Terry Mackie’s verbal bombardment of the Minister for Education continues. One of his verbal bombshells (well … you know what I mean …) has landed on target. Please make the effort to watch his column on the Western Mail. I hope to elaborate, and to persuade you that this is something worth doing.

Terry rightly takes Leighton to task for setting Paul Murphy to urge Welsh students to try to get into something called Oxbridge. I freely own that there’s something bizarre about an Oriel man such as Paul encouraging the young to seek admission to other colleges, let alone that place out in the Fens. After all, they were chucked out for being too intense in the Middle Ages, went on to invent things like Puritanism, and have become steadily more intense all the time. In any event, as Terry says, far more important a question is how well our institutions here in fact educate their Junior Members. Terry seems to regard the Pisa criteria as the gold standard of pedagogical efficacy and, whatever a reasonable person’s might be about that particular roadshow, he is obviously seeking some consensual perception that would help us understand better what is happening to our educational system.

One of Leighton’s assets is that he is not Michael Gove. However, he is steadily squandering this asset with his constant fidgeting and foot-stamping. We can easily understand why some of the suits spreading across our universities and colleges like a computer virus make him angry. The continued captivity to the deviant curriculum paradigm originating in Late Victorian England is a worry, a very great worry. However, Leighton’s standard trope of merging, de-merging, re-merging, and re-demerging is worth than doing nothing. The relationships between the ci-devant University of Wales, its sea-divided succursals, and one or two former Anglican institutions in Dyfed, are more convoluted than anything in the Kama Sutra. An organization constantly subject to, well, re-organization, is an organization that bleeds. Many of our educational institutions have been haemorrhaging severely for some time. Whatever Leighton’s aims may be, and whatever our views of those, Leighton’s constant fidgetings and rumours of fidgetings can only frustrate them.

Yes, we need reform, and yes, we need vigorous open debate in order to achieve them. Leighton’s current approach frustrates both reform and debate. What would cure this?

 

 

 
The Welsh Koala

Insults Require Counter-offensives

Gan Alan Sandry.

Michael Buerk’s Christmas missive regarding the contribution made by Welsh people through their singing voices is the droll iceberg of Metropolitan resentment about Wales’ existence.

Michael Buerk in The Mail on Sunday “Wales is not another country; it’s England with an accent and a good singing voice. But it is being pulled along by Scotland in devolution’s slipstream, whether it likes it or – more probably – not.”

In his Mail on Sunday outburst – it could only be that rag, naturally, which specialises in cultivating and encouraging the xenophobic angst of, seemingly, rational and cultured public figures – Buerk despaired at the “state of Britain”. Ironically, someone really ought to have taken him to one side and told him that this is hardly innovative thinking, as the big ‘S’ “State of Britain” has perplexed many of us for decades . It would possibly have been more pertinent if Buerk, and similar mollycoddled and indulged members of the London commentariat, actually looked at the condition of themselves and their prejudices. Indeed, for several years now, Buerk has come across as the apotheosis of smug colonialism, personified by the coterie of BBC broadcasters who observe Wales as an oddity; the dog with no hair, who engenders concurrent feelings of pity and loathing. Does this matter? Well it all ultimately depends on how people in our country wish to deal with the stream of ignorant invective from Buerk and his fellow travellers, and whether they decide to act through countering these perceptions with positive action. That, however, would involve affirmative responses, and not just the shoulder shrugging that we appear to have mastered in recent times.
All of this came at the end of 2012, a year that could be described as either an annus horribilis or an annus mirabilis, depending on your ideology and outlook. Leaving aside Olympic and Royal hyperbole, the back end of 2012 saw the issuing of the 2011 Census results. However they are read, these produce some sober statistics, with, arguably, stark implications.
The results provide us with data that enable us to visualise, understand and interpret the clear sociological and cultural de-boning of Wales, in terms of how many of us have attempted to understand our nation through historical representation. For sure, facts, data, and political spin will come and go and, inevitably, a ‘New Wales’ will, in some shape or form, arise: all societies evolve after all.
Nevertheless, with the conspicuous increase in in-migration from England and the political manoeuvring to Anglicise Cardiff and its environs, and amalgamate all points east of Bridgend with a Greater Bristol ‘super-region’, it would appear that rather than a distinctive, identifiably ‘Welsh’, Wales shining through, it may be little more than a watered down Wiltshire that we are eventually left with. Mr Buerk may, indeed, have a point! However, even these changes, dramatic though they undoubtedly are, may well prove to be transient and rapidly reconfigured. By the time of the next Census – 2021 – there is a strong possibility that the UK will not exist.

