Is Rachel Banner Wales’ Sarah Palin?

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:

27 thoughts on “Is Rachel Banner Wales’ Sarah Palin?”

  1. Its funny and sad at the same time how little Banner and her ilk think so little of Wales and the people of Wales. I guess its some inferiority complex. ‘We don’t have the abilities, we’re not bright or creative,’ it’s a strange way to win people’s minds.

  2. Does Rachel Banner consider herself to be Welsh? She doesn’t sound Welsh but I know that doesn’t mean that much. Has she always lived here? So it might not be some ‘inferiority complex’ on her part. Nobody seems to know anything much about her. I don’t suppose it’s that important and it’s the arguments we should consider. But True Wales are very much laying importance on who/what people are as opposed to their arguments aren’t they?

  3. Another thing they have in common is a proclivity for making numerous assertions that are – I choose my words carefully, since I am on my best drawing-room behaviour – not quite accurate. Some of Palin’s whoppers about the NHS have had even rock-ribbed Tories spluttering in indignation. Banner’s barrage of porkies about the work of our Assembly and Government has alienated a number of ardent Unionists. If I were a bit naughty, I’d urge her to keep it up, but we need a mature standard of debate in this country.

    Palin clearly speaks on behalf of the health insurance racket, sorry, industry in the USA. They can no more let even Obama’s limited plans be implemented than pimps could tolerate the freeing of bawdy-house inmates.

    Banner, it is tranparently obvious, is the mouthpiece for the old-style Taffia who are outraged at being deprived of their unrestricted command of power and patronage. Although very ignorant and obtuse, they are endowed with a considerable measure of low cunning. (This poisonous combination is a common trait amongst regular defendants in the magistrates’ courts.) They can’t let this go by without putting up a fight, but don’t want to be seen openly opposing their party’s policy. With their characteristic misogyny, they’ve chosen a woman to act as shock absorber for the drubbing they’re going to get in the Referendum.

  4. Regarding Obamacare, Toby fails to grasp two points:
    1. Many more than Palin’s followers oppose the plan including a federal court that just declared the plan null and void because it violates the Constitution. (The decision will be appealed and wind up before the Supreme Court.)
    2. The issue is not an either/or matter. The majority opposing Obamacare do NOT support the status quo. They seek a plan that is affordable, treats everyone equally and doesn’t give control of your health to the federal government, all of which are contrary to Obamacare. Obama’s intent is admirable but the law is fatally flawed. If you need details, I’ll elaborate.

  5. ‘Obamacare’ … oh dear, name-calling. Derry’s already told us quite enough.
    1. Not what I said. Anyway, let’s wait and see: after all, in the Dredd Scott case the ruling was that depriving a man of his property righs in another human being violated the constitution. Mind you, I DO like your notion of government policies as commodities. The idea of not buying an unlawful and unwinnable colonial war is not altogether unattractive!
    2. This point both confused and confusing. Why not run a few alternative ideas past us?

  6. A few ideas as requested by Toby in his post above: 1. Repeal all laws that prevent insurance companies from crossing state lines to make insurance portable and more competitive.
    2. Equalize tax laws so employer-provided health care and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
    3. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. At 77, why must I buy maternity coverage?
    4. Enact tort reform to end expensive, frivolous, ruinous law suits.
    5. Make costs transparent so people know what costs what.
    6. Eliminate special Obamacare deals with unions, several states, etc. so everyone, every place has the same deal. More ideas available.

  7. If Toby wants to kook backward rather than forward (point 1 above), I remind him that British hands are hardly clean. They collected and transported a few slaves over the years and did a bit of human rights deprivation of their own in the Caribbean.

  8. Who actually IS Rachel Banner and on whose authority does she speak for anyone other than herself? I’ve been poking about the web trying to find out and coming up with nothing – the ‘True Wales’ website seems to make no sense whatsoever, particularly if you try to find out what their idea of a true Wales actually is, or what their policies are.

