When is a manifesto not a manifesto?

Tweet

Last week’s issue of the Carmarthen Journal did its best to tackle the thorny issue of how to treat all candidates fairly when so many of them are standing as ‘Independents’.  It’s easy to get a statement from each of the other political parties; they all admit to being a group standing on a common platform.  It’s not so easy when dealing with people who claim to be ‘independent’.  The paper couldn’t really give equal space to 70 or more candidates.

However, the Independent Group’s co-ordinator has come to the rescue by providing a statement on behalf of all the members of the group.  In it, she sets out a number of commitments which the group is making to the electors; sounds a bit like a manifesto of sorts, albeit a very short one.

In the same issue of the paper, the current council leader also sets out her group’s ‘vision’ for the council, but is quoted as saying that the group “cannot produce a manifesto as they are independents, but the group had discussed their priorities”.  Hence the question in the headline.

Does a list of promises and collective views on the future, even a very short list, really only become a manifesto when it is written down and published in a document with ‘manifesto’ written in large letters on the front cover?  I think not.  But then I also don’t believe that a group of politicians seeking election on a joint platform and forming a group once elected to promote that platform only becomes a party when it registers as such.

Kicking and Screaming

Tweet It has been an ongoing bone of contention in Carmarthenshire that the ruling Labour and Independent parties have systematically excluded the Plaid Cymru councillors from any position of influence in the authority. This is despite clear guidance from the Welsh government that committee chairs should be allocated on the basis of political balance; something which the ruling parties have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to countenance.

Partly because of the recalcitrance of councils such as Carmarthenshire, which wish to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of the council's leader, the Assembly government is pushing through a new Measure which will compel councils to take account of political balance.

At last week's meeting of the council, the Plaid group in Carmarthenshire invited the ruling parties to implement the change now rather than wait for the legislation. The final question was direct and to the point, "or do you really want to wait until you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into making the change?"

The answer, from the leaders of both ruling parties, was that they will consider any changes in the rules after the Assembly makes a decision, and not before. I'll take that as a 'yes' then.

Cracks in the coalition

Tweet No, not that coalition!

Carmarthenshire County Council is looking to save money, and came up with the wheeze of closing a number of the council's residential homes. To no-one's great surprise (except, apparently, the administration at County Hall), this proposal did not exactly receive a universal welcome from the residents of the homes, or their families or carers. The local papers this week make for interesting reading on the subject, especially the Llanelli Star.

On one of the centre pages, a smiling council leader, Meryl Gravell, explains why the homes are no longer necessary, supported by a statement from the also-smiling Director. The two Executive Board members directly responsible, Labour Councillors Pat Jones and Hugh Evans (also both smiling) set out their reasons for supporting the proposals which they have signed off and put forward for public consultation. The facing page contains a picture of a rather angry looking Nia Griffith, Labour MP for Llanelli, alongside a statement making her opposition to her own party's proposals very clear.

On Wednesday this week, the proposals were put to a joint meeting of the county council's Housing and Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committees, with a recommendation that the document be approved for publication for a public consultation exercise.

One after another, the Plaid scrutiny members savaged the proposals with a series of arguments which the proponents of the scheme found difficult to rebut. When the matter was put to the vote, all four of Labour's voting members supported the Plaid proposal that the document be not accepted as a basis for consultation, realising that their party's Executive Board members had got it totally wrong. The two Labour Executive Board members, who were present but unable to vote, could only watch in anguish as their proposals were comprehensively torn apart before being rejected by a clear majority of the councillors present.

It's the first time that I'm aware of that the ruling Independent Party / Labour Party coalition have lost a vote - or been so obviously split along party lines. I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall at the next Labour group meeting at County Hall.

Politics aside, however, it's instructional to consider how such an ill-advised policy proposal could have got so far without being challenged. It exposes one of the weaknesses of the current cabinet / scrutiny system in local government, where the Executive members alone are aware of policy discussions such as this. There is a culture of secrecy, and back-benchers, even in the ruling groups, are largely kept in the dark about potential policy changes. A more open discussion, involving all the councillors, would have alerted the council to the likely reaction to these proposals well in advance.

It remains to be seen what will happen next. The current administration at County Hall are not renowned for changing direction - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see these proposals being resurrected in some form. The 30-strong Plaid Group can be expected to continue to oppose them.

Nuremburg - and the Queen of Hearts

Tweet Returning to the secondary education re-organisation in Carmarthenshire, the Plaid group produced a fairly comprehensive response, setting out why they believed that the council's approach was flawed, and suggesting a series of principles on which a more acceptable approach could be based.

Plaid's leader, Peter Hughes Griffiths, circulated the paper to all the other councillors, and specifically invited the leaders of the two other groups to state what their groups believed was the right approach.

The response of the 'Independents' was pretty predictable. They went for the Nuremburg defence – they were 'only following orders'. Since they claim that the entire policy is the brainchild of the Assembly Government, they have no choice but to agree with it. The problem is, they've been given no such orders. Basically, it amounts to saying that they have no ideas of their own, they'll simply support anything the officers put in front of them – and then blame someone else.

The response of the Labour leader was exceptional, even for Cllr Madge. He advised Peter that the Labour group would make its views known once the decision was taken. It's the Queen of Hearts approach - sentence first, verdict afterwards. For the Labour Party in Carmarthenshire it seems to be a case of 'decide first, think about it afterwards'.

