The IWA exists to provoke thought and debate, and generally, I think they do a pretty good job. But I was more than a little disappointed with their latest offering on the idea of an elected mayor for the Heads of the Valleys.
There is a very good argument to be made for a reduction in the number of local authorities in Wales. Politicians of all parties know it (although they're mostly afraid to admit it), and they know that some of the Valleys authorities in particular could do with some rationalisation. Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent in particular are very small authorities, with limited resources.
There is a good argument – but the IWA choose not to make it. Instead, they propose leaving the existing local authorities and their functions untouched, and creating another level of government. Well, that's what they say; but in fact, on some of the specific proposals they make, it is hard to see how the proposed mayor could function without taking some powers away from local government.
Even if they were right about the need for 'strong executive power', what they propose effectively fragments power across four levels (local authority, the mayor, the Assembly and Westminster), rather than three at present. If a strong executive authority really is the answer, then we should do the job properly, and face up to the inevitable local government reorganisation at the same time.
The comparison with the Mayor of London is a nonsense, in my view. Firstly, the powers proposed are so much more limited. Given the relative size (London's population is more that twice that of the whole of Wales, never mind that of the Valleys area), and the existence of a National Assembly, the scope for a powerful mayor who does not take power away from either the Assembly or the local authorities is inevitably limited. And secondly, there isn't the same geographical logic - on transport, for instance, I don't see how there can be a sensible strategic transport plan for the Valleys alone, when the main arteries run to Cardiff, Newport, and Swansea.
Leaving the detail aside, however, the aspect that I really quibble with is the idea that personalising politics somehow solves all problems. Just get someone with charisma, and give all power to him (all the names suggested are male, note), and all our problems will be solved. Really? Where's the evidence for that?
The whole thing looks as though they've decided that they like the idea of elected mayors (at a time when New Labour have gone distinctly cool on their own creation), and are trying to fit it to the problem; it doesn't seem to start from any rational analysis of what the Valleys actually need.
Oh, and am I the only one fed up with the names Hain, Davies, and Wigley being trotted out every time any role is suggested in Wales? Able politicians all, I'm sure, but are any of them really so wonderful that merely appointing them to a role will put the world to rights?
Showing posts with label Hain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hain. Show all posts
Monday, 4 August 2008
Friday, 18 April 2008
Detached from Reality
There can, of course, be no excuse for faking e/mails in order to attempt to incriminate an innocent person. Indeed, there's no valid excuse for faking e/mails in order to incriminate a guilty person either.
So I had more than a little sympathy for Peter Hain after the revelations yesterday about some faked emails which attempted to suggest that he had misused facilities at a charity.
He goes too far, however, in claiming that these dirty tricks have cost him his job and his career. These particular 'dirty tricks' have only come to light after he had already been forced to resign for other reasons. His attempt to suggest that these latest e/mails are of a piece with the revelations which led to his downfall is, at best, disingenuous.
There is a world of difference between fake documents attempting to smear someone with false accusations, and genuine leaks which expose wrongdoing. Hain seems not to be able to grasp this vital difference.
Above all, his latest protestations indicate that he still does not accept that failing to disclose £100,000 in donations, in direct contravention of laws which his own government enacted, is in any way ‘wrong-doing’.
He keeps claiming that his experience is surreal. What I find not just surreal, but really rather sad, is his own inability to recognise firstly that he has committed an offence under electoral law, and secondly that there is widespread incredulity at the extent of his spending on an internal party election.
So I had more than a little sympathy for Peter Hain after the revelations yesterday about some faked emails which attempted to suggest that he had misused facilities at a charity.
He goes too far, however, in claiming that these dirty tricks have cost him his job and his career. These particular 'dirty tricks' have only come to light after he had already been forced to resign for other reasons. His attempt to suggest that these latest e/mails are of a piece with the revelations which led to his downfall is, at best, disingenuous.
There is a world of difference between fake documents attempting to smear someone with false accusations, and genuine leaks which expose wrongdoing. Hain seems not to be able to grasp this vital difference.
Above all, his latest protestations indicate that he still does not accept that failing to disclose £100,000 in donations, in direct contravention of laws which his own government enacted, is in any way ‘wrong-doing’.
He keeps claiming that his experience is surreal. What I find not just surreal, but really rather sad, is his own inability to recognise firstly that he has committed an offence under electoral law, and secondly that there is widespread incredulity at the extent of his spending on an internal party election.
Friday, 25 January 2008
To clear his name
Our now ex-Secretary of State declared that he is standing down from office 'to clear his name'. Well, he's always been something of an optimist, I suppose, but it seems to me that that's a pretty unlikely outcome.
