Showing posts with label Paul Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Murphy. Show all posts

Simple referendum maths

The ICM poll in today's Telegraph provides a timely illustration of the point I made in this post on Thursday: that not including the option of devo-max in the Scottish independence referendum will substantially increase the percentage that will vote for independence.

Three options

Independence ... 26%
Fiscal autonomy ... 26%
Status quo ... 37%
Don't know ... 10%

Two options

Independence ... 40%
Status quo ... 43%
Don't know ... 17%

ICM, 15 January 2012

I think it's reasonable to assume that the 10% who are undecided when three options are presented to them will also be undecided when presented with two. So that means the vote of the 26% who would have wanted fiscal autonomy but not independence splits three ways:

14% ... would vote for independence instead
6% ... would vote for the status quo instead
6% ... would be undecided

In other words, substantially more than half of them would vote for independence.

-

It is also interesting to note that people in both England and Scotland are in favour of establishing an English Parliament with the same devolved powers as the Scottish Parliament, by a margin of more than three to one:

In England

In favour of an English Parliament ... 49%
Against an English Parliament ... 16%

In Scotland

In favour of an English Parliament ... 49%
Against an English Parliament ... 16%

Yet Paul Murphy, bless him, is still thinking in terms of devolution to the regions of England rather than to England itself.

This shows that he really has no idea about what people in England think. The previous attempt to establish elected regional assemblies in England failed primarily because it ignored the idea of England as a political entity in its own right.

Bookmark and Share

Hyperactivity

The biggest laugh of today must be from Paul Murphy's endorsement of Carwyn Jones here on WalesHome. The classic piece of spin was:

In an age where hyperactivity is often mistaken for effective leadership ...

In other words, it might look as if he's asleep, and he probably is asleep ... but we have no choice but to call it a good thing.

And indeed it is, for just think of the damage he could inflict on Wales if he had more energy and determination. As one of Labour's most prominent dinosaurs, Paul Murphy knows every bit as much as one of the others what it's like for a faster and cleverer Plaid Cymru to run rings around an all "too dull" Labour Party.

Long may it continue.
 

     

     

 
Never particularly fast on his feet, we don't call him Cobweb Jones for nothing.

Bookmark and Share

Labour try to divide the Yes vote

What do the recent announcements by Peter Hain, Paul Murphy and now Hywel Francis have in common?

Each one of them is deliberately misrepresenting what this referendum is about and, instead of concentrating on the issue at hand, trying to turn the referendum into the first part of Labour's campaign for the Assembly elections in May.

•  Peter Hain's claim was that voting Yes would transform the Welsh economy. But voting Yes will do no such thing, because the lawmaking powers we will get when we vote Yes specifically will not give Wales any fiscal or economic powers.

•  Paul Murphy claimed that voting Yes had nothing to do with the procedural intricacies of lawmaking in Wales. But the referendum is only about the way the Assembly will be able to make laws and nothing else.

•  Now we have Hywel Francis claiming that voting Yes will deliver a blow against the cuts being imposed by the ConDem government in Westminster. But voting Yes will not save us from a single penny of the cuts that have been made by them, nor the deeper cuts that are going to be made by them over the next few years.

So what would explain their actions? At one level it's very simple: they have decided that people in Wales simply aren't capable of understanding the issue at hand, and are therefore trying to make out that the referendum is about something they think people in Wales will understand. That doesn't say much about their respect for people in Wales, and it makes what they are trying to do no different from what True Wales have been trying to do when they claim that this referendum is about increased taxes, more politicians, or the "slippery slope to independence".

But there's more to it than that. It is clear that each of them is using this referendum as an opportunity to attack the Tories, but both Paul Murphy and Hywel Francis have now introduced a rather sinister sub-text. Paul Murphy criticized the Yes campaign because, as an all-party group, it had what he called "the problem" of not being able to attack the Tories in the way he would like; and Hywel Francis claimed that the Yes campaign was:

making it more difficult to mobilise a full-blooded anti-Tory campaign

So it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they are putting two fingers up at the careful work of the Yes for Wales campaign.

     

Now these three men are certainly being unscrupulous, but they are not stupid. They are quite sincere in wanting a Yes vote now, even though the only reason they've changed their minds is because they realized Labour was going to lose power at Westminster. They thought things were fine ... so long as they were in government there.

