Both the BBC and
the Western Mail give us a preview of Carwyn Jones’ speech to a Welfare to Work
Convention in Cardiff
today. The impact of the UK Government’s
welfare reforms seems to be getting a large chunk of his speech.
I’d agree with him
that the ‘reforms’ are going to have a disproportionate effect on the most
vulnerable, and I think he’s right to defend the Welsh Government’s record on
issues such as prescriptions. And I can
see how some of those policies being pursued in Wales can foster and encourage
social inclusion; free transport for older and disabled people, for instance,
can enable them to participate in activities which would otherwise be beyond
their reach.
I wonder though how
free prescriptions and bus passes really promote ‘social mobility’ as he seems
to be claiming. And, not for the first
time, I wonder whether ‘social mobility’ is the right objective anyway – it’s
not the movement of individuals between levels which we need so much as an
evening out of the levels.
But the thing that
really struck me about his speech as reported is the dearth of firm alternative
proposals. He talks about “monitoring developments closely”, and
establishing “a ministerial ‘task and
finish’ group responsible for assessing and monitoring the cumulative impact of
all the welfare changes”; he refers to the government taking “its responsibilities seriously to meet this
challenge” and being “progressive” and
says that he would “never shirk away from
tackling issues that could have detrimental implications to Welsh Government
policies, services and Welsh citizens”.
There is, though,
little of substance by way of positive action.
There is a recycling of the claim that they will “create 4,000 new jobs a year in Wales for the next three years”,
which is in reality little more than offering a series of 6-month placements to
2000 people at a time. It’s not a bad
idea in itself, but it’s been hyped to be more than it is.
Overall, the speech
is more rhetoric than programme. I’m
sure that other parties will use that to demonstrate, yet again, a lack of
ambition. That’s probably not entirely unfair,
but the lack of firm proposals also reflects the Welsh Government’s lack of
real power on economic issues. Criticism
of a lack of ambition by the governing party suggests that the solution is as
simple as changing the governing party.
It really isn’t that simple, and suggesting that it is diverts attention
from the real issue of how we develop a serious economic alternative.
Posts
15 comments:
Saying the Welsh Government can't do anything is playing into Labour hands, they could do more and don't for whatever reason, besides having limited economic powers doesn't seemed to have stopped the SNP government from mitigating some of the harshest medicine coming from London.
As for welfare its ironic that many of the things Labour are railing against now are things they introduced when they were in Government like the Work Programme and big changes to Incapacity Benefit.
Both of us know that Welsh Labour wont do anything about the benefit cuts, they will let them bite and blame the evil baby eating Tories for the misery, its always worked for them in the past and is working just fine for them now as Carwyn's rhetoric shows.
The problem for Carwyn is that although I believe he really does want to make a significant difference he realises that to do so he needs to fight for the powers to do so. Therein lies the problem because to do so he would have to rattle the cage of his superiors in Westminster.
Not a sensible strategy for a British party politician with ambition. Better not to rock the boat too much and just rehash some vague "policies" and blame the Tories in Westminster for anything that goes wrong.
Not a bad political strategy but disastrous for Welsh people. That's what you get from a Britnat party politician and one that will be increasingly contrasted with what is happening in Scotland!
Anon,
"Saying the Welsh Government can't do anything is playing into Labour hands"
Not quite sure what your point is there, but it sounds a bit like you're suggesting that attacking Labour for its failures is more important than developing a coherent alternative economic model. Scoring points doesn't particularly appeal to me. I agree with the rest of your comment, particularly the bit about blaming the baby-eaters; but the differences between them are really quite minor in reality; it's all part of a point-scoring game.
I accept, of course, that there are some things that Labour could do but won't, although the extent to which they'd make a significant difference is open to debate. Similarly, I accept that the SNP Government is trying to be more creative and innovative (with more powers that the Assembly of course), but again, I'd have to say that the extent to which it makes a significant difference is open to debate - and it's too early at this stage to come to a definitive conclusion. I've also argued previously that the difference which would follow from adopting Labour's economic policy instead of the Tories' economic policy would be pretty minor in the scale of things as well.
My point was that arguing about the minor differences of policy between different parties is a diversion from developing an alternative economic paradigm - something which none of the parties is currently offering. For those who are only interested in which set of politicians is in power, that might be acceptable - but that's not where I'm starting from.
thanks for the reply John.
Totally agree with you on the need for economic alternatives but where's the space for economic debate in Wales and where are the politicians, business people, academics etc who are willing to champion those ideas and fight for them and start convincing the public?
