Roosting chickens

Tweet

There’s been a lot of criticism of ‘True Wales’ for their decision not to seek lead campaign group status.  Certainly, their decision means that both sides of the argument will have to put their case without any subsidy from the public purse, but in criticising ‘True Wales’, people are aiming at the wrong target.  Why should any group feel under any obligation to apply for a particular status if it doesn’t want to?

The Electoral Commission’s hands are tied by the legislation which allows campaigners on one side of any referendum argument to be designated as the lead group only if there is a similar group on the other side which can also be so designated.  Does that mean that it’s the MPs who passed the legislation setting out the rules who got it wrong?

Possibly; but I’m not sure that that would be the right target either.  In setting up rules for holding referenda, the government of the day and the MPs who voted the legislation through probably assumed that any referendum was likely to be on a highly contentious proposal, and that there would be two strongly put sets of arguments.  It’s not an unreasonable assumption – but that doesn't make it correct.

The referendum on 3^rd March is one where the arguments are overwhelmingly one-sided, and most of the counter arguments seem to be against a wholly different proposition from that which is on the ballot paper.  We are obliged to go through a referendum process because that’s what GOWA 2006 says, but it’s not the issue on which any rational analysis would suggest that a referendum is really necessary.

I can see the argument for holding a referendum in 2006, before GOWA was enacted, on the principle of moving from an administrative body to a legislative one.  That was a real step change in the nature of devolved government.  But whether the powers devolved under GOWA are passed across piecemeal or wholesale doesn’t really strike me – or many others – as the sort of major change which really requires a referendum.  And the difficulty which both sides are having in adequately explaining why people should vote one way or the other tends to support that view.

We are where we are in terms of the two campaigns over the next few weeks, but it really isn’t ‘True Wales’ who put us there – it’s the architect of GOWA 2006, and the people who forced him to include a clause mandating a referendum as the price for their support for the Act, in the belief that they could thereby delay a move to Part 4 almost indefinitely.

I wonder whether the difficulty some people are having in deciding what to say now is because they are distracted by the sound of roosting chickens.

Questions, questions...

Tweet It should surely be no surprise to anyone that the Electoral Commission has concluded that there were problems with the proposed referendum question, and has proposed an alternative of its own. I'm not sure how much of an improvement it really is, though.

The real problem isn't with the question at all; it's with the mess created by the 2006 Act itself. Trying to explain the implications of moving from Part 3 to Part 4 bearing in mind the restrictions of the various schedules means, I fear, that there is no simple way of asking the right question without a complex preamble of some sort; and the longer the preamble, the more scope for disagreement about it.

We are, in reality, having the wrong referendum about the wrong issue, and we're doing it because firstly it was the only way that Hain could get the Act through Parliament, and secondly, because he believed that the referendum would not actually be triggered for a decade or two. And, as if that wasn't enough, it looks increasingly likely that one or both sides of the campaign will find themselves campaigning on questions which are not on the ballot paper anyway.

Whilst the outcome of the referendum certainly matters, does it matter how we get there? For those of us who believe that referenda can and should play a part in politics, of course it does, but there are times in life when we have to accept that "we are where we are".

Hopefully, some lessons will be learned about when we do and when we don't need a referendum. To be a meaningful part of our political life, they need to be clear and focussed in a way that this one can never be.

In Paxton's footsteps?

Tweet There was a time when only the wealthy could afford to become MPs; but then Sir William Paxton was a very wealthy man. So when he stood for the Whigs in Carmarthenshire in the Great Election of 1802, he was in a position to spare no expense. There were only 2,500 people eligible to vote in the whole constituency, and Paxton assiduously set about winning their support.

By the end of the campaign, Paxton had spent £15,690 on trying to win over those electors – including the provision of 11,070 breakfasts, 36,901 lunches, 684 suppers, 25,275 gallons of beer, and 11,068 bottles of spirits. It was a very large sum of money in 1802; it would be an enormous sum today.

'Treating' electors, by providing them with food and drink, was legal in those days of course, but these days it is not allowed – largely as a result of such historical excess. Election candidates must not 'treat' by offering food or drink to electors, as the Electoral Commission's guidance to candidates and agents makes perfectly clear.

