention - to make their voices heard.

"Ask them how many of the people here tonight work for WAG in one way or other!" says Dave to Trisan Garel-Jones. "Good idea" comes the response, followed by "What's WAG?"

Inside Plaid's Helen Mary Jones uses her own experience of the LCO process to illustrate her own version of the complexity of the system, the many hurdles she had to negotiate before reaching the point she'd wanted to reach from the beginning. She looks pleased to have told her story so succinctly and effectively.

"Very glad to hear you got there in the end" retorts Tristan Garel Jones.

Richard Wyn Jones and Archbishop Barry Morgan join in. The present devolutionary settlement gives us a system that is not a sensible way of making government. It is neither clear nor transparent. No-one should dismiss that fact.

It's Nick Ainger's turn. Legislation IS complex. The environment is complex too. And if complexity and taking your time leads to better scrutiny, then all the better. He WANTS Wales to reach Part Four powers (into real Convention-speak here) but he doesn not think the people of Wales could vote for it. It's a mistake to get bogged down in a Byzantine debate about whether a system is Byzantine.

Sir Emyr? Ah. the traditional Jones-Parry disclaimer. He may have a view but if he does, it's of no interest to any one and will have no bearing on what he has to say tonight.

The first round of applause for the first man to have asked for equality: the right to decide for himself what devolutionary settlement we have in Wales.

True Wales are keeping their powder dry.

Tristan Garelt-Jones has just proven that he was brought up speaking Welsh before moving to Spain. He adds in English, please don't get hung up on the idea of devolution for devolution's sake being a good thing. He brings into the debate that infamous slippery slope. Loud applause.

It's not helpful, says Helen Mary Jones, to refer to that slippery slope. "Why not? It's what you want isn't it" says Mr Jones!

The debate is heating up.

Off to broadcast on Newyddion.

There are a few Joneses promised as well, from all sides of the debate. There's Plaid Assembly Member Helen Mary Jones and Professor Richard Wyn Jones, the man charged with leading the drive at Cardiff University into researching governance, devolution and what it all means.

On the panel too, Lord Tristan Garel-Jones, the former Conservative Minister who floated the idea of the Welsh diaspora having a vote in any referendum on the country's future.

And of course, Chair of the All Wales Convention, Sir Emyr Jones Parry - no hyphen, no Summer to look forward to either because now starts the job of writing up his report for Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Sir Emyr has already talked about the "fog" as he puts it surrounding Wales' current devolution settlement. You suspect if you were to ask him how many of us understand the settlement with which we currently live, he wouldn't talk in percentages, not even tiny ones. He'd talk in terms of a few dozen, if that.

You suspect too that one set of Joneses will bring that cutting from the Western Mail with them tonight and argue that fog is one very good reason for having a referendum. Bring in an era and a system which is simpler, which people will have voted for themselves and which may even pass an adapted Tony Benn-style test of democracy: simply understanding what power you've got, where that power came from - let alone how that power is exercised and to whom you're accountable.

The other will point to the fog and say that the referendum game is up. If we don't understand the current settlement and frankly, if we're showing little desire to cut through the fog, how could a referendum shine a genuine light on where we want to go from here? We don't even know from where we're starting.

Last night Sir Emyr told BBC Wales of another real problem that faces one set of Joneses more than the other. In the pub, he said - and I'm guessing he must have hard-drinking spies that tells him about conversations down the local - "people are talking about who's in and out of the Lions test team, have I got a job to go to tomorrow, the economy. What they're not talking about are which powers the Assembly has. I'm sure of that".

Cue the Joneses again:

They're not talking about it yet precisely because the present system is so complex that nobody gets it, the yes campaign hasn't even got going yet, the debate hasn't started, just the gathering of evidence so we can have an honest, decent, national debate about the future of our country.

Or

That's it then. People aren't talking about it because they're fine as they are. They've got more important, if not bigger fish to fry, real problems that need sorting before you start going on about the constitution and LCOs and all that stuff that only those other Joneses care about.

Before the interivew kicked off this morning the presenter whispered urgently: "It says in the notes that I'm to ask you what Sir Emyr will be doing next, now that the public meetings are over ... Why? Is he becoming a tightrope walker or something?"

Ah no. That's what he's been doing for the past eighteen months ... if not for most of his career. By the time his report comes out in November we'll be able to establish just how good he's got at it this time and whether he'll decline a safety net, go for broke and point Ministers in one, clear direction out of the fog.

By young I mean ten year olds vying to become this year's Mastermind Cymru champions. I now know rather more about all of the above, helped along by the fact that I have all the answers written on the card in front of me.

