How many MPs is enough?

Tweet

It’s nice to see so many of Wales’ MPs exercised about a single subject and almost saying the same thing; it’s just a pity that the subject in question is how many of them there should be.  It’s hardly the top item on most people’s agenda; fewer politicians (however achieved) rather than more is definitely the flavour of the moment. 

(As an aside, I remember someone once saying to me that ‘if the answer to a question is more politicians, then it must be a very curious question indeed’.)

There are different ways of looking at the issue, of course; a lot depends on one’s perspective.  From a nationalist point of view, the target number of MPs at Westminster is obviously zero, once the constitutional objective is attained.  That’s the easy part; the hard part is, how many should there be in the interim, and what are the factors which should drive change?

Some have argued that as more powers are transferred to the Assembly, then the numbers should be reduced accordingly.  Given the tight control that Westminster still maintains over so much of our lives – and most importantly, over the purse-strings – that seems to me to be superficially logical, but over-simplistic.

If Wales is treated just as a region sending representatives to a unitary parliament, then there is absolutely no basis for continued over-representation, or for treating Wales any differently from any other area in the UK.  Indeed (dare I say it?), from that strongly unionist perspective there is no real logic in the rigid rule that parliamentary constituencies should not cross national boundaries.

If, however, Wales is sending representatives to what may well increasingly become a federal-type parliament, with ‘England-only’ decisions being taken by English MPs only, then there is an argument to be made for deliberate over-representation of Wales.  Many less unitary states than the UK do indeed provide for over-representation of smaller parts, and the UK Parliament is so dominated by English MPs that even our current modest over-representation still leaves Wales with fairly minimal influence.

Plaid’s pitch at European level has long included the statement that, as an independent nation, we would be entitled to about 11 MEPs instead of the current 4.  So treating Wales as a nation within Europe leads to a different approach than treating us as a region within the UK.  Why should the same not apply to Westminster for as long as Wales is part of the UK?

I wish that I could be certain that the heightened levels of awareness of the distinctiveness of Wales amongst Wales’ MPs were motivated by such considerations rather than mere self-preservation.  At the moment, the image which keeps coming to mind is of Harri Webb’s budgie.

For Wales, see Angleterre

Tweet Last night's news carried the story of the agreement between the UK and French Governments to share aircraft carriers and other military capabilities.  Sarkozy talked about the agreement between France and 'Angleterre', before the voice over translation cut in and appeared to mistranslate it as France and 'Britain'.  I suspect that Monsieur le Président was closer to the actualité, even if more out of ignorance than intent.

The agreement is one between two faded imperial powers, neither of which is able to quite let go of their own conception of their past influence and rôle, despite the fact that neither can really afford to compete in that arena, even if it made any sense for them to do so.  They both wish to maintain the pretence of being 'world powers', although the world which they wish to inhabit is one which disappeared decades ago.

Their so-called 'independent' deterrents are completely useless against any of the real threats facing the world in the 21st century, and aircraft carriers are of use only in an offensive operation - even if they could afford to put any aircraft on them.  So they continue to spend beyond their means on next to useless military hardware, whilst trying to save face and money through a limited pooling of resources.

It really is time for a more modern and realistic appraisal of the role in the world which the countries of these islands could and should play; but, not for the first time, the UK government has, instead, looked for a way of further delaying the inevitable.

How the mighty fall

Tweet

It looks as though Obama’s Democrats are in for something of a drubbing in today’s mid-term elections; and that it is widely being seen as an opportunity to deliver a verdict on Obama himself.  It doesn’t make his situation irrecoverable – other presidents have suffered a similar fate and gone on to win a second term – but it’s an astonishing turnaround in fortune for a man who seemed to be offering so much.

There are politicians in the UK – and in Wales – who saw Obama’s success in 2008, and have thought that they’d like to emulate it, by copying the style, technique, or even just the rhetoric used by Obama; but the decline in his popularity in the US should cause them to stop and think.  The question they should be asking is just how much substance was there under all that froth and excitement.

Obama’s words appeared to be offering a vision of a very different America.  Perhaps he really does want to see a very different America, but he seems to have raised higher expectations than he is able to fulfil.  Maybe it’s just a ‘timescale’ issue, and he was insufficiently clear about how long it might take to deliver.  Either way, a lot of people are feeling very let down.

