Peter’s post seems to have caused a bit of debate. For what it’s worth I agree with him, a political party can’t on one hand criticise people for generating anonymous smears and then have staff permitted to do exactly the same thing in some sort of semi official capacity.
We have also touched a nerve with some Plaid bloggers who feel that the attention they’ve received over the last week or so was because we were threatened. I hate to shatter the conspiracy theory, but Plaid are part of the Government, the Lib Dems are one of the two opposition parties. In a functioning democracy one of the main tasks of being an opposition party is to scrutinise the performance of the Government. When one part of the coalition is obviously split over an issue, which was a key plank of their manifesto it would be somewhat remiss of us not to point that out.
Whilst we are on fees, I’ve been doing a bit of digging, trying to establish just how much complaining Plaid had done about the consultation process their own Adam Price branded
‘rushed incomplete.. and deeply flawed.. these deficiencies are grave enough to cast doubt on the legality of any policy proposals.’
So I stuck in an FOI request fully expecting to find Plaid Cymru, and Adam in particular, had made loud and repeated noises about the potential illegality of the consultation. I mean, surely if that was what you thought and your party was in Government you would put it in those stark terms beforehand – you would want to avoid all this going public, especially if you co authored the document on which the work was based.
What did I find? Well to be fair, I found that Plaid had recorded some reservations. I got hold of details of a conversation between two SpAd’s (Special Advisors) requesting more time for the consultation. This request was ignored on advice from Civil Servants that ‘there is no scope to add any additional time to the consultation period’ (their emphasis not mine).
At no point is it suggested that not doing so would place the consultation in jeopardy, nor is there a record of Adam himself raising these concerns. To be clear, my request specifically asked for notes of emails, phone conversations and meetings. I wanted to give the maximum opportunity for these sorts of complaint to come to light.
So what was the big public hoo ha about then? I’m sure Adam like many others in Plaid was angry about the party’s decision to drop a key pledge – it will as Bethan Jenkins suggested cost them votes. And I’m not surprised people have been quitting the party and kicking off about it.
But why on earth wouldn’t Adam have used the many internal channels available to him as one of Plaid’s most influential politicians to voice these concerns beforehand. What’s happened to those rumours about him wanting to be Plaids leader in the assembly?
Whilst I’m talking about Adam his post today is especially intriguing. He suggests Peter has accused him and his party of economic illiteracy. Well we can of course use a fiscal stimulus and increase the money supply (or engage in quantitative easing to give it it’s hip new name) as Plaid have suggested but we will need to pay it back. More debt to shoulder and pay back. That is not what we need.
Peter is more than capable of defending himself but I’ll add environmental illiteracy to the charges. How can a party that backs the Sustainable Development Commission also prop up Ieuan Air and an enlarged M4 with their polluting ways. I’m just wondering if these contradictions were discussed at Plaid’s green conference yesterday?
I started this post off talking about the need to scrutinise a Government and how it is part of a functioning democracy. That of course means praising the good as well as pointing out the bad. Otherwise this descends in to some sort of ya-boo fight. Bethan Jenkins – you’ve done great work on eating disorders, Nerys has on domestic violence and I really rate Helen Mary.
Plaid needn’t think it will just be them getting this increased level of scrutiny. Labour – there will be more heading your way too.
Oh and I’ve never watched an episode of Star Trek.
—
The FOI we asked was
“Copies all of documents, correspondence and minutes or notes from meetings between Jane Hutt AM or her officials relating to concerns over the process of consultation on the proposals refocussing higher education student finance in
I am specifically looking for, but not limiting the request to, notes of telephone conversations, emails, notes for/of meetings and meeting papers. Additionally this request refers to correspondence (in the form mentioned above but again not limited to that) between ministers (or their staff), AM’s (or their staff), MP’s (or their staff) and political parties and Jane Hutt AM or her officials.”
this was refined in discussion with officials to
‘written records relating to any concerns over the process of consultation on the proposals to refocus higher education student finance’
big thanks to them (if they are reading this) for getting it back to us within the timeframes. If you want a full copy drop me a line on alisonATalisongoldsworthy.co.uk
Related posts:
Who says Adam Price didn’t use the internal channels open to him. Or does that FOI request also cover any conversation Adam Price has had.
The fact there are Assembly staff blogging on this blog makes your point about Plaid and bloggers totally hypocritical I’m sorry
The FOI request covers all official representations so I think that if Adam had made any they would show. Ali is not Assembly staff and any who post here do so under their own name. That is a marked contrast to Plaid’s anonymous attack blogs. Shame you could not follow suit.
Anonymous – The FOI couldn’t cover any conversation Adam had – I’m not really interested in knowing if he’s emailed someone to tell them he’ll be late for a meeting, plus I’d imagine it would be ruled out, my experience using FOI’s is that you are best to be specific.
I wanted to know about things specifically relating to his view that the consultation was at grave risk of being illegal. I made it very clear in my initial request and on accepting the amended version that I wasn’t limiting my request to emails. And that meeting notes, records of conversations etc should also be included. They threw up nothing. Adam could of course have used other internal channels open to him, but why ignore the formal way of recording concerns prior to going to the press? You’ve got to admit it smells a wee bit fishy!
Peter is right, I don’t and haven’t worked for the party or for an AM since 2004 and 2005 respectively.