    It all seems to me to be another effort on the part of people who either actually want perpetual government from Westminster or who genuinely believe that we in Wales are incapable of governing ourselves. In the changing world of today that’s untenable. How I would love to see a crowd in the streets chanting “Game Over, Westminster!”, but alas we seem to either too comfortable or too cowed by centuries of keeping to our place.

  9. Glad Derry knows about the scoundrels over here who grew rich off what John Wesley denounced as ‘that vile trade in human flesh’. His unsuccessful resort to ad hominem indicates I hit a sore point. Let’s leave that to him to explain – if he can, of course. For my part, I prefer to honour the memory of people on three continents who put a stop to it, sometimes at sacrifice of their lives.

    The scattershot blast of disparate points tells us nothing except that Derry, like all of us, is for niceness and against sin. Mind you, his style of ‘argument’ could have some application over here. Perhaps I shall inform Dr. Liam Fox that I have no need, at my advanced stage of decrepitude, to indulge in non-existent aircraft carriers, and that I require my income tax to be reduced accordingly. Nice one!

  10. Rachel Banner would seem to be, first of all, the porte-parole of the old-style Taffia who’ve always favoured the status quo as the only context in which their system of corruption and patronage can be viable. It’s interesting that the usual suspects amongst the Welsh Labour delegation are keeping their heads down this third time round.
    We can’t, of course, ignore the Tory element. The more intelligent Tories – and, even in their diminutive talent pool here, there are some very intelligent people amongst them – can see that their only hope lies in a constructive engagement with Welsh society at large. The knownothing element are determined to carry on sleepwalking into oblivion. So, alongside the Labour Taffia, True Wales also represent the Toryism that dare not speak its name.

  11. Toby:
    Of course slavery is a sore point (as it should be). You brought up Dredd Scott, a sad event from the past (there contemporary Constitutional violations more relevant to the discussion) so I returned the favor. Nothing more.

    As far as the list of disparate points is concerned, Obamacare is more than 2000 pages of disparate mandates, rules and regulations (none of which address controlling costs). Thus, the alternatives (there are many) you requested must address each of those disparates. I fail to understand why you find that unsatisfactory.

    It’s interesting that you find some of my responses “confused and confusing”. Frankly, I have some trouble following your train of thought, too. Maybe some of that is cultural. Maybe we don’t know as much about each other and where we’re from as we think we do. Maybe, as has been suggested in the past, we are separated by the same language. My intent was to explain some situations rather than to argue for or against a point. Maybe that didn’t work. Regardless, I appreciate the give and take.

  12. Good stuff!

    I’m a great fan of the separation of powers. In fact, I wish we’d had it here rather than a cardboard replica of what it amuses some people to call the Westminster Model. Nevertheless, it does produce some fiendishly detailed legislation. Aneurin Bevan’s legislation on the NHS would have produced a better model, but the current US legislation has emerged in the form given it, to a large extent, by people determined to ensure it didn’t happen at all.

    Looking at the legislative text, it strikes me that it would have been much better if the primary legislation had provided the framework, with details to be filled in by subordinate legislation. Looking at the horsetrading that got it through, I’m pleasantly surprised it’s not a good deal more convoluted than it is. As Bismarck remarked, people interested in both sausages and laws should not examine too closely how they are made.

    While we’re on this general subject, what do you think of the monocameralism/duocameralism debate? I know it used to be discussed in the USA at one time, and I’ve an idea that one or two States may in fact have abolished their Senates. Fine Gael are thinking out loud about doing this in Ireland. Even where an Upper House hasn’t got the weighting function it fulfils in a federation, I still think there’s a strong case for having one anyway. What do you reckon?

  13. I’m sorry to tell you, Toby, but we agree. Your second paragraph above is basically one concept I tried to explain in my paragraph you deemed confused and confusing. The Republicans who control our House claim they voted to repeal Obamacare so they could start over. Since the Democrats who control the senate will not pass repeal, changes will have to be made disparity by disparity. The structural problem with Obamacare is that it was assembled by the Democrats behind closed doors without consulting anyone outside Democrat operatives. As a result, it passed without a single Republican vote, the first time such sweeping legislation has not been passed with bipartisan support.

