Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Constitution

“Clear Green Water”: A Plaid electoral strategy?

Nov 4

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Parties | 5 Comments

Better Nation is chuffed to provide another guest post today.  This one comes all the way from Wales and is authored by Marcus Warner, who is a frequent contributor to Wales Home.  This piece focuses on what Plaid should do to encourage voters to switch to them in May’s Assembly election.

In Wales, perhaps the most notable intellectual insight that has come under devolved politics is former First Minister Rhodri Morgan’s ‘Clear Red Water’ speech in 2002. In it, Morgan defined Welsh Labour’s differences between his devolved Government and the then New Labour Government of Tony Blair.

Aside of the politics or indeed whether the theory was a theory at all beyond political positioning, it has defined the narrative about Welsh parties under devolution doing politics. The Welsh Conservative leader, Nick Bourne, is the latest to put this view forward, arguing that the Welsh Conservatives will still reserve the right to oppose cuts that in his view disproportionally hit Wales (Clear Blue Water). The same can be said for the Welsh Lib Dems, who believe that they will need ‘Clear Yellow Water’ to fight back against the Lib Dems falling polling rating since the coalition in Westminster.

After explaining all that, you might wonder why Plaid feel the need to have ‘clear green water’, particularly given it does not operate outside of being a Welsh Party? Clear Green Water is the distance between itself and Labour but also the ConDems – which is very real in terms of values and policies, but communicating that difference is where the challenge lies.

This of course is made very much difficult given that not only has Plaid been in coalition with Welsh Labour since 2007 in the One Wales Government. While the crowning success will still be defined by the forthcoming referendum on primary law making powers, One Wales has largely been a stable Government delivering solidly progressive policy. It has also been seen as innovative during the economic crisis with the PROact and React schemes, as well as the Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones’ ‘Economic Renewal Plan’ reshaping the Government’s approach to economic development. The lack of underlying splits and tensions has also been noted.

So how does Plaid create that ‘clear green water’. Well I confess to being like a sponge on my strategy as painted here. These ideas are not always my own creations made in isolation, they are bloggers, chats with activists, politicians, the public and even anon commenter’s to my old blog (thanks El Dafydd El!). But I hope that a sufficient amount of my own thoughts still underpin these suggestions.

Might I also say that is about political positioning and narrative, rather than policy. If I am invited back I am happy to share some policy ideas.

To veer slightly from the Better Nation brief of focusing on the positive (we’re as bad at times – Ed) Welsh Labour have done a number of about turns since going into opposition, particularly regarding Wales. Barnett Formula reform, a subject that Plaid has campaigned on a number of years, was dismissed by New Labour during the 13 years of Government. Since May’s general election, those very same dismissing voices now champion Barnett Formula reform like there is no tomorrow. There are a number of very recent policy changes in Welsh Labour that many would consider to be ‘leaving their tanks on Plaid’s lawn’.

My first course of action is to be clinical on these about turns. Relentless focus on such matters will help us decouple from Welsh Labour rather neatly.

The economic mess, or the blame game that goes with it, is something that Plaid can exploit. All the polling shows that the Welsh people lay the blame at the door of the last Labour Government at Westminster, followed closely by the current ConDems. The One Wales Government simply does not feature in this blame. Ultimately there is consistent evidence, backed up this week’s poll about Welsh people’s views on the cuts, that Wales is being hit harder than other places.

My second course of action is to equally blame all three Westminster parties for the economic crisis and for Wales’ impending cuts. Plaid is constantly told that little old Wales would simply be too small to change the economic weather, with the UK being a very different beast. It would seem that all three parties haven’t been able to hold that claim up.

The polls are encouraging if a cause for concern in places. Campaigns can often be very localised and the margins regionally can be quite small between winning and losing a seat. Success in a constituency has knock on effects for regional candidates too. But the one thing Plaid has to focus on is denying Labour 31 seats which would mean a majority. Current polling would suggest Labour are there or thereabouts – but I sense the spike since the general elections has about 10% worth of soft belly to cut away at. It is important to remember that in 2009, the Conservatives topped the poll in the Euro elections and Plaid were not far behind in 3rd place. Welsh Labour looked to be in very real crisis – I don’t sense a massive change in the underlying problems it faces in 2011.

My third course of action is to promote the idea of ‘No One Party state’. There is a powerful narrative of the Labour ‘boyo’ getting all the jobs throughout public life. The effects of one party rule can be felt in the Valleys, but things seem to change once you break the iron grip of the Labour Party. This might be a tad cynical, but when Labour fights with fire, you best fight back with some fiery stuff.

Finally, many of Plaid’s growth areas in are in former or current Labour heartlands. In a two vote per ballot system, there is clearly space for some targeted ‘list votes’ to be split. In many Labour heartland areas, thousands upon thousands of regional votes are essentially thrown in the bin when they are cast for Labour. Plaid need to be canny about how they approach this, there will not be a one size fits all solution. Perhaps the narrative of saying that ‘would you prefer a Plaid regional AM or a Tory regional AM?’ which it increasing is the choice for voters, might be a worth starting point in winning those regional votes for Plaid from Labour voters.