The first thing that any police investigation has to establish is whether a crime has been committed. This looks like an easy hurdle; no-one is in any doubt that there was a legal requirement to declare donations within a specified time, and no-one denies that that was not done.
The second hurdle is to identify the miscreant. In the court of public opinion, this is open to some doubt. I, like many others, am quite prepared to believe that he left this responsibility to others, and they have badly let him down. But the court of public opinion isn’t the final arbiter here – the Act of Parliament passed by a government of which Hain was a prominent member makes it clear that the responsibility lies very firmly on the politician receiving the cash. Blaming the hired help is about mitigation, not innocence. I doubt Mr Plod will have too much trouble with this one either.
The third hurdle is whether there is enough evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction in a court of law. This doesn’t look like a particularly challenging obstacle either, given the public statements already made.
The final question is whether a prosecution serves the public interest. Whilst there will be some who continue to bay for blood, I, for one, am far from convinced that any great public interest is served by proceeding to prosecution in this case. Although in theory (if convicted) he could be jailed and / or fined, the most probable outcome of a guilty verdict is a small fine and a slap on the wrist. The costs of a prosecution will be high in relation to that outcome, and the real punishment - the destruction of his career - has already been meted out.
So my prediction at this stage is that the investigation will conclude, after several months, with a recommendation that no action be taken, as happened with the ‘cash for peerages’ row. Such a conclusion is probably the best he can hope for – and probably the ‘right’ outcome as well. It will be spun as some sort of exoneration, of course – but it hardly amounts to ‘clearing his name’. And, criminal issues aside, it still leaves a whole host of political questions around the amount spent on an internal election, the provenance of some of the donations, and the rather bizarre use of a 'think tank' to channel some of the funds.
The first thing that any police investigation has to establish is whether a crime has been committed. This looks like an easy hurdle; no-one is in any doubt that there was a legal requirement to declare donations within a specified time, and no-one denies that that was not done.
The second hurdle is to identify the miscreant. In the court of public opinion, this is open to some doubt. I, like many others, am quite prepared to believe that he left this responsibility to others, and they have badly let him down. But the court of public opinion isn’t the final arbiter here – the Act of Parliament passed by a government of which Hain was a prominent member makes it clear that the responsibility lies very firmly on the politician receiving the cash. Blaming the hired help is about mitigation, not innocence. I doubt Mr Plod will have too much trouble with this one either.
The third hurdle is whether there is enough evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction in a court of law. This doesn’t look like a particularly challenging obstacle either, given the public statements already made.
The final question is whether a prosecution serves the public interest. Whilst there will be some who continue to bay for blood, I, for one, am far from convinced that any great public interest is served by proceeding to prosecution in this case. Although in theory (if convicted) he could be jailed and / or fined, the most probable outcome of a guilty verdict is a small fine and a slap on the wrist. The costs of a prosecution will be high in relation to that outcome, and the real punishment - the destruction of his career - has already been meted out.
So my prediction at this stage is that the investigation will conclude, after several months, with a recommendation that no action be taken, as happened with the ‘cash for peerages’ row. Such a conclusion is probably the best he can hope for – and probably the ‘right’ outcome as well. It will be spun as some sort of exoneration, of course – but it hardly amounts to ‘clearing his name’. And, criminal issues aside, it still leaves a whole host of political questions around the amount spent on an internal election, the provenance of some of the donations, and the rather bizarre use of a 'think tank' to channel some of the funds.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Crimes and Misdemeanours
The other day, I witnessed what I can only describe as an ‘altercation’ between a motorcyclist and a traffic warden. The latter had just issued a ticket to the former for illegally parking in a bay marked 'Loading only'. The motorcyclist's response was to complain bitterly about the fact that there had been no warden around earlier when he had seen some cars double-parked in the same street. The traffic warden was less than entirely impressed with this as a defence, and made it clear that he thought that he had the motorcyclist 'bang to rights’. Hard to argue with him really.
In a roundabout way, this brings me back to our beloved Secretary of State. The case for the Defence seems to rest in part on the fact that other people have also been naughty girls and boys, and in fact (in the judgement of Paul Flynn, inter alia) have committed far worse offences than Mr Hain. His only sin, it is claimed, is a degree of incompetence in the way he managed his campaign staff. I'm really not sure that this line should be of much more help to him than it was to the motorcyclist.
Sure, all three of the Plaid MPs were caught out breaking the rules of the House of Commons on the way in which their Communications Allowance was spent. Completely unjustifiable, and the line that they sought advice first was another pretty feeble piece of defence work. They were hauled up before the Standards Committee, and found wanting. In the view of many they were lucky to get off as lightly as they did.
