He said AV was “obscure, and only used by three countries” adding that it is “so unfair that candidates who come second or third can end up winning.” As a beneficiary of AV himself when he won the Tory leadership you would think Cameron would know better.

David Cameron is just plain wrong about the fairer votes AV campaign. The voting system he backs results in MPs having jobs for life and being elected without the support of most of their constituents.

The Alternative Vote will mean politicians having to persuade at least half their constituents to vote for them. Members of Parliament will have to really work and earn the support and vote of the people in the constituency.

A yes in the AV referendum will mean fewer MPs with jobs for life in safe seats. It will mean putting the people back in charge, knowing that their vote will make a difference.

Oh yes, and the odds of a third placed candidate coming through to win are pretty huge. In almost every case we would end up redistributing their votes to the first and second candidates.

Related posts:

1. Cameron jumps in feet first
2. Cameron girls.. oh dear
3. Regenerating Town Centres

We’d like to think that Cameron’s girls didn’t get any support for this particular number..

Related posts:

1. Cameron comes to town
2. Cameron jumps in feet first
3. Government inaction will cost Wales dear

I Want You To Pull My Trigger

Whatever the result at Westminster, the first item in the new Secretary of State for Wales’s in-tray will be the referendum on extending the powers of the Welsh Assembly. With the final potential roadblock to a referendum removed when David Cameron announced that a Tory government in London wouldn’t block it, all should have been set fair for the Assembly to kick the process off, but as ever the One Wales government couldn’t even manage something that simple.

It started with the idea that there would be a vote, but not necessarily the formal trigger vote to send a request for a referendum to the Secretary of State. That lack of definitive commitment was a bad signal to send out to start with, but the row that followed was far, far worse.

Throughout the process, the Lib Dems (endorsed by the Tories) had been making one simple point; whatever happens, the referendum must not be held on the same day as the Assembly elections in May 2011. The reasons for that should be self-evident; the difficulty of running a cross-party Yes campaign during a partisan election, the conflation of the referendum issue and the political issues… Self-evident or not, the coalition refused to be drawn on whether such a guarantee would be provided, despite the need for cross-party support to even pass the vote, let alone demonstrate the unity needed to win the referendum.

Still, with Plaid remaining unwilling to throw their weight around the coalition (and seemingly unable to understand that, while the One Wales goal is only to have a referendum, their goal as a party is to win it) the row dragged on past the announcement of the trigger vote and almost into the weekend before agreement was reached.

In the end the vote was unanimous, and now that the letter is finally on the Secretary of State’s desk the real dogfight should be about to begin.

A Belated Letter To Santa

With an Easter election announcement, you’d think there were plenty of metaphors to go around, but Plaid Cymru clearly felt the need to bring Christmas into the mix by treating it as if all theirs had come at once. Indeed, after months of trailing this election as the next step in the nationalist march of destiny, there’s barely a religious festival they wouldn’t want to treat it as.

Mind you, when everyone’s favourite comedy double act, Salmond and Jones, came together to announce the great nationalist wish list, their approach to it was pretty odd. Ruling out a formal coalition is all well and good, but when you’ve spent the previous month complaining of being left out of the leaders debates, announcing that you won’t take a job in government under any circumstances is a pretty good way to confirm your irrelevance.

And as letters to Santa go, this one is pretty badly written. The headline “achievable objective” is fair funding for Scotland and Wales, which is fine, except that while the Barnett Formula for devolved funding does penalise Wales, it actively advantages Scotland. Quite what would happen to the nationalist love-in if they ever were offered fair funding remains to be seen; I mean, I suppose the SNP might push for a funding deal that hurt Scotland and then portray it as evidence of anti-Scottishness in Westminster and thus of the importance of independence, but you’d need some serious hubris to try and pull that off… erm…

The Government’s, What For Want Of A Better Word We’ll Call Policy…

Not that the rest of “4Wales4Scotland” (following “7 for 07” and “innov8” in its commitment to originality and lack of gimmickry…) is much better. Ieuan Wyn had already announced one of its central elements, a 30% (no, that’s not a typo) increase in the state pension. Any criticism of that policy was immediately denounced as proof that “the London parties” don’t care about the vulnerable. Which is fine, except that all the ideas for paying for it come from that heinous London party, the Liberal Democrats (PDF), and that the main things proposed to pay for a £20billion annual commitment are… scrapping ID cards and Trident, those notable one-off items. Parties of all stripes felt fairly comfortable with their conclusions on that one…

