The for-and-against party

Tweet A couple of weeks ago, Peter Black proudly announced that the Lib Dems were the first party to oppose the building of the M4 relief road.  I thought this a welcome step forward, and I think that he was right to say that the Lib Dems are the first party to reject the idea in principle.  It’s true, of course, as one of the comments on the piece suggested, that the One Wales Government decided not to proceed with the plan, but that was a decision taken purely on financial grounds at the time, leaving open the possibility of resurrecting the scheme at a later date - exactly as many of us feared at the time.

But hold on a moment – on Thursday of last week, the UK Government’s spending statement, produced by a government of which the Lib Dems are a part and announced by a Lib Dem minister, committed to working with the Welsh Government to build the self-same road.

In fairness, Peter Black did specifically refer to this being a policy of the ‘Welsh’ Lib Dems, so I suppose that leaves open the possibility that the UK Lib Dems will just ignore them (nothing new there) and carry on regardless, which is exactly what is happening here.  But if a policy of the Welsh party on a specifically Welsh issue, which is under the control of the Welsh Government can be over-ridden by the so-called ‘federal’ party, what is the point or status of such a policy?  A quick press release, I suppose, like so much of politics these days.

The idea that the use of borrowing powers to fund the M4 had anything to do with a response to the Silk Commission’s report is also rapidly evaporating.  The Treasury statement referred to an agreement that the Welsh government ‘can use’ – how nice of them to give permission – ‘their existing borrowing powers’ for the scheme.  And Eurfyl ap Gwilym (himself a member of the Silk Commission) referred to a short term “…agreement on limited borrowing powers to fund an M4 relief road”, with proper longer term borrowing powers a matter for the future.

The proposal for the M4 relief road seems to be developing an increasing cross-party momentum in favour of mortgaging the future of the whole of Wales to fund one short stretch of road in the bottom right hand corner, and it seems unlikely that any of our politicians are going to oppose it.  Once again, when push comes to shove, all the politicians' talk of sustainability is put to one side; the economy always trumps the environment.

There are two rays of light, however.  The first is the work done by Professor Stuart Cole to try and resurrect an alternative proposal which is much cheaper and less environmentally damaging.  The the second is the proposed court action by environmental groups challenging the validity of a consultation process which does not even allow the consideration of any alternatives.  All power to their elbow.

Dependent on nuclear?

Tweet

Plaid Cymru’s leadership contest has exposed once again the difficulties the party faces over the question of nuclear energy, a subject on which I’ve often commented on this blog.  Syniadau has posted a  number of times on the issue in recent weeks, concentrating on the divergence between the views of the party as decided by the membership, and those of the current, and one potential future, leader on the other.

The debate which follows is often confused because there are two separate issues involved.  The first is the question of whether or not nuclear power is the right way to go; the second is about the problems of a party leader / potential leader unable to accept the party’s views on the issue; and they are two very different issues.  I’m sticking to the former of those today.

What is clear is that Wales has no direct need of nuclear energy.  We can produce all the electricity we need – and more – from entirely renewable sources.  It’s not just me saying that; the One Wales Government produced an excellent strategy confirming that, and all of Labour’s and Plaid’s AMs signed up to that.   And, as far as I’m aware, it isn’t really in dispute.

What we can’t do, though, (and this is likely to be true of any small country) is to produce all that electricity at the time that we need it.  Producing the total number of Mwh over a year as a whole is not the same as producing all the Mw we need at any given time.

Some have used that fact in an attempt to argue that we cannot therefore depend solely on renewables, and also need either nuclear energy or fossil-fuel energy as a backup.  However, that isn’t the only answer.  The alternative solution is that a renewables-based country like Wales needs to be able to export surpluses at some times and import at other times to replace the deficit (and that is the proposal put forward by Leanne Wood in her paper on energy).

The problem, for a country which wishes to be entirely renewables-based, is in controlling what the source of that imported electricity is.  I’m convinced that, by linking grids together across Europe and using a variety of renewable sources rather than wind alone, Europe can free itself of any need for conventional / nuclear power stations over a period if it plans so to do.  In that context, inputting into the grid at least as much electricity as we withdraw means that Wales could legitimately claim to be entirely renewables-based, the position which our Government has said it wants to be in.

There is a complication though.  What happens if one or more countries in Europe decide that they will continue with a conventional/ nuclear programme?  This is the argument that some have used about the German decision to move away from nuclear power – since their grid is linked to that of France, and since France has decided to continue with its nuclear programme, isn’t Germany effectively still depending on nuclear power, but on outsourcing its production to France? 

By the same token, if England decides on a new nuclear programme, even if no stations are built in Wales, can we claim that we are not dependent on that nuclear energy?  I think that we can.  What we would be dependent on is electricity from somewhere else; how that electricity is produced is beyond our control.  We might be using nuclear-produced electricity (we can’t easily pick and choose which bits of electricity we’re using), but it is the existence of that electricity on which we would be dependent, not on how it’s produced.

This is more than mere semantics.  England, like Wales, could (if it wishes) choose an entirely renewables-based future.  As long as that is true, and as long as Wales produces at least as much electricity in a year as we consume, I don’t believe that the decisions of another country as to how they produce their electricity can legitimately be said to undermine our claim of renewable self-sufficiency.

What would undermine that claim would be permitting, let alone welcoming, the construction of further nuclear or other non-renewable plant in Wales.

So - was it worth it?

Tweet

If One Wales was part good, part bad, and part ugly, was it worth doing overall?  It’s hard to make an assessment of what would otherwise have happened; there’s inevitably an element of subjectivity and guesswork. 

Taking the Good first:

I don’t think that we would have had the Holtham Commission without One Wales – and that has to be a major plus point for the agreement.

I don’t think that we would have had the new language Measure either – at least not in as comprehensive a form.

Whether we would have had the referendum is a more open question.  We certainly would not have had it under the Rainbow option for which Plaid’s leader and many others were initially so enthusiastic, and I don’t think we would have had it under a minority Labour Government either.  Whether Carwyn Jones would have decided to go for it in this new term is also open to question; some say he would have done, but I’m inclined to think that he would have waited at least another term, until the reduced number of MPs had been elected on new boundaries, thereby reducing his own internal opposition.

Turning to the Bad:

Had Plaid Cymru remained in opposition to a minority Labour government, I’m convinced that Labour would have been unable to get their change of policy on tuition fees through the Assembly; it would have remained a matter of principle for more AMs.  What would have happened under the Rainbow is a more open question.

Absence of One Wales would have made no significant difference on the question of a Welsh daily newspaper, or on the implementation of government policies on small schools or Welsh medium education.