Should the people of Scotland accept collective responsibility, and vote ‘Yes’ to independence, then RumpUK will be hiccupping its way into the world. In addition, by 2021, the north of Ireland may be on the verge of departing this Rump, as demographic shifts in favour of the Catholic population, and the advancement of Realpolitik, will almost certainly see the staging of a Re-Unification Referendum. Whatever the outcome, Ulster will inevitably be one or two steps nearer Dublin and a couple of
strides further away from London.
The current row regarding the flying of the Union Flag is just the start of the debate on what some observers are labelling “an Irish future?” Taken as a whole, the implications for us are enormous. Wales, and this is the part that terrifies both political and civil society alike, will be forced to consider distinct choices.
Devolution, by that stage in the constitutional process, will be a busted flush. Moreover, Federalism – the halfway house preference, favoured by some urbane politicos – will not be an option. Despite its recent converts from the ranks of ‘soft’ Plaid and ‘inclusive’ Conservatives, with a smattering of Labour  progressives’ to add an air of radical, evolutionary consensus, Federalism ceased to be a viable alternative framework on 3rd May 2007, when the SNP emerged as the largest party within the Scottish Parliament. Since then, and despite their no doubt honest intent, the advocates of Federalism have promulgated an implausible solution.
So, the choice – the division – may be between independence or absorption? Nevertheless, a question rarely asked is this: is it now too late for Wales to consider independence? Whilst the cautious, sentinel voices of British statism warn us that it is far too early to consider anything remotely akin to autonomy, the converse analysis would note that Wales is ‘too far gone’ down the path of England Wales-ism (the Elizabethan State) to ever release itself and claim national political freedom and nation-state classification. One standard obstacle placed in the way of political autonomy, by British nationalists from both the left and the right, is the economy, and its perennially parlous state. Whilst it would be foolhardy to dismiss economic concerns, the notion of self-government, and freedom from extraneous influences, is a completely separate argument of positioning and empowerment. The fact that the Welsh economy – today, just as much as it was in the past – provides a testing ground for those seeking mineral exploitation, labour-force exploitation, and land exploitation is not an argument against independence. Quite the reverse! It provides an unambiguous argument in favour of self-government.

But we also require other forms of renaissance across our communities, both urban and rural. Once established, these linkages between town and country then require bold creations and radical exploration to re-invigorate our society. Some examples already exist. Unitary Urbanism, for example, which was supported by some of the Situationists amongst others, argued for perennial exploration and  experimentation in urban life. Compare this with the scenario in today’s Wales – in today’s
Cardiff Bay, to use its synecdoche – which is static and constricting. Since 1999 an initial sense of progression has been gradually reduced to a state of virtual stagnation. Politicians, political parties, lobbyists, the media, and great swathes of civic society have all played their various parts in stifling any emergence of a buoyant culture: cliché or not, the crushing jackboot of ‘Old Boyism’ truly is alive and well. Disgracefully, we have settled for bland, with a distinct lack of space for elasticity. In amongst all of this, our pinnacle of hope, the National Assembly, has become a ludibrium. It has the power to shape and influence lives but it has become the plaything of a tightly knit oligarchy – the Bay-istas – who oversee and control political, social, cultural and economic interactions (most prominently in Cardiff and the Labour fortresses of the south). The madcap scheme for City-Regions, so beloved by the Bay-istas, will only mushroom this hegemony. In terms of authentic economic and social progress these City-Regions will have scant effect.
In terms of dominance by the social democratic bourgeoisie, and their progeny, the careerist crachach, they will prove invaluable. Furthermore, national integration, disguised as regional overlapping, appears to be the latest project to promote assimilation.
Exemplified by Hain’s Folly – the Severn Barrage – there is a persistent neo-liberal push for locking in the economies and societies of our south eastern corner with the western counties of England. Whilst these developments are perfect for “here today, gone tomorrow” entrepreneurs and speculators, they are disastrous for those who genuinely believe in a verifiable ‘national interest’. Wales is stagnating, but so many people in positions of power and influence seem content for this to occur as they maintain their dominion through disseminating the false promises of “tens of thousands” of (chimerical) jobs on the horizon. Sadly, we have allowed a situation to develop where the cruellest of all cons – the hope of a job with security – is shamelessly played on the unemployed with alarming regularity. Political and economic leadership – of both political parties and broader society – is culpable in this. At the precise moment that we desperately require bold leadership and vision for our nation, far too much time is being wasted on fanciful projects, which provide little real hope.

Unless people are not revealing their true selves, then the statement has to be made that Wales lacks leaders who are truly desirous of significant change. Flipping in the Assembly may be politically meaningful but in terms of societal earthquakes – paradigm shifts – it is marginal. With this in mind, it was interesting to note the commemorations of 30 years of S4C, and Gwynfor Evans contribution in forcing the hand of Thatcher’s Government to ensure that company’s establishment. Gwynfor mastered ‘gamble politics’ with his threat of hunger striking. Fascinatingly, but regrettably, this was the last of the great gestures – the grand positioning – of political figures in Wales. Whilst grassroot members of Cymdeithas Yr Iaith have consistently championed non-violent-direct action, and its consequences, few ‘household names’ have followed suit by attempting praxis outside of the political institutions. If our country is to move on, to progress, to foster a climate of rejuvenation, then more prominent people have to stand up and be counted. The reality remains, alas, that the National Assembly has manufactured Koala Bear politicians: generally assuring but hardly intrepid.