But of course, if Plaid are saying stupid things about policy, Labour have to chip in under their mutually assured incompetence pact. And while we’re used to the Tories not understanding how devolution works (the appearance of the airbrushed Cameron NHS poster in Wales, where the NHS is devolved, being a case in point) it’s odd for Labour to cock it up. Nevertheless, there was Peter Hain parroting the central party line that a Tory government in Westminster would threaten free bus passes for the elderly. Because the free bus passes aren’t something the devolved government in Wales pioneered and have always operated independently, oh no…

Related posts:

1. Y Barcud Oren #6
2. Y Barcud Oren #7
3. Y Barcud Oren #3

Related posts:

1. Vote for change today, vote for the Liberal Democrats
2. The power to vote ‘no’
3. The cost of a no vote

This goes a bit further than his Shadow Secretary of State on Good Morning Wales, who refused to be drawn on the referendum, saying only that it was on Peter Hain’s desk and that it was a matter for him.

However, she too confirmed that the Barnett formula was up for review, drawing attention to the fact that it no longer enjoys the support of its inventor, Joel Barnett. That it has taken her ten years to become aware of this fact can be excused by the situation she finds herself in – yet another potential Tory Secretary of State who does not represent a Welsh constituency nor live here.

This is quite a u-turn for the Welsh Tories, given that their argument in the past has been that it is dangerous to fiddle with the financial settlement in case Wales loses out. Maybe they have been encouraged by the work of the Holtham Commission, which suggested that Wales was losing out to the tune of £300 million a year, a figure which they pointed out was statistically insignificant in comparison to the £15 billion we get from the Treasury.

More likely, they are trying to appease voters in England who think that the block grant system works against them and want a change. Whichever it is there is no sign as yet that anybody in the Tory party has any idea how they will change the Barnett formula nor how they will deal with the sizeable political fall-out that will follow any change.

Perhaps I can help by pointing them to the 2005 Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Liberal Democrats are still the only party to have commited on a UK basis to reform and in doing so reconciled all its constituent parts to the proposed solution. We proposed a federal funding commission to draw up a distribution formula on the basis of need and to oversee its implementation.

Obviously, any new system could not be introduced overnight but it would be possible to ease it in over a period of years so as to reduce the pain felt by those parts of the UK that have been historically overfunded.

We will have to see where the Tories go on this and if their promise of reform actually comes off or whether it is shelved once they have got into government, if indeed they do.

Related posts:

1. Tory backbenches call for Barnett reform
2. Hain ‘solution’ to Barnett completely ignores the funding problem in Wales
3. Benefits of Fuel Poverty Bill blunted by Barnett

David Cameron’s marriage proposals are, at the best of times, confusing. But one thing has been made clear by him and the Tories, they think that marriage is important and wants the state to recognise this. But why should governments be telling us how we should be conducting our personal relationships? Some people don’t want to get married, or don’t want kids, or just haven’t found the right/willing person yet. Why should these people be forced to pay more tax?

Are we going to see other proposals for encouraging marriage in the final draft of the Tory manifesto? If so I’ve got a few ideas that seem just as sensible:

 - A minimum pricing system on ready meals for one
 - Annual pornography limits
 - New regulations that ensure all tubs of Ben and Jerry’s are sold with two spoons
 - A government official to sit opposite you in restaurants and point and laugh (department to be privatised in 2012)
 - A new ‘Makeover Tsar’ (Gok Wan?) to issue government advice on what shirt goes with that jacket.
 - Banning single friends from sharing cinema tickets on ‘Orange Wednesday’
- Maximum of two cats per single Woman over 35

All of this would probably have a far greater impact on relationships than a small tax penalty for not being married with kids. Some of it would probably be bloody cheaper too.

The fact is, that there are many different households that exist within our society. If someone wants to be married, then fair play to them. I don’t think there is anyone I have ever met who is ‘anti-marriage’, but some people just feel that it ‘isn’t for them’. That is their business. Not the governments.

Cameron claims that this is about children. But there are many, many couples and individuals who are perfectly capable of raising children without a ring and a piece of paper that tells them that they are a ‘state recognised couple’.