    Bicameral vs. unicameral (American speak): Bicameral is closer to the intent of our founding fathers who wanted to make change difficult by providing a variety of checks and balances on power. Prior to the 2010 election, Democrats had unchallengeable control of both federal legislative branches. Thus, the checks and balances didn’t work and we got a poor piece of legislation. (We might have anyway, but that’s another story.) The basic argument for unicameral seems to be that it simplifies government. True, but you lose a degree of checks and balances. Bills can be approved quickly without thought to unintended consequences which lurk behind virtually every action. So I am inclined toward bicameral for its check on power.

    One state, Nebraska, has had a unicameral legislature since the 1930′s. I think it was seen as a cost-saving move during the Great Depression.
    To my knowledge, no other state has tried unicameralism.

  14. Here’s a surprise for some: The Palins (as in Sarah) are a union family. Sarah’s husband, a laborer, is a member of the United Steelworkers union. When Sarah was employed by a utility company, she was a card-carrying member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. She’s now appealing to her “union brothers and sisters”, telling them their current labor leaders are “out of touch” with the workers and are not serving union members and their families.

  15. The impression I have is that Obama has, in several matters, tried to imitate FDR’s strategy of waiting a bit with a view to letting things fall into place. Not viable in the present state of affairs, evidently.

    Another interesting contrast is with Aneurin Bevan, whose oratory relates plainly at all points with the legislation that he introduced. With Obama’s health legislation, on the other hand, the dense mesh of technicalities is very, VERY hard work indeed and not easy to relate to the declared intention. Probably a lesson there.

    So it was Nebraska! On the whole, if starting from scratch I’d certainly prefer a bicameral legislature. The necessity for representing individual States has provided a convenient mechanism for electing the second chamber in the USA, although in quite a few countries the composition and powers of the second chamber are frequently matters for continued controversy. In Ireland, abolishing the Senate is a hardy annual, and I believe they did for a while during the Thirties.

    In Scotland, although there were three Estates, I gather that they sat together in one body. As far as I know, there’s little or no call for the modern Parliament there to have a second chamber. When the Welsh settlers in Patagonia adapted the US Constitution for Y Wladfa, they decided on a monocameral legislature (see the appendix in Bryn Williams’ ‘Patagonia’).

    In a federation, I think you’d never get away without a second chamber. If the constituent territories as such don’t have an active part in the constitution, there are dangers to the integrity of the system as a whole.

  16. Yes, Obama tends not to respond quickly. I think he is an impressive speaker, but too often, in my view, the details of his generalities fail to materialize. He never did explain the substance of his health bill.
    One reason so many states (now 28) object to the law is that it requires major mandates to be paid by the states, not the federal government which made the mandates, a point that was not generally understood until after the bill was passed. And special deals for votes allowed some states to avoid paying for some of the mandates. That upset unfavored states.

    Regarding legislatures, the truth is that the U.S. founding fathers wanted the Senate (at the time appointed by state legislators; two Senators per state) to keep watch on the House (elected by “the people” – originally just some of the people – and allocated per state by population) because the founders were a bit nervous about giving “the people” the vote. Not until early in the 20th century were Senators elected by popular vote and no longer appointed.

    In the case of the U.S., with a large, diverse population, if you had one body in which the number of representatives is based on population, the larger states would control legislation. If you had one body with a fixed number of representatives per state, controlling power would be greater for smaller states. Such inequity is presumed to be addressed with the Senate favoring the small states while the House favors the large states. That’s the theory.

    While improved communication, a common popular culture and increased mobility have been great levelers, there still are some cultural differences among states and regions which some believe argue for two legislative bodies.