And in summary, therefore, most of the Bad that I noted would still have happened, but we would have lost some important elements of the Good.  Purely on a comparison between the Good and the Bad, therefore, it seems to me that One Wales did more good than harm from the point of view of the national project.

But it’s the Ugly that is the killer for me, because it blunted the one force which had previously been so responsible for shaping the debate about the future of Wales.  Whether permanently or purely temporarily is something that remains unclear at this point.

Actually this was one of the things that most concerned me about entering One Wales in the first place.  I was never convinced that the party was being led with a sufficiently clear sense of direction to be able to both make and justify short term compromises whilst also being able to continue to present a more far-reaching vision of how things can be.  Without that, pragmatism replaces idealism rather than supports it.

I’ve never opposed the idea that Plaid should be willing and ready to take responsibility – even shared responsibility as a junior partner – for the government of Wales. 

And, unlike some former colleagues, I don’t see that Labour and the Conservatives are so different, in the context of longer term ambitions for Wales, that there should be any axiomatic differentiation between them as potential coalition partners.  There are sound political considerations and significant practical difficulties in terms of policy agreements for taking a different view about the two, but no great issues of principle as far as I’m concerned.  Treating the Tories as untouchables is playing to the Labour agenda.

But any coalition or agreement should have clear objectives, rooted in the context of the wider aspirations, which move the project along in definable ways.  And people should not be afraid or embarrassed about stating where compromises are being made, and especially not afraid of enunciating clearly what the preferred option would have been in such cases.

Failing to do that, and trying to insist on absolute loyalty and support for a compromise programme as though it were the real thing, is to ape the binary (government-opposition) model which operates in Westminster, and to lose an opportunity to create a very different and more pluralistic kind of politics here in Wales.  Copying a model that we know is always easier than devising a new model, but that doesn’t make it the best solution.

Many are talking about a change of leadership as though that will solve the problems, but it is really only part of the solution.  The problem is also one of institutionalisation; those who are part of an establishment have ended up conforming to, and working within, its norms, limitations, and culture. 

Westminster has frequently been described as being the best club in London; there is a danger that the Senedd becomes the best club in Cardiff.  It doesn’t have to be that way, though.  There always seemed to be a certain inevitability about the final paragraph of Animal Farm, but if the other animals had realised what was happening sooner, I’m sure that they could have prevented it.

... and The Ugly.

Tweet

I don’t recall precisely how and when Plaid spokespeople started to use the phrase ‘Plaid-driven’ to describe the government, but I felt from the outset that it was a mistake.  I don’t recall it ever being discussed with party officers outside the Bay, but it somehow slipped into widespread use.  It seriously compromised the party later though - to spend four years talking about the government being driven by Plaid, and supporting all government motions, and then start rubbishing the decisions of the Labour ministers looked, and was, disingenuous to put it politely. 

It was simply not a credible approach.  Dafydd Elis Thomas has recently talked about the negative campaign; more specifically, he talked about exactly this point – supporting government decisions for four years and then attacking those same decisions.  On this point, I agree with him.

But it goes further than that.  During the 2007 Assembly election, I was critical of the local Labour AM for having supported government decisions in vote after vote in the Assembly and then claiming to be leading the campaign against those same policies in the constituency.  I took a similar line with the Labour MP over post office closures.  I thought – and still think - that it was fair criticism. 

But what we’ve seen this year is some Plaid AMs doing exactly the same thing.  Spending four years voting through One Wales policies and then claiming to be campaigning against those same policies is simply not a credible or principled way of operating.  It looked as though Plaid had simply been sucked into the system and was trying to operate in the same way as the other parties, when what was needed was either more determination to oppose the policies in the Assembly itself, or else a more robust defence of them outside.  And I’d have greatly preferred the former.

Simplistic sloganeering is no substitute for critical analysis.  It felt at times as though there was an expectation that all Plaid members would say that everything the government did was good and everything the opposition said was bad.  That’s nonsense.  It led, for instance, to the embarrassing interlude when Plaid spokespeople were claiming that ProAct and ReAct had somehow protected Wales from recession, on the basis of a single month’s employment figures.  Pure folly.  And it was exposed as such by subsequent months’ figures.

If Plaid is to be credible in the future, it needs to regain its ability to cast a critical eye over what government is doing – and subject its own government’s policies to the same level of scrutiny, however uncomfortable that might be at times.  The idea that government backbenchers are on committees to ensure that the government’s views prevail rather than to provide genuine scrutiny must be abandoned, and rapidly.  And those outside the Assembly should be less afraid to voice discordant views from time to time, particularly if they are merely reiterating agreed party policy.

Perhaps worst of all was the inability of some to accept that the party might sometimes say something different from the government.  Making and supporting a compromise is one thing; making out that that compromise is actually the right policy in principle is quite another.  Expecting the party to trim its policies to match those of the government is to deliberately lower horizons, and it’s a major part of the attitude which led to this year’s bland programme.

A party like Plaid, if it is to have any unique relevance, needs to have, and retain, a sense of vision about its purpose, as a context within which compromises can and must be made to drive things forward.  Seeing some members failing to hold to that vision and seeking to amend the party’s position to fit with that of the government was a depressing sight.

The rush of some to get back into government as quickly as possible looks from the outside as a failure to learn the key lessons.  I remain as convinced as ever that Plaid must always be willing to take on the responsibility of governing our nation, but it must do so from a position which is about rather more than simplistic and persistent pragmatism.  If that lesson is not learned, the party’s distinctiveness and mission will simply be further eroded.

... The Bad ...

Tweet

From my vantage point, the absolute low point of the One Wales years was the change of government policy on student fees.  Seeing Plaid AMs voting against one of the manifesto commitments on which they were elected was an uncomfortable moment, to say the least. 

Compromise in coalition is sometimes inevitable, and we all need to understand that, but the worst aspects of this episode were not to do with the making of the compromise itself, but the failure by some within the Assembly to recognise just how strongly some of us outside the Assembly felt on this issue, and the apparent expectation that the party would simply fall into line behind what the leader and the ministers had decided.

The failure to deliver on a daily newspaper in Welsh was another disappointment.  Again, though, it was the handling of it which caused me the most grief.  An honest statement that a pledge was being broken because the numbers simply didn’t stack up would have been immensely preferable to an attempt to argue that no pledge was being broken at all because there had never been any commitment to one particular option.  (There had not, of course, been a specific commitment to Y Byd, nor should there have been; but the simple and undeniable facts are that One Wales pledged a daily newspaper in Welsh - and there is still no such newspaper.)