There shall be a Yorkshire Parliament

Oct 30

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 10 Comments

Another guest post today, this time from Yorkshire activist Arnie Craven. See, it’s not just Labour folk we give guest slots to.

Someone once told me about a time they were in a University seminar on constitutional reform. The seminar tutor spent some time listing possible constitutional reforms for the UK, mentioning among them Yorkshire devolution. As he finished listing, he fell silent, looking around the class, waiting for a reaction. Nothing was forthcoming. So he started laughing, and said something along the lines of ‘I was only joking about Yorkshire devolution, it wasn’t a serious idea’.

This is the problem any Yorkshire devolution project has to deal with. That’s why, when the FAQs section for YorkshireIndependence.com, a cross party group concerned with Yorkshire devolution, was written – it was agreed that the first question we had to answer was ‘Is this a serious campaign?’.

This is the most frustrating part of the whole endeavour: it’s not like regional devolution/autonomy/federalism is such an outlandish idea. Spain has it, Australia has it, Germany has it, Canada has it, the USA has it. Yet in the UK we seem to think that devolution can only lead to one thing – secession.

Similarly, it’s not as if suggesting regional government for Yorkshire is such a silly idea due to its small size or weak economy. It was Mrs Thatcher’s Press Secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, who famously stated:

If the Scots can have independence, then in terms of being a viable unit Yorkshire can too. It’s larger, it has more population, it has every asset you could need.

Yet people in Yorkshire don’t seem to get this. The population of Yorkshire is just over five million, similar to Scotland’s, bigger than New Zealand’s, Norway’s and many others. Our overall GDP is similar to the State of Israel’s, a small but relatively wealthy country. We have industrial areas and rural areas, financial centres and vast natural resources. But people don’t see to recognise this.

Ultimately it’s a question of getting information out, I think. However I suppose that could be said for all movements concerned with nationalism/regionalism.

Thankfully, and rather unexpectedly, progress seems to have been made over the last week. And who do we have to thank for this? Well, one obvious, one not so obvious. I won’t insult your intelligence and suggest that David Blunkett standing up at PMQs and discussing Yorkshire’s inferior funding arrangements/whether a Yorkshire Parliament should be formed wasn’t helpful to our cause.

But equally, and perhaps unexpectedly, we have Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond to thank. This week he, despite approving funding for mass transit schemes in Nottingham, Birmingham & Tyneside, decided to ‘postpone’ funding for Leeds Trolleybus (a poor man’s tram system). This is after the original Leeds Tram plans were cancelled by Whitehall in 2005, coincidentally just after Labour were ejected from Leeds City Council.

Now I’m not going to go into a discussion on the merits of a tram/trolleybus scheme (I know better than talking about trams too much on a Scottish blog!), but this was seen as a massive kick in the teeth for Yorkshire, and perhaps indicative of the fact that Westminster/Whitehall wouldn’t always have our best interests at heart.

Am I being blinded by optimism because of my own desire to see devolved Yorkshire institutions? Maybe. But do I honestly feel like something has happened this week, as if we, the people of Yorkshire have finally begun the long walk towards regional government? Yes.

Speaking for Scotland

Oct 9

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, International, Media | 4 Comments

A nation’s constitutional and political arrangement has to be particularly peculiar if it is not even clear who should and should not speak for its citizens in a national and/or international context.

Perhaps it is a regular problem across the world with Councillors, Members of Parliament, Senators, Governors, Mayors, Prime Ministers and Presidents all jostling to speak up for their part of the planet and, consequently, perhaps I should not be too concerned that Scotland seems to regularly face this problem. However, concerned I am and the latest talking point in this ongoing debate stems from the sad news that a Scottish aid worker, Linda Norgrove, has been killed in Afghanistan.

Tributes have been made by David Cameron, Alex Salmond, William Hague and U.S. General David Petraeus, all highlighting the courageous nature Linda possessed and the valuable contribution of her work. However, for Fraser Nelson at The Spectator, this collection of statements was one too many as the First Minister of Scotland should “confine his comments to the provision of public services”.

It seems to be a poorly timed and somewhat crass observation from the right-wing journalist and I daresay one that would not have been made if Boris Johnson was publicly regretting the death of a Londoner but, regrettable context to one side, the central thrust of Fraser’s point deserves consideration. Who is it that speaks for Scotland?

In quickly trying to research a decent answer to this question I noted that it is something that I have already considered in the not so distant past. There was no equivocal answer to the question of who would meet Barack Obama were the U.S. President to land at a Scottish airport on a UK visit but Alex Salmond was on hand to meet the Pope during the recent state visit and that did not seem to cause much controversy, despite the First Minister’s role extending beyond the confines of the provision of public services as Nelson’s Column would have it.

The appropriateness of speaking on behalf of a nation is of course dependent upon the circumstances. Most Scots agree that Kenny MacAskill is the most appropriate person to make decisions on Scotland’s behalf in a legal context, even if the Prime Minister recently suggested, mistakenly, that he may be able to intervene. Similarly, in a sporting, educational, health or environment related field, a Scottish voice is reasonable as such areas are devolved.

