In an attempt to counter the rumours circulating at both ends of the M4 about Conservative differences over devolution, Nick Bourne's office cut short the bank holiday weekend to issue a press release. In it he said that as leader of the Conservative Group in the Assembly he continued to enjoy a close working relationship with Cheryl Gillan, the Secretary of State for Chesham and Wales.
The photographic evidence clearly shows that I'm nobody's poodle, he claimed.
A GUEST POST BY MADOC BATCUP
Madoc Batcup is an independent financial
consultant and director of Wales in London.
On the 21st May 2010 Radio 4's Any Questions hosted by Jonathan Dimbleby came to Gowerton to make their broadcast. You might have been forgiven for thinking that Gowerton was in Chesham and Amersham, the constituency of the new Secretary of State for Wales, for all the Welsh content that it had. None of the panellists came from Wales and none of the questions were in respect of Wales. Indeed, Wales was considered so denuded of anybody of sufficient ability to answer the questions that Grant Shapps, the housing minister with a pilot’s licence, was asked to fly himself to Swansea airport (presumably at licence payers' expense) to make up the numbers on the panel.
In addition we had the interesting spectacle of one of the questioners saying that although he had been "given a question to ask" he wanted to ask one of his own, thereby begging a number of questions as to the criteria used to select the questions in the first place.
At a time when there may be a referendum on additional powers for the Welsh Assembly later on this year, when there has been an announcement that the unfair Barnett funding formula for Wales will remain in place, and when there are now different parties/coalitions in power in Wales and in Westminster for the first time, there was no lack of potential questions with a Welsh dimension relevant to the UK as a whole. Indeed the fact that Wales has had a coalition government for three years might have been the subject of a question in terms of what Westminster could learn from the Welsh experience.
-
Of course this is not an isolated incident. The television programme Question Time hosted by the other half of the Dimbleby combo, David, was broadcast from Cardiff on the 25th February. Although on that occasion two of the panellists were Welsh MPs, no questions in respect of Wales were asked, although two that related almost exclusively to England (including one on the English football team) were.
More than a decade after devolution it is extraordinary that in the very programmes have pretensions to be less metropolitan in their approach by travelling around the UK, the BBC continues to flagrantly breach its own interpretation of its obligations of a public sector broadcaster.
In the BBC's Programme Response to Devolution published in December 1998, the BBC stated that:
In the past the BBC has sometimes appeared insensitive to political, administrative, cultural and linguistic differences across the UK, giving the impression of a London-based organisation dismissive of the more geographically distant parts of the UK. There have been errors of judgement and, on occasions, of accuracy.
As a priority, the BBC is now embarking on an extensive series of measures to educate journalists, programme makers and managers, alerting them to the differences across the UK ... they will include:
• Regular monitoring of programmes for sensitivity to differences between the nations.
These measures are important not only to enable the BBC to provide accurate and well judged news for its audiences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also to allow it to offer all viewers and listeners a true sense of the diversity within the UK.
Clearly the Any Questions programme from Gowerton failed to "offer all viewers and listeners a true sense of the diversity within the UK".
Clause 4(d) of the BBC Charter, states:
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows:
... (d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities.
Under the Agreement between the BBC and the UK government, signed at the time of the renewal of the BBC's Charter in July 2006, the BBC undertook a number of commitments in respect of this Charter Principle, for example:
In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities, the Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC —
... (b) promotes awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different communities within the UK.
Under the Public Purpose Remit "Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities" published by the BBC Trust in 2007, the BBC undertakes to "represent the different nations, regions and communities to the rest of the UK" and also to "cater for the different nations, regions and communities of the UK."
It is clear therefore that the BBC has committed itself to ensuring that the interests of the different parts of the UK are reflected in its output, and that the rest of the UK is able to be informed about the differences of distinct regions and nations of the UK.
In addition the BBC Trustees commissioned a report on this very issue which was published in 2008, entitled "The BBC Trust Impartiality Report: BBC Network News And Current Affairs Coverage of the Four UK Nations", popularly known as the King Report, after its author. This incorporated research done by Cardiff University.
The report noted inter alia that:
Notwithstanding examples of good practice, however, and supported by findings from the Cardiff research, the review highlights concern that BBC network news and current affairs programmes taken as a whole are not reporting the changing UK with the range and precision that might reasonably be expected given the high standards the BBC itself aspires to. There are specific concerns as to accuracy and clarity of reporting, the balance of coverage, and missed opportunities of drawing on the rich variety of the UK and communicating it to multiple audiences.
