There's always a danger that assuming the role of a Minister can lead to public statements and interviews being overly influenced by the civil service at the expense of making easily understood political points (dare I say political capital). From 6:00 a.m. today Good Morning Wales gave significant prominence to the story that proposed Assembly legislation on school transport was being criticised by campaigners for failing to address safety issues. By the time Ieuan Wyn was interviewed just after 8:00 the image had been built of an Assembly Government that was ignoring the opportunity to enact something that makes common sense and would be widely applauded. Ieuan had the opportunity to put the record straight and advance political objectives at the same time. It's really very simple. What he should have said is
"...of course we agree with the campaigners. The safety of our children is paramount. But because of the anomalies in our piecemeal devolution settlement the power to change this provision still rests with Westminster. It's illogical and frustrating, but that's the position we're in. I am taking action to change this, and expect the necessary powers to be transferred very soon. Then the Government in Wales will be able to act, and we will act decisively. This is one of very many examples of how the Assembly is currently hampered in achieving what's best for the people of Wales by a flawed devolution settlement..."
Instead of this we had words to the effect of "...I've taken legal advice and we can't do it... I've asked for the powers to be transferred but I don't know if they will be or when..." Defensive and ineffectual. Administratively correct but politically impotent. Ministers - even Deputy First Ministers - shouldn't acquiesce with the weaknesses of the system they operate within. They are entitled to express frustration. The leader of a party dedicated to changing that system radically has a duty to express that frustration and to go on the offensive to illustrate how things could be different. There is nothing incompatible between the roles of responsible Government Minister and radical politician.
Tuesday 30 September 2008
Wednesday 9 July 2008
Conventioners Beware
Listening to the remarkable rantings of Don Touhig this morning has spurred a dormant Pilchard into blogging again. It would be easy to dismiss his tirade as the embittered protestations of a man who has simply never come to terms with the fact that his beloved party failed to win a majority at the last Assembly election. Or those of a man whose own lacklustre political career is now even more peripheral to what's happening on a day to day basis as Wales progresses, the UK stagnates, and New Labour descends into terminal decline.
However, that would do Don an injustice. These were no throw away, off the cuff remarks. I have absolutely no doubt that this latest attack was well considered and part of a deliberate strategy to try and rubbish the work of the All Wales Convention before it even holds its first meeting. Conventioners* beware! There's a lot more of this puerile posturing yet to come. The path towards a meaningful and winnable referendum is going to be neither straight nor clean.
*I know there's no such word as Conventioners. But if it was a Commission they'd be called Commissioners wouldn't they?
However, that would do Don an injustice. These were no throw away, off the cuff remarks. I have absolutely no doubt that this latest attack was well considered and part of a deliberate strategy to try and rubbish the work of the All Wales Convention before it even holds its first meeting. Conventioners* beware! There's a lot more of this puerile posturing yet to come. The path towards a meaningful and winnable referendum is going to be neither straight nor clean.
*I know there's no such word as Conventioners. But if it was a Commission they'd be called Commissioners wouldn't they?
Thursday 3 April 2008
Mrs Jones still wants her bath...
There was only ever one justification for the creation of 22 Local Health Boards. That was the potential they offered, by virtue of co-terminosity, for genuine integration of health and social care provision. Of course that hasn't happened. The underlying conflict between the business cultures of local authorities, both constrained and legitimised by democratic accountability, and Local Health Boards (and Trusts) accountable to no-one but the Minister, was always too tough a nut to crack merely by creating common boundaries.
It was Peter Walker as Secretary of State (mercifully many years ago) who used the memorable phrase "creating a seamless robe of care" to describe the joint working arrangements between county councils and health authorities required under the Care in the Community legislation. An admirable aspiration which would have meant the experience of the patient would be unaffected by whether their needs for care and support were being met by social services or by health services. But it was an aspiration that could never be met as there's no such thing as a seamless patchwork. The component elements of the partnerships were too far apart structurally, culturally, financially and even ideologically for it to work. Put crudely, no-one ever resolved the issue of how Mrs Jones was to get a bath without bare-faced stand-offs between the two authorities arguing about whether Mrs Jones's ablutions were driven by a medical or a social need (i.e. who would pick up the bill). In the meantime Mrs Jones is probably still part of the great unwashed if, indeed, she hasn't died waiting.
Creating co-terminous health and social service authorities, along with bringing health and social care into the same Ministry at least hinted at a desire to resolve these issues, but it was a half-hearted attempt at best.
