The Barnett Formula is dead. Long live the new Barnett Formula, writes Clive Betts from the National Assembly press gallery.

The formula is of course the method for deciding how much money is allocated by Westminster to the devolved parliaments and assemblies in the UK.

It seems the new formula which will eventually appear will be almost exactly the same as the old one. Almost the only difference will be that an appeal formula will be built in so that the “regions” can object to the way the carve up that has been decided by the Treasury in London.

The future of the formula is currently being considered by the Jerry Holtham Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, set up by the Assembly after the last election. An “independent” commission only in so far as it was founded by the Assembly Government and signed into existence by Rhodri Morgan.

This committee will, of course, not be able to rewrite the formula – that has to be agreed by all sections of UK governance – in particular, London.

But for years, the Labour Party had been deeply opposed to any re-think of the formula. Why then has the Welsh party suddenly changed its mind.

Finance minister Andrew Davies, speaking to the press, more or less admitted that he didn’t want to risk any change until he was sure that Wales would come out better – which is a fair enough way of going about politics.

So what changed his mind ?  Becoming finance minister, it seems.

He then discovered how the formula was drawn up. It was already known that large construction projects in Wales (such as the A55 Expressway through the North) are excluded from it because they would cause so much distortion.

Quite what other projects are included or excluded is totally unknown. This is, after all, hardly an open part of government. Not that much is open, anyway – after the fiasco of the publication of MPs’ expenses.

So why suddenly an urge to change ? Mr Davies told us, out of nothingness, that one of the reasons the party had changed its opposition to Barnett being opened to consideration was the lack of a proper appeal procedure to the decisions made by Treasury officials.

“They are judge and jury,” said Mr Davies.

The only procedure which currently exists is to appeal to one of the rarely-used committees which deals with coordinating relations between the countries which make up the UK.

But that committee is chaired by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In other words, that is the Treasury in another guise. Judge and jury again, repeated Mr Davies.

It seems that this issue of creating an appeal procedure could open the way to major change.

With the road to some kind constitutional reform (in the wake of MPs’ expenses) now open, and much talk about power moving away from self-satisfying MPs, perhaps we could find the Barnett allocations decided no more by just civil servants and the London Cabinet?

Mr Davies mentioned a suggestion which came forward some time ago from former Lib Dem leader Mike German.  This was the Australian system, where funds are distributed to individual states strictly in accordance with need.

Apparently the system is pretty open. Although it can result in quite a political battle, as each state lists how great its “needs” are.

But it would be very different from the 30-year-old British system –  which everyone seems to accept as outmoded.

Share
 

Time to call time on Wales’s Westminster freeloaders

If ever there was a need to get rid of an ‘extra, expensive and useless tier of government’ (the old chestnut once much loved by critics of the National Assembly) it is now. And the tier that should be in our sights is that which consists of Wales’s 40 Members of Parliament and some 48 Members of the House of Lords.

In the light of the unfolding constitutional cataclysm which has broken over a benighted Westminster, and which has revealed a veritable rats’ nest of, in varying degrees and combinations, incompetence, profligacy and downright criminality, why not let’s get rid of the lot of them – and run our own affairs.

Quite apart from Liebour’s costly – in terms of wasted resources and young lives – and winless wars, quite apart from the idiocy of maintaining Trident as a ‘unilateral deterrent’ (which isn’t unilateral at all) and the construction of vast new aircraft carriers (to defend what against whom exactly?), when Britain has a national debt now hitting almost incomprehensible trillions of pounds, Welsh taxpayers have to shoulder the phenomenal cost of subsidising a largely useless gang of gravy-trainers zipping up and down from London to Wales in Great Western’s First Class coaches enjoying a more than a few doubles-and-mixers on the way. Time to call time.

