Getting what you really, really want

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.

LibDem Maths

It's clear enough from the headlines in today's Western Mail:

Lib-Dems £3.1bn plan for green jobs

The Liberal Democrats yesterday launched a £3.1bn plan to create green jobs and bring £125m to Wales.

Yet the first thing that struck me was that this was far from being a good deal for Wales. Nobody needs a calculator to work out that our rightful 5% share of £3.1bn is £155m ... so we in Wales would immediately be short-changed relative to the remainder of the UK by £30m. On second thoughts, perhaps the LibDems do need someone to buy them a calculator.

     

But let's leave that to one side, because any additional spending on the Green economy is something I would welcome. Let's look to see if this still a good idea ... even if the rest of the UK will benefit from the money more than Wales. Their version of the story is here.

Did I say additional spending? Well, it turns out that it isn't additional spending at all. This is what they say:

The plans target £3.1bn of public spending that can be stopped and the money used to create jobs and protect the environment.

But as we might expect, there is absolutely no mention of what particular areas of public spending are in line to be "stopped". The Health Service? Education? Police? The Fire and Rescue services? Who knows? ... for the LibDems certain aren't telling us! We are simply expected to trust Kirsty Williams when she says these are "credible and costed plans". My guess is that these must yet more of the fabled "efficiency savings" that spring up whenever an election is called ... but haven't the LibDems banked on these savings at least once already? Perhaps we should just marvel at how a new batch of these savings can be plucked off the tree whenever the LibDems want to publicize a "new" idea.

     

But let's still give them the benefit of the doubt and look at how they intend to spend this money. As it happens, the MPs that we are about to elect to Westminster are not going to spend it at all ... they're going to give this £125m to the Assembly with "suggestions" about how it should be spent, since most of the things they want to spend it on in England are devolved matters in Wales and Scotland.

But here we hit a snag. For even though the LibDems aren't specific about which public spending budgets they will "stop" in order to create this new "Green" package, the Welsh block grant will have to be reduced by 5% of the £3.1bn they intend to save in the UK as a whole, because the Barnett Formula works both ways. So in fact this loudly proclaimed £125m—which would have short-changed Wales by £30m if it were additional money—is in fact a £30m cut in the block grant Wales would otherwise get ... a block grant that we already know is going to be cut back, and in all likelihood will be cut back further no matter which, or which combination, of the three UK parties forms the next Westminster Government.

In short, you couldn't make it up! Unless you're a LibDem, of course. This is the sort of maths that only makes sense on planet Clegg as seen from its attendant moon, Kirstopia.

     

Now at this point I want to be clear. I do agree that we should invest more money in the sort of things that the LibDems "suggest" the Welsh Government should spend things on. But devolution doesn't work that way. Those decisions are not for our MPs to take in Westminster ... the LibDems should save their "suggestions" for the Assembly elections next year, because it will be up to the AMs we elect to the Assembly to decide how we spend our block grant. That will include, if the LibDems get into a position to implement this new plan of theirs, the headache of how to do things with £30m less than we would otherwise be getting.

And many of their suggestions turn out to be things the Welsh Government is already doing. For example, the LibDems suggestion to expand the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme would be fine but, on a pro-rata basis, we would not have £20m more to do it with, but about £5m less.

The LibDems might have their hearts in the right place, but as soon as you look at what they propose in any degree of detail it doesn't take long to realize that it's the disconnexion from their heads that is the problem. It's all very well to put a "Green label" on any idea you come up with. But to really create a more Green economy, our thinking needs to be much more radical ... and our maths much more accurate.

What are the LibDems for?

It is always good to hear someone advocating a fairer and more consistent devolution settlement for Wales, so some of these sentences from Nick Clegg, the leader of the LibDems, are particularly welcome:

Clegg "passionate" about giving more power to Wales

The National Assembly should be transformed into a full parliament with the same powers as its Scottish counterpart, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has declared.

The party will vote on Tuesday to support a referendum which could give the Assembly law-making powers in 20 strictly defined areas. But Mr Clegg believes devolution in Wales should go further.

In an interview with the Western Mail, he said: “I am a passionate believer in devolving power away from London and Westminster to the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and I think that means the maximum amount of powers for Scotland, for Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom.”

Arguing this was the best way of guaranteeing the long-term future of the UK, he said: “I think there is nothing inconsistent between keeping the union but devolving ever more powers. In fact, I think the way to keep the union fresh and strong in the decades ahead is precisely to give more and more powers to Holyrood and Cardiff.”

Western Mail - 8 February 2010

However the problem with the LibDems is that they are very good at talking this sort of talk, yet don't have such a good record of walking the walk. The language that Nick Clegg has used is one of devolving "the maximum amount of powers" away from London and Westminster. Fair enough. But when it come to an obvious area in which powers could be devolved to Wales he suddenly becomes very vague and noncommittal:

When asked if he would support the devolution of criminal and justice powers to Wales, he said:

"We would look at it. We are completely open-minded. We have no arbitrary red-lines at all ... "

That isn't a consistent answer. These powers are devolved to Scotland, and are—if everything goes according to plan—going to be devolved to Northern Ireland as well. So why couldn't Nick Clegg answer the question with a simple, unequivocal "Yes"?