As examples, political coverage is seen as unduly focused on Westminster in volume and style; there is seen to be a general bias in favour of stories about England or telling stories from an England perspective; and there is evidence that several stories in the nations which may have been significant to the UK were not taken up by the network. Overall, Professor King concludes that the BBC has not responded adequately and appropriately to the UK’s changing political, social, economic and cultural architecture. In the closing sections of his report, he offers a range of suggestions and issues for consideration in resolving the concerns he has highlighted.
In its concluding comments on the report the BBC Trust stated:
However, we are concerned at Professor King’s assessment that the BBC is not reporting the changing UK with the range that might be expected, given the fact that audiences have expressed a desire to learn more about other parts of the UK in the BBC’s coverage. This echoes a wider concern expressed to the Trust that audiences see the BBC as too preoccupied with the interests and experiences of London, and that those who live elsewhere in the UK do not see their lives adequately reflected on the BBC. It is not acceptable that a BBC funded by licence fee payers across the whole country should not address the interests of them all in fair measure.
We are also concerned at the finding by Professor King that there is insufficient precision and clarity in the BBC's network coverage. The BBC's output must meet the high standards expected by the licence fee payer. It is essential that accurate information about political developments in the four nations is reflected in network news and current affairs so that the authority of the voice of the BBC is maintained, and the audience has confidence in that voice. To achieve full accuracy, the audience needs to be made aware by clear labelling which facts are applicable to which nations of the UK.
Some two years after the King Report the BBC is still failing to comply with the recommendations of the BBC Trust and nearly 12 years after its document "Programme Response to Devolution" it is still failing "to offer all viewers and listeners a true sense of the diversity within the UK".
Part of the problem may lie in the way the BBC measures its compliance of its public service obligation. Under its Operating Remit of 2007 it states that, "the Trust will use a system of quantitative measures." It is not so much the validity of the complaint as the quantity of complaints that is measured it would seem. I would therefore suggest that anyone who feels that the current situation is unsatisfactory after a period of twelve years of broken commitments should complain to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage where Sir Michael Lyons confirms that "your complaint is important to us."
The attitude of the Any Questions? programme in respect of Wales is, I think, emblematic of a more fundamental metropolitan mindset in the BBC; reflected for example in their approach to the last general election and the broadcasting of the leadership debates. The lavish salary structures of BBC executives and the inability of the BBC Trust to ensure the BBC provides an understanding of the devolution settlement across the UK raises serious questions as to whether the BBC is sufficiently accountable. As the new UK government starts to take the knife to the civil service the question is how, and by whom, will the BBC, privileged as it is to impose an annual flat tax on television usage, be taken to task to ensure it honours its commitments?
As David Cornock has noted, the next Westminster election is now scheduled for 7 May 2015 ... the very same day as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections.
Whatever else the Tories and LibDems are, they're not so stupid as to have not realized it, and are bound to try and justify the coincidence on the grounds that it will increase turnout and therefore as something which is good for democracy.
But applying the same logic, that means we should hold our referendum on primary lawmaking powers on 5 May 2011, the same day as the Assembly elections, for that will increase turnout in the same way. But no, the LibDems and the Tories in particular have been dead set against that idea, because they say it will confuse the voters; even though the more obvious reason is that it will split their party to have half campaigning for one thing, and half for something else, while at the same time trying to be united around their election manifesto. Nice to see the first manifestation of double standards.
-
To me, this is more than an innocent oversight, there is a more sinister agenda. The LibDems got to be in this position of power by virtue of an equal amount of exposure in the televised leaders debates. They will of course expect the same treatment again. So in 2015 the UK media will provide saturation coverage of what to 85% of the UK will be only one election (though there'll be a selection of council elections too) drowning out not only the voices of Plaid Cymru and the SNP on UK-wide issues, but any debate from all parties on the different issues that apply to the Senedd and Scottish Parliament.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Tories and the LibDems want to squeeze out Plaid and the SNP in elections to the devolved legislatures as well as to Westminster. This is a complete perversion of the democratic ideal of fixed-term parliaments. It is nothing but a blatant attempt to prevent democracy operating as it should.
-
But if the Tories and LibDems get away with this (for I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission will condemn them for it and try and get things changed) there is still a way that the Assembly and Scottish Parliament can get round it. We can call the elections up to six months early—for November 2014—with the next one held as usual in May 2019. But the circumstances are limited, for it requires a two-thirds majority in the Senedd, and the stitch up by the ConDems will suit Labour every bit as much as it does them for exactly the same reasons.