It’s all very well developing exciting strategies, but they also need to be implemented.  I don’t think that I’m alone in feeling that production of strategies seems to have become an end in itself, and that once the strategies have been published, business carries on as before.  I don’t think I’m far away from Carwyn Jones on this one; we’ve probably got enough strategies to be going on with – let’s implement some of them, and do so with conviction and determination.

Locally in Carmarthenshire, the difference between words and actions - what the government said it was doing and what it actually did - came very much to the fore in the field of education.  I’ve posted on this a number of times, but for all its fine words on Welsh-medium education, the One Wales government was effectively an active participant in denying that opportunity to children in parts of Carmarthenshire.  Similarly, the drive from Cardiff to close small rural schools ran directly against what most of us had been saying for years.  Simply blaming the councils which were implementing government policy was not good enough.

And then, of course, there’s the economy.  I’m not sure that it’s entirely fair to say that One Wales failed spectacularly – the Welsh Government doesn’t really have the tools and levers it needs to have the necessary degree of influence.  There is though, a tendency to suggest that they can achieve more than is ever actually going to be achievable, and that invites people to compare performance with the promise rather than with the achievable.  On that comparison, the failure looks worse than it should or need look – why oh why do politicians walk into that one?

One Wales: The Good...

Tweet

Now that it has come to an end, I’d like to think that the successes and failures of the One Wales period can be dissected a little more objectively than has tended to happen to date.  Supporters of the agreement tend to see only the good, whilst opponents see only the bad; and whether people want to rush into another similar agreement or not seems to depend on which side of that argument they find themselves.  In real life, there were some things that were good, some things that were bad, and some things which were downright ugly.

I’ll start with some of the good points, although this is not intended to be a comprehensive list.  And I make no apologies for looking at the issue from the standpoint of my own political outlook.

One of the things most frequently bandied about was that the hospital rationalisation programme of the previous Labour government was halted.  Technically, this actually happened before One Wales was agreed, so it isn’t a direct result of One Wales.  But One Wales would have been impossible without it, and Labour could read that writing on the wall.

I felt that one of the most positive things about One Wales wasn’t an outcome as such, it was the detail in which the programme was defined.  There is often a world of difference between what a party says in a manifesto and what it does once elected; the discipline of having a detailed written programme, which was essential to any decision by Plaid to enter coalition, gave a road-map to the government for a four year term.  It’s something that perhaps even single party governments might learn from.

The reports of the Holtham Commission were hugely significant.  Although Plaid had been banging on about the unfairness of Barnett for years, the reports of the Commission finally convinced the other parties.  Labour’s argument that it wasn’t necessary to do anything about it earlier because the squeeze didn’t apply when the settlement was generous might be technically correct, but it sounded a bit like saying that we didn’t need to fix the hole in the roof because it wasn’t raining.  Holtham changed the basis of the debate – in Wales, at least.

The calling and winning of a referendum on Part 4 of GOWA was undoubtedly a huge plus for the agreement.  I’ve noted before that the Lib Dems could legitimately claim a certain amount of credit for that, albeit by accident, but it was One Wales which delivered, and delivered handsomely.  The result has created a quite different sort of Assembly in Cardiff, and gives Wales a new basis for moving forward.

There can be little doubt that the Welsh Language Measure steered through by Alun Ffred was a major piece of legislation.  Sure, it doesn’t do everything that some of us would like, and there’s more to be done, but surely no-one can really believe that we would have had anything like this Measure without One Wales.

Some of the strategies produced by One Wales, such as on energy and the environment are extremely far-reaching.  The government took huge strides forward in recognising the importance of lowering Wales’ ecological footprint; and related to this was the switch in emphasis within the transport programme from road-building to public transport.  All of this creates a sound foundation for the future.

But not everything was perfect…

Not really a minority government

Tweet

Wales is not Scotland, and it’s always a mistake to assume that what applies to one can easily be applied to the other.  But it’s also a mistake to assume that what applies to one can never be applied to the other.

For the last four years, Scotland has had a minority administration.  Certainly, that has meant that Alex Salmond’s government has been constrained at times, and that he has had to cut deals from time to time.  But it worked; the sky didn’t fall in, and a crafty and cunning operator used the situation to his, and his party’s, great advantage.

I haven’t understood the recent speculation that Labour in Wales would have to form a coalition because 50% of the seats isn’t enough to govern, and I’m not in the least surprised that Labour have decided to try it.  They’ll have to learn to accept some constraints on what they do – they cannot expect automatic support – and to cut an occasional deal.  I don’t think Carwyn Jones will find that much of a problem.

There’s another angle as well.  The idea that he would have difficulty getting his programme through is based on the mathematical presupposition that all the opposition parties would work together consistently in order to defeat him.  I don’t see it. 

Labour fought – and won – an election on the basis of opposition to the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in London, and did so using the (less than entirely honest) claim that a vote for Plaid was a vote for a Tory-led administration.  Surely, the last thing that Plaid AMs would do now is to enable Labour to confirm that message by taking a blindly oppositionist stance to the government, and working over-closely with the Tories and Lib Dems? 

I never understood why, from the start of One Wales, there was such a stress on the government always voting down opposition motions, even if they said what one of the coalition partners had said during the previous election.  Such an outright binary position wasn’t necessary then; in the new circumstances, it’s not only unnecessary, it would be completely counter-productive. 

I suspect that Labour will have an easier ride than some are suggesting; for a while at least.

It was _____ wot won it.

Tweet

As the dust settles, three of Wales’ four main parties have all been claiming their share of the credit for the referendum result, just as, no doubt, they were all ready with their accusations against everyone else had things gone wrong.

So it was Labour who delivered for Wales, by passing the legislation in the first place and getting their supporters out on the day.

Or perhaps it was Plaid who delivered for Wales, by insisting on including the referendum commitment in the One Wales programme, and getting their troops out on the ground.

Or perhaps it was the Tories who delivered for Wales, by having a Secretary of State prepared to allow the referendum to be held rather than sitting on the request as her predecessor had done.

But what about the poor old Lib Dems?  Can they not find a way of claiming that it was all their doing?  I think they can probably claim to have been the most influential of all, even if only by accident.

If I may indulge in a little counterfactual history, let’s step back just under 4 years to the time of the coalition negotiations in 2007.  There was almost a done deal on the Rainbow arrangement, until a procedural hiccup occurred at the Lib Dems’ meeting (a lack of a process for resolving a tied vote, of all things).  It was a hiccup which didn’t actually kill off the Rainbow (although it’s sometimes been presented that way) but did buy enough time to halt the momentum, and enable more discussion to take place between Plaid and Labour.