Here are the facts. An MP’s basic salary is £64,000, – ‘Spudface’, Wayne ‘Smacked Backside’ David, Chris ‘Y-front’ Bryant and others serving either as members of the Cabinet or holding junior ministerial posts rack up a whole lot more, including ministerial residences, chauffeur-driven limousines, personal staffs, expenses etc. In addition MP’s get a second home allowance of £20,000, and an expenses allowance to cover the cost of offices, staff, researchers etc – which is, in reality often abused with MPs employing family members and hangers-on. If we take a broad average these come to somewhere in the region of £150,000 per MP, which amounts to an average of £250,000 per MP per annum and, with 40 Welsh MPs, that’s a staggering £10,000,000 shouldered by you and I. And for what?

If you reckon that £10,000,000 good value for money, study the records of the vast majority of these politico’s, especially in the light of The Daily Telegraph’s revelations, and think again. Add to this figure the Welsh taxpayer’s share of the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster with its antediluvian rituals and rigmarole, the subsidised food and wine in Westminster’s many bars and restaurants. Add the attendance allowance*, expenses, perks and backhanders (that’s lobbying fees to you and me)** of Welsh members of the House of Lords and the figure rapidly doubles, if not trebles. All this before we ask ourselves what these people actually do for us. Oh and ponder awhile on Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty in starched linen bib-and-tucker dining on the finest foie gras and agreeable claret – all of which you are paying for – and remind yourself what you and your family are having for supper. Ponder also if you will, on the Orange Lounge-lizard’s chameleon-like makeover – which you and I have generously granted him: new home, new wife…and new shed roof! We’d all like at least two of those, wouldn’t we, but they’re probably a little beyond our reach in these difficult times.

Wales now has a democratically elected representative body in our capital city. It is called The National Assembly. It’s been there for ten years. It works – but it could work better with full law-making powers, and, better still, sovereignty. Why on earth do we need another body anywhere else? Why pay twice for democracy?

A vast majority of the issues raised by individual constituents can be handled in Cardiff, and a great number of these are actually duplicated by MPs and AMs at even greater cost – and waste. We are in a deepening recession. Britain isn’t working.

The drive for independence – the drive for sanity – must start now. Time to say ‘Enough is enough, you are no longer fit for purpose.’

* Their noble lord and ladyships can claim a £150 per day attendance allowance, £75 per day subsistence allowance (that’s the foie gras and claret), and £65 per day office costs. In addition there are generous UK – and European – travelling expenses, an annual secretarial allowance of around £5,000 per year, and free postage.

** Earlier this month two Liebour peers, Lords Truscott and Taylor, were dismissed from the House of Lords for taking bribes disguised as ‘lobbying fees’.

Share
 

A couple of weeks ago the Assembly announced that £38m was to be spent on ‘revitalising’ run-down coastal towns in the north. This week the Assembly announced another £22m on a “targeted clean-up campaign” for the Valleys.

That’s a total of £60m, big bucks in any language. Yet the Assembly cannot guarantee that the expenditure will create a single job! The geniuses down in Cardiff docks merely hope that this tarting up will make these areas more attractive to tourists. This is optimism of a kind that makes a child putting a lost milk tooth under its pillow look like a ruthless investor.

For an underfunded body like the Assembly to spend this kind of money and then hope that someone comes along with ideas for starting businesses and providing jobs is also a dereliction of duty. And further confirms what we all suspected, anyway – these buggers have run out of ideas.

From another angle . . . We have recently been enjoined to ‘celebrate’ ten years of devolution. The most trenchant comments I read – though, admittedly, I avoided most of them – came from Ron Davies. He pointed out that a fundamental shortcoming of devolution was that it had failed to raise wages in Wales against UK and EC levels; in fact, after ten years of devolution we’ve fallen even further behind!

If we are ever to catch up we need well paid jobs: for that we need a better educated and more highly skilled workforce; we need indigenous entrepreneurs; we must have our own financial sector. All the Assembly offers us is low pay, no skill, seasonal employment. With these clowns in charge it’s only a matter of time before the ‘third world country’ jokes become reality.

By Jack of the North

Share
 

Smoke filled roomIt’s one of the great scandals of Welsh politics, but the Liberal Democrats, everlasting proponents of electoral fairness and proportional representation for once never mention it.