Or does it? Certainly, once an election has been called, the practice is illegal, but how about in the days and weeks before that? It's an interesting question – and far from being entirely academic, either.

The local constituency association of the Conservatives in Wales is also quite wealthy. Funded largely by hunters and hedgies, their own accounts reveal that they have a healthy reserve of £85,000 available to spend. Enough for the odd buffet or glass of wine, at least. And the postage to invite electors to come along and partake.

Last night, they held a little get-together in Cynwyl Elfed – described as an opportunity to meet the Tory candidate informally "over light refreshments". The invitation made it clear that there was no requirement for people to give advance notice of their attendance, but said that advance notice "would help us arrange the catering".

It's a sensible precaution – if you're inviting a lot of people to an event, I can see that it might be difficult to ensure that you have the right quantity of food and drink available. And they do seem to have invited a large number of people. A very large number of people. Everyone in Cynwyl Elfed and Llanpumsaint – including, of course, Plaid's many members and supporters in the area - seems to have been invited by letter sent out through the post. That's about 1400 people in total.

And it seems that t's not the only such event that they've organised – they held a similar one at the Pantyrathro Hotel in Llansteffan a few weeks ago, and seem to have invited everyone in the Llansteffan ward – around another 1600 people. I don't, at this stage, know whether any others have been held or planned, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

There was a sting in the tail for Paxton. The people of Carmarthenshire were canny enough to recognise a bit of attempted bribery when they saw it. After partaking of his hospitality, and in the privacy of the polling booth, they voted for his opponent anyway.


A few years later, Paxton built a large folly, officially dedicated to the memory of Nelson. But many locals still claim that Paxton's Tower was actually built as a place from which he could look down on those who had rejected him; a permanent reminder of the events of "Y Lecsiwn Fawr".

Will history repeat itself? Only time will tell - but "Hart's Folly" has a certain ring to it.

Campaign funding

Tweet 'True' Wales seem to be getting a little bit worked up about the conditions which might apply to any campaign funding from the Electoral Commission for the forthcoming referendum. It's interesting, but somehow not all that surprising, that an organisation which has argued that holding a referendum at all is a costly waste of money should now be trying to maximise the amount of money which it might receive from the state as part of the process.

They're staking their claim from the outset to be the officially funded anti campaign, but on my reading of the rules, there doesn't actually need to be one at all. The relevant legislation allows, but does not oblige, the Electoral Commission to designate an official campaign on either side, and allows, but does not oblige, it to fund both campaigns up to a set limit. The only obligation is that if official campaigns are to be designated and/or funded, then there must be equity of treatment between the two sides.

It is perfectly possible for the Electoral Commission to decide not to designate or fund an official campaign on either side, and it seems to me that there is a very good case to be made for taking precisely that decision.

In the first place, any referendum is going to be held against a background where politicians and politics, and the funding thereof, are held pretty low in public esteem. That, in itself, is sufficient ground to argue that the pro and anti campaigns should fund themselves rather than depend on the taxpayers.

It's also the case that the Commission is likely to find it very difficult to identify and designate any group which is able to campaign honestly against the proposal. We don't, of course, know what the question will be yet, but however it is worded, the choice before us will be whether we stay with the current arrangement, or whether we implement Part 4 of GOWA 2006.

To date, I have seen no evidence of any group or campaign which is prepared to campaign openly and honestly for the retention of the current system. Most opposition to the proposition on the table is based on an entirely different set of arguments. I can't really see any good argument for the taxpayer to fund any group which wants to run a campaign against a completely different proposition.

The Commission may argue that in distinguishing between the funding of organisation and staffing on the one hand, and literature on the other, then they would not be funding material which is irrelevant to the referendum. It's a specious argument to me, since more money means an ability to fund more propoaganda by diverting money which would otherwise have been spent on organisation and staffing. The distinction does seem to be part, though, of what has upset 'True' Wales. Better by far to avoid the problem completely, and give no taxpayers' money to either side.

Tory £s world tour

Tweet The Sunday Times carried an interesting story on Sunday on the source of Tory funds. Particularly, the paper highlighted funds emanating from their former Treasurer and current Deputy Chairman, Lord Ashcroft. It seems that the Tories and Ashcroft have been finding ingenious ways of circumventing the legal restrictions on overseas donations.