I’ve always believed that it’s important to offer people a vision of a different future, but it has to be genuine, clear, and honest about timescales - and there is much more to a vision of the future than mere rhetoric.  Politicians who confuse the two deserve to fail.  Words like ‘hope’ and ‘change’ are meaningful only in the context of a programme to deliver them.

Electrification - let's get on with it

Tweet My initial reaction when I read the part of today's story about the electrification of the mainline was a degree of outrage at the idea that the UK Government would ask the Assembly Government to pay part of the costs.  But then I asked myself whether this expenditure is Barnettised or not - and I have to admit that I don't actually know the answer to that.  If this is additional UK expenditure, over and above the existing transport budget, then the reaction stands; but if the expenditure is coming out of the English transport budget for which Wales has already had, or will be receiving, a Barnett share, then it it not entirely unreasonable for the UK Government to start talking to the Welsh Government about a contribution.

What is absolutely clear, though, is that asking the Welsh Government to pay a proportion is not a way of delivering the project for "less than the £1bn initially estimated", which seems to be the UK Government's starting point.  Paying out of different pots is simply not the same thing as reducing the cost - and disingenuous is an understatement for the suggestion that it is.

I'm clear that there is a good case for electrification - greater reliability, lower maintenance costs, less pollution.  It helps meet emissions targets (depending on how the electricity is generated), and it helps the switch from road to rail.  And there's a good case for the timing; with the rolling stock needing replacement in the next few years, failure to electrify now condemns us to another 40 years of diesel powered railways.  Electrifying the whole railway network as rapidly as possible is something which deserves support.

I'm not entirely convinced that 20 minutes off the journey time makes as much difference as some seem to suggest.  Certainly I, like most other people, like to get from A to B as rapidly as possible, but when I was travelling fairly regularly from South Wales to London it was the lack of certainty about the arrival time which was much more of a concern to me.  Having to catch a train an hour earlier 'just in case' is a real deterrent.

And I'd like to see research which indicates that this will have the massive impact on economic growth which some seem to imply - particularly if the Welsh Government is serious about switching its economic strategy to development of indigenous companies.  I'm not suggesting that it won't have an impact, merely that the impact may have been somewhat exaggerated.

And we simply don't need to exaggerate or play the victim; the project stands up without that.

Shouting too soon?

Tweet The report yesterday that the economy grew during the last quarter is, of course, good news, although how good remains to be seen - the figures have a habit of being revised as more information comes to hand.  Whether it's quite as good as some claim, and whether the growth will be sustained are open questions at this stage.

Whilst politicians (of all parties) and economists debate the runes with a ferocious degree of certitude, the truth is that none of us really know which way the economy will go from here.  We 'merely' have opinions, based on economics, history, and personal or political prejudice.  And we can all find our own 'experts' to justify a particular viewpoint.  The modern global economy is so complex and interwoven that chaos theory is probably the most relevant branch of mathematics to apply.

That doesn't mean that debate is irrelevant - the impact of decisions being taken on people and families is far-reaching, and taking the wrong decisions can have a serious effect on a lot of people.  Those of us who think that the government is getting it wrong will continue to argue for an alternative approach.

Some months ago, it worried me that some people in Plaid were being just a little too quick to seize on one month's figures for unemployment in Wales to claim that the One Wales Government had beaten the recession.  Life, particularly economic life, just isn't as simple as that - as the following month's figures showed.  I find myself wondering at the moment whether supporters of the UK Government who have seized on the latest figures won't also be left with a degree of egg on face in another quarter or two.

Clearly, the quarter's numbers are good - although there is good reason to look at the detail; the dependence on construction in particular could leave them susceptible to a downturn with a cut in capital spending.  But I think we can be fairly clear that few, if any, of the government's announcements have yet started to impact the economy at all.  Governments might like to claim the credit when things are going well, but a government which has been in power for only five months, and whose major changes on spending and taxation will not kick in for some months, is taking something of a risk in claiming that the latest figures vindicate their position.

Fantasy economics?

Tweet Some politicians get themselves quite worked up if they think another party has 'stolen' one of their policies; I prefer to see it as flattery and vindication.  Politics for me has always been more about making the right decisions than about who makes them.