Had it not been for that one little slip, I don’t doubt that we would now be coming to the end of a four-year period of a government in which Plaid found itself in coalition in Wales with the very parties responsible for the ‘savage slash and burn cuts’ in London  (somehow I suspect that the rhetoric might have been toned down just a little).  Based on the way the two One Wales parties describe their roles, I guess we would have seen it regularly described as either a ‘Plaid-led’ government, or else a ‘Conservative-driven’ one, depending on which party was issuing the press release.

As far as the referendum was concerned, the three governing parties had signed up to a referendum anyway, but would not have had the crucial two-thirds majority in the Assembly.  Everything would then have hinged on what Labour decided to do.

So, what would Labour have done?  It’s impossible to be certain, of course.  I don’t doubt that there would be some in the Labour Party who would have wanted to go for a referendum anyway, but my best guess is that the temptation for an opposition party to derail a major plank of the policy being put forward by all three of the parties that they were seeking to defeat in the 2011 election, and perhaps cause friction between them, would just have been too strong to resist.

So, no resolution in the Assembly, no referendum, a probable Labour overall majority for the next 4 years in Cardiff on an anti-Tory/ Lib Dem surge, and the whole issue of legislative powers kicked into the long grass for at least another four years.  And the Lib Dems’ approach to writing standing orders for the conduct of meetings turns out to have been perhaps the most significant event of all.

So, cheer up Lib Dems; with the aid of the law of unintended consequences, you’ve achieved much more than you realise.

The hand of Hain

Tweet It's tempting to dismiss yesterday's mini-drama at the Bay as just another dose of froth; desperately important to those in the bubble, but of passing interest, at best, to those outside. The eventual resolution seems to boil down to an agreement by all concerned (well, almost all) to recognise a degree of ambiguity in the original Labour statement as a basis for the restoration of a degree of peace and harmony.

So, was it really all down to a badly-worded press statement, blown out of proportion by politicians extracting the maximum nuance, and media hounds keen for a bit of drama?

Possibly – and if I didn't detect the "hand of Hain" behind the original statement, I'd probably just write it off as a bit of incompetence. But it looks to me more like a deliberate case of handball on the political field of play.

Hain has been consistent (give him that, at least) in his attempts to block early progress towards a further referendum; and it's hard to interpret yesterday's announcement other than in that context. The clear and unequivocal message from Sir Emyr seems not to have changed his view one jot.

He has also consistently shown himself to be one of the most partisan and tribal members of his party. The zeal of the convert, perhaps; or a need to show, even after all this time, that he really is one of them, and not a Lib Dem infiltrator. Certainly, he has never accepted the One Wales coalition agreement. Indeed, more generally, he seems to be struggling to get his head around the softer and more consensual approach to politics which is going to be inevitable in a legislature elected by a form of proportional representation.

His motivation cannot be personal advancement – he must surely have realised by now that he is simply not in contention if Labour needs a new leadership team after the next election. And, by being in London rather than in Cardiff, he has missed the opportunity provided by Rhodri Morgan's retirement.

I don't understand what game he is playing. It's possible, of course, that he really and genuinely believes that a referendum would be lost, and he's just trying to protect us all from our own over-enthusiasm. Occam's Razor may apply, although somehow I doubt it in this case.

In relation to the recent deliberate handball on the football pitch, Thierry Henri was quick to own up. I suspect we'll have to wait rather longer before we get a similar degree of candour from Hain. In the meantime, for reasons best known to himself, he has, once again, come close to wrecking a government led by his own party in Cardiff. He's failed this time; but it's hard to be certain that he'll keep failing.

Staying calm

Tweet I've noted previously that there's a danger that people over-react to statements made by Labour's leadership hopefuls. We all need to remember that they are appealing to a particular audience for a particular purpose.

Today's little storm over whether Carwyn Jones is in order to 'consult' the Labour Party over the timing of any referendum is a case in point.

The commitment to holding a referendum on or before the date of the next Assembly election stands; it's a commitment to which both parties signed up in agreeing the coalition deal. The precise timing of that referendum is a matter for the One Wales government to decide; but it would surely be surprising in the extreme if they didn't want to hear the views of party members – in both parties - before making the final decision on the date.

Indeed, the relevant section of the One Wales agreement itself makes explicit reference to what happens after the Convention: "Both parties will then … need to assess the levels of support … to trigger the referendum". I'm expecting there to be some internal discussions within Plaid – why on earth shouldn't Labour be doing the same thing?

What we all need to bear in mind, as I've said before, is not what candidates in a leadership race say, but what members of the cabinet do when the issue comes before them in due course. I remain entirely confident that both parties understand exactly what they agreed to - and will honour their agreement.

Aiming at the right target

Tweet Some of the expense claims made by staff within IBW are truly headline-grabbing. And blaming the man who happens to be at the top when the news comes out makes an easy press release for lazy opposition politicians. But it seems to me that both these approaches are missing the point.

I wouldn't seek to defend the expenses claims made by the staff involved; but I'd be a great deal happier to take a relaxed view if they'd actually been delivering. If I were to rank the elements of scandal in order of importance, then top of my list was not the front page reports of strange expenses claims - it was the detail relegated to the business pages about how the organisation was targeting the wrong companies in the wrong market place, and was delivering poor value for money. And second on my list is how on earth this was allowed to go on for so long under a succession of ministers.

It's not just in the big things that they appear to have been getting it wrong. For a government agency in a bilingual nation to have appointed a non-German speaker to run the office in Munich is something I find hard to believe given the lack of understanding it shows of the need to respect local culture.

It's easy for opposition politicians to have a pop at Ieuan Wyn given that it's come to light on his watch – although it was he who commissioned the report which has identified most of the failings as I understand it. But the issues were obviously missed by his predecessors as well. I'm not sure how valuable it is to play the 'blame' game, even though it's often a lot easier that debating the real issues.

Many years ago, when I was leading an IT project team, I appointed one of the team members as 'team scapegoat'. The idea was that once we'd all decided who was to blame, we could get on in earnest with the real issue of analysing and resolving the problem, rather than everyone being afraid to speak openly about what had happened. A bit of a corny idea, I know; but it was a genuine attempt to get out of a blame culture and into a problem-solving one.

I doubt that some opposition politicians will be in any hurry to move on from blame; but that's surely what we need most now. Recognising that we've been doing the wrong thing - and not even doing it terribly well - is a hard thing to do; but the One Wales government has done that. In doing so, it has established a basis for setting an alternative direction for the future - one based more on expanding and encouraging indigenous businesses than attracting 'footloose' major employers.

I think that's the right way forward. And if we start to re-localise our economy in the process, then we'll be moving much more in the direction of the government's aspirations for a green economy than we have done to date.

One swallow...

Tweet I can understand why Plaid's political opponents are making so much fuss about this month's rise in unemployment in Wales, given that a number of my colleagues were so quick to seize on the good figures for the previous two months.