The converse of this argument of course is that areas reserved to Westminster are ‘off-limits’ for Holyrood MSPs. Trident, for example, is unavailable to be argued for or against as it falls outside of the Scottish Parliament’s remit. Those in favour and against renewing nuclear weapons have largely ignored this philosophy and have been vocal in sharing their opinion on the matter. Others, including former First Minister Jack McConnell in a literal sense, have run away from the issue but that does not solve the problem.

Personally (and this will come as no surprise coming from a blogger) opinions should not be stifled; minds are there to be spoken. If anyone wishes to release a statement on any matter, relating to any country and inviting whatever criticism then they should be free to do so.

Fraser Nelson wishes “periods of silence” from Scotland’s First Minister, something that the Chinese State wishes from recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. This stifling of speech is the wrong approach for any situation that sits anywhere on the range from the sad news of a Scottish person dying to the delight of a Scottish person winning Olympic Gold.

There is little doubt that Scotland’s future is up for grabs with debate ranging in varying degrees of fervour and volume between politicians, interests groups, journalists and even lowly bloggers.

Fraser Nelson wonders “how you would train yourself to see political opportunity in times of crisis”. I wonder how someone can see journalistic opportunity in the aftermath of such a sad news story. Both exploits, wherever they exist, will no doubt continue so perhaps who shouts the loudest is the best way to settle such subtle disputes.

Setting rates in everyone’s interest

Oct 6

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Economy | 5 Comments

As we all know, thanks to our being safely outside of the Eurozone, the majority of members in the European Union have one set of interest rates and one currency. This economic shackling together of many nations has created a 16-member, 17-legged race that is causing all sorts of skints and bruises for those involved.

Greece, Spain and Ireland are unable to see their currencies devalued which would boost exports and neither can they drop interest rates to boost their struggling economies more generally. Germany on the other hand is motoring ahead with phenomenal growth of 2.2% in a single quarter this year and a rate rise should be taking place there to ensure money isn’t too cheap and new problems do not arise.

This balancing of economic requirements across the Eurozone may well be the European Union’s greatest challenge in the near future so can the UK watch on in splendid isolation safely enjoying its own arrangement with Sterling and the Bank of England?

To an extent, yes, but the UK also has a varied economy and different regions have different needs. Interest rates in this country may not be the one size fits all solution that we would like to hope that it is.

Scotland went into the recession in comparatively better condition than the rest of the UK but has now fallen some way behind. Were this trajectory to continue, which is regrettably easy to envisage with the bloated public sector, political wrangling and banking problems north of the border well known, then perhaps an unavoidable increase in interest rates at a UK level will serve London and the South but harm business north of the border if Scotland just needs a little bit more time to boost itself back to stability.

When the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England does increase interest rates, probably near the end of this year or at the start of next year, there will be an almighty political fall out, particularly in light of the cuts that will be in the process of biting. The ‘Left’ will be against and the ‘Right’ will be broadly in favour and it is not difficult to see how this ideological split could quickly develop into a cross-border argument.

No-one wants to see unemployment rise and an economy falter but, were that to happen specifically in Scotland, may there be a case for devolving interest rate setting from the Bank of England to Edinburgh?

Cameron’s “Bring it on” moment

Oct 4

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 7 Comments

I understood that champagne at the Conservative Conference was at a minimum this year as a result of the cuts to spending and last year’s shenanigans but surely Prime Minister Cameron had had one too many when he came out with this quote:

“I will be on that campaign if they ever have the courage to call that referendum on the future of the United Kingdom but it doesn’t look like they do right now does it.”

Perhaps this bravado stemmed from a frustration at his party’s poor, majority-denying performance north of the border at the May election but let’s just pick apart the things that are wrong with the above shall we.

1 – The SNP does not have the power to simply ‘call’ an independence referendum. With Scottish Conservative support at any point over the past 3.5 years there could have been a plebiscite but that support has, sadly, not been forthcoming.

2 – The use of the word ‘courage’ suggests that Prime Minister Cameron is actively spoiling for this contest, a consideration that First Minister Salmond will reflect on with lip-smacking relish. In an error that helped to bring down Wendy Alexander’s short tenure as leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, Cameron should be choosing his words more carefully on this constitutional issue. Loose lips sink ships after all. Or,alternatively, now that the Scottish Tories are in favour of a coalition are they soon going to come out as pro-referendum to pick up for tactical SNP support?

3 – This is, once again, a breach of the promise to treat the Scottish Government with respect. Looking past the man’s remarkable ignorance of how the parliamentary process works north of the border, a playground-style taunt is not how leaders should behave to one another.

Of all the posturing and positioning and strategising that can drag on on any political issue, sometimes it is a simple blurting out of a line that loosens the most intractable of positions.

Cameron has queried the SNP’s courage. The SNP, it is safe to say, will leave the Prime Minister in no doubt as to how much courage it possesses on this subject and where will that leave the UK Government, a body that has the power to hold an independence referendum?

Game on?