One of the amazing things that has happened within our society within the last few years is the fact that relationships have become far more about choice rather than what is expected. Fifty years ago, if a girl got pregnant, she would be expected to marry the man and be with him for life, regardless of either of their wishes in this process. That isn’t the case now. If they don’t want to stay together, they don’t. If they get together, and ten years later decide they don’t want to be together anymore, they have that option.

That is something that is welcome. Bringing a child up in a relationship which has long since failed is not a suitable atmosphere for any family.

For the Conservatives to attempt to use the tax system to start encouraging one form of relationship over another is an about turn on this. Our society has long since freed people from the expectation of having a ‘right and wrong’ way of bringing up a child, and this is not something that we should ever consider reversing.

The fact is, not only is this policy social engineering, it’s also discriminatory. By giving financial penalties to single people and couples who do not want to, or cannot have children you are essentially telling this section of the community “the state does not deem your lifestyle as being worthy of reward”.

I want to say it’s not for the state to try to influence my lifestyle, but of course the state does try this, by telling us to drink less, eat better and not to smoke. But I’m ok with this, not because I think it’s the states business if I want seven Big Macs, fifteen pints and a cigar, but because the state will pay when I need a heart transplant a result.

But how I decide on my living arrangements is nothing to do with the government. It has no impact on them. If I want to live on my own, then the tax system should not stop me. If I want to live with a partner, married or otherwise, the government should not stop, or encourage me. If I want to live with a Kangaroo and a Filipino drag queen named ‘Rio’, that’s up to me. Not Ministers.

At least have the balls to be honest with us about this Dave. This isn’t about the future for our children, this is about two things:

1. Appealing to Daily Mail readers. Don’t say it isn’t. That’s the same reason you want an immigration cap.
2. The outdated views of the Conservative Party, which still believes it knows what is best for individual people. And lets not forget, that gay couples can’t have children so even if they’re married, they won’t get this tax break.

If the Conservatives really want to help children get a better start, then don’t try and use financial penalties to keep families together. Let families separate if that is what is best for those individuals. Instead, put the money into helping those families which live in poverty by taking the lowest earners out of tax. Poverty has a far bigger influence on a child’s future than it’s parents martial status. By all means use my tax money to help children, but on the grounds of need rather than ideals.

But don’t tell me that because I’m not married and I don’t have a kid that the state does not think I deserve some sort of recognition. Because quite frankly, I don’t want recognition from you anyway.

So from all those who don’t believe in marriage, don’t want kids, can’t have kids, want to live with someone of the same sex or are just too damn ugly to get someone – piss off Dave. I’ll live my life how I want, regardless of what you think.

Related posts:

1. The BBC was right, the Anti-fascists were wrong
2. Tories on wrong end of public opinion on expenses
3. The wrong Minister

You can of course judge for yourself.

Airbrushed?!

If you want to compare that with other potentially flattering shots there is the one where Cameron was named GQ’s second most stylish man. And that was in 2007. A quick google images search would suggest that there’s been a touch more than a bit of red eye removal and change in lighting.

Why does this matter? After all how people look shouldn’t effect people’s vote. Although we know it does, despite suggestions that politics is show business for ugly people. This matters because Dave is building a campaign around him, that you can trust him. So why can’t he just be honest about how he looks. Most fathers in their 40′s have a few lines. It’s hard work doing that and being leader of the opposition. Why hide who you are, and why should people trust you if you do?

Related posts:

1. Welsh Liberal Democrats back airbrushing in advertising campaign
2. Welsh Liberal Democrat Candidates sign Code of Conduct for General Election
3. Happy New Year to all our readers

There is no indication of course as to which side the Conservatives will take in a referendum campaign but I suspect that speculation that the AMs will line up behind a ‘yes’ campaign and the MPs will be in the ‘no’ camp is pretty close to the mark.

Of course that is not the obvious question that emerges from this clear signal by the Tory leader. It is ‘what will Labour do?’

Peter Hain has already said he would be opposed to a referendum before the 2011 Assembly elections for the entirely pragmatic reason that he does not think it can be won. But if a request should land on his desk with the full support of the vast majority of the 60 Assembly Members (possibly all of us) would he resist that call for an earlier plebiscite?

There are also questions for Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones as to how they intend to proceed now. So far they have internalised all discussion on the timing of a referendum to the One Wales Government. They know that they can count on the support of the Welsh Liberal Democrats when they decide to go to the people. They think also that they will most probably have the Welsh Assembly Tory group on their side.

But they cannot indefinitely keep us out of the loop, nor can they count on us backing their judgement on timing and other issues if we have not been consulted on these decisions and given a voice in a meaningful cross-party ‘yes’ campaign. The longer they treat this as a two-party affair then the greater the risk that they will fracture support for a ‘yes’ vote with the effect that other parties will go off and do their own thing and open up opportunities for the ‘No’ campaigners to drive a wedge between us.

That is not to say that pro-devolutionists in the opposition parties will switch sides, far from it. However, more in frustration than anything else we will take our own initiatives, challenge the judgement of Minister’s on timing and question them at every turn on their own commitment to this process, when they would rather be concentrating on other things. That is the nature of politics and it is what happens when you do not make an effort to take your allies with you on cross-party issues purely for party political reasons.

There is now less than two weeks to the publication of the report of the All-Wales Convention. We all think that we know what it will say and the only question once it is in the public domain will not be should we have a referendum, but when? We cannot afford to have parties go off on their own on this issue but if we are not all brought into the tent now then that is what will happen.

Irrespective of what David Cameron says or what Peter Hain thinks the most important thing that Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones can do now is to recognise that that decision is no longer the sole preserve of their respective parties. They need to call Kirsty Williams and Nick Bourne and any other relevant parties in, well in advance of the publication of the Convention report to both brief them and to seek agreement on how we take forward its conclusions.

If they do not do so then the impact of the report will be lost and valuable campaigning time dissipated as the parties advance their own views on how we should proceed and seek to pin the Government down on its own views. This is an historic moment, Labour and Plaid would do well not to throw it away by taking a partisan approach to it.

Related posts:

1. The Peter Hain enigma
2. Hain the least effective member of Milband’s team
3. Peter Hain again

We could have “When Mr Bourne goes to Wash(ington)”, the story of one man’s shower in Croatia, “RTD2”, A Star Wars spin off based in a farm far, far away – near Cowbridge, or “Johnny English (well I’m proud to be Welsh now actually)” the story of one Kairdiff boy’s secret service mission to ban MP3 players on expenses, or should that be AM3 players?

Much of the fire directed at the Tories on a UK level puts the heat on the blues brothers’ background in exclusive fee-paying schools and exploits at Cambridge. How can life-experiences of privilege, private schooling and public affairs really allow Dave and the gang to relate to the mother who gets the 17 from Ely into Canton to work and do her shopping? It’s a fair question but the current UK Lib Dem high-command and inner circle wouldn’t be immune from such an accusation either, or Labour leadership in the past. More recent Labour fightback tactics plays the celebrity card, “the media loves Cameron and is giving him his day in the sun”, trying to convince the voters not to be taken for granted. Must be based on that winning McCain playbook….

But let’s look closer to home – are the Welsh Tories getting too easy a ride? Beneath the displays of camaraderie and Cymraeg, does there still beat a right heart that pumps out those Thatcherite, unionist, and uncaring blood cells to the extremities?

If there is one Welsh equivalent of the media love-in with Cameron, it’s the deification of the ex-Mid and West Wales AM and three time losing candidate in Montgomeryshire, Glyn Davies, in the blogosphere and across some sections of the media. This onetime fierce opponent of devolution, of a proper parliamentary building for Wales, a quangocrat to his fingertips, is the “Welsh” conservative of choice amongst the ever sane and rational nationalist bloggers.

His nemesis Nick Bourne may have publicly recanted on some positions years down the track, but Glyn claims to have never really believed in some core Tory policies of a certain vintage. Take two examples: immediately on the night of the referendum, Glyn claims to have been Glyndwr reincarnated and to want a proper parliament despite leading the no campaign in Montgomeryshire and he’s against the minimum wage but if we kept the poorly paid at a low enough level it’d be ok with him. Obviously, when he decided to knuckle down and try and win his beloved Montgomeryshire in 2007 instead of carping and complaining about the changes to election rules, he took it to the man and stood up for his people. Oh, sorry must be some mistake. I hope all those toys on Welshpool high-street have been cleared up since being thrown out of the sky-blue pram in 2006.