It was, perhaps, a bit premature for people to read too much into one month's figures, or even two months' figures, and I held back from doing so. Not because I don't think that Re-Act and Pro-Act are good schemes, nor because I don't think that the One Wales Government is, on the whole, doing a good job during the recession. In fact, there's a general consensus that One Wales is doing pretty well, within the limited economic powers available to it, and Plaid can take some pride in the performance of Ieuan Wyn Jones on the issue.

But a recession, and the recovery from it, is a complex business. Progress will never be smooth and even, and we should expect bad months as well as good ones. Those seizing on one month's bad figures as are misguided as those seizing on one month's good figures. The real test is in overall performance, and how well Wales fares over the whole period compared to the rest of the UK.

On that score, so far, One Wales seems to me to be successfully tackling the issue.

Asking the right questions

Tweet I was not in the least surprised at the results of the recent opinion poll about whether people would prefer to plug the budget gap by raising taxes or by cutting public spending. But I'm not convinced that the survey has added much light to the debate. It seems to have proved, mostly, that the answer you get depends on the question you ask.

If the choice people were given had been between modest tax rises and closing half the country's hospitals, I'm reasonably certain that the headline could equally have read - 'people demand tax increases'. That alternative question is not a fair or realistic way of framing the question, of course; but my point is that neither was the question which was actually put to people.

'Cutting public spending' is always likely to prove popular; it's only when people are asked more specifically about what to cut that they have to give the question a bit more thought. Far too often, some politicians (of all parties, sadly) lead people to think that the answer is as simple as 'eliminating waste and bureaucracy'. There's a danger that that simply avoids facing up to the real question.

That's not to say that there isn't any 'waste and bureaucracy' in public expenditure. No organisation can be as big as the public sector without having some scope to improve its efficiency; but it is wrong and misleading to suggest either that such improvements can be achieved as a result of simply cutting their overall budgets by an arbitrary percentage, or that the level of savings likely to be achieved will be enough to plug the budget deficit without any cuts to services.

There are some big programmes which could and should be chopped, of course. There's a developing consensus that ID cards and the replacement of Trident are in that category. I'd add illegal wars to the list as well, although bringing involvement in those to an end will not be a simple task.

Even after taking such obvious steps, the gap between government income and current levels of expenditure remains a large one. And, for a variety of reasons including the need to spend on something else in some cases, and the costs already committed, the savings are not likely to be as large as the headline costs of the projects.

The cost of bailing out the financial sector has been a phenomenal cost which has led to a hugely increased level of government debt. (As an aside, I'm far from convinced that enough is being done to ensure that the same cannot happen again in the future. That's not directly relevant to the argument about how we get out of the current hole, but it's vital that government tackles that issue, and does so soon.)

Plugging that gap will be the major economic task facing the next government, and for all the attempts by Labour to try and paint themselves as being different from the Conservatives on this issue, it seems to me that whichever of the two leads the government after the election, there will, in reality, be a mix of both service cuts and tax rises. That will pose a particular challenge in Wales, for two main reasons.

Firstly, we are more heavily dependent on the public sector, and secondly, under the current devolution settlement (and even after the changed situation which will pertain after the referendum which is to be held in the next two and a half years) we have no tax-varying powers. Cuts in English public expenditure will lead to an automatic reduction in the block grant – and the Welsh government will find itself forced to cut budgets in some areas.

LIke most other people, I find discussion of Barnett incredibly boring – but the issue of fair funding for Wales has never been more important than it is right now. The current unfair funding system means, effectively, that those parts of the UK which are underfunded on a needs basis will suffer disproportionately from spending cuts – the exact opposite of what any needs-based approach would suggest should happen.

The One Wales government will be faced with some difficult choices in the near future - but we should surely start by trying to ensure that we have a fair allocation of funding in the first place, rather than by rolling over and accepting the situation.

Playing Games

Tweet Others have already commented on the 'story' floated over the weekend that some in the Labour Party would like to use the opportunity of a change of leader to change the One Wales agreement in order to include the Lib Dems and demote Ieuan Wyn Jones.

The idea that the Labour Party can decide to change a two-party agreement into a three-party agreement - let alone do so as part of a blatant attempt to marginalise the Plaid leader in the government - is complete nonsense of course. The agreement was made by two parties; and both parties would need to agree any changes.

So why float the idea at all? They suggest that it is about marginalising the Tories in Wales; but it looks to me more like an attempt to punish Plaid for the perceived success of our ministerial team, at a time when the Labour vote has gone into freefall.

It is certainly true that there are some in the Labour Party who are, as the Western Mail put it, "far from happy to see their leaders in cosy co-operation with Plaid". Their objective is not simply to try and bring the Lib Dems in - but to drive Plaid out; it's good old-fashioned Labour tribalism at its worst.

The preference of this little gang for coalition with the Lib Dems has little to do with ideology or policy, and everything to do with hegemony. The Lib Dems are not - and are unlikely ever to become – strong enough or numerous enough to represent an electoral threat to Labour, and are therefore a 'safe' option; one that doesn't challenge the divine right that the anonymous briefers think Labour has to run Wales.

Their party has given us a partly-proportional system of election (far from perfect in my view, but a step along the right road); but some of them seem not to have been able to adapt to the main consequence of that, namely that the days of one-party hegemony are finished.

Define 'listening'

Tweet In his interview in today's Western Mail, Peter Hain again states that he doesn't see a referendum happening in the timescales set out in One Wales. Nothing new there – he's been saying the same thing for some months.

What is slightly different though is his claim that failing to hold the referendum will cause no problems for the One Wales coalition partners. I found his phrase, "Talking to Plaid Cymru members at a very senior level there is an understanding of that" particularly interesting.

Now, it's not entirely unknown for me to "talk to Plaid members at a very senior level" from time to time. The consistent message given to me and the various bodies within the party is that we are all expecting the referendum to be held within the agreed timescale. Of course, no-one wants to hold a referendum and lose; but there is absolutely no indication that that would happen, and every indication that some in the Labour Party want to renege on the commitment for their own narrow party purposes rather than because of any real danger of defeat.

I'm not sure what Hain's game is. I do not believe that any of the party's leaders would say one thing to myself and the rest of the party whilst saying the opposite to Peter Hain, so I simply cannot believe what he is saying today.

He could of course be deliberately trying to give Plaid members the impression that the leadership is about to backtrack. Devious and underhand; but that just makes it a more credible explanation for his comments. He needs, however, to understand that Plaid's membership has rather more faith in its leadership than Labour Party members do in theirs. Such a tactic will just not work.