It's far from ideal, for nobody really wants a winter election with a lower turnout due to bad weather and dark evenings. And canvassing will be a nightmare. The idea situation would be for Westminster to have four year parliaments on a cycle that doesn't clash with the elections in Wales and Scotland.
I'm not going to criticize the LibDems for going into coalition with the Tories. Negotiating an agreement between parties is not only the normal way of forming a government in a democracy in which no party gets 50% of the vote, but it is the right way.
But the secret of any negotiation is to make sure you get what is really important to you. You need to strip out the inessential and concentrate on the essential. If you can find agreement on other things, fine. That's icing on the cake. But there's no point in getting the icing without getting the cake.
-
I'd invite people to think back three years to the Assembly election in 2007. Plaid were in a very similar position then to that in which the LibDems have found themselves in the last week. We had the choice between dealing with one party or a combination of other parties. Either way we would be in government. The choice was ours to make.
We dealt with the Tories and LibDems first, and came up with what I thought was a very good programme for government. But the one thing that we wanted above anything else was a referendum to give the Senedd primary lawmaking powers; and the only way of getting that was to agree a deal with Labour, because getting the referendum required a two-thirds majority in the Senedd. Everything else could be achieved by the simple majority that a coalition with the Tories and LibDems would have given us ... but Labour could effectively veto the referendum.
Going into the 2007 election, it was clear that Labour had no intention of holding that referendum any time in the foreseeable future. Back then, Peter Hain was talking about it taking a generation, others were saying at least ten years. The chances of getting them to agree to a referendum—and to campaign for a Yes vote in it as well—seemed to be about zero.
But we did it. We knew the basic instinct of a party like Labour is to be in power rather than in opposition.
-
Now look at the LibDems. The LibDems have always said that they think a fair voting system is fundamental. Yet it is now clear that they had not kept the demand for the Single Transferable Vote as an option in a referendum on electoral reform on the negotiating table. At some stage, perhaps during their negotiations with the Tories, or perhaps before they even went into the first meeting, they decided that they would only press for a referendum which included the Alternative Vote option. But having abandoned STV, they still pressed on with a whole host of other issues.
Then, when they walked away from the negotiations to talk to Labour, the Tories were able to shout after them to come back, saying they would now give the LibDems exactly what they had asked for with regard to electoral reform. The Tories did not say, "come back and we'll meet you half way by including AV but not STV in a referendum".
Now I can't guess at what the response would have been if the LibDems had stuck to their core principles. Perhaps they might have responded by saying, "OK, a step in the right direction is better than nothing" and we would be where we are now. But at least they would have had the option of saying, "No, if you accept it's right that the people should decide about the voting system in a referendum, then why shouldn't that referendum include both options?" In my opinion the Tories would have agreed to that: first, because the big thing was to concede the principle of a referendum and second, because—just as with Labour in 2007—the basic instinct of a party like the Tories is to be in power rather than in opposition.
-
Only a week or so ago I, like others, urged people who would normally vote Plaid to vote LibDem in seats where they stood the best chance of beating one of the two main parties. I did that for the sole reason that the LibDems, if given the opportunity, would put a more proportional voting system at the centre of their negotiations if they held the balance of power. They have betrayed the confidence I had in them.
They should have stood firm on what they believed in and let the Tories try and govern as a minority rather than compromise their core principle. As I said in other posts, the other parties did have enough votes to get a referendum thorough either as a short term alliance with that one aim, or in opposition. Then, after a referendum, we would elect a new parliament in which the numbers of seats better reflected the number of people who voted for each party.
But, by tying themselves to the Tories, the LibDems will not be able to break ranks. Yes, there will be a referendum where we will be asked to choose between FPTP and AV only. I am sure that either Plaid, the SNP or the Greens will put forward an amendment to that legislation to include an option on STV. But it will be voted down, and we will then witness the ultimate tragedy of the LibDems voting against STV, simply because they have bound themselves to an agreement with the Tories that does not allow for it.
And it will be a tragedy not only for them, but for democracy itself since, as I noted here, the vast majority of the public—62% to 13%—had supported the LibDems in wanting to see STV used for elections to Westminster.
Of course, when the referendum comes I will vote for AV, because I think it is a step in the right direction. But it contains no element of proportionality, and so in the next Westminster election one or other of the usual two parties will almost certainly get an artificially inflated majority of seats despite getting only a minority of the vote, and the LibDems will be unceremoniously dumped. The knife-edge result we just had was a once in a generation opportunity that they failed to take. They have sacrificed not only a fair electoral system, but their own future as well, in return for the promise of five of their politicians having a seat at the Cabinet table for five years.