Sure, the Conservatives seem to be involved in a degree of chicanery over donations which looks to be every bit as bad as some of Labour’s recent sins. There is no excuse for not holding a full and proper investigation into the situation.
Sure, some of these things are misdemeanours rather than crimes, in the sense that they break the rules of the House of Commons rather than the criminal law. However, the distinction, from the point of view of public perception, is a fine one; and it ill behoves those guilty of one type of offence to be baying so loudly for the blood of others.
What none of these diversions can in any way alter is the fact that there was a legal requirement on Mr Hain personally to provide a full and accurate declaration of costs and donations within a specified time period. Events have shown that he not only failed to comply with this requirement, but that he failed in a fairly spectacular fashion. He may be lucky, and get off lightly with a slap on the wrist. If he does, he may well salvage his career, if not his reputation. There is a danger, though, that the Electoral Commission starts to look like a paper tiger – a bit like a traffic warden who only points out people’s sins, but never issues any tickets.
In a roundabout way, this brings me back to our beloved Secretary of State. The case for the Defence seems to rest in part on the fact that other people have also been naughty girls and boys, and in fact (in the judgement of Paul Flynn, inter alia) have committed far worse offences than Mr Hain. His only sin, it is claimed, is a degree of incompetence in the way he managed his campaign staff. I'm really not sure that this line should be of much more help to him than it was to the motorcyclist.
Sure, all three of the Plaid MPs were caught out breaking the rules of the House of Commons on the way in which their Communications Allowance was spent. Completely unjustifiable, and the line that they sought advice first was another pretty feeble piece of defence work. They were hauled up before the Standards Committee, and found wanting. In the view of many they were lucky to get off as lightly as they did.
Sure, the Conservatives seem to be involved in a degree of chicanery over donations which looks to be every bit as bad as some of Labour’s recent sins. There is no excuse for not holding a full and proper investigation into the situation.
Sure, some of these things are misdemeanours rather than crimes, in the sense that they break the rules of the House of Commons rather than the criminal law. However, the distinction, from the point of view of public perception, is a fine one; and it ill behoves those guilty of one type of offence to be baying so loudly for the blood of others.
What none of these diversions can in any way alter is the fact that there was a legal requirement on Mr Hain personally to provide a full and accurate declaration of costs and donations within a specified time period. Events have shown that he not only failed to comply with this requirement, but that he failed in a fairly spectacular fashion. He may be lucky, and get off lightly with a slap on the wrist. If he does, he may well salvage his career, if not his reputation. There is a danger, though, that the Electoral Commission starts to look like a paper tiger – a bit like a traffic warden who only points out people’s sins, but never issues any tickets.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Perhaps he's just having a laugh
Like many others, including some of his political opponents, I was initially prepared to give Peter Hain the benefit of the doubt. After all, he was a busy man, with two ministries to run as well as his campaign for the deupty leadership. Overlooking a single donation shouldn't have happened, but everyone can make a simple mistake - although £5,000 looks like a lot of mistake to most of us.
Overlooking 17 separate donations requires the benefit of a great deal more doubt, however. And when the total of those donations added together comes to a whopping £103,000 - more than doubling the expenditure previously declared – the amount of 'benefit of doubt' required is stretched even further.
As if that were not enough, it seems that part of the reason for the non-declaration of these amounts was that these were late donations, only solicited after unpaid bills for the campaign started to arrive. It seems that they not only didn't know how much they had received - they didn't know how much they had spent either.
Five of the previously unrecorded donations were made through a think tank, which, as Betsan Powys reports, seems to have done very little thinking to date. By complete coincidence, it seems to have been set up just weeks after the commencement of Hain’s campaign, and to have been established by a leading figure (whose precise role seems still to be under debate) in Hain’s campaign. By further amazing coincidence, one of the donors to this think tank was another of those involved in managing Hain’s campaign.
Hain’s defence is that he was not involved in the day to day running of the campaign, that he trusted others to do it, and was pre-occupied with his important ministerial jobs. That's a credible defence, but only up to a point. If it’s true, then we have to accept that when he, in all sincerity, signed off a return of donations declaring a total of £82,000, he didn’t realise that his campaign had spent more than twice that, didn’t know what they’d spent the money on during his campaign, and didn’t know that there were a number of unpaid bills which had yet to arrive.
If we believe what he says, then his lack of involvement/ interest in what was being done in his name and on his behalf is truly staggering. It is easy to see why so many believe that his position has become untenable.