He could be trying to reassure his own side by repeating the mantra that there will be no referendum and assuring them that they can scrap the referendum with impunity. A decision not to hold a referendum might well please many in his own party; but to argue that there would, by so doing, be no breach of faith with Plaid as Labour's One Wales partners would be to seriously underestimate the damage he would be doing in terms of faith and trust.

I suspect that his statement is in large part down to the fact that he just doesn't listen to what people are actually saying to him. It fits with much of the rest of the interview, in which he talks about Labour's leadership needing to listen to the grassroots, and the Labour Party as a whole needing to listen to the electorate. The only lesson he seems to admit that Labour need to learn is "to change how we campaign". Typical New Labour – it's all about presentation, and nothing to do with the underlying policy direction of the government and party.

And his attempt to 'listen to people' and 'learn the lessons' last week seemed to boil down to little more than rebuking people for not voting Labour, and threatening them with consequences if they do the same again next time.

Perhaps the comment will do something to reassure some in his own party; but as a statement of Plaid's position it is just plain wrong.

Ghosts of the past

Tweet Like many others, I really don't understand how a 13% lead for the 'yes' camp in any referendum on enhancing the powers of the National Assembly has been covered as though it were a major problem. It's a very healthy lead – the sort that any government would be very happy with if it were about to call an election.

I do understand, though, why some are still so cautious. For those who got their fingers burnt in 1979 - and very nearly so again in 1997 - there is a real fear of failure. The danger, though, is that seeing only the echoes of the past, seeing only the similarities with what happened before, may blind us to the very real differences. Historical experience is a useful input to the present, but fear of a repeat of the past should not be allowed to determine our responses to such an extent that we wait for unanimity.

There are two key differences between the next referendum, whenever it happens, and the two previous referenda, and those differences need to be considered as carefully as the similarities. And then we need to make a measured judgement about the risks.

The first is that the Assembly now exists, and people have had ten years' experience of the new situation. The sky didn't fall in, and in a growing number of areas, the Assembly has started to make a real difference to people's lives. In some areas, there have been disappointments, of course, and it would be dishonest to deny that. But its influence on our daily lives is growing, and all the polls indicate that people understand that - and broadly welcome it.

The second key difference is that this is not an 'all or nothing' referendum, as were the two in 1979 and 1997. Even if the referendum were to be lost (and I don't believe that it would be), the Assembly would still be there, it would still be gaining powers and influence, just at a much slower pace. In short, there is less to lose.

That is not to say that a lost referendum wouldn't be a setback for Wales; it would. But the scale of the setback would be a great deal less that than which occurred in 1979 – and which so nearly happened again in 1997.

Some have argued that the opinion poll lead must be at least x% - put whatever number you like instead of the x – but I simply don't accept the validity of such a mechanistic approach. Setting an arbitrary threshold is no substitute for making a proper judgement of the situation at the time, and coming to a decision based on that judgement.

There is a danger that we see only the views of those with whom we concur, and rush into a judgement based on that. I attended the meeting of the Convention in Carmarthen a couple of weeks ago, and if the feeling of those who spoke at that meeting is typical of the views of the population as a whole, then the Carmarthen jury declared pretty clearly that the biggest problem with the proposed referendum is that it does not go far enough. I know, though, that other conclusions would probably be drawn from meetings elsewhere in Wales.

There are those who are starting to doubt the commitment of the One Wales government to holding the promised referendum. I do not share those doubts. For me, there were always two windows in which the One Wales government could have called a referendum. The first was immediately after taking office, in 2007; but the agreement of the partners to set up the Convention effectively ruled that one out. The second is after the Westminster election but before the 2011 Assembly elections.

That second window has been narrowed by the fact that Gordon Brown is now likely to hang on until the bitter end before calling the election, but it has not been closed by a long shot. Any referendum campaign is likely to be as painful for the Labour Party as it will be for the Conservatives, since both parties are hopelessly divided on the issue. Expecting Labour to expose and emphasise those internal disagreements in the period immediately before an election is just not realistic. And, whether we like it or not, the commitment of Labour to any campaign is a key element in ensuring success.

Not just waiting for the dust to settle

Tweet I've spent some time over the last couple of days trying to explain the decision which the party took on student fees last Saturday. 'Manfully', said Glyn Davies, quite kindly (I think!); 'pathetic' was the rather less kind verdict of one of the pseudonymous comments on Politics Cymru. Trying to explain the party's decision whilst also recognising the difficult position in which our ministers find themselves isn’t the most straightforward of tasks, and there's a danger that it sounds like, to use Peter Black's regular phrase when he refers to Plaid, having our cake and eating it.

As a long-time opponent of tuition fees, I was neither surprised nor unhappy with the decision which the National Council took, and on that note, I think I've said enough about the specific issue of tuition fees - for the time being, at least.

There is a more general issue to emerge, however. One of the questions which I've been repeatedly asked over the past three days is how Plaid can stay in government when the government's policy on an issue is so different from the party's policy. That's actually quite an easy question for me to answer – but it's not the best question to be asking.

Since we know that no coalition government will ever agree with Plaid policies on everything, and since we are certainly not going to change party policy to match that of the government every time a Labour minister makes a statement, then it seems to me that it is inevitable that there will be occasions where party policy and government policy clash. In that sense I'm quite relaxed about the fact that there will be differences - since the alternative is never to do a coalition deal with anyone.

It's hard to explain in a country where coalition government is historically so unusual, but it's simply not as black and white an issue as some try to paint it. And, for what it's worth, this isn't just a problem for Plaid – although we're the party which is facing it at the moment. If coalition government is going to be the norm in Wales - and most of us believe that it is - then parties are going to repeatedly face this sort of issue.

So, the right question is not 'How can you stay in government when they do something contrary to your party's policies?', but more 'How do you decide which issues are important enough to threaten the agreement which you have reached?'.

Ideological purists (and of course, opposition parties desperate to bring about a split between Plaid and Labour) will see any disagreement as a reason for withdrawal; the most enthusiastic supporters of the coalition agreement will be the most reluctant. But most of us lie somewhere in the middle – accepting the possibility that some compromises will be a step too far, but accepting also that compromise is the nature of coalition, and that we have to give as well as take.

The current economic backdrop doesn't help – people facing major economic problems are unlikely to thank any party which brings down a government if a particular issue is perceived to be other than crucial to them, particularly if that government – like the One Wales government – is perceived to be doing quite well in its response to the economic crisis.

I honestly don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but I think I have a feel for the sort of questions which any party faced with this sort of problem should be asking itself.

