Tomos Livingstone in rounding up the Norwich North by election result on his blog made the point that with politics turning so many people off these days, the political parties might increasingly be forced to turn to those who work for them to be candidates in Westminster and Cardiff Bay elections, because they simply can’t find enough people for all the Parliament, Assembly and Council seats they want to fight.
There’s nothing new in this of course Kevin Brennan MP, Nick Ramsey AM and Bethan Jenkins AM are but a few who have made the journey from political staff to politician but today’s politicians for all the flack they get could yet be seen as enlightened as we get ever closer to a situation where the overwhelming majority of politicians elected in the coming years were researchers, press officers and administration staff working for AM’s and MP’s and at Party headquarters.
The reason it matters is that good support staff can make up for the shortcomings and lack of knowledge of backbenchers and opposition politicians in the same way Civil Servants do for Ministers thus making our politicians at least sound more relevant, but if staff are only hired because they think along party lines, can they really add to the quality of debates or add anything to their profile when putting themselves forward to become politicians, it does make you wonder?
And with the possibility of so many candidates potentially being selected from their ranks maybe the partisan and closeted world at Westminster and Cardiff Bay should be opened up to the wider public so they can see that most support staff are hired straight out of university with little or no experience of working in the real world, making those who advise, speech write and write questions for our politicians out of touch with the vast majority of the voting public priority’s even before they get to be candidates. This will not help the reputation of politics in the short or long term.
Perhaps most worryingly of all and for the health of welsh democracy is this situation shows little sign of changing any time soon as the party’s seem quite happy with things as they are.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Apart from WAG’s desire to cling on to the powers it inherited, is there a credible reason why the WDA can’t be reinvented, Rhodri?
When discussing the merits of the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) potential successor, it is worth reminding people that the WDA was the first Development Agency of its kind and it was so successful that it was used as a template for Regional Development Agency’s such as Advantage West Midlands across the UK and in other countries around the world.
Now I’m sure that even those who supported the WDA would say it had faults and probably needed slimming down but welsh businesses, business support agencies and training agencies trusted those who worked there and vice versa. The WDA delivered on big inward investment projects bringing with them large numbers of jobs from companies like Sony and Panasonic as well as helping develop and support home grown business in all parts of Wales making its demise in 2006 seems all the more strange.
Worse still it was an act of political vanity and Tory bashing from current First Minister Rhodri Morgan rather than cold logic that got rid of the WDA and it means any change in the status quo of economic development will only happen after he’s left office, making the regular calls (this time from Professor Brian Morgan) for the WDA in some form or another to be re-launched all the more frustrating.
Frustrating because you don’t have to have believe in Margret Thatcher’s free market economics to understand that Wales is too reliant on the public sector for jobs and the private sector needs to grow with the right support away from what Professor Dylan Jones Evans calls risk adverse Civil Servants working in Economic Development in Cathays Park.
No surprise that a WAG spokesman has already dismissed Brian Morgan’s suggestions and said that reintroducing quangos is Wales a bad idea. If that’s the case here’s the test the next time the call for a new WDA comes along, ask yourself is the Department for Economic Development and Transport (the WDA’s replacement) is living up to the WDA’s four objectives: furthering the economic development of Wales, promoting industrial efficiency and international competitiveness, developing employment and improving the environment, if the answer is no then Rhodri Morgan not only has to answer for his stewardship of the welsh economy but his decision to scrap the WDA and take it ‘in house’.
More here from Valleys Mam, Borthlas, Disgusted of Llandrindod Wells ,
Now I’m sure that even those who supported the WDA would say it had faults and probably needed slimming down but welsh businesses, business support agencies and training agencies trusted those who worked there and vice versa. The WDA delivered on big inward investment projects bringing with them large numbers of jobs from companies like Sony and Panasonic as well as helping develop and support home grown business in all parts of Wales making its demise in 2006 seems all the more strange.
Worse still it was an act of political vanity and Tory bashing from current First Minister Rhodri Morgan rather than cold logic that got rid of the WDA and it means any change in the status quo of economic development will only happen after he’s left office, making the regular calls (this time from Professor Brian Morgan) for the WDA in some form or another to be re-launched all the more frustrating.
Frustrating because you don’t have to have believe in Margret Thatcher’s free market economics to understand that Wales is too reliant on the public sector for jobs and the private sector needs to grow with the right support away from what Professor Dylan Jones Evans calls risk adverse Civil Servants working in Economic Development in Cathays Park.