Overlooking 17 separate donations requires the benefit of a great deal more doubt, however. And when the total of those donations added together comes to a whopping £103,000 - more than doubling the expenditure previously declared – the amount of 'benefit of doubt' required is stretched even further.
As if that were not enough, it seems that part of the reason for the non-declaration of these amounts was that these were late donations, only solicited after unpaid bills for the campaign started to arrive. It seems that they not only didn't know how much they had received - they didn't know how much they had spent either.
Five of the previously unrecorded donations were made through a think tank, which, as Betsan Powys reports, seems to have done very little thinking to date. By complete coincidence, it seems to have been set up just weeks after the commencement of Hain’s campaign, and to have been established by a leading figure (whose precise role seems still to be under debate) in Hain’s campaign. By further amazing coincidence, one of the donors to this think tank was another of those involved in managing Hain’s campaign.
Hain’s defence is that he was not involved in the day to day running of the campaign, that he trusted others to do it, and was pre-occupied with his important ministerial jobs. That's a credible defence, but only up to a point. If it’s true, then we have to accept that when he, in all sincerity, signed off a return of donations declaring a total of £82,000, he didn’t realise that his campaign had spent more than twice that, didn’t know what they’d spent the money on during his campaign, and didn’t know that there were a number of unpaid bills which had yet to arrive.
If we believe what he says, then his lack of involvement/ interest in what was being done in his name and on his behalf is truly staggering. It is easy to see why so many believe that his position has become untenable.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Gunboats and Megaphones
During a day in which a host of Plaid politicians took to the airwaves to condemn the latest remarks by Peter Hain, David Cornock asked the simple question – what is so surprising about a politician expressing a consistent viewpoint? It’s a fair question, and deserves an answer.
I think that there were two aspects of Hain’s latest remarks which provoked the ire of Plaid on this occasion.
The first was the timing. Hain’s previous statements were mostly made before or around the time of the discussions on One Wales, and could have been dismissed as the views of an individual being input to the debate. This weekend’s comments were made within days of the joint announcements by Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones that a Chair had been appointed to the Convention, that the referendum would be held on or before the date of the next Assembly elections and that there was, as Morgan put it, "no reason to depart from that commitment". Seen in that context, Hain’s comments looked like a deliberate attempt to sabotage or undermine the decision of the Assembly Government.
The second was the implicit threat that Westminster would use its veto to block a referendum, regardless of any decision in Cardiff. The provision in the Government of Wales Act that there needed to be a two-thirds majority in the Assembly before a referendum could be triggered was always intended to make it difficult for the Assembly to act; and impossible without the backing of Labour. The requirement for a vote in Westminster was a backstop, but not really expected to be necessary, since it would inevitably involve over-riding the views of the Assembly. Paradoxically, when it is now clear that there is easily a two-thirds majority – with probably 50 plus of the 60 AM's voting for, and only Tories (most of them anyway) voting against – in the Assembly for taking this step, it makes it much more serious for Westminster to resist the will of Cardiff on this issue. Yet that seemed to be exactly what Hain was saying he would do.
Normal Mouth is always thoughtful in his analysis, and I frequently find myself in agreement with him, but on this occasion, by referring to Plaid synthesising a ‘toxic level of anger’, I think he’s got it wrong. In signing up to One Wales after a special conference of the Labour Party agreed by 4:1, and a special meeting of Plaid’s National Council agreed by 9:1, I think that Plaid thought that they had an agreement between the two parties, not just between the AM’s of both parties. They always knew that it didn’t apply to reserved matters, or local government matters, but they expected that it would apply to the key elements of One Wales.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the agreement to hold a referendum in getting Plaid’s support for One Wales, and in that context, a statement from someone as prominent as Hain in the Labour Party implying that Labour would use its majority in London to block the proposal by the One Wales government is inevitably raising concern within Plaid as to whether Labour are serious about the commitment which they gave.
Plaid will have two concerns at this point. The first is that they could be duped into supporting the One Wales government for four years on the basis of a false prospectus. If Labour aren't serious about their commitment, Plaid will want to know that now, rather than later. The second is that Plaid's membership may start to become restless about the deal. In this context, I found it significant that Plaid's Chair was amongst those deployed yesterday. They usually only wheel Dixon out to talk about internal party issues; I suspect that this signifies that at least some in Plaid's high command are concerned about a possible internal challenge to the agreement - and indeed Adam Price seemed to be saying as much yesterday.
Of course, Hain and some of those who jumped to his support have genuine concerns. If those concerns are about the winnability of any referendum rather than about patching over the cracks in the Labour Party, they are valid even within the context of the One Wales agreement. Those concerns should properly be considered and discussed through the Convention - on that at least I agree with Normal Mouth.