But is this what our nation needs?

The ‘koala effect’ has also filtered into business and commercial circles, with even our protest groups protesting less than they were a decade ago. Last September 1.5 million people were on the streets of Barcelona voicing their demands for independence from the Spanish State. Can Cardiff offer up a tenth of that number (150,000) to demonstrate for political freedom? It can, but to kick-start the process the leaders of Wales have to lead. We have to change the mise-en-scene of Welsh politics and society. It is time for the Koalas to awake from their slumber.

Published in February 2013 issue of Cambria Magazine

Dr Alan Sandry writes and broadcasts
on Welsh and European Politics.

 

Like all manifestations of the Terpsichorean arts, this manoeuvre must be executed with the right steps, in the right order. As many of you may be unfamiliar with it, I propose to deliver it in bite-sized chunks of pre-digested wisdom.

 
taffymandering

The simple answer to the first question is “no, although it has been moving in that direction since the 1990s”. The devolved status of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales resembles true federal constitutions like the USA and Germany only superficially. Furthermore, the new redrawing of parliamentary constituencies tends to reverse the drift towards federalism.

The problem, of course, is the overwhelming predominance of England.  In real federal nations there are of course great inequalities between one unit (state) and another, but there are mechanisms deliberately put in place to enhance the power of the smaller units.  The most obvious version of this is devolution – certain powers are refused to the central authority and reserved to the units.  The UK has been slowly and unevenly moving in this direction since the 1990s.

In a bicameral legislature there is usually a more subtle form of minority power, such that the lower house (US House, German Bundestag) is filled by election in proportion to the population of the units, but is kept in check by an upper house (US Senate, German Bundesrat) in which the smaller states are over-represented.  In Britain the lower house (Commons) is elected according to population, but the upper house is filled by appointment.  There is no mechanism by which Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are guaranteed a veto over the overwhelming power of the English in the lower house.

The election of upper and lower houses in a federal system can be thought of mathematically as depending on the population of each unit to some power.  Lower houses, whether or not using the first-past-the-post system, are typically represented in direct proportion to the population of the district, i.e. as (population)1.  An upper house which is weighted towards the smaller districts goes as a power less than 1.  In the US every state has the same number (2) of Senate seats, there is no dependence on population at all – mathematically, this is (population)0.

There is a slight federal tendency built into the current (“old”) Britih lower house, where seats are not exactly proportional to (population)1 :

 

Nation                        Old  seats                                     New seats

England                         533                                                 502

Scotland                         59                                                    52

Wales                              40                                                   30

N. Ireland                     18                                                   16

Total                              650                                               600

The new seats are as close as possible proportional to (population)1, but a close look at the old seats shows that, relative to England, Northern Ireland follows (population)0.99 while Wales and Scotland follows about (population)0.93.  These powers are far from the values (population)0-0.5 which would be acceptable in a federal system, but even this small measure of federalism has now been taken away.

Whether the UK should be a federal state is of course a matter of opinion.  On the one hand a defined federal constitution would give more protection against the overwhelming power of England; it would also give the smaller nations a limited say in issues such as defence and foreign policy which are outside the scope of devolved legislatures.  On the other hand, a federal constitution will usually be set up by a mutually binding agreement whose basics cannot be altered.  In particular secession by the sub-units is specifically forbidden (this was proved in America by the outcome of the Civil War).  Federalism should therefore not be seen as a half-way house to independence – divorce can only occur by mutual consent in this marriage.  Federalism is an end in itself.  So, is half a loaf better than no bread?  My opinion, for what it is worth, is that federalism is no substitute for Welsh independence, and that out-and-out nationalists should be very wary of accepting a binding federal constitution for the UK even as a compromise.

 

 

 

 

 

 
scotmap

The new Conservative bill on elections passed last year reduces the number of seats overall from 650 to 600.  The breakdown is as follows:

Nation                        Old  seats                                     New seats

England                         533                                                 502

Scotland                         59                                                    52

Wales                              40                                                   30

N. Ireland                     18                                                   16

Total                              650                                               600

I have estimated the effect on the parties if the last (2010) election had had the new boundaries, by simply assigning the percentages of the 2010 vote according to the way the 2010 constituency was split up:

Scotland:  Old                                                New (estd.)

C 1, Lab 41, LD 11, SNP 6                 C 0, Lab 38, LD 8, SNP 6

England:   Old                                                New (estd.)