So I'm not in the least unhappy to see that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have come round at last to a policy on state pensions which looks remarkably like the one which Plaid Cymru proposed in May's General Election.  The devil is in the detail, of course, and they are planning to pay for it in ways which were not the same as those which we suggested.  Nevertheless, the weekly figures which they are suggesting are stunningly close to those which Plaid advocated.

It is likely to cause a degree of indigestion, however, as some people have to eat their words. 

I particularly liked Vince Cable's claim that it was that it was a Liberal Democrat idea that had been developed by the party over several years in opposition.  Clearly the party hadn't told Kirsty Williams that they had spent several years developing this policy when she said "These half-baked plans will never see the light of day, because the sums just don’t add up. You simply cannot fund huge pension increases for millions of people, without endangering the front-line services upon which many older people depend".  Although it's possible, I suppose, that her caveat may tell us more than she intended about the way her party intends to fund the policy.

And presumably, Iain Duncan Smith hadn't talked to Cheryl Gillan either when she said "This is fantasy economics that Plaid cannot deliver and know gives false hopes to pensioners across Wales".

Still, thanks to the One Wales policy of free prescriptions, Kirsty at least will be able to get something to assist with her digestive problems.  Our Secretary of State will have to pay for her medicine though, I'm afraid.

Meaningless Conscience Salving

Tweet The 'strong hints' being dropped by leading Lib Dems that there will, after all, be a cap on the level of fees charged by universities is clearly aimed at reassuring their supporters that they haven't completely abandoned their opposition.  But it's a meaningless concession if the level is set so high, as seems likely, as to prevent no university from charging the amount which they were planning on anyway.

Telling universities that they can go so far, but no further, is just a pointless bit of rhetoric if they weren't planning to go that far anyway.  But in fact, it could actually have a negative impact on the situation - the upper limit could rapidly become the norm.  Universities which were thinking in terms of a lower number could end up standardising at the same level as everyone else.  It may not be what the Lib Dems intend; but that's the whole point about the law of unintended consequences.

Time for a WBC

Tweet I suspect that Jeremy Hunt has been truly surprised by the reaction to his pronouncements and announcements about S4C.  He shouldn't have been, of course, but the fact that he was surprised should come as no surprise to Wales.  They don't get it, never have, and probably never will.

That doesn't mean that he can't get some things right by accident though, and I think it's important that we don't allow obvious and justified outrage at the arbitrary and rushed way he's decided the future of S4C to detract from a more rational analysis.  What is the real objection to what he's proposed?  Is it the funding of S4C from the licence fee, is it the idea of placing all publicly funded broadcasting in one place, or is it the submerging of S4C into the BBC?

I don't have any major objection to any of those, in principle - it's the detail that's the problem.  The fear that I have about giving control to the BBC is more to do with the anglo-centric nature of the BBC than with the underlying principle that the main public service broadcaster should have responsibility for braodcasting in both languages within Wales.  If a Welsh Broadcasting Corporation were on offer, funded by all licence fees collected in Wales, and answerable to the Welsh Government rather than the UK Government, how many of us would really object to giving that WBC the responsibility of providing a comprehensive service to Wales in both languages?

The apparent loss of S4C's independence appears tragic at one level; but what recent events have surely taught us is that that independence has always been somewhat illusory anyway.  He who controls the budget controls everything else, and a period of benign arms length management has lulled us into a false sense of security.  We now face the danger of a Welsh language service managed at the whim of faraway people who know little of Wales; but that's exactly where our English-language service has always been.

Time, I think, to turn events to our advantage, and use the underlying decisions of the government to make the case for a break-up of the BBC into an EBC, WBC, NIBC, and SBC.  In a digital age, those wishing to watch the England service could still do so - just as I can choose to watch French services if I choose.  And channels in Wales could always buy in programmes from elsewhere if they wanted to.  But 5% of the licence fees, re-directed to a new WBC, if used solely to produce a high quality service on TV and radio, one channel on each in each language, would go quite a long way towards giving Wales the sort of national media which are currently in short supply, I suspect.

