Reason number one
If the current devolution process was in place in any other area of Welsh life there would be uproar.
Imagine: Warren Gatland picks his team and makes a gameplan for the opening game of the World Cup but Martin Johnson and the suits at Twickenham refuse to let the Welsh players play an expansive game in the second half. Instead, they have to keep the ball up their jumpers in their own 22 until thirty seconds before the end, when Johnson will tell Gatland whether or not Wales are allowed to score.
That wouldn't be acceptable and neither is the current system of political devolution. A Yes vote means that Wales will be in control of our political tactics and gameplan. (And we'll still be part of the Lions squad when it comes to things like defence and foreign affairs.)
Reason number two
It's a vote about Wales, our country. It's not about politicians, government or the Assembly.
We need to have the courage and self-respect to run things that are already devolved to us by ourselves - just like Scotland and Northern Ireland have been doing over the last decade. A Yes vote reaffirms that Wales is as much of a country as these two places.
If you don't like the politicians we've got then vote in some new ones in the May election. Or stand for election yourself.
Reason number three
The Assembly's not perfect. But neither is Parliament (Iraq, cash for questions...).
At least the Assembly is full of people from our communities, working for Wales. The Welsh voice at Westminster is tiny and gets swallowed up by the 600 other MPs each looking out for their own part of the UK. Only the Assembly puts Wales first.
A Yes vote lets the Assembly run things that are already devolved exactly according to who we elect. A No vote keeps Wales at the mercy of civil servants in Whitehall and unelected peers in the House of Lords who have a veto over many things that the Assembly may want to do in areas that are already devolved, like health and education.
Reason number four
The vote is not about:
1. more tax - a Yes vote would not increase taxes or give the Assembly the power to raise taxes.
2. more politicians - a Yes vote would not increase the number of Assembly Members.
3. politicians 'grabbing power' for themselves - the power already exists at Westminster. The vote is about whether Wales should have a bit more of that power. Even most MPs think that we should and will themselves vote Yes.
Showing posts with label UK politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK politics. Show all posts
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Saturday, 25 October 2008
One in ten British prisoners are ex-Forces
Research carried out by the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) shows that roughly 10% of those incarcerated are ex-services. Elfyn Llwyd brought attention to this fact by hosting a parliamentary debate last Tuesday. He talked of receiving communication from one ex-serviceman:
"...on the conclusion of his tour of duty he was flown to Cyprus with his comrades for three days’ R and R. There was alcohol day and night. On the concluding day, they were all put together in a hall and an officer asked them, “Any problems, anybody? No? Fine.” Tick the box, and that was it. Obviously, in the macho culture that exists in the services, those men would not admit problems in the presence of their friends and comrades."
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have calculated that as of late 2007, the UK had spent some £7bn on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While this may compare favourably to the $3tn that the USA has spent, why hasn't more of that £7bn been spent on post-combat care?
Llwyd went on to quote an article from the Independent on Sunday that sets out some MoD expenditure: "£86.8 million was spent on private education for officers’ children, and in the Royal Air Force £1 million was spent on chauffeurs, £3.4 million was spent on waiters in officers’ messes, £800,000 was spent on bar staff and £2.8 million was spent on paying chefs."
Not only does the government send them to fight an unjust war and is failing them in combat, it does not care enough what happens to them when they return.
"...on the conclusion of his tour of duty he was flown to Cyprus with his comrades for three days’ R and R. There was alcohol day and night. On the concluding day, they were all put together in a hall and an officer asked them, “Any problems, anybody? No? Fine.” Tick the box, and that was it. Obviously, in the macho culture that exists in the services, those men would not admit problems in the presence of their friends and comrades."
Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have calculated that as of late 2007, the UK had spent some £7bn on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While this may compare favourably to the $3tn that the USA has spent, why hasn't more of that £7bn been spent on post-combat care?
Llwyd went on to quote an article from the Independent on Sunday that sets out some MoD expenditure: "£86.8 million was spent on private education for officers’ children, and in the Royal Air Force £1 million was spent on chauffeurs, £3.4 million was spent on waiters in officers’ messes, £800,000 was spent on bar staff and £2.8 million was spent on paying chefs."
Not only does the government send them to fight an unjust war and is failing them in combat, it does not care enough what happens to them when they return.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Miliband of Brothers
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has claimed that climate change is a 'low impact risk'. Interviewed in the October edition of Prospect, the former Environment Secretary compares climate change and terrorism in terms of their probability and the risk they pose to the UK (his second answer under ' On British politics, the future of Labour and the left'). He says that terrorism is low probability but high risk, while climate change is the opposite.