But by engaging in megaphone discussions, and threatening to use the gunboat to get his own way, Hain went a step too far. Certainly, Plaid need to show a little more understanding of the difficulties within the Labour Party, and not necessarily try and exploit them on each and every occasion (although if Labour really do present them with open goals…); but Labour also need to understand the importance and significance of this issue for Plaid’s support. This is not just a policy issue within One Wales where changed circumstances might need a degree of flexibility; this is a fundamental pillar of the agreement, and it appeared that Hain was proposing that it could be over-ridden.
I suspect that Plaid don’t really need a formal and public humiliation of Hain by Rhodri Morgan, whatever they may say. But they do need much more confidence that the Labour Party, not just Labour AM’s, feel some ownership of One Wales and the commitments therein. Labour will be making a serious mistake if they don’t respond to that.
I think that there were two aspects of Hain’s latest remarks which provoked the ire of Plaid on this occasion.
The first was the timing. Hain’s previous statements were mostly made before or around the time of the discussions on One Wales, and could have been dismissed as the views of an individual being input to the debate. This weekend’s comments were made within days of the joint announcements by Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn Jones that a Chair had been appointed to the Convention, that the referendum would be held on or before the date of the next Assembly elections and that there was, as Morgan put it, "no reason to depart from that commitment". Seen in that context, Hain’s comments looked like a deliberate attempt to sabotage or undermine the decision of the Assembly Government.
The second was the implicit threat that Westminster would use its veto to block a referendum, regardless of any decision in Cardiff. The provision in the Government of Wales Act that there needed to be a two-thirds majority in the Assembly before a referendum could be triggered was always intended to make it difficult for the Assembly to act; and impossible without the backing of Labour. The requirement for a vote in Westminster was a backstop, but not really expected to be necessary, since it would inevitably involve over-riding the views of the Assembly. Paradoxically, when it is now clear that there is easily a two-thirds majority – with probably 50 plus of the 60 AM's voting for, and only Tories (most of them anyway) voting against – in the Assembly for taking this step, it makes it much more serious for Westminster to resist the will of Cardiff on this issue. Yet that seemed to be exactly what Hain was saying he would do.
Normal Mouth is always thoughtful in his analysis, and I frequently find myself in agreement with him, but on this occasion, by referring to Plaid synthesising a ‘toxic level of anger’, I think he’s got it wrong. In signing up to One Wales after a special conference of the Labour Party agreed by 4:1, and a special meeting of Plaid’s National Council agreed by 9:1, I think that Plaid thought that they had an agreement between the two parties, not just between the AM’s of both parties. They always knew that it didn’t apply to reserved matters, or local government matters, but they expected that it would apply to the key elements of One Wales.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the agreement to hold a referendum in getting Plaid’s support for One Wales, and in that context, a statement from someone as prominent as Hain in the Labour Party implying that Labour would use its majority in London to block the proposal by the One Wales government is inevitably raising concern within Plaid as to whether Labour are serious about the commitment which they gave.
Plaid will have two concerns at this point. The first is that they could be duped into supporting the One Wales government for four years on the basis of a false prospectus. If Labour aren't serious about their commitment, Plaid will want to know that now, rather than later. The second is that Plaid's membership may start to become restless about the deal. In this context, I found it significant that Plaid's Chair was amongst those deployed yesterday. They usually only wheel Dixon out to talk about internal party issues; I suspect that this signifies that at least some in Plaid's high command are concerned about a possible internal challenge to the agreement - and indeed Adam Price seemed to be saying as much yesterday.
Of course, Hain and some of those who jumped to his support have genuine concerns. If those concerns are about the winnability of any referendum rather than about patching over the cracks in the Labour Party, they are valid even within the context of the One Wales agreement. Those concerns should properly be considered and discussed through the Convention - on that at least I agree with Normal Mouth.
But by engaging in megaphone discussions, and threatening to use the gunboat to get his own way, Hain went a step too far. Certainly, Plaid need to show a little more understanding of the difficulties within the Labour Party, and not necessarily try and exploit them on each and every occasion (although if Labour really do present them with open goals…); but Labour also need to understand the importance and significance of this issue for Plaid’s support. This is not just a policy issue within One Wales where changed circumstances might need a degree of flexibility; this is a fundamental pillar of the agreement, and it appeared that Hain was proposing that it could be over-ridden.
I suspect that Plaid don’t really need a formal and public humiliation of Hain by Rhodri Morgan, whatever they may say. But they do need much more confidence that the Labour Party, not just Labour AM’s, feel some ownership of One Wales and the commitments therein. Labour will be making a serious mistake if they don’t respond to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)