Whilst there is no suggestion that they have actually broken the letter of the law, it is clear that they have been deliberately subverting both the spirit and intention of the law by using a string of companies – some of which seem not to actually do very much other than funnel funds into the Tory Party – to route money from Belize into Tory funds. The net result is a transaction which would have been illegal if the money had gone directly from its original source to its final destination.

If I were challenged to define 'money-laundering', my definition would bear an uncanny resemblance to what seems to have happened here. As Sir Alastair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said "Money is being bounced around the world before it ends up in Conservative party accounts. This breaks the spirit of the law on foreign donations."

The register of donations on the Electoral Commission website helpfully lists the donations which Ashcroft's company, Bearwood Corporate Services, has given to a whole string of constituency parties across the UK.

It has long been understood that Ashcroft was somehow giving money to a long list of marginal constituencies to try and buy a Conservative victory in the General Election. It remains unclear whether he has ever honoured the commitment he gave when accepting his peerage that he would become UK domiciled, and start paying taxes like the rest of us. Giving money through a company avoids the questions that might be raised if a non-domiciled person made such donations, of course. And it is highly unlikely, according to the Sunday Times, that any tax has ever been paid on the money which is now keeping the Tories afloat.

I'll admit that it was something of a surprise to me to find that this particular company appears not to have channelled any of Ashcroft's pennies into Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (unless they've simply forgotten to declare it). But a quick perusal of the list of donors reveals that they probably don't need any of Ashcroft's money – they have another source of income.

The London office of a New York-based company, Christofferson, Robb & Co, has channelled £40,000 into the Tory coffers locally, in two tranches of £20,000 each over a period of just five months. Interestingly, this constituency is one of only two which seem to be benefiting from their largesse – the other was Harlow, which received a mere £10,000.

Conservative central office received an additional £131,000 in three tranches. I have no idea, at present, why a New York based company would choose to bung £40,000 into Tory coffers in this part of the world, but I'd be delighted to hear from anyone who can enlighten me.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Tweet At the county council elections a few months ago, we expressed a number of concerns about the way in which many so-called 'independent' candidates behaved. The Electoral Commission have produced a report in which they have highlighted some similar concerns.

The problem is not with 'independent' candidates per se; it is knowing which candidates are genuinely independent and which are part of an 'independent group'. In Carmarthenshire (in coalition with Labour) and in Pembrokeshire (as a majority group), the 'independent' groups control the council; and in the case of Pembrokeshire, the group has delegated all appointments to the Leader, who now wields an astonishing amount of power personally, a point highlighted often by Old Grumpy.

The result is that candidates who claim that they are 'independent' are, in fact, beholden to vote as they are told by their leader - which is not quite the impression that they give to voters before the election. There is nothing at all to stop groups of people coming together and registering as a party of course – at least then, the voters would know that they were likely to vote as a group if elected. But political parties are regulated in all sorts of ways that don't apply to 'independent' candidates; and I entirely agree with the Commission's warning that "it is important that independent candidates are not perceived to be standing as a group to campaign in an election, without registering as a political party, in order to avoid the regulatory regime in the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that applies to political parties".

We also had in Carmarthenshire the curious incident of a large newspaper advertisement exhorting people to 'Vote Independent'. The advert claimed that it had been 'paid for by independent candidates standing for election in the forthcoming Carmarthenshire County Council ballot on May 1st'. As the Commission states, "This begs the question for voters as to whether the advertisement was placed on behalf of all independent candidates standing for election in the county or a group of them". Quite. There were a number of independent candidates who were not sponsored by and did not support the 'independent' group – how are voters to know the difference?

Interestingly enough, complaints were not expressed by political parties alone - some genuinely independent candidates also expressed concern "that if there is an ‘independent group’ it is very difficult for others to distinguish themselves from that group".

I have no objections at all to the idea of people standing as independent candidates in elections if they wish. There have been some notable independents over the years who have made a real contribution and fought for the communities that they have represented. But it is surely right to call time on the idea that there can be any such thing as an 'independent group' which jointly campaigns to win control of an elected body. These groups are political parties in all but name, and should be obliged to register as such.