Building an alternative economy and selling it to a disinterested public is what’s needed, but part of that process is showing the bankrupt nature of Wales's current political leadership, the reason for my opening line was frustration at seeing non Labour folk repeating the Labour mantra that they can't do anything for the Welsh economy, even Ieuan Wyn Jones's plan which im not a fan of showed that with purpose, drive and ideas you can make changes to the Welsh economy for the better in the short term while planning for the medium and long term.
I would love to think Wales could be independent but i long ago gave up the dream, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the Labour establishment that will never lose power is the best that’s on offer and even that’s getting tiring.
John
Lets get back to a cash economy and get a grip on our finances
and financial institutions
If a credit union can deliver a 2% return on savings and a 1% per month interest charge on loans up to £4000 then why cant the big banks
HSBC have today quoted me a rate of 22% on a loan of £2000
The Welsh Government should be putting us ih the picture and proting alternatoives to the Big 5
Anon,
"where are the politicians, business people, academics etc who are willing to champion those ideas and fight for them and start convincing the public? "
I agree, it's a problem. All the mainstream parties are part of a consensus, because that's where they think elections are won or lost; the idea that politics is about alternative futures rather than merely about alternative governments has been lost.
I've talked about the ERP before; in truth, I'm not sure that it is really very much different from what went before. The hype was certainly different - but the delivery leaves me wondering what has really changed. And also wondering what happened to the alternative visions for the Welsh economy which we spent years debating.
"I would love to think Wales could be independent but I long ago gave up the dream"
I'm sorry that you've given up on the dream. I'm still convinced that Wales can become an independent country if we want. But the point of independence is to do things rather more differently than some seem able to envision.
There has to be more to life than exposing Labour - indeed, if there isn't a substantive alternative on offer, expoosing Labour is of very limited value.
Your disappointment with Little “Nipper” Jones is a bit harsh. He is only doing what Labour Party in England has instructed to do. - Talk a lot and do nothing.
John,
I put it to you that the managerial nature of modern politics, which inherently is about winning elections in a low turnout environment, is never going to be the place to put forward something as big as a new economic order.
Now I agree that I want my party and all of us in politics to think big, I do think there is much to be said about a human form of localised capitalism, but I don't necessarily think that it's the realm of political parties and governments.
Marcus,
If I had to define the difference between a Social Democrat and a Socialist in a sentence, it would be this: "Social Democrats take the economic order as a given; Socialists don't". I'm no Social Democrat.
And if both the economic order and the political order are taken as givens, then "politics" becomes about nothing more than a change of personnel, a beauty contest.
Politics for me has never been about "winning elections in a low turnout environment", or about building a "human form of localised capitalism", let alone about managerialism. Yet that is what it has been reduced to. Anti-capitalism no longer has any voice in mainstream politics, and the case for a socialist alternative is not being put - because people are more interested in winning elections and in 'being in power' than they are in changing anything when they get there.
I am a social democrat...so we differ in that regard. Although the reason I am is because a 'socialist economy' divorced from capitalism of any description has yet to be seen to be credible if you ask me - a debate for another time perhaps?
I am not sure we are having a debate about the same thing. I came into politics via anti-capitalism and patriotism drew me to devolution.
I am not in politics for those reasons either, but that wasn't my point. My point was that reduced turnouts leave little room for genuinely radical ideas, because the germination you would need isn't there like before.
I blame politicians of course, but my point is that as a society we don't do metanarratives, and if we do, it certainly shouldn't be down to something as trivial as a political party.
We are both fans of Chris Dillow's work - he highlights how little power governments have in shaping the economy (which was given away under neo-liberalism of course). That was my point - do you really expect a political party to offer a new economic order AND win low turnout elections?
Marcus,
"a debate for another time perhaps?" Agreed.
"reduced turnouts leave little room for genuinely radical ideas"
I'm not sure that follows at all. I thought that the concern of some people about a low turnout for elections for Police Commissioners, for instance, was that it gave more space, not less, for those outside the consensus of politics to win. I think that's true (although I don't think it's a reason for not holding elections - it's a bit like saying you can't have an election unless the right people win - but that again is a story for another day).
"as a society we don't do metanarratives, and if we do, it certainly shouldn't be down to something as trivial as a political party".
If introducing alternative political narratives isn't the job of politicians, then whose job is it?
"do you really expect a political party to offer a new economic order AND win low turnout elections?"
The idea that offering an alternative and winning elections are necessarily mutually exclusive goes to the heart of what I feel has gone wrong with politics in general and Plaid in particular. From my perspective, there is no point at all in winning elections if you're just going to put a different bunch of managers in place to do essentially the same as the others would have done and challenge nothing. That's just careerism.
"If introducing alternative political narratives isn't the job of politicians, then whose job is it?"