No surprise that a WAG spokesman has already dismissed Brian Morgan’s suggestions and said that reintroducing quangos is Wales a bad idea. If that’s the case here’s the test the next time the call for a new WDA comes along, ask yourself is the Department for Economic Development and Transport (the WDA’s replacement) is living up to the WDA’s four objectives: furthering the economic development of Wales, promoting industrial efficiency and international competitiveness, developing employment and improving the environment, if the answer is no then Rhodri Morgan not only has to answer for his stewardship of the welsh economy but his decision to scrap the WDA and take it ‘in house’.
More here from Valleys Mam, Borthlas, Disgusted of Llandrindod Wells ,
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
A different view of our political apathy and unrest
The following is from George Monbiot writing in the Guardian on 9th June, the title of his piece is Outsourcing Unrest.
‘Why now? It’s not as if this is the first time our representatives have been caught out. The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce. Pushing their own interests to the limit, they teeter perennially on the brink of disgrace, except when they fly clean over the edge. So why does the current ballyhoo threaten to destroy not only the government but also our antediluvian political system?
The past 15 years have produced the cash-for-questions racket, the Hinduja and Ecclestone affairs, the lies and fabrications which led to the invasion of Iraq, the forced abandonment of the BAE corruption probe, the cash-for-honours caper and the cash-for-amendments scandal. By comparison to the outright subversion of the functions of government in some of these cases, the expenses scandal is small beer. Any one of them should have prompted the sweeping political reforms we are now debating. But they didn’t.
The expenses scandal, by contrast, could kill the Labour party. It might also force politicians of all parties to address our injust voting system, the unelected House of Lords, the excessive power of the executive, the legalised blackmail used by the whips and a score of further anachronisms and injustices. Why is it different?
I believe that the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less to do with Gordon Brown’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.
The social unrest which might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. Following decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems.’
‘Why now? It’s not as if this is the first time our representatives have been caught out. The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce. Pushing their own interests to the limit, they teeter perennially on the brink of disgrace, except when they fly clean over the edge. So why does the current ballyhoo threaten to destroy not only the government but also our antediluvian political system?
The past 15 years have produced the cash-for-questions racket, the Hinduja and Ecclestone affairs, the lies and fabrications which led to the invasion of Iraq, the forced abandonment of the BAE corruption probe, the cash-for-honours caper and the cash-for-amendments scandal. By comparison to the outright subversion of the functions of government in some of these cases, the expenses scandal is small beer. Any one of them should have prompted the sweeping political reforms we are now debating. But they didn’t.
The expenses scandal, by contrast, could kill the Labour party. It might also force politicians of all parties to address our injust voting system, the unelected House of Lords, the excessive power of the executive, the legalised blackmail used by the whips and a score of further anachronisms and injustices. Why is it different?
I believe that the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less to do with Gordon Brown’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.
The social unrest which might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. Following decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems.’
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
‘Unemployment inflicting a huge toll on the UK’
Is it a sign of the times (or my own prejudices) but people seem more prepared to admit what many of us have known all along, that those who work in the City of London know the wealth they are creating is not reaching many outside London and the South East and that unemployment does concern the City albeit for different reasons than the Government and Opposition politicians as this excerpt from Allister Heath, Editor of City AM London free business daily column on the latest unemployment figures shows
'Irritatingly, the most recent figures on that measure are 10 months old. Updating them with some of the more recent jobless stats, we would probably get a total of 5.5m people on out of work benefits. Stripping out the 1.5m or so who couldn’t work even if they were offered a job leaves real unemployment of at least 4m. This is a great scandal. It is easy, when one works in London, to forget that even at the bubble’s peak vast numbers of people were excluded from the prosperity visible all around them. The current poor jobs figures are therefore nothing new – but, if anything, this makes them even more unbearable.'
The Full Article is here
'Irritatingly, the most recent figures on that measure are 10 months old. Updating them with some of the more recent jobless stats, we would probably get a total of 5.5m people on out of work benefits. Stripping out the 1.5m or so who couldn’t work even if they were offered a job leaves real unemployment of at least 4m. This is a great scandal. It is easy, when one works in London, to forget that even at the bubble’s peak vast numbers of people were excluded from the prosperity visible all around them. The current poor jobs figures are therefore nothing new – but, if anything, this makes them even more unbearable.'
The Full Article is here
Monday, July 27, 2009
Some snippets on the Conservatives and Wales from David Melding
I’ve finished reading ‘Will Britain survive beyond 2020?’ and it offers some interesting insight in to the Conservatives and Wales, here’s what I’ve learned.
Firstly the Conservatives as well as Labour have made the Secretary of State for Wales post a part time job by giving the job holder more than one portfolio in Cabinet.