How different is the government's policy from that of the party?
How core is this area of policy to the party's principles and beliefs?
How easy would it be to reverse the policy if we were in government in enough strength to do so?
How far is the policy out of line with the coalition agreement signed at the start of the term of office?
How well is the coalition working in general in a whole host of other areas?

I do not intend at this stage to pass any judgement on where the issue of tuition fees sits against this sort of question; I'm just drawing attention to the fact that there is a more general question which needs to be faced.

That question is considerably more complicated and sophisticated than the simplistic way in which it has been posed to date – but I suppose a more complex argument doesn't quite make for the good confrontational arguments to which political discourse is so often reduced.

Unholy compromises

Tweet I'd intended to comment on the latest twist in the Housing LCO saga earlier, but time didn't permit. It honestly wasn't simply a matter of taking some time to cool down! I understand that the Assembly is due to debate the issue next Tuesday, so it's not yet quite such old news as it could have been.

I thought that the Deputy Minister for Housing, Jocelyn Davies, summed up the situation pretty well on Saturday, expressing the personal frustration which she feels, and which is widely shared in the party. Under what is laughingly described as a Welsh legislative process, we are eighteen months on, and the Assembly still doesn't have the power it needs to carry out a key policy in an agreed government programme. We don't know when they will have the power, and even when they eventually get it, there is the whole process of drafting and approving an Assembly measure to actually use the powers.

This process is a complete nonsense, and is simply unsustainable. And if we have these problems now, when the governments in both Cardiff and Westminster are led by the same party working in smooth partnership (allegedly), where on earth will that leave us if we ever have governments of two different parties?

I know that I'm not alone in feeling deeply unhappy that the only way out of the situation has been to pass a veto to the Secretary of State for Wales – a wholly new constitutional principle never envisaged by any of those involved in drafting the Government of Wales Act. And under a Conservative government, based on past experience, there is every prospect that the person holding that job wouldn't even be representing a Welsh constituency.

But what else should we have done? Our people and communities need action on housing now. It's already taken the best part of two years to get to this point; are we supposed to continue delaying taking any action because LabourTory MPs want to play silly games? Should we be walking out of a coalition on the basis that MPs won't allow us to do something we never wanted to do in the first place? I don't like the compromise which has been reached one iota; but in the interests of implementing the One Wales programme, there seems to have been very little choice. The real question is what it means for the future.

Peter Black seems to suggest that we have not done enough to "push at the boundaries of what can be done". Actually, I don't entirely disagree with him; but in terms of delivering for the people of Wales, I happen to think that getting the powers to do what we want now is more in the interests of Wales than holding out for the power to do something we don't want to do at present. It's a classic case of having to decide between a compromise which enables us to start delivering sometime soon, and a more purist approach which maximises the long term potential. I would very much prefer that Labour MPs had not put us in the position where we have to make such choices; but I really don't think that the people of Wales would thank us for spending the whole of the four year term of government arguing with London rather than trying to get on with the job of delivering now, in spite of the MPs' opposition.

In itself, this compromise over the LCO is not a coalition-threatening issue, largely because the veto applies only to an area of hypothetical future policy which is not in the One Wales programme in the first place. But if it were allowed to become a precedent for other LCOs in the future, in a way which prevents the government from implementing agreed policies, that assessment could change. The overwhelming principle, surely, is that an elected government in the Assembly should be allowed the powers it needs to implement the policies for which the Welsh electorate voted. For one of the parties in any coalition arrangement to use, or even simply allow, their London wing to obstruct that principle must inevitably at some point raise serious questions about the viability of such a coalition.

In the aftermath of the 2007 Assembly election, it seemed as though the Conservatives in the Assembly had travelled a long way. Their willingness to sign up to the All-Wales Accord marked a number of radical policy changes. I was sceptical about that at the time, and it really does look as though, with a few honourable exceptions, (although I disagree with what both of them have said on this particular issue) they have reverted to type. Their London branch seems determined to take every opportunity to wreck the devolution settlement by obstructing the will of the Assembly.

(I note that Nick Bourne has claimed today that he will be talking to Plaid and the Lib Dems about possible arrangements after the next Assembly elections in 2011 - the chance of any such arrangement looks diminishingly small to me given that his influence on his party's MPs seems to be even less than Rhodri Morgan's over Labour MPs. I feel pretty confident that, in any future coalition negotiations, delivering the support of each party's MPs for the granting of the powers necessary to implement the government programme is likely to be a key issue – maybe even a sticking point. Once bitten, twice shy.)

As for the Labour Party, all I can say is that I hope that the 'partners' at both ends of the M4 will use the breathing space granted by the compromise over the Housing LCO to have some very serious and private discussions about the nature of their 'partnership', in order to avoid similar shenanigans over future LCOs. Plaid always knew that 'One Wales' applied only to the programme of the Assembly government; but we genuinely thought that we had signed an agreement with the Labour Party as a whole over the power to deliver that programme. Did they have the same understanding?

Collective Responsibility

Tweet Apart from rather unkindly suggesting that I might be in denial, in his response to the government announcement on student finance, Peter Black raises a point about the question of "collective responsibility". To what extent are parties and their members bound to support and agree with all of the decisions taken by their ministers when in government?

It's pretty easy for the Labour and Conservative parties to answer that, because for them, party policy is decided by the leader. Whatever their constitutions and standing orders may say, in effect the membership have no real voice on policy or direction, and are expected to support whatever the leader says – even if (s)he stands on his head and says the opposite tomorrow.

It's more of an issue for a party like Plaid, which belongs to the membership and whose policies are decided by the members. (I haven't a clue where the Lib Dems fit into this spectrum, but I suspect that it will be as complicated and arcane as their other operating processes). Clearly, it is the position of Plaid Cymru which is of most direct interest to me, and it is a question which we didn't really have to face before the advent of One Wales.

All of those of us who stand as candidates are bound to support the party's election manifestos, which are debated and agreed by the party's membership through our National Council. The One Wales agreement was also debated and agreed by the membership through the party's National Council, and it is entirely right that the party's members and spokespersons should be expected to support the content of that agreement as well.

The issue of student finance, however, is interesting in that it is a clear case where the One Wales government has proposed a policy which in the first place is not the only way of achieving a One Wales commitment, and in the second place is directly contrary to a manifesto commitment. There is a real issue for me and many other members here – we may be criticised for inconsistency if we support the proposal and for alleged disloyalty if we do not. And any attempt to bridge that gap will inevitably be described as a fudge.

So, somebody will be unhappy whatever I say - even if I say nothing.

In principle, I'm willing to change my mind on most issues - if the facts change, or if someone can come up with a convincing argument. On the issue of student finance, neither of those things has happened, so I haven't changed my mind; and it would be dishonest to pretend that I had. That means that, in all honesty, I am unable to support or defend the current proposal.