Of course 22 Local Health Boards is far too many, and the ditching of this structure is good news. But the ensuing debate should not revolve solely around the health service as if it were a structure in isolation of other services. There must be consideration of the social care dimension in whatever replacement structure is created. Neither should the the issue of democratisation of the new Boards be ducked. Edwina has proven herself as a Minister with the bottle to tackle difficult issues. Are there other ministers with the bottle to tackle the huge, glaring reality that 22 Local Authorities is far too many? Will anyone really open the batting by declaring that the elections on May 1st should be the last throw of the dice for these councils?
It was Peter Walker as Secretary of State (mercifully many years ago) who used the memorable phrase "creating a seamless robe of care" to describe the joint working arrangements between county councils and health authorities required under the Care in the Community legislation. An admirable aspiration which would have meant the experience of the patient would be unaffected by whether their needs for care and support were being met by social services or by health services. But it was an aspiration that could never be met as there's no such thing as a seamless patchwork. The component elements of the partnerships were too far apart structurally, culturally, financially and even ideologically for it to work. Put crudely, no-one ever resolved the issue of how Mrs Jones was to get a bath without bare-faced stand-offs between the two authorities arguing about whether Mrs Jones's ablutions were driven by a medical or a social need (i.e. who would pick up the bill). In the meantime Mrs Jones is probably still part of the great unwashed if, indeed, she hasn't died waiting.
Creating co-terminous health and social service authorities, along with bringing health and social care into the same Ministry at least hinted at a desire to resolve these issues, but it was a half-hearted attempt at best.
Of course 22 Local Health Boards is far too many, and the ditching of this structure is good news. But the ensuing debate should not revolve solely around the health service as if it were a structure in isolation of other services. There must be consideration of the social care dimension in whatever replacement structure is created. Neither should the the issue of democratisation of the new Boards be ducked. Edwina has proven herself as a Minister with the bottle to tackle difficult issues. Are there other ministers with the bottle to tackle the huge, glaring reality that 22 Local Authorities is far too many? Will anyone really open the batting by declaring that the elections on May 1st should be the last throw of the dice for these councils?
Friday 14 March 2008
Think again Jane
One of the drawbacks of very intermittent blogging is that people will get out of the habit of looking for Pilchard's rantings. Therefore I'm writing this in the knowledge that it will probably be posted and disappear into the ether. However, as you're reading this I've already been proved wrong. As you've stumbled across it, please feel free to circulate the link to anyone you think might be interested, and I undertake to blog more frequently in future!
So what's awoken my muse after all this time? In two words - Jane Hutt. Now I quite like Jane, but her decision this week regarding the provision of advocacy services for vulnerable children and young people beggars belief. I can think of many adjectives to describe it - crass, illogical, arrogant, ill-thought-out, dangerous... the list could go on. But they can all be simply expressed. Jane, your decision is WRONG, and I suspect you know it. After all, you've been told so by no less than the Children's Commissioner, Sir Ronald Waterhouse Q.C., Children in Wales, the Assembly's own Children and Young People's Committee, and probably most importantly of all, by Voices From Care who directly represent the young people who most need an independent advocacy service.
Virtually the only serious players who have argued for the commissioning model Jane has adopted are the collected vested interests of the local authority service providers. So we have ended up with vulnerable young people who need an advocate to express their concerns and complaints against their care provider, being offered an advocate paid by that care provider. Even if this is an arms length arrangement, such a relationship can never earn the trust of the young people. There is a fundamental conflict of interest.
So the only conclusion we can reach is that Jane has capitulated to the WLGA in a manner that debases her own honourable record in the voluntary sector. She should be worried about that.
The question now arises as to what can be done to right her wrong. To me it's quite simple. The decision should be put to a vote on the floor of the Assembly and overturned. For this to happen Plaid members would need to vote against their coalition partners. Not a step to be taken lightly. But there are good reasons for doing so. This is not a policy that is integral to the One Wales agreement, so while it won't foster wonderful friendly relationships with Labour, it certainly won't wreck the coalition. The positive political effect it would have would be to spell out clearly that Plaid remains its own party in spite of its coalition role, and that when a Minister makes a decision that is as perverse and patently wrong as this one, it will be overturned.
The other positive outcome would be that vulnerable children will be protected and supported in an appropriate manner which they themselves can trust. And that is well worth the short term embarrassment that would be felt by Jane Hutt.
So what's awoken my muse after all this time? In two words - Jane Hutt. Now I quite like Jane, but her decision this week regarding the provision of advocacy services for vulnerable children and young people beggars belief. I can think of many adjectives to describe it - crass, illogical, arrogant, ill-thought-out, dangerous... the list could go on. But they can all be simply expressed. Jane, your decision is WRONG, and I suspect you know it. After all, you've been told so by no less than the Children's Commissioner, Sir Ronald Waterhouse Q.C., Children in Wales, the Assembly's own Children and Young People's Committee, and probably most importantly of all, by Voices From Care who directly represent the young people who most need an independent advocacy service.