A better question is what politician has ever come forward with an 'alternative economic narrative'? If we accept that Thatcher was probably the last British politician to bring forward one, then consider who actually put forward those ideas...Margaret Thatcher it was not.
"The idea that offering an alternative and winning elections are necessarily mutually exclusive goes to the heart of what I feel has gone wrong with politics in general and Plaid in particular"
Perhaps you have a point, although I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I mean, I am consistent advocate of drug law reform, decriminalising etc...But it's those not at the mercy of the media/politics/elections that are best placed to push the debate. The reason why politicians, despite alot agreeing with my stance, don't push it is because it is not a vote winner.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I am in Plaid Cymru to gain independence for Wales. That in itself is enough for me - the Welsh people can then decide what type of Government they want as a free nation.
Of course we should also provide a model of how we would govern the people, and broadly I think Plaid gets it right, but I think that at times Plaid's socialism competes with it's nationalism - the issue of green energy is one, one which I always take the nationalist, rather than green socialist view on.
Ultimately, movements and elites outside of party politics drive genuine change, politicians are there to grasp and articulate such ideas for sure.
It's all about independence for me - I would take a free Wales democratically electing a centre right government over a socialist utopia in Westminster - the challenge for me is to deliver a free Wales with a social democrat government, as this is my ideal
Marcus,
I’m not convinced that Thatcher’s policies constituted anything like an ‘alternative economic narrative’; she supported free market capitalism. Just like Major, Blair, Brown, and Cameron. Differences of emphasis within the same broad ideological position aren’t the same as alternatives.
”Perhaps you have a point, although I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I mean, I am consistent advocate of drug law reform, decriminalising etc...But it's those not at the mercy of the media/politics/elections that are best placed to push the debate. The reason why politicians, despite a lot agreeing with my stance, don't push it is because it is not a vote winner.“
Actually, I sort of agree with that. But think through the implications – isn’t the natural conclusion of that to say that ‘politicians’ and ‘politics’ are just about which bunch of careerists run the country and that any serious discussion of issues has to take place outside formal politics? Is there not a relationship between that view and the fact that so many feel alienated from the political process? It sort of confirms that voting doesn’t really matter, because ‘they’re all the same, anyway’.
”Perhaps I am cynical, but I am in Plaid Cymru to gain independence for Wales. That in itself is enough for me - the Welsh people can then decide what type of Government they want as a free nation.”
That I can understand and respect. But it isn’t what the party’s leadership has been saying for some time, and it certainly isn’t the platform on which Plaid went into the 2011 election. That was all about accepting the limitations and simply managing things better; nothing to do with independence. And this is central to my critique – a party cannot credibly claim to be in favour of something if its leaders disagree and never put the case.
”… I think that at times Plaid's socialism competes with it's nationalism - the issue of green energy is one, one which I always take the nationalist, rather than green socialist view on.“
I agree that the two can be in competition. Plaid has long been an uneasy alliance for precisely that reason. As long as the constitutional objective had primacy, there was room for a degree of fudge about ‘what sort of Wales’; and I’ve been party to that fudge as much as many others. But take away that primacy, get to the point where the objective is no longer about the constitutional position but about gaining power and being part of the government, and ‘what sort of Wales’ is all that’s left. And unless a party puts forward a real alternative, the answer to the question is 'this sort of Wales, but better run'.
It’s a point which I’ve made many times – take away that which unites, and you’re left with that which divides.
”Ultimately, movements and elites outside of party politics drive genuine change, politicians are there to grasp and articulate such ideas for sure.”
I'm increasingly in agreement with the first part, but wish that I didn’t have to be. It has become clear to me that real change cannot be driven through party politics, at least, not as we currently know it. I disagree with the second though; on your analysis, surely politicians are only there to ‘grasp and articulate’ those ideas which they think might be vote winners within the party political arena. Not a recipe for any different thinking, really.
”It's all about independence for me - I would take a free Wales democratically electing a centre right government over a socialist utopia in Westminster”
I think that’s a false choice. I’d choose neither. The question for me always was – and still is – about which route takes us furthest in the right direction.
”the challenge for me is to deliver a free Wales with a social democrat government, as this is my ideal”
An entirely honourable and honestly stated aim. But it isn’t mine.
"That I can understand and respect. But it isn’t what the party’s leadership has been saying for some time, and it certainly isn’t the platform on which Plaid went into the 2011 election"
Indeed. There was some 'Marcus Warner' chap onstage at our recent conference, quoted by the BBC, making clear that 'independence in Europe' should be clearly in our constitution and in our electoral offering.
He will go far I reckon ;)
John,
Have gone into the 'alternative economic model' debate here...
http://stateofthenationcymru.blogspot.com/2011/11/alternative-economic-model.html
Post a Comment