There are many examples of Glyn’s resilience, his effectiveness as a communicator and ability to be Bourne-again on so many issues. But being loved by the blogs isn’t the same as winning Montgomeryshire for the Tories for only the second time in 130 years. What do the Tories, and Glyn, really stand for?

What about the minimum wage, breaking bread with fascists, homophobes and sexists in Europe, the underlying cultural war against the NHS, tax cuts for millionaires, no commitment on a referendum or proper powers for Wales, the erosion of civil liberties?

I wouldn’t be so sure that Montgomeryshire has fallen for Dave, George and Glyn’s charms and policies just yet.

Related posts:

1. Cameron’s airbrushing
2. Montgomeryshire Plaid candidate concedes that Lembit will win
3. Cameron jumps in feet first

Daran Hill posted on Wales Home on Friday that the Welsh Lib Dems should be underestimated at their peril.

Unsurprisingly, I think he is right. But there is more to the Lib Dems and they face challenges that are different in character to the ones Daran posed.  I don’t agree with him that the Euro elections this year were some sort of exclusive calamity for the Lib Dems in Wales or elsewhere. All the mainstream parties underperformed.  Labour’s awful, awful night in Wales has been well documented but the Tories and Plaid didn’t exactly record stonking shares of the vote either.  The control in that election was wrested away from traditional parties, including the Lib Dems as people turned elsewhere in the aftermath of the expenses scandal. 

Ironically people turned to the scandalists in chief, UKIP and unfortunately to the repugnant BNP. The Lib Dems in Wales and elsewhere need to find a way to convince people who have been let down by Labour over the last 12 years, that we have a Liberal vision of progressive politics, a way out of the financial crisis, and the best way of improving theirs and others lives. If the Lib Dems can do that, then we’ll have hit a jackpot.

I put precisely this point about our lack of control to Nick Clegg when a group of bloggers spent an hour with him on Saturday morning. He was in feisty form, and quick to point out that Gordon Brown certainly isn’t in control of setting the agenda.  Rightly he thinks the next General Election will be about what sort of change people want to see in this country. He set out earlier this week his vision for that and why the Lib Dems will be taking over the mantle of progressive politics in this country – it’s a well reasoned argument that has been generally well received both inside and outside the party. 

As Daran pointed out, in terms of share of the vote the Lib Dems broke some records at the last general election.  One in four people in the UK voted Lib Dem, that’s part of a wider shift away from a two party hegemony that gives further weight to Nick’s suggestion that the political mould is breaking.  Back in 1951 only 2% of the electorate voted for a party that wasn’t Labour or Tory. At this year’s local elections 40% did.

Capitalising on this opportunity is the test for our party.  Vince’s pamphlet earlier this week was the first any party to provide detail on exactly the scale and the sort of cuts that the UK will need to be making.  Some of them are popular, some less so. Whilst Brown is debating about whether he can even say the word cuts, and Cameron is talking about increasing the price of salads in Portcullis House there are real concrete ideas of how to tackle the hard times ahead.

Nick reassured us yesterday about his personal belief that tuition fees were wrong.  He gave a “copper bottomed guarantee” that the Lib Dems would have the best package for students at an election.  Personally, whilst I think fees are slowly ingraining their way into the culture of our HE system(s), and more’s the pity for that, we would be foolish not to keep university education as accessible as possible at a time when so many are going back to reskill after redundancies.

The Euro election was many things, but it wasn’t a referendum on Kirsty’s leadership, in the same way it wasn’t one on Rhodri, Ieuan’s or Nick’s either. The General Election holds some considerable promise for the Lib Dem’s in Wales – and Kirsty will have some control over that. Her moment, will be the 2011 Assembly elections.

Nowhere is Nick’s suggestion that we should be taking over as the progressives in politics from Labour got more traction than in Wales.  If, as looks likely, the Tories are in power; who has the confidence that George Osborne would be able to undertake the cuts that are necessary to retrieve our public finances and retain the support of the public? Pass, yes you are with me.

Plaid offer a different view of progressive politics. Their left of centre credentials offer a rebadged version of Labour. Precisely the sort of progressive view that both Kirsty and Nick think has had its day.  Underestimate Kirsty at your peril.

Related posts:

1. Clegg stood out from tired old politics of Labour and Conservatives says Kirsty
2. Porn or politics? #ldconf
3. The benefits of coalition politics