     

Much the same is true of the LibDems' position in Scotland. As I commented here a few months ago, if the LibDems really did want "devolution max" for Scotland, why tie themselves to the almost minimal increases of responsibility for matters in Scotland advocated by Calman? They could very easily come up with their own devolution policies for Scotland to include much greater fiscal autonomy, responsibility for the tax and benefits system, broadcasting and many smaller issues. These could then be put as a third option in a referendum on independence later this year. (It is pointless putting the Calman proposals to a referendum since all parties, between them representing the huge majority of people in Scotland, agree on them as a minimum.) Between them the SNP, Greens and LibDems could carry a vote in the Scottish Parliament to set up such a referendum, and it would put the two big parties in London in a very awkward position if they decided not to implement what had been voted for.

So why exactly are the LibDems so lily-livered? They have a golden opportunity to present the people of Scotland with their ideal vision of a Scotland within the UK. Why are they so afraid to put those cards on the table?

It is hard for me to escape the conclusion that they are putting their own electoral advantage before any issue of principle. Following their "behind closed doors" conference last year it seems that they only want to do this after the Scottish elections in 2011, hoping that their number of seats will increase as a result of them showing themselves more in favour or more devolution that either Labour or the Tories. But they have enough seats to do it now, so why wait?

     

In Wales, the Labour party has shown us that it only wanted devolution as a way of strengthening its own hold on Wales, and now only wants to move to primary lawmaking powers for the Assembly because it is about to lose power in Westminster. But at least Labour has now come round, the Tories will always be in two minds.

But there would seem to be every opportunity for a party that wants to see devolution progress further in Wales ... but stop short of independence. Why aren't the LibDems in Wales making more of that message? Why are they only prepared to say they are "open minded" over policing and justice? Why, for example, don't we hear them say that they want control over the question of welfare and benefits transferred to Wales? After all, there is very substantial support for it in Wales, as I've mentioned before:

Survey respondents were asked about which level of government "ought to make most of the important decisions for Wales" for four key policy areas: Welfare Benefits, the National Health Service, Schools, and Defence and Foreign Affairs. Results are presented in Figure 6.3 below. These show not only clear majority public support for the devolved level of government to have control over areas where they already make many decisions—on schooling and healthcare—but also a similar level of public endorsement for those powers to extend to an area like welfare benefits. The latter is striking, as it is a policy area that currently remains very much reserved to Westminster.

Source

In fact, for the last four years in a row, the BBC's annual poll has shown that people in Wales think the Assembly should have more influence over our lives than Westminster by a huge margin of about three to one:

60% to 21% in 2006
56% to 19% in 2007
61% to 22% in 2008
61% to 21% in 2009

It is good to see that Dib Lemming is blogging again, I hope she continues. But her first post after a long absence was to berate the fact that the LibDems could not escape being asked which parties they would work with. I want to be less mealy mouthed. In the 2011 Assembly election I expect to see Plaid get somewhere between seven and ten additional seats, but it is hard to see how we could win more than 25 seats.

After the 2007 election Plaid were in the unique position of being able to work with either the LibDems and Tories in the Rainbow, or with Labour. I think it's fair to say that we chose Labour for two major reasons: first because we could not get the referendum on primary lawmaking powers without them (it needs 40 AMs to vote in favour) and second because some of our AMs would have found it almost impossible to work with the Tories, even though the All Wales Accord itself contained hardly anything that was distinctively from the Tory manifesto.

Next time will be different because the referendum will have happened. Although Plaid probably won't get enough seats to form a government alone in 2011, there is a very real chance that we could form a government with the LibDems, even if only a minority government (Labour and the Tories will always cancel each other out because that is how they choose to position themselves in a UK context.) But to do that, the LibDems in Wales have got to start being a lot clearer about what they want for Wales. I would suggest that a clear commitment to the transfer of policing and justice, the responsibility for administering the welfare and benefits system, plus of course a substantial degree of fiscal powers for Wales (since we could use those levers to make it more attractive to do business in Wales, and therefore increase employment) could form a decent foundation to build an agreement on.

But although I think that might make sense to some LibDems, we have to go back to the rather sad fact that the majority of LibDem voters in Wales don't really seem to want the same things as LibDem politicians, as I mentioned here. And that—if you think that asking what the LibDems are for is facetious—does raise serious questions about why people actually vote for them.

     

Over the weekend I had the great pleasure of meeting Gwynoro Jones for the first time. Something which, by happy coincidence, ties in nicely with these two pieces about him and his son Glyndwr, Plaid's candidate in Merthyr, by Martin Shipton in the Western Mail yesterday:

     Once the biggest foe of Gwynfor, ex-Labour MP aids poll bid by Plaid son
     Gwynoro Jones brands Independent Wales a "childish fantasy"

Gwynoro was particularly active in the early days of the SDP when, for a brief year or two after breaking from the Labour Party, they looked like making a breakthrough in UK politics. But in the end they lost momentum and were subsumed into the old Liberal party, with all their passion for actually making a difference lost. Gwynoro can support his son because he knows Wales needs that sort of passion, even though it wouldn't be right for him to join Plaid because he does not want Wales to be independent (... and, as with Ron Davies, I would not want him to join unless he came to believe in independence.)

So my advice to the LibDems in Wales would be not to leave your leader in London to talk about his "passionate" (though not thought through) desire for greater self-government in Wales, but to start shaping some firm ideas on how you intend to go about it. If you can do that, you might have a reasonable hope of getting the votes of some of the consistent 60% or so who want to see the Assembly have more influence over the lives of people in Wales than Westminster ... but be careful, they might not be the people who vote for you now, since the majority of those who vote for you now are against further devolution.

However if you can't do that, don't be surprised if more and more of those people vote for Plaid simply because we are the only party with consistent ideas on how to devolve more areas of responsibility to Wales, even though they may not be persuaded about independence ... yet!