  17. Up to a point, the US Constitution looks very like a tidied-up version of the 18th-century British system, with the representative principle substituted for the hereditary. A surprising aspect of it all is how much of the Constitution as actually adopted seems to have been hammered out at the last moment before everybody went home. If ‘The Federalist’ is evidence, then many features of it (e.g. the College of Electors) must be functioning in ways never envisaged by the Founding Fathers. Hmmm…

  18. Now vs. then: They probably would be surprised both ways – how much is functioning differently from the vision and how much still is working as planned. The Electoral College is, in fact, one of the latter. The College is designed to avoid a pure, direct democracy in presidential elections. And it does its job – preventing a few states with large populations from controlling, absolutely, the outcome. Another barrier to “factions”.

  19. The principle of weighting the votes of the constituent members of federations seems to have become widespread. Granted, the vote may not necessdarily be equal – cf. Canada or Australia, but the principle is pretty clear

    ‘The Federalist’ seems to envisage that the College of Electors would be compose of what would in the UK be called the Great and the Good – the British Nomenklatura, as it were – and, as you say, elect one of their own class at a remove from popular passions. While that aspect doesn’t seem to have stuck, the mechanism still operates and continues to perform the weighting function.

    I have a strong feeling that an 18th-century British politician travelling through time would find it easier to get his bearings in modern Washington than in London. (If brought to modern Cardiff, in his time a tiny and declining port, he would probably have a nervous breakdown!) The White House is obviously the Court, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the House of Representatives is clearly the House of Commons. What we now call parliamentary responsibility had only begunt to emerge in his time, and it’s not unlikely that he’d have considered it a Bad Thing.

  20. Sounds like a reasonable assessment to me, Toby.

    I have the impression that one of the problems in Brussels is a shortage of checks and balances.

    It may be of interest to know that the selection of electors (not the number but the individuals) for the US Electoral College is determined by state law, not federal law. In my state, we have a caucus system for statewide and national elections as opposed to the more popular pure primary system. Each spring before a state/national election, registered voters in each party meet (caucus) (separately) in each precinct to choose who will represent the precinct in the House District caucus and the state/national caucus. The representatives at those caucuses elect who will be on the ballot and who will represent the state in the Electoral College. Candidates who receive more than 30% of the caucus votes appear on the primary election ballot to determine who will be the party’s candidate. (You also can petition your way onto the ballot by collecting the signatures of a certain percentage of registered voters in the state or district who say they want your name on the ballot.) The electors are bound by state law to vote for the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in the general election. A couple of states do not have such a law and once in awhile a maverick elector creates a problem as a consequence. And a couple of states require the electors to cast their votes proportionately to mirror the the actual vote count percentages.

  21. The EU sometimes reminds me of the USA under the Articles of Confederation. At other times, it reminds me of the North German Confederation without an equivalent of Prussia. And at still other times, it makes me think of Switzerland before the War of the Sonderbund. And, in between times, I think I should switch from Chardonnay to claret and get out more.

    The original European Communities (known as ‘The Six’) looked uncommonly like the territories of Charlemagne’s empire. In the early Fifties there was an attempt to create a European Defence Community in order to square the circle of West German rearmament, but it failed to be ratified by the French National Assembly.

    Each subsequent reform, and each expansion, has brought more social and ethnic tendencies into play, with each new group engaging in the enterprise bringing its own priorities and aspirations. One development, which nobody had foreseen, was that peoples such as the Welsh, the Catalans, or the Slovenes, have found the EU to be an arena where they can begin to act autonomously – with one or two nations even managing to become direct members of the Union.

    As you observe, institutionally it’s a bit like a half-eaten bowl of pasta puttanesca left to congeal overnight. There’s no pan-European of the Federalist movement, and so such checks and balances as exist have generally come into being as a consequence of horsetrading and posing by people and parties pursuing their own aims in the new pan-European context. Less and less corresponds to the original design, and there are certainly tensions. However, comparing the European experience in the 60-odd years since the beginnings of the EU, with the 60 years before that, I certainly prefer the former.

  22. Funny that Rachel’s predictions are comming TRUE.
    I think that is why “True Wales” was used, this implies that the
    yes campaign did not tell the truth.

Leave a Reply