The Conservative Unionist real objection to welsh independence is the affect it would have in strengthening other people striving for autonomy/independence in the rest of the world as opposed to the economic reason that Wales couldn’t stand on its own two feet which is so often the reason highlighted by those who want the UK to remain intact.
One of the main reasons that Conservative Party did not catch on in Wales in the same way as it did in Scotland and England during the 1880’s owes much to Conservative Party’s protectionist trade policy which hampered the Coal and Steel Industry with higher taxes which were the lifeblood of Wales at the time as well as to later insensitivities which gained the party the anti welsh label.
Finally that David Melding has a very good knowledge of welsh history, it makes me wonder how many of his fellow Conservative or AM’s from other party have anything as detailed a knowledge as he does and whether it could improve to the quality of debate in the Assembly Chamber if our AM’s knew a little more political and social welsh history.
Firstly the Conservatives as well as Labour have made the Secretary of State for Wales post a part time job by giving the job holder more than one portfolio in Cabinet.
The Conservative Unionist real objection to welsh independence is the affect it would have in strengthening other people striving for autonomy/independence in the rest of the world as opposed to the economic reason that Wales couldn’t stand on its own two feet which is so often the reason highlighted by those who want the UK to remain intact.
One of the main reasons that Conservative Party did not catch on in Wales in the same way as it did in Scotland and England during the 1880’s owes much to Conservative Party’s protectionist trade policy which hampered the Coal and Steel Industry with higher taxes which were the lifeblood of Wales at the time as well as to later insensitivities which gained the party the anti welsh label.
Finally that David Melding has a very good knowledge of welsh history, it makes me wonder how many of his fellow Conservative or AM’s from other party have anything as detailed a knowledge as he does and whether it could improve to the quality of debate in the Assembly Chamber if our AM’s knew a little more political and social welsh history.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
It’s still personality over policy to win elections
Janet Daley at the Sunday Telegraph writes about the Conservative strategy in the run up to the General Election it involves making the most of David Cameron’s personality rather than Tory policy following Margaret Thatcher’s example apparently. The comments are in a wider article are about Obama’s great rhetoric and lack of policy substance, Tony Blair also gets a mention about leaders who has more style over substance, It begs the questions have the right wing commentators finally caught on to David Cameron’s vagueness as a leader and as potential Prime Minister.
Janet writes ‘Which brings us to David Cameron, who is no slouch in the rhetoric department either. Mr Cameron and his friends are convinced that his personality – and the credibility of his leadership – is what matters now. They will put all their efforts into pushing the man and his gift of persuasiveness, rather than the solutions that he and his colleagues might bring to actual problems. They apparently believe that there is a sound precedent for this as a successful electoral formula in a time of crisis. Margaret Thatcher, it is often said, did not outline her policies in any detail before her great victory in 1979, even though the economy was imploding and the country forced to a standstill by industrial disruption. Instead, she relied on inspirational speeches and the power of her palpable conviction.’
The article concludes ‘And we have to ask whether Mr Cameron's expressions of personal conviction could ever have quite the authentic ring of Mrs Thatcher's. Hers were convincing because they were of a piece with her background. When she spoke of the virtues of aspiration and self-improvement, you knew that she believed it because she had lived it. Mr Cameron, alas, cannot talk of his favourite themes – a broken society, the economic struggle of everyday life – with quite the same credible familiarity, so we are inclined to demand more from him than a personal testament. Indeed, we may be entering a political era in which the over-riding question will be: "What does all this amount to?" And the answer will need to be short and tough.’
Janet writes ‘Which brings us to David Cameron, who is no slouch in the rhetoric department either. Mr Cameron and his friends are convinced that his personality – and the credibility of his leadership – is what matters now. They will put all their efforts into pushing the man and his gift of persuasiveness, rather than the solutions that he and his colleagues might bring to actual problems. They apparently believe that there is a sound precedent for this as a successful electoral formula in a time of crisis. Margaret Thatcher, it is often said, did not outline her policies in any detail before her great victory in 1979, even though the economy was imploding and the country forced to a standstill by industrial disruption. Instead, she relied on inspirational speeches and the power of her palpable conviction.’
The article concludes ‘And we have to ask whether Mr Cameron's expressions of personal conviction could ever have quite the authentic ring of Mrs Thatcher's. Hers were convincing because they were of a piece with her background. When she spoke of the virtues of aspiration and self-improvement, you knew that she believed it because she had lived it. Mr Cameron, alas, cannot talk of his favourite themes – a broken society, the economic struggle of everyday life – with quite the same credible familiarity, so we are inclined to demand more from him than a personal testament. Indeed, we may be entering a political era in which the over-riding question will be: "What does all this amount to?" And the answer will need to be short and tough.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)