Virtually the only serious players who have argued for the commissioning model Jane has adopted are the collected vested interests of the local authority service providers. So we have ended up with vulnerable young people who need an advocate to express their concerns and complaints against their care provider, being offered an advocate paid by that care provider. Even if this is an arms length arrangement, such a relationship can never earn the trust of the young people. There is a fundamental conflict of interest.
So the only conclusion we can reach is that Jane has capitulated to the WLGA in a manner that debases her own honourable record in the voluntary sector. She should be worried about that.
The question now arises as to what can be done to right her wrong. To me it's quite simple. The decision should be put to a vote on the floor of the Assembly and overturned. For this to happen Plaid members would need to vote against their coalition partners. Not a step to be taken lightly. But there are good reasons for doing so. This is not a policy that is integral to the One Wales agreement, so while it won't foster wonderful friendly relationships with Labour, it certainly won't wreck the coalition. The positive political effect it would have would be to spell out clearly that Plaid remains its own party in spite of its coalition role, and that when a Minister makes a decision that is as perverse and patently wrong as this one, it will be overturned.
The other positive outcome would be that vulnerable children will be protected and supported in an appropriate manner which they themselves can trust. And that is well worth the short term embarrassment that would be felt by Jane Hutt.
Wednesday 17 October 2007
Children? That's Women's Work...
It's great news that the Assembly has - at last - established a Children's Committee as a means of challenging, scrutinising and investigating all aspects of the Government's (and the Assembly's) actions for their relevance to children. It will also be widely welcomed that this new body will have Helen Mary Jones as its Chair. She has a proven track record and deep personal commitment to this field of work as evidenced both prior to and since becoming an AM. Neither would I wish to challenge the credentials of any other member of the Committee.
But I can't help being disturbed by the fact that the Committee is entirely made up of women. It's as if the Assembly has taken the stance that children's welfare is the domain of Women. An antiquated and frankly dangerous stance. This is the first time the Assembly has created a single-gender committee - and there would be uproar if it were all-male. It's doubly unfortunate that they have done so now in a way that reinforces narrow stereotypes. I understand that the process of establishing membership means that each party puts forward the names of its representatives in isolation of one another. Therefore the potential for this happening again is huge. Surely there should be a moderating mechanism that helps redress any imbalances before the make-up of the committee is finalised? It would be very unfortunate if the work of this valuable body were to be hampered by the time it might have to spend being investigated for imbalance by the Assembly's own Equal Opportunities Committee - which ironically has many members in common with the Children's Committee itself!
But I can't help being disturbed by the fact that the Committee is entirely made up of women. It's as if the Assembly has taken the stance that children's welfare is the domain of Women. An antiquated and frankly dangerous stance. This is the first time the Assembly has created a single-gender committee - and there would be uproar if it were all-male. It's doubly unfortunate that they have done so now in a way that reinforces narrow stereotypes. I understand that the process of establishing membership means that each party puts forward the names of its representatives in isolation of one another. Therefore the potential for this happening again is huge. Surely there should be a moderating mechanism that helps redress any imbalances before the make-up of the committee is finalised? It would be very unfortunate if the work of this valuable body were to be hampered by the time it might have to spend being investigated for imbalance by the Assembly's own Equal Opportunities Committee - which ironically has many members in common with the Children's Committee itself!
Tuesday 25 September 2007
Land of Hope and Gordon...
He's never really had the presentational skills of his predecessor. If he had seen the opportunity Gordon Brown's speech yesterday would have finished with him being draped in a Union Jack with red, white and blue ticker tape descending and a rapturous crowd bellowing Land of Hope and Glory.
The UberBrit firmly cemented the New Labour & Unionist Party's place on the right of the political firmament and ensured that whenever the Westminster Election comes along it will be fought as much on the Constitution as on any other issue. He's desperate to give the SNP a kicking in his own backyard and to quell demands for enhanced devolution in Wales by raising the spectre of fragmentation and the loss of everything that is "Great" about Britain.
Plaid's response should be simple. If he wants an election fought on the Constitution, bring it on!
Coupled with the sad rantings of Eluned Morgan today - arguing for Labour in Wales to lurch to the right in order to occupy the "centre ground" - not on the basis of any principle or analysis of Welsh needs, but in order to appeal to an electorate that seems to be deserting them - this should be a fun election for Plaid. Unequivocally the only left of centre party remaining, Plaid's leadership should relish the prospect of an election where they can openly propound a full National Parliament led by a Welsh Socialist Government. And let Eluned and the others flounder in the murky grey water - that once was almost clear red - between UberBrit and Welsh Labour.