Some will get a lot right but no-one will get everything right. Every single one of them will all be glad when it's all over ... which brings me back to the Welsh language LCO and the row it has stirred. Ah yes, I've started so I'll finish. I'm not referring to the comments following yesterday's posting, though - as is traditional on this blog - nothing gets you going into your corners, seconds out, like the mention of 'yr iaith'.

No, I'm talking about the fury amongst members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee that the Secretary of State saw fit to announce a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss their report on plans to devolve power over language legislation to the Assembly before the report had seen the light of day. Not on.

Peter Hain's desire to "get the dirty washing done before recess" was one thing as one angry voice put it but he'd shocked everyone by jumping the gun.

The first anyone knew of a debate before the Welsh Grand next month was an announcement on the Wales Office web site. Not on again. The ink on the Select Committee's report will hardly be dry by July 8th so Welsh MPs will barely have had time to consider it. Mr Hain might be "under pressure from language campaigners, from the CBI, from his own side, from all sides but ..." his fellow Welsh MPs had been "stunned" by the way he'd played things.

A statement this afternoon from the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, Hywel Francis makes that icily clear: "I have informed him he will need to consult with me and the opposition parties before a Welsh Grand Committee can meet to discuss my Committee's Report."

There's tellin' 'im.

As a colleague put it the other day Mr Hain is very, very pleased to be back in office and is very, very keen to get on with things. On this occasion, just that little bit too keen by the looks of it. The debate before the Welsh Grand has been postponed.

The new date? Pass.

We're expecting the Welsh Affairs Select Committee to announce what they make of the LCO over the next few weeks, if not days. Every wink, every nudge suggests that negotiations with the Assembly committee have been more than cordial. They've been "extremely pleasant" as one MP put it and "both sides have learned a lot from each other". I bet he very nearly added: "No, really!"

Bottom line? The wave of protest in response to plans to put language legislation in the hands of the Assembly just hasn't crashed over the Wales Office as some in Gwydyr House had expected. Yes, there have been issues, some serious, raised by parts of Welsh business and industry but otherwise? More muted, you suspect, than anticipated.

When we find out how "pleasant" the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's final report will be, there'll be some more to-ing and fro-ing between the Assembly and the Wales Office but the final Order should be in place within weeks.

But first, on July 8th there'll be some grand standing and I mean that almost literally.

The Select Committee's report on the order will be debated by the Welsh Grand Committee next month - the first time an LCO-in-the-making will have faced this particular hurdle. Why? Because this is an important issue, a contentious issue. When the Government of Wales Act was in the making, Peter Hain made clear that those sorts of issues would be debated fully - and here we are, a chance for every Welsh MP to have his or her say.

And then? Then, some time during the next term of Parliament, the Welsh Language LCO will be debated on the floor of the House of Commons. It won't go through on the nod. It will be debated in full, the first time in 16 years that "the language" will be discussed in the Commons.

Will MPs chomp at the bit, try to catch Mr Bercow's eye and give the order a good kicking?
Possibly. One or two contenders come to mind.

Or hang on a second: with a few months to go before a General Election, isn't it more likely that they'll take the opportunity to stand one by one and praise the order, welcome the passing of a sensible piece of legislation that they will hope, in turn, will lead to sensible Welsh laws being passed by the Assembly, securing the future of a Welsh language that (in it' place) they support ... and vote it on its way?

On its way where next? To the Privy Council possibly by Christmas and bear in mind that the born-again Welsh Secretary Peter Hain will also, then, be well on his way to claiming that it is he who delivered for Wales the most significant boost for the Welsh language in quite some time.

The dance company formerly known as Diversions is now known as National Dance Company Wales.

To celebrate this "dynamic new name" the company turned to dynamic Assembly Members to contribute to a new video which was on show as I left the Senedd last night - under the slogan "Dance is for the nation."

Kirsty Williams has got rhythm, Andrew Davies and Dafydd Ellis Thomas have plenty of oomph while Rhodri Morgan has got to watch he doesn't step backwards or he'll be off the parapet outside his fifth floor office. "Rhodri Morgan's timing was amazing!" enthused the lithe young dancer who'd taught him the moves. Not entirely sure his potential successors as holders of the office on the fifith floor would agree with her. Perhpas their dance is called "the straining at the bit".

But ... where was the Conservative mover and shaker? Do Tories not dance?

Nick Bourne was invited but had, he says, "a clashing engagement" - one he probably worked very hard to find.

No relation to Mathew then ...