I read this post by Peter Black yesterday and was struck by the pessimism of one part of what he said:
Labour ... are clinging to power in a desperate hope that the Liberal Democrats and other minor parties will join them in an anti-Tory coalition government. However, tempting as that is the numbers do not add up. Such a construct would not be stable and could not get its legislation through the House of Commons. That includes a PR Referendum Bill, which would surely fail to attract the support of all the Labour MPs, leaving Gordon Brown without anything to offer us.
And in his blog today, he seemed at pains to downplay the chances of getting any sort of electoral reform:
Much as I want to see electoral reform these talks are about bigger issues
Gordon Brown is dangling a referendum in front of us but he cannot deliver. The sort of coalition of losers he is promoting would be unstable and would not deliver electoral reform because the outgoing Prime Minister could not deliver his own Parliamentary Party
we [may] get less than electoral reform but will still be able to take a significant step forward
I can see where he's coming from, but it's clear to see that this line of thinking will get nowhere. So what I want to offer is a better way of looking at it, one that will deliver electoral reform ... which I think should be the main prize to be won from the tight result of this election.
-
At present the parties are talking at cross purposes.
• For the Tories, the emphasis is being put on a strong and stable government to get the UK out of the financial crisis. There might well be a role for the LibDems in this.
• For Labour, the idea is to maintain an "anything but the Tories" government, which they would of course lead.
But I would have thought that for the LibDems, the purpose is different. There must surely be one primary aim for the LibDems, namely reform of the voting method for the Commons. Other reforms are important too, but they must be instigated by the Commons and so it is right that they only happen when we have a House of Commons in which the number of seats more fairly represents the percentage of the vote obtained by each party. If we try and bundle everything together into one reform package to include fixed-term parliaments, the voting age, an elected House of Lords ... and maybe a few other things the chances of reaching an agreement become more remote. I firmly believe we should concentrate on only one issue: the voting system for the Commons.
There is a majority in the Commons for this reform:
Labour ... 258
LibDem ... 57
SNP ... 6
Plaid ... 3
SDLP ... 3
Green ... 1Total ... 328
It should also be noted that the "winning post" is not 326. It is 323 because Sinn Fein will not take their 5 seats. It's a small point, but the numbers count.
That is enough to get a referendum bill through. The numbers do not have to remain in place to form a stable long-term government, and it is very unlikely that they would do so because the parties have different agendas on most other matters. They just have to stack up for this single issue.
The aim would be to get this bill through in a matter of months, and to then hold a new election under the new voting system if that referendum is successful.
Having established that there are the numbers to do it, the issue then becomes: What are the options that should be presented in the referendum? In broad terms, there are five possible options:
• First-past-the-post (the status quo)
• FPTP, plus additional members (Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament)
• The Alternative Vote
• The Alternative Vote, plus additional members
• The Single Transferable Vote (Northern Ireland Assembly)
If there were just three options, it would be straightforward to ask two questions:
1. Should the current voting system to the HoC be changed?
Yes
No2. If the current voting system to the HoC is changed, should it be to:
System A
System B
This would be an elegant solution, similar to the questions asked in the referendum to set up a Scottish Parliament (a Yes/No on the Parliament followed by a Yes/No on tax varying powers) but it relies on whittling down the five options to three. However it is possible, particularly as three options represent the respective positions of the big three parties; the Tories want to keep FPTP, Labour want the Alternative Vote (without additional members) and the LibDems want the Single Transferable Vote.
The other option would be for people to rank the five options in order of preference with a "1, 2, 3 ... " with the outcome decided by using the Alternative Vote mechanism. I think that would be better in terms of breadth of choice, but not as elegant. It would also involve two options which are compromises, rather than what any party really wants. Who would campaign for the two compromise options?
-
So my conclusion is that the ballot paper for the referendum should contains these two questions:
1. Should the current voting system to the HoC be changed?
Yes
No2. If the current voting system to the HoC is changed, should it be to:
The Alternative Vote
The Single Transferable Vote
Now I do not see why any party should object to a referendum in this form. After all, the UK is meant to be a democracy, so this format leaves us the voters to decide.
If the three parties can agree to a binding referendum in this form, followed by a new election about at least three months but not longer than a year later, it then frees the parties to form whatever coalition or minority government they can negotiate based on all the other issues.