So would they put a Yes vote in danger by undermining the Yes for Wales campaign in this way? I don't think so. I think they have calculated that the margin in favour of a Yes vote—at least 20% in nearly all the polls—is such that they can afford to undermine cross party support for a Yes vote. So they reckon it probably won't matter if they alienate Tory and LibDem supporters so much that they vote No or, more likely, stay at home ... so long as they get a few Labour supporters who would otherwise stay at home out to vote.

As I see it, they realize that although a good many of their supporters do understand what this referendum is about, and will vote on the issue at hand, there are others who simply don't understand and who therefore see no point in voting in the referendum. They want to persuade these people that the referendum is, to all intents and purposes, just another party political election in which Labour is on one side and the Tories on the other. By getting people to vote Yes for Labour's reasons they hope that the referendum campaign will trundle on and seamlessly morph into Labour's campaign for the Assembly elections in May.

     

The big question is how the rest of us should react to this tactic. I think we shouldn't ... or at least not yet. In the immortal words of Huw Lewis, we should "Let Labour be Labour." We simply need to point out what they're doing and why they're doing it, but should not let ourselves be distracted from explaining why it is important for us to be able to make laws in those areas that are already devolved to Wales. If we stick to the job at hand, we will not alienate those from other parties who support a Yes vote.

Nor, I suggest, should we in Plaid react with anger to the sort of personal attacks that Labour have just made on Ieuan Wyn Jones. It's all part of the same strategy, in all probability orchestrated by the same elements in the Labour Party at Westminster. They want to turn what should be the campaign for a Yes vote in March into the early skirmishes of the campaign for the Assembly elections in May.

We can afford to wait a few weeks. Right now we need to keep fighting an inclusive, uniting campaign for a Yes vote; for the sake of Wales, and for the sake of people of all political persuasions in Wales. But after that—though maybe allowing a day or two for the hangover from the celebration party on 4 March to wear off—we can turn our attention to campaigning for the Assembly elections ... and do it with a clear conscience.

Bookmark and Share

Right Vote, Wrong Reasons

It gave me great pleasure to see one of the most staunch of Labour's anti-devolution dinosaurs change his mind and say he's going to vote Yes in the referendum on primary lawmaking powers.

But his reasons for doing it are quite clearly wrong. He says:

Wales is a more progressive country, and thankfully it has a more progressive Government. More power to their elbow, I say.

That is the reason why increasing numbers of people are intending on voting Yes. People can see what is going on in Westminster and don't much like the look of it.

It's got nothing to do with constitutional dogma or the procedural intricacies of law-making in Wales. The problem with the cross-party Yes campaign is that it can't really say that.

Western Mail, 8 February 2011

He'll hate me piercing his balloon with a small point of accuracy, but this referendum is in fact all about, and only about, the "procedural intricacies of law-making in Wales". It's all about, and only about, the constitutional arrangements of devolution.

So of course the cross-party Yes campaign can't say the same thing as him. They'd be misrepresenting what this referendum is about if they did. To their credit—and after not the best of starts—Yes for Wales are campaigning on the merits of actual issue at hand: the constitutional issue of the Assembly being able to pass laws in areas that are already devolved to Wales. Yet Paul Murphy dismisses this as a "problem" because for him and his narrow party political interests, the only thing that can matter is that his own party is currently in power at Cardiff Bay, but not in power at Westminster.

If he thinks that people who will vote Yes because they actually understand what the referendum is about will be grateful for his U-turn, he's flattering himself. I've nothing but contempt for a politican like Paul Murphy. He's a political opportunist who has changed his mind on devolving primary lawmaking powers to Wales only because it now suits him and his party.

Party political electioneering is all well and good. However the time to do it is not now, but in the couple of months between the referendum and the Assembly elections in May.

Bookmark and Share

Paul Murphy is in favour of a referendum

Yes, it's really true. This is what he said:

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy):

... I agree that the [All Wales] Convention should be open to everybody in Wales to put their points of view. It is, in effect, testing the water. If the Convention believes that a referendum is necessary, the people of Wales will decide.