The Lib Dems are in control of Cardiff council, – despite being the third party in terms of votes attracted from the electorate.

The party with the highest vote in the city at the last council elections was the Conservatives. They racked up a clear majority.

The Tories gained 28 pc of the votes but won only 27 seats; the Lib Dems attracted only 26 pc of the votes, but streaked ahead with 35 seats; and Labour was on 27 pc and managed to plonk their candidates’ bottoms on a mere 13 seats.

Rightly did retiring MEP Jonathan Evans (he expects to swap Brussels for the Westminster seat of Cardiff North) point out to a Electoral Reform Society fringe meeting at the Tory conference in Cardiff that the issue would never have been allowed to lie politically quiescent if the Lib Dems had been the ones who suffered.

Mr Evans also pointed out that the parliamentary system is also seriously stacked against his party.

The Tories could be 10pc ahead in the opinion polls – and yet Labour would till sneak an overall majority. It would be of only two seats, but that would be enough for Mr Brown to retain No 10.

This happens because at the last big boundary reassessment, the Tories slept while Labour scooped the pool. I think that Labour carried out a policy which at the time they called “dough-nutting”. This seemed to consist of redrawing boundaries throughout Britain so that large towns and cities (which are more likely to vote Labour) were all surrounded by rural areas (more likely to go Tory).

The result was that in quite a few areas Labour voters exceeded by a small margin the Tory vote. The seats which that party won were inclined to be concentrated in deep-Tory areas which Labour would in any case have had no chance of victory.

I am surprised that the boundary commissioners at the time were taken in by this undemocratic con. I am surprised that none of the commissioners were wide awake enough to have heard of the policy being followed by Labour. After all, if I heard it being semi-openly discussed, so should the commissioners.

So it is no wonder that proportional representation – using single transferable vote, as the Electoral Reform Society prefer, although some Tory PR-advocates prefer other systems – has very much sneaked onto the Tory agenda.

The reform society held their second lobbying meeting at a Welsh Tory conference. Afterwards, they reckoned it a fair-enough success.

The issue is clearly – but only just – back on the agenda for the party. Once an unmentionable, the party has been forced to change its mind following PR’s adoption for the devolved assemblies. In Cardiff Bay, PR has been the method by which the party has hauled itself back from nothingness.

The party is admittedly hardly going to go overboard in the next few months to back PR for local elections – which is the next staging point, after its adoption for Scotland. But the road now seems to be open.

Mr Evans made clear however that when his party returns to No 10, he expects a far-more democratic form of PR to be adopted for the European elections..

Currently, they are decided on the basis of a closed-list PR system, similar to the one in use for the Welsh Assembly. This means that each party decides itself and centrally the order by which  the party candidates on the list are elected.

Mr Evans reminded us that the closed list was adopted by Mr Tony Blair’s Labour party in order to be rid of previously-selected MEPs who possessed too-independent a frame of mind – such as David Morris, of Newport, a democratic and Christian rather than Marxist-inclined left-winger.

Mr Evans’s preference is for an open list – which means that the electorate, through their votes, decide the order in which a party’s members are elected. That is the system which was imposed on Ireland by the Government of Ireland Act 1914 – Westminster at the time thought that it was the fairest system which could be adopted.

Now the Tories are likely to go back to that system, at least for Brussels.

Perhaps, also, after the Cardiff council electoral mess, for local authorities, as well.

And what about ending the closed lists for the Welsh Assembly’s regional members ? The problem here might be persuading Plaid Cymru. That party found closed lists far too convenient for imposing women on the electorate and for locking out a man who would too easily have topped the list.

I am referring to Dafydd Wigley. But then some Pleidwyr would argue that Wigley was just too good for the Assembly; much better to get along with some mediocrities rather than be faced with real quality.

Share
 

Jacqui (Smith) and NuLiebour want to hack into your computer without your permission. Is this right?