On the risk that climate change poses to the UK Miliband has got it wrong. It is true that we might not suffer most from changes in our immediate climate - although the floods will most likely get worse and more frequent, and the summers might disappear as they did this year - but the mistake that Miliband makes is to consider climate change solely from an environmental perspective. It is much more than that. It will create huge movements of peoples, seeking land safe from rising sea levels, floods, droughts, and hurricanes, and suitable for agriculture to sustain them. It will create conflict where these migrations inflame tensions between the nations of the world. There is in reality no limit to the impact that climate change will have, particularly for a nation like the UK that will be seen as a haven due to its relatively unaffected climate and its wealth.
One can only hope that his brother at the newly created Department for Energy and Climate Change has a different view. Although seeing the government's recent approval of a new runway at Stansted, it doesn't look like Miliband Jr has much clout at the Cabinet table.
On the risk that climate change poses to the UK Miliband has got it wrong. It is true that we might not suffer most from changes in our immediate climate - although the floods will most likely get worse and more frequent, and the summers might disappear as they did this year - but the mistake that Miliband makes is to consider climate change solely from an environmental perspective. It is much more than that. It will create huge movements of peoples, seeking land safe from rising sea levels, floods, droughts, and hurricanes, and suitable for agriculture to sustain them. It will create conflict where these migrations inflame tensions between the nations of the world. There is in reality no limit to the impact that climate change will have, particularly for a nation like the UK that will be seen as a haven due to its relatively unaffected climate and its wealth.
One can only hope that his brother at the newly created Department for Energy and Climate Change has a different view. Although seeing the government's recent approval of a new runway at Stansted, it doesn't look like Miliband Jr has much clout at the Cabinet table.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
David Cameron: odd one out
Of the four most senior members in the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, only David Cameron did not go to Magdalen College, Oxford. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve, and Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague were all privileged enough to have a deer park outside their bedroom window at university. Cameron had to make do with Brasenose.
Grieve for Davis
A combination of reading Nick Robinson's blog telling how 42-day detention is now dead and coming across a Guardian interview with Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve made me think, how did David Davis get on in his by-election?
It was back in June that Grieve's predecessor resigned over the government's proposal to extend the period of detention without charge from 28 to 42 days (or, in his words, over the government's 'strangulation' of British freedoms). He triggered what was to all intents and purposes a single issue by-election in Haltemprice and Howden, causing masses of media coverage for a few days, but I have absolutely no idea what the outcome was.
It transpires that Davis won with over 17,000 votes, almost 6,000 fewer than he received in 2005 yet tripling his majority. The Green Party came second with over 1,700 votes. Turnout was 34%. In the event, there were 26 candidates including David Icke and those representing 'Church of Militant Elvis Party', 'Make Politicians History', and 'Miss Great Britain Party'. Labour did not field a candidate, calling Davis's resignation a 'farce' and a 'stunt'. The Lib Dems also decided not to contest the election.
So was it worth it? Are Davis's by-election and the Lords' reported inclination to hammer 42 days linked? Davis says that before his resignation polls showed that 69% of people supported the government on 42 days, but afterwards this figure had fallen to 39%. Davis certainly gained himself and the issue a great deal of publicity by resigning. However the story quickly disappeared and Davis lost the trust of David Cameron and a seat on the front bench in the process. Moreover, given the conservative nature of the Lords, they are somewhat unlikely to have been moved by the extraordinary actions of a member of the Shadow Cabinet. 42 days would have failed without David Davis's resignation.
It was back in June that Grieve's predecessor resigned over the government's proposal to extend the period of detention without charge from 28 to 42 days (or, in his words, over the government's 'strangulation' of British freedoms). He triggered what was to all intents and purposes a single issue by-election in Haltemprice and Howden, causing masses of media coverage for a few days, but I have absolutely no idea what the outcome was.
It transpires that Davis won with over 17,000 votes, almost 6,000 fewer than he received in 2005 yet tripling his majority. The Green Party came second with over 1,700 votes. Turnout was 34%. In the event, there were 26 candidates including David Icke and those representing 'Church of Militant Elvis Party', 'Make Politicians History', and 'Miss Great Britain Party'. Labour did not field a candidate, calling Davis's resignation a 'farce' and a 'stunt'. The Lib Dems also decided not to contest the election.
So was it worth it? Are Davis's by-election and the Lords' reported inclination to hammer 42 days linked? Davis says that before his resignation polls showed that 69% of people supported the government on 42 days, but afterwards this figure had fallen to 39%. Davis certainly gained himself and the issue a great deal of publicity by resigning. However the story quickly disappeared and Davis lost the trust of David Cameron and a seat on the front bench in the process. Moreover, given the conservative nature of the Lords, they are somewhat unlikely to have been moved by the extraordinary actions of a member of the Shadow Cabinet. 42 days would have failed without David Davis's resignation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)