Hansard, 29 April 2009 : Column 850

No ifs, buts or maybes. Just a simple commitment that if the AWC recommends it, the people of Wales will get to vote on it.

Paul Murphy might well regret having said it, but say it he did. So will he now stick to his word, or go back on it?

More importantly, he said it in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, thus commiting the Labour government in Westminster to hold a referendum if that is what the AWC recommends.

Bookmark and Share

Language LCO ... Nowhere near good enough

This is a busy weekend, the election results are exciting, not to say astounding. I can't wait for the Sunday night finale. But in all this (and thanks to Vaughan Roderick for the reminder) the Assembly's Committee Report on the Welsh Language LCO was published today.

     Press release on National Assembly website
     Full Report

It's a long document, so I wouldn't blame anyone for not reading it all the way through. I've only skimmed it. The best way in is probably the summary of recommendations on pages 2-4.

In essence it says that the LCO doesn't go anywhere near far enough and suggests that, in effect, the Assembly should have powers to legislate on virtually everything to do with Welsh without restriction.

We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government replaces Matter 20.1 as follows:

Promoting or facilitating the use of the Welsh language; and the treatment of the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality.

This matter does not include the use of the Welsh language in the courts.

The use of Welsh in courts is a specific exclusion in Schedule 7 of the GoWA 2006. Therefore it is legally impossible to transfer legislative responsibility for this to the Assembly by means of an LCO. However in practice, the only serious outstanding issue is bilingual juries, as mentioned here.

The committee has a fallback position: that if the current draft LCO is not rewritten so radically, it should be strengthened to include:

• all organizations that receive public money on the basis of the service they provide
• all energy services
• all public transport and associated facilities
• all large providers of financial services to the public
• and to enshrine the freedom of people to use Welsh or English

The main sector that strikes me as missing is large supermarkets and retail chains.

This report has been prepared by a committee with members from all parties in the Assembly. Therefore the big question to be asked is why the draft LCO was so watered-down. One answer is that it also has to receive the approval of both Houses at Westminster ... but the indications are that they also want the LCO to be more wide-ranging.

So who does that leave? Only the man in the middle, who was of course:

     

No draft LCO can be published unless it has been agreed with the Secretary of State for Wales and his officials in the Wales Office first. He has an absolute veto. If he doesn't like what's in it, he can simply refuse to lay the draft LCO before Parliament.

Paul Murphy appears to have pursued his own narrow agenda on this language LCO ... misreading the political mood of both the Assembly and Parliament. Perhaps this is the main reason why he was sacked from the Cabinet today. If not, the coincidence has a delicious poetic justice.

Bookmark and Share

Deselecting dinosaurs

Of course I'm glad to see the demise of Paul Murphy as Secretary of State for Wales. He's a decent enough person, but a definite anti-devolutionist at the time when the mood of people in Wales—and especially his corner of Wales—has markedly changed in favour of more devolution. Without wanting to be rude, he's a political dinosaur. He just isn't able to change his views to suit the way Wales has changed since 1999.

But Peter Hain? In the middle of an expenses scandal? When he mis-declared £103,000 for his personal election campaign? When £25,000 in donations and a £25,000 loan were channelled through a highly dubious research group called the Progressive Policy Forum ... whose sole purpose seems to have been to progress Mr Hain's own political career?

If the details have become fuzzy with time, here's a reminder.

     

At least Hain claims to favour more devolution for Wales. But I have grave doubts over his sincerity. I suspect that his usual one liner, "I really do want more devolution, but not yet" is just a diversionary way of saying he will do all he can to stop it for as long as he is in a position to do so.

But then again, what alternatives do Labour have left? Gordon Brown has played out all his cards ... so he is now being forced to snatch the old ones back off the table and replay them over and over again. Some opponents of the Assembly like to talk about the poor calibre of AMs, but Westminster's unfair voting system gave Labour 29 of the 40 Welsh MPs ... yet it's patently obvious that none of the rest of them was thought to be of sufficient calibre to get the job.

That, more than anything, shows how bankrupt Welsh Labour is in terms of talent at Westminster. If Labour ever hopes to regain the political initiative in Wales, they need to quietly deselect their dinosaurs in favour of candidates who have a more positive attitude towards greater self-government for Wales.

Bookmark and Share