In both cases, it neatly avoids any necessity for the councillors to apply any thinking of their own to what they are doing.

Interesting arguments

Tweet At the last meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council, the Plaid group tabled a notice of motion, asking the county council to hold a public consultation on a change to the way the county is run. The aim of the Plaid group was to have a management board reflecting the political balance within the council rather than an administration drawn only from one or two groups. (Legal rules require a public consultation before the council can change its constitution in this way).

Unsurprisingly, it was defeated, with every member of the Labour and 'Independent' groups voting the same way as their leaders, against the Plaid motion. But sitting in the public gallery listening to the debate, what interested me most were some of the arguments being put against the idea.

One 'Independent' councillor told the meeting that there was no point asking the public what they wanted, because the Labour and 'Independent' groups had already decided that they would not accept any change. Still, I suppose it's entirely consistent with the council's usual approach to 'consultation'.

Another pointed out that, since being placed in an opposition role, Plaid councillors had dared to criticise some of the ruling groups' decisions. In his strange world, any disagreement apparently means that there is no way of working together.

Yet another claimed that councils which had adopted such a model were inherently unstable - apparently because the cabinet was actually answerable to the other councillors rather than able to proceed regardless.

The Council's sole semi-Tory (he used to be one, but is no longer) argued that for the council to function, someone had to be an opposition. "I don't see how anything can be achieved if all politicians come together" is certainly a novel concept. Working together as a barrier to progress is a new one on me.

I would have happily recorded the thoughts of the Labour Group leader here as well, but I'm afraid that I didn't entirely understand the points he was making. (I don't think I was alone in that respect.)

People in Carmarthenshire still find it hard to understand why a party (Plaid) which doubled the number of its seats last May (to 30) is excluded from power, whilst a party (Labour) which lost more than half its seats and now has only 11 remains in power. The reasons are probably clearer now.

Unfair criticism?

Tweet There was an interesting little letter in this week's edition of the Carmarthen Journal from a resident of the Llansteffan Ward, congratulating the councillor for that ward on making his maiden speech in the council chamber.

After only five years as an 'Independent' member, what was the subject which finally inspired him to rise and speak? Ah, that would be the proposed increase in allowances paid to councillors for all the hard work they put in attending meetings and speaking on behalf of their constituents…

It was a little unfair on the councillor concerned though. I'm told that there are other 'Independents', including some who've been there even longer, who have also yet to contribute to a debate in the council chamber. They don't really need to though – once their leader has spoken on their behalf, there's nothing left for them to say is there? They just need to vote. Altogether now, on the count of three, raise your hands in the air…

Free Thinkers

Tweet Carmarthenshire county council's leader came up with a brilliant idea when one item was under discussion at yesterday's council meeting. She suggested that councillors should have a free vote on the issue.

I immediately sensed a degree of consternation amongst members of her 'Independent' group. They're not used to being allowed to decide anything for themselves; they're much more accustomed to performing a regular display of what Old Grumpy in neighbouring Pembrokeshire refers to as 'synchronised voting'. If they had to decide for themselves, how on earth would they know whether they were doing the right thing or not?

Fortunately, they were saved from having to make any such difficult decision, when a way was found to move on to the next item without having to take a formal vote at all.

The relief at not having to take a decision was almost palpable. I do hope she doesn't suggest anything like that again; it might cause a panic.

All the right notes...

Tweet The way the ruling group in Carmarthenshire (composed of the Labour Party and the Independent Party) dealt with a motion from the Plaid group at its last meeting brought back memories of the famous Morecambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn.

The Plaid motion was simple and straightforward – it simply asked the council to conduct a survey of the demand for Welsh-medium education before reorganising secondary schools in the county, so that any reorganisation would be founded on a factual basis. Logical, sensible, and probably something that the Assembly Government will call for shortly anyway.

But they can't be seen to agree with the opposition on anything, so the ruling groups proposed an amendment. Fair enough, in principle – except that this amendment deleted every word in the original motion and replaced it with a completely new motion which didn't even refer to the subject matter of the original motion. As Plaid Cllr Gwyn Hopkins has pointed out, the amendment contains none of the words of the original motion except those that are in common by sheer coincidence. Words like 'this', 'a', and 'the', for instance.

On second thoughts, it doesn't quite fit the Morecambe and Wise sketch. More a case of none of the right notes...

Big back pockets

Tweet The Assembly Government has a scheme running, called Improvement Agreement Grants, under which it offfers additional grants to local authorities across Wales who achieve certain targets. They've allocated £31.4 million to the scheme for 2009-10, and Carmarthenshire County Council is in line to receive around £1.922 million of it.

It's a nice little earner, and is on top of the other monies being paid to the council. It's conditional, of course, and there may well be some costs that the council has to pay out in order to meet the targets, but one would expect most of it to end up in the council's piggy bank by the end of the year.

Not according to the council's leaders, however. According to the report submitted to the full council last week, "it is deemed imprudent to assume any of this funding coming into play for next year". So none of this money was counted at all when the administration worked out that it needed a higher than inflation rise in Council Tax. And instead of going into the piggy bank, the money will be craftily placed into a back pocket somewhere and then magically extracted from a hat later in the year.

Nice word, 'deemed'. It avoids the need for any further explanation. And a very crafty piece of financial sleight of hand from the ruling Labour Party / Independent Party coalition. The only losers are the poor council tax payers, who will be hit with a higher than necessary increase as a result.