A lot more than cuckoo clocks

Tweet The story a week or so ago about the completion of the Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland was a triumph of engineering; but also a triumph of vision and foresight. It dramatically highlights the difference in attitude towards rail transport between the UK and the rest of Europe. Whilst we wait to hear whether a line built over a century and a half ago will be electrified, the rest of Europe presses ahead with an ambitious, long term programme to develop a network of new high speed lines.

For us in Wales, electrification is in doubt – and high speed isn’t even a line on a map yet. There are plans for a high speed link to the north of England, and eventually on to Scotland, but where is the comprehensive vision for a rail network of the future? It requires the sort of long term thinking of which UK governments – of any party – seem to be completely incapable.

The 35 mile long Swiss tunnel was started in 1996, they’ve been drilling for 14 years – and it’ll be another 7 before the first trains will run. That’s serious long term visionary thinking about the right approach to transportation. And it isn’t the only such project – they started another, shorter (a mere 21 miles!) tunnel at the same time on a parallel route further west. But the Swiss vision isn’t just about high speed passenger transport – the line will also handle significant amounts of freight.

It will help with the implementation of the Traffic Transfer Act passed in 1999, which aims to ensure that most freight passing through Switzerland from Germany to Italy will go by rail rather than road. Another piece of visionary thinking, seeing rail as a real alternative to more road building, and removing the most damaging traffic from their roads.

It’s an idea with some resonance – imagine if all the freight from Ireland which goes from Pembrokeshire right across Wales (and across England as well, often, en route to the ferry ports) were mandated to go by rail instead of road. A few trains per day would remove a significant amount of heavy traffic from the roads, quite apart from the environmental benefits.

Of course it’s not an entirely fair comparison. Switzerland is far more ‘central’ to Europe, purely by dint of geography; and traffic flows are therefore much higher. Switzerland is also about twice the size of Wales, and their population about two and a half times ours; although if we think the terrain in Wales is difficult for construction, just take a look at Switzerland.

But the really key difference is about clear government direction and political will, and the sort of long term vision and investment which is needed to improve the rail infrastructure. I won’t hold my breath, then.

It's an ill wind...

Tweet I can’t say that I’m particularly unhappy that the Defence Academy at St Athan has fallen victim to the cuts. It’s been a difficult issue for many of us from the outset – not least because Plaid’s Parliamentary Group and the Assembly Government both signed up to support for the proposal before the rest of the party had any opportunity whatsoever to discuss it. It left those of us who would have been natural and instinctive opponents of the scheme in considerable difficulty.

It was a symptom of an increasing degree of timidity and caution in the party, particularly amongst elected members keen not to be seen as being anti-British, anti-military, or anti-jobs. Opposing the academy was not necessarily any of those things of course, but there has, of late, been an excessive willingness to compromise rather than make the difficult arguments.

And the Labour Party in particular were only too happy to look for opportunities to accuse Plaid of all of those things, even though there were many members and supporters of the Labour Party who shared the doubts about the scheme.

Of course we want jobs, and it’s nonsense for anyone to argue that we don’t. But there’s nothing at all wrong with arguing that we want jobs which don’t come complete with incumbents (and their dependants to compete for any new jobs). Neither is there anything wrong with arguing that we want to be selective about the type of jobs we want to see. Indeed, there’s no point at all in pretending that we have a strategy for building the Welsh economy around ‘green’ jobs if we then welcome any and every project which takes us in the opposite direction.

It’s also worth noting that, for all the hype in the Welsh media about the thousands of jobs that the scheme would bring to Wales, no-one was particularly keen to talk about the thousands of jobs correspondingly destroyed at existing bases. It’s an aspect of the ‘job creation’ industry which has long worried me – moving jobs from one part of the world to another doesn’t ‘create’ jobs at all; in fact it often reduces the total.

There is an issue, of course, around the fact that Wales receives a significantly smaller share of defence expenditure than either England or Scotland; but it’s a mistake to see that in isolation. I don’t want to have our exact percentage of spending under each and every heading; I only want our fair share of the total. I’d be more than happy to forgo our ‘fair’ share of defence expenditure, if we got correspondingly more under another heading – such as research funding, for instance.

And that’s the real issue – we simply don’t get our fair share. It’s a campaigning point for a nationalist, of course – but the real solution is to take control of our own taxation revenue and decide for ourselves how to spend it. I’d bet we’d never choose a Defence Academy.