C 298, Lab 191, LD 43, G 1              C 291, Lab 183, LD 28, G 0

N. Ireland:   Old                                            New

Nationalist 18                                       Nationalist 16

Wales:     Old                                                   New

C 8, Lab 26, LD 3, PC3                      Available Jan. 2012 (see also my article ”The Taffymander” in Cambria).

The most interesting case is Scotland, where the SNP are the only part not to lose.  This recalls my findings in the article “The Taffymander” that would lose less in the new seat distribution for Wales than any other party.  I showed that this was due to the geographical distribution of the Welsh language, which is strong in “promontory”-type constituencies, and also in the neighbouring “mainland” regions.  When seat numbers are reduced, promontory seats have to be expanded, and this can only be done in the direction of the neighbouring mainland, which only brings in more Welsh-language (i.e. Plaid) votes.  The “promontories” involved in Wales are Ynys Mon, the Llyn, and Penfro (which can only expand into Welsh-specaking Arfon. Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Carmarthen).

It looks like the same is true in Scotland, where the “promontory” involved is Aberdeenshire (ignoring the Western Isles, which are given special treatment in the new law).  Since they cannot expand into the North Sea, as the number of seats decreases, the promontory seats expand into a broad arc from Moray Firth to the Tay which is rich in SNP voters, and so the SNP do not lose.

But this leaves one big question unanswered – why are SNP voters so heavily concentrated in the north-east of the country?  In the case of Plaid’s promontory seats, it is because of an underlying social variable – the Welsh-speaking vote.  But what is the social variable underlying the SNP vote in North-East Scotland?  Not language (Gaelic), nor religion (“Wee Free” Presbytreianism, by analogy with Welsh Nonconformity).  Does anybody have any suggestions as to why this sector of Scotland is so strongly Nationalist?  I’d like to hear from you.

 
Rachel Banner Sarah Palin

No prizes for guessing who is who.

Both belong to political organisations beginning with T

Both are attractive and erm… intelligent ostensibly educated women with strong personalities and unusual ability to put across their views on the Media.

Both have attracted a ‘nutter’ type following including some who either should know better or are chancers and camp followers seeking notoriety.

Both are brilliant at selection and editing of ideas, history and ideological concepts to fit their political purpose/narrative.

Both are against ‘the Government’ or want less of it.

As far as I know Rachel Banner hasn’t yet shot anything from the back of a pickup truck.

Palin wears spectacles in public.

Palin can ‘see’ Russia from her back yard, Banner can probably only see a few yards into the mist and rain of Wales.

Palin has aspirations to be the most powerful woman on the Planet with her painted fingernail on the nuclear button. Not sure what Banner’s aspiration is apart from preventing the present government of Wales from acquiring more legislative powers in the upcoming referendum or in her words ‘sliding down a slippery slope’.

Poster below courtesy of syniadau

True Wales

For fans of Palin I include this wonderful tribute:

 

Having received this morning my voting card, I was going to write a long article about the upcoming Referendum question and vote covering all the pros and cons and analysing  the opinions, but now … I can’t be arsed.

Main reason for voting YES

- Politicians of all parties are unanimously in favour.

Main numero uno reason for voting NO

- Politicians of all parties are unanimously in favour.

I think that just about sums it up.

 

More powers for the Welsh Assembly Government? Well, yes, that is the question on which there is to be a Referendum in March 2011 (next year, boyos). See excellent article by John Osmond on IWA website.

The Electoral Commission has studied and made a judgement on the text of the question posed initially by the Secretary State for Wales and has commented…

Participants in our public opinion research generally had a low level of public awareness that a referendum on law-making powers of the Assembly is to be held; what the referendum is about or, indeed, what a referendum is.”

I like that bit where the Commission appears to doubt the ability of Welsh voters to know what a referendum actually is. This is abit insulting to say the least. I expect that most people know what a referendum is ; what they may be less certain about is the subject matter of the referendum or what the question is they are supposed to be deciding on. This is a tricky subject and the Commission is probably right in its analysis that the Question as it was originally posed was misconstrued. Nevertheless, although the Commission’s alternative version seems more intelligible (to those that care) it still requires a complicated explanatory ‘preamble’ . I suspect  that most people are wondering why we need to have a referendum on this at all – it is hardly a life and death issue. Also, all the signs point to the fact that the ConDem coalition is busy divesting itself of powers and responsibilities as fast as possible. These minor powers so desired by WAG will probably accrue to them purely as a result of just asking the coalition for them  – it is an open door that they are pushing at.  They’re like that child in the classroom who is always constantly asking permission to go to the toilet – for God’s sake go!

Please Miss! Please Miss! Please Miss!

Cambria Books

New publication.
New translation of the Physicians of Myddfai by Terry Breverton

Cambria Books

New publication. Entertaining guide to the US Elections by Denis Campbell.
© 2011 CAMBRIA POLITICO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha