It earned him a
headline or two, and I’m sure it went down well with the party faithful. I’m not sure that it has much validity
however. If ministers are good at their
job and if the people continue to elect them, what’s wrong with them remaining
in office for a lengthy period? Indeed,
it has often seemed to me that the UK habit of reshuffling ministers every year
or two is a convenient way of ensuring that real power remains in the hands of
the Prime Minister (or First Minister in Wales) and the civil service, and that
real change is obstructed. Ministers are
moved on before they get too knowledgeable about their brief.
It’s also true
of course that with a limited number of members in the assembly, the extent to
which the First Minister has a choice when it comes to appointing ministers is
itself limited. With a bare majority of
half of the 60 members, the First Minister has 30 members from whom to
choose. It’s an entirely different
situation from that in the House of Commons, where the prime minister typically
will have 300 people from amongst whom to choose his or her ministers. One way of overcoming that part of the
problem would be to increase the number of members in the assembly – but that
does not seem to be on the agenda for Mr Davies or his party.
The more
significant question than the length of time for which they have been in office
is the question of the competence of those ministers. If they’re good at their job then leaving
them in place is not a terribly bad idea; better than handing the jobs over to someone
who might not be as good, just because they’ve been in post for a particular
length of time. And if they’re bad at
their job then they shouldn’t be there in the first place; longevity does not
enter the equation. But competence is a
question on which we will all have our own opinion.
It’s true, of
course, that Labour has been in power continuously since the assembly was
elected. It’s equally true as a result
of that that the Labour Party – including those long-serving Ministers - must
take the predominant share of the blame for any failings over that period.
However we
cannot escape the truth that the people of Wales actually elected the Labour
Party to that position. Andrew Davies
may wish that were not true – I might wish it were not true – but it’s an
inescapable fact. In that sense any
comparison with Eastern Europe is completely invalid. Longevity in office is simply the result of
the people’s verdict, whether we like it or not.
Posts
3 comments:
Rather stating the obvious here, John.
"However we cannot escape the truth that the people of Wales actually elected the Labour Party to that position." Yes we can! Biggest party, yes, but it's the electoral system that exaggerates Labour dominance.
As a nationalist & Plaid member I agree with John. Alot of Plaid people talk about a 'one party state' too, though not our politicians. The thing is, it's a four party state, it's just that Labour is more popular than us. I do agree the system exaggerates and ensures their dominance (and some of them want it made even less proportional!) though.
Calling them Soviets and communists is a waste of time. We have to make the people of Wales trust us more and prove to them that we would deliver on the issues they care about. I'm certainly doing my bit locally to raise money so we can campaign more often and more visibly.
Post a Comment