If I choose loyalty to the party's democratically-adopted policy and manifesto, is that necessarily disloyalty to the Plaid ministers in the One Wales government? No, it is not. They have a difficult job to do and are doing it well. As I said yesterday, coalition government inevitably involves short term compromise from time to time, but short term compromise is not the same as long term policy. Plaid ministers make compromises on some issues; Labour ministers make compromises on others. That doesn't mean that they, any more than I, necessarily agree with the position taken by the government on each and every issue.

There is nothing at all wrong with making a particular compromise on a particular issue at a particular point in time whilst making it perfectly clear that we will reverse the policy if and when we have an opportunity to do so. Indeed, such an approach is the only tenable way for coalition government – likely to be the norm in Wales – to operate effectively. What is completely unrealistic, however, is to expect that people who have strongly argued for one position will suddenly start arguing the opposite as a result.

On the specific issue of student fees, we are now entering a consultation process. I expect Plaid, as part of that process, to re-iterate the party's policy. I am confident that the consultation process will be a meaningful one, and I hope that it will lead to a change in the proposal. If Labour are unwilling to change their proposal, then I hope that we can agree to continue with the current regime for the life of the One Wales coalition, and allow all parties to place their proposals before the electorate in 2011.

Whatever the outcome, my own view that higher education should be free is unlikely to change, and no-one should expect me to say that it has.

Of alligators and swamps

Tweet It's many years since I first heard the saying that "when you're up to your waist in alligators, it can be difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp." Except that it wasn't 'waist' in the original.

It's a neat way of summarising something that happens to all of us – to individuals as well as to organisations, including governments. The problems of the day have to be dealt with, and they can become so pressing that there is no time left to make any progress at all towards the real aim. People in a rush, people under stress, can end up in a mindset of believing that if only they can kill a few specific alligators then all will be fine.

That's what seems to me to have happened in the case of the report published yesterday on Higher Education in Wales. It's a good stab at dealing with a few of the obvious alligators; but the swamp is taken as a given - and the group tasked with reviewing the issues wasn't even asked to consider attempting to drain it.

I'll digress for a moment here. I'm sceptical in principle about the idea of 'independent' reviews where the government both sets the terms of reference and chooses the 'independent' members of the group. I don't wish to impugn the integrity of anyone here; but really, how likely is it that any government will set the terms of reference and the membership of an 'independent' group in such a way that it will produce a recommendation to do the opposite of what the government wants to do? It reminds me of the definition that a 'consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time'. Very often consultants – or 'independent' groups - are used to give credence to what their hirer already knows, or wants to do anyway, but needs some 'objective' or 'independent' evidence to support.

The relevance of this is that in setting terms of reference which told the Higher Education Group to look at 'the extent to which student finance is targeted to enhance widening access opportunities and encourage take up of priority subjects', the minister concerned was effectively pointing out two particular alligators which needed attention. Given that meeting these objectives was not the original purpose of the current policy, it is hardly earth-shattering news that the group concludes that it isn't achieving them. But concentrating attention on these specifics effectively diverts attention from wider issues.

There is detail in the report which I would challenge, and some very valid points with which I would agree, but any detailed critique of the content would inevitably be based on an acceptance of the starting point - and I do not accept it. I will therefore concentrate on the issues of principle, and for me there are three.

Firstly, should we be charging fees for higher education at all? I find it remarkable that most of those who tell us that 'free' higher education is 'unsustainable' are people who obtained their own degrees under a system where higher education was, indeed, free. It looks at times a little bit like they're pulling the ladder up behind them. It is, of course, true that our universities need more funding; but the funding gap hasn't materialised from thin air. It has come about because successive governments have increased the numbers of students (a policy I support) whilst not increasing the funding to match.

That is not an immutable nor an inevitable state of affairs; it is the direct result of deliberate government policy over many years. Governments choose to invest in wars and nuclear weapons; they choose not to invest in higher education - it really is as simple as that. Within any given level of taxation income, governments prioritise their spending – and they have deliberately de-prioritised higher education. I have long supported the principle that higher education should be free; and I remain unconvinced by the arguments against that.

Supporters of fees argue that their principle is that graduates tend to enjoy higher incomes and higher standards of living as a result of their education, and should therefore contribute towards the costs. But income tax claws back more from those who earn more - so there are other ways in which they pay. And the tax could be made more progressive again, if the will was there. If that is really the 'principle' underlying fees, isn't it also true that pupils who leave school with a clutch of A levels do better than those who only have GCSE's, and that those who leave with good GCSE's do better than those without? At the risk of putting ideas into people's heads, if charging for the benefits which education brings is an issue of 'principle', why select only higher education?

Secondly, we need to return to the question of the Assembly's powers. This is a classic example of why the debate about further powers for the Assembly should not be an arid constitutional matter, divorced from the realities of day-to-day life. It should, rather, be about giving Welsh institutions adequate power to implement Welsh policy objectives. The One Wales government is faced with a situation where decisions taken on the funding of higher education in England constrain our freedom to do things differently in Wales. They have little choice about having to respond to that fact. That is not where we should be, and is not where I want us to be.

And thirdly, are the proposals an inevitable consequence of the One Wales agreement? I don't see that they are. One Wales commits both the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru to maintain the current system until 2009/10, and thereafter to "maintain the current level of resource throughout the four year Assembly term, doing whatever is possible to mitigate the effects on Welsh-domiciled students if the Westminster government lifts the cap on fees in 2009". Whilst the recommendations of the Working Group certainly meet that policy objective, they are not the only way of so doing; and there is nothing in One Wales which commits either party to accepting any particular approach to meeting that policy objective. It is nothing but sophistry to attempt to argue otherwise.

In 2007, I, along with the other Plaid Assembly candidates, fought an election on a platform which included the words, "we will continue to rule out top-up fees at Welsh Universities". I believed that that was the right policy at the time, and nothing has happened to change my mind. Indeed, would anyone really expect me to change my mind as a result of a policy proposal from a Labour Minister? Of course not.

But coalition government inevitably involves compromise between the parties involved, otherwise government would grind to a halt. On most issues, compromise is fairly easily achieved, and that is a tribute to the success of One Wales. On this issue, however, it is hard to see how there can be a meaningful compromise between Labour, which is determined to saddle our young people with ever larger levels of debt, and those of us who want our young people to end their education free of debt.

One simple way out might be to agree to continue with the current system for another year or two and let each of the parties put their proposals to the electorate in the 2011 Assembly election. I'm certain that that will form part of the debate during the period of consultation. In the meantime, Plaid Cymru's policy remains entirely clear, it is a policy which I support, and I shall continue to promote it.