The UberBrit firmly cemented the New Labour & Unionist Party's place on the right of the political firmament and ensured that whenever the Westminster Election comes along it will be fought as much on the Constitution as on any other issue. He's desperate to give the SNP a kicking in his own backyard and to quell demands for enhanced devolution in Wales by raising the spectre of fragmentation and the loss of everything that is "Great" about Britain.
Plaid's response should be simple. If he wants an election fought on the Constitution, bring it on!
Coupled with the sad rantings of Eluned Morgan today - arguing for Labour in Wales to lurch to the right in order to occupy the "centre ground" - not on the basis of any principle or analysis of Welsh needs, but in order to appeal to an electorate that seems to be deserting them - this should be a fun election for Plaid. Unequivocally the only left of centre party remaining, Plaid's leadership should relish the prospect of an election where they can openly propound a full National Parliament led by a Welsh Socialist Government. And let Eluned and the others flounder in the murky grey water - that once was almost clear red - between UberBrit and Welsh Labour.
Sunday 23 September 2007
A Coalition for the Future, not Apologists for the Past
Well we’ve lived with coalition government for a week now and the universe hasn’t ground to a halt! Yes I know the coalition was agreed and cabinet announced months ago - but that was just a green light for individual ministers to assume responsibility and to operate within their portfolios. (and during that period Elin Jones has excelled in the unexpected and unwelcome spotlight of foot & mouth). But collective responsibility in Government demands a team approach, and as the cabinet has only just met for the first time, and the Assembly has only just reconvened after a summer hiatus, it is fair to say that it is only now that the coalition exists.
Of course the summer should have given all parties time for reflection on how they behave and position themselves for the new reality. What evidence has there been of such cogitation? Clearly there are elements within the Labour Party who are still struggling with the concept. Heading straight into the conference season has meant that Peter Hain and others have to play to gallery of their own disgruntled members who find it so difficult to accept that we have a Government that actually reflects the will of the electorate. Politics will always attract empty posturing. It's embittered posturing that's dangerous.
Within Plaid there has been some sense of euphoria about being in Government for the first time. Llandudno at times turned into a canonisation of Ieuan Wyn in spite of his undoubted personal preference for the abortive Rainbow deal.
The Tories, meanwhile, are sharpening their swords and revelling in the prospect of being the official opposition. Look out for aggressive (and self righteous) scrutiny of the Government for the next four years.
While the Lib Dems will do nothing until they've resolved their leadership vacuum both in Cardiff and Westminster. And they'll struggle even then.
But early signs of Plaid's behaviour in Government might be a bit disturbing. The readiness of Plaid Mininsters (notably Ieuan) to defend statistics and analyses that were challengable in opposition and remain challengable today does not bode well. Coalition is about a new form of Government that starts from now. There should be no obligation on any Minister to defend that which has gone before. That perpetuates the shallowness of politics. Draw a line in the sand and create a new era in Welsh politics in which Plaid retains its independent critique of what has gone before while setting its stamp on future direction that is a clear distillation of the best of both Labour and Plaid. Display collective responsibility for the present and the future by all means. But please don't insult the people by leaping to the defence of the rejected Labour administration.
Of course the summer should have given all parties time for reflection on how they behave and position themselves for the new reality. What evidence has there been of such cogitation? Clearly there are elements within the Labour Party who are still struggling with the concept. Heading straight into the conference season has meant that Peter Hain and others have to play to gallery of their own disgruntled members who find it so difficult to accept that we have a Government that actually reflects the will of the electorate. Politics will always attract empty posturing. It's embittered posturing that's dangerous.
Within Plaid there has been some sense of euphoria about being in Government for the first time. Llandudno at times turned into a canonisation of Ieuan Wyn in spite of his undoubted personal preference for the abortive Rainbow deal.
The Tories, meanwhile, are sharpening their swords and revelling in the prospect of being the official opposition. Look out for aggressive (and self righteous) scrutiny of the Government for the next four years.
While the Lib Dems will do nothing until they've resolved their leadership vacuum both in Cardiff and Westminster. And they'll struggle even then.
But early signs of Plaid's behaviour in Government might be a bit disturbing. The readiness of Plaid Mininsters (notably Ieuan) to defend statistics and analyses that were challengable in opposition and remain challengable today does not bode well. Coalition is about a new form of Government that starts from now. There should be no obligation on any Minister to defend that which has gone before. That perpetuates the shallowness of politics. Draw a line in the sand and create a new era in Welsh politics in which Plaid retains its independent critique of what has gone before while setting its stamp on future direction that is a clear distillation of the best of both Labour and Plaid. Display collective responsibility for the present and the future by all means. But please don't insult the people by leaping to the defence of the rejected Labour administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