Increased scrutiny of the public’s online activities could undermine the viability of the web, says lawyer Ruth Hoy.
Source: Silicon.com

eyes

They are spying on you now

The Home Office’s recent announcement that it is working with the EU to grant police powers to hack into personal computers without a warrant threatens to rock the delicate balance between the need to tackle cybercrime and the right to personal privacy.

This is a very serious issue for political bloggers like Cambria Politico and a theme on which we will be campaigning  this year. Not that we have anything to hide! The government is welcome to to look at our computers at any time but only with our express permission or a legal warrant that gives justifiable cause.

At a time when even the US President is requiring increased transparency in government this goes against the trend and makes the Labour government look even more out of touch.

Share
 

Welsh Assembly members’ expenses claims included a £2,000 sofa, a £1,000 surround-sound TV, right down to a £2 glass bowl, it has been revealed by the BBC under the Freedom of information Act.

So what does this reveal about our trusted and underpaid AMs? That Lesley Griffiths (sofa so good) has a big bum?  That Nick Ramsey (surround sound) is such a cool dude? That nice Lynne Neagle is a bookworm who hides behind fine and fancy curtains and offers her guests peanuts from a glass bowl?

Methinks we need more important detail than this please BBC. How many properties (second homes in Cardiff) have been paid for by the taxpayer in mortgage support for instance and have they been assessed for and paid the relevant taxes and been audited in the same way as the rest of us poor mortals are? I think we need to know so that an informed judgement can be made the next time they are up for election.

Personally, I think many of our AMs are grossly underpaid and under-rewarded for what they do; but… in the present skeptical climate and given some rotten apple examples in the Pork Palace of Westminster, other people don’t think the way I do.  I am such a trusting soul. In Wales, we are very fortunate indeed not to have such poor representatives of the people as exist across the Severn.

Still, it doesn’t do any harm to have a look inside the pork barrel from time to time. Just in case. Does it?

Update: the pdf with all the details is here

Update: Wah hey! This story has attained PorkBuster status from Guido Fawkes

GIVE THIS ITEM ABLOOD BOIL – RATING
(ie. does it make your blood boil when you read this!)
[ratings]

Calling all MPs in Westminster (and AMs) – please please click below to spend your John Lewis allowance!

Share
 

Politicians may well be in the public eye and thus fair game for Media scrutiny by journalists and their online equivalents, the blogging fraternity. However, there will be a backlash at some point (see below). Also, as has been pointed out by commentators on this and other Welsh political blogs, such all pervasive, invasive and malignant persecution of politicians and others in public life will dissuade good people from standing. After all, we all have aspects of our character, physique or past history that can be misconstrued. Probably most of our well regarded politicians of history had flaws and peculiarities of character and behaviour that would destroy them in today’s world.
We could end up with a bunch of squeaky clean politicians with no human character, vision, moral compass! or skills apart from training in the Mandelsonian arts.

Perhaps many users would realise that slagging off their employer online might be something to avoid but there are plenty of other issues to watch out for beyond defamation and employment law.
Just over a month ago, a blogger in Wales was convicted of posting a grossly offensive and menacing message online. He was prosecuted and fined under provisions in the Telecommunications Act for comments made about a police officer’s family.
It’s probably fair to say that most UK bloggers would never have heard of that legislation, let alone understand its impact on them.Indeed there are a range of laws that can catch offensive messages posted online, as well as other provisions, ranging from specialist intellectual property issues to incitement, that can trip up the unsuspecting blogger.


The trouble with any legal backlashes against the blogging world is that it will be too much and too late – just like the 42 days of internment.

Share
 

Such a tautly-worded stand-off has seldom been seen in the Assembly as that between Michael Grade, executive chairman of ITV, and Alun Davies, boss of the new broadcasting committee.

At its heart was the future of commercial broadcasting in Wales with the ending of digital broadcasting in this country next year. Continue reading »

Share

Cambria Books

New publication. Important contribution to our knowledge of the Arab Spring by Denis Campbell.
© 2011 CAMBRIA POLITICO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha