The way we were

Mike German, leader of Welsh Liberal Democrats, Cllr Keith Davies and Frank Little

The man on the right has aged rather less well than in the other two in this picture from eleven years ago, when we campaigned successfully to keep Post Office counters open in New Road, Skewen, eleven years ago. Local campaigners will be back outside the mini-mart at 11:00 today, hopefully including two of the three above.

Why UKIP want seats in Wales

Few people believe that UKIP has the well-being of Wales at heart in putting up candidates for the Welsh general election. The need is to get their hands on a chunk of AMs' salaries (which have recently been increased, in spite of WLD objections) to prevent their party going the same way as the BNP. Guido Fawkes has publicised the relevant figures:

Income  between 1 October and 31 December 2015:

Conservative Party – £5,152,334
Labour Party – £2,669,241
Liberal Democrats – £828,657
UKIP – £196,282
BNP – £180,000
SNP – £54,030

That's you, that is

I am sure that I am not the only one who has been reminded of Baddiel and Newman's warring historians when witnessing the exchanges between Cameron and Corbyn at the dispatch box. Yesterday's prime minister's question time had echoes of this episode. The subject was the NHS in England:

Jeremy Corbyn: We all want a strong and successful NHS, but that will not be achieved by provoking industrial action, misrepresenting research or failing to get a grip on the cost of agency staff in the NHS, which now amounts to £4 billion. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s own local NHS trust has overspent on staffing costs by £11 million this year, yet has managed to spend £30 million on agency staff. Will the chair of the Oxford anti-austerity campaign be writing another letter to himself on behalf of his constituents, asking for the Health Secretary to intervene to support his local NHS?

The Prime Minister: I am very proud of the NHS in Oxfordshire and everyone who works in it. Having met the head of the Oxford Radcliffe trust recently, I know that he supports the move towards more seven-day services. That is absolutely vital.

Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab): Ask your mother!

The Prime Minister: Ask my mother? I know what my mother would say. She would look across the Dispatch Box and say, “Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”

Jeremy Corbyn: If we are talking of motherly advice, my late mother would have said, “Stand up for the principle of a health service free at the point of use for everybody.” That is what she dedicated her life to, as did many of her generation.

The PM would presumably make the excuse that it was a Labour member who started it. However, his escalation, I suggest, came close to being out of order. It was yet another example of "dead cat" tactics. To give him his due, Corbyn asks pointed questions. Cameron either veers off the subject or repeats spurious claims.

Jeremy Corbyn: This dispute with the junior doctors has been on the basis of misrepresented research about weekend mortality. I will read the Prime Minister what the researchers themselves say:

“It is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these excess deaths may be preventable; to assume that they are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”

Are the Prime Minister and his Health Secretary being “rash and misleading” with these figures?

The Prime Minister:  [...] Let me answer very directly the question about excess deaths. The 6,000 figure for excess deaths was based on a question asked by the Health Secretary of Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS. Now that we have had time to go into these figures in more detail, I can tell the House this: the Health Secretary was indeed guilty—he was guilty of an understatement. The true figure for excess deaths at the weekend are 11,000, not 6,000.

The government's interpretation of this statistic has already been refuted. Moreover, where there has been a real problem - stroke deaths at weekends - clinicians in the English NHS have virtually solved it without having to change junior doctors' contracts.

I fear today's Conservatives view the junior doctors in 2016 as the equivalent of the miners for Mrs Thatcher. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, the government will be seen to be defeating militant trade union action. At the end of the day, they will have sufficient power to defeat the BMA. There is one difference between the miners and the junior doctors: the doctors have plenty of alternative employment opportunities, and those who have not already moved across to our NHS in Wales* or left for other nations in the Commonwealth will surely do so. The result will be a deterioration in hospital provision. Mrs Thatcher rejected plans to privatise the NHS, not because she was opposed to the process, but because she knew that the NHS was held in such high regard that to proceed would be electoral suicide. Cameron and Hunt, with a background of genuinely increasing hospital deaths, would not find it so difficult.

* There will be more if Mark Drakeford addresses the problem of the assignment of new doctors. It seems that at present the latter may be posted anywhere in Wales. This creates difficulties for a doctor in a Merseyside hospital, say, who would be content with an assignment in north Wales where it would be easy to maintain contact with family and friends, but find a move to south Wales more trying.

One for Rams and Elizabeth Taylor fans

- though Tim Farron will not be too pleased. In the Derby-Blackburn match earlier today, the scorer was given as Butterfield 8.

EU referendum (final instalment for the time being)

I want to come back to Michael Gove's reasons for wanting to leave the EU. The full thing is here. Comments on selected passages (in italics) follow.

My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.
At present we have a virtual elected dictatorship, there being no consistent opposition in the House of Commons. If corruption is not already flourishing (and the financial pages suggest that this government is as much in thrall to the bankers as Gordon Brown ever was) then all the conditions exist for it to do so. If Michael Gove believed in a fair voting system for Westminster, his argument would carry more weight, but it seems he does not.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out.
We elected David Cameron and his ministers (though Scots would dispute this). As I hoped to demonstrate in earlier posts, Mr Cameron needs only the support of one or two heads of government of other EU nations to block measures such as tightening vehicle pollution limits or abolishing mobile phone roving charges.

We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT
VAT may be reduced as an emergency measure such as when the country is in or on the brink of recession. How an emergency is defined could be open to interpretation! But I do have sympathy with this point, even though I don't see the Conservatives wanting to reduce regressive taxes any time soon.

cannot support a steel plant through troubled times,
Surely a trading bloc larger than an individual nation has more power to combat dumping? What failed in the case of Tata was government awareness of the situation and/or willingness to pursue our steel-makers' case within the EU at an early stage. Other EU nations have similar problems and I'm sure we could have made common cause.

Mr Gove may be referring to direct state aid. If so, I am surprised that a "dry" Conservative should contemplate such a thing. The restrictions on state aid were quite rightly brought in (largely at UK behest, I believe) to produce a fair market across the Union and prevent fellow-members distorting competition by propping up, for example, inefficient state airlines.

 cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed
That is down to private builders who are sitting on undeveloped land banks. One cannot see that changing in a non-EU Britain. Or is Mr Gove saying that the EU prevents us from restoring powers to local authorities to build social housing?

 and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country.
I would like to see a worked example.

we set up the first free parliament
That was in Iceland, surely, and the Isle of Man's Tynwald also has claims. If Mr Gove objects that qualification for membership of those bodies was restricted, then he should note that New Zealand beat us to granting universal suffrage.  

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people.
No, national governments' short-sighted populist economic policies created those failures. The low interest rates which obtained when the euro launched may have encouraged feckless financial policies, but where national chancellors were responsible, as in Germany, there was no long-lasting misery. One notes that Germany achieved a record budget surplus last year. Is the pound to blame for our continuing deficit? 

European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment.
In my estimation, those EU countries which suffer from high unemployment are those in which corruption is entrenched and where too many influential citizens are allowed to escape taxation

 EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.
The increase in refugee movement has been caused by the destabilisation of the Middle East, to which both the Blair-Brown and Cameron governments have contributed. The EU is responsible only to the extent that it recognised a government-in-waiting which had no prospect of success but increased the fission in Syria. On the other hand, the EU continues to support civil society in Afghanistan which should help to stem emigration from that country.

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people.
Things are changing.  A process of increased transparency and parliamentary accountability has begun, which I date from the accession of  the Nordic nations. Even in France, the electorate is beginning to question the imperial aspirations of some of "the elite". We have rather more friends on the continent than inward-looking conservatives believe.

This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).
Mr Gove mocks the trivial rules and standards, but he does not acknowledge the power of the EU to curb the power of virtual monopolies such as Google and Microsoft.

ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies.
Not the successful entrepreneurs who speak at LibDem conferences.

 As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.
Mr Gove underplays the role of parliament, which admittedly does not examine statutory instruments as thoroughly as it should.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: ‘Yes Minister, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s against EU rules’.
Surely a criticism of our senior civil service and the multinational consultants who are largely taking over from them. France and Germany would not be so feeble.

We can take back the billions we give to the EU,
Only if we break entirely from the EU. An association agreement would require a financial contribution.

 the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings
On one wasteful parliamentary building in Strasbourg - there I would agree. Liberals in the European Parliament have a good record in voting to have this abandoned. It seems that other parties and ministers (including Conservative ones) do not wish to upset the French.

 and bureaucratic follies,
The commission is rather more efficient than the British civil service

and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

We are the world’s fifth largest economy,
Germany is the fourth largest and is quite happy to remain in the EU. The suggestion that we might overtake Germany in terms of GDP by 2030 is now discounted. 

with the best armed forces of any nation,
In terms of quality, maybe, but not quantity and they continue to be run down - but an irrelevant point

 more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country.
Also irrelevant. Whether in or out, there is still a problem of converting research into product.

 Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone,
Depends on what you mean by "dynamic"

we have the most attractive capital city on the globe,
Debatable

the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state
As great as tiny Norway?

and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?
We are also heavily indebted. Part of our ability to sustain a deficit and therefore rising borrowing at tolerable interest rates is because we are part of a cooperative bloc. At the time of writing, the pound's value abroad has plunged because of the uncertainty created by the manoeuverings of various politicians in advance of the referendum. 

The unbearable dominance of the EU referendum

The newspaper headlines have been dominated for some time now by the EU referendum. Now that a date has been fixed, press activity has become more frenzied. The current effort is concentrated on pinning down to a view those politicians who have not already declared themselves "in" or "out".

The Labour first minister has already deprecated the timing of the referendum. He knows that Welsh public opinion is formed largely by the London-based media. (If we only had a vigorous native press as the Scots do!) The issues of the Welsh general election are therefore likely to be at the back of Welsh electors' minds. (I note that the election pitch announced in Carwyn Jones' conference speech was the simplistic "it's us or the Tories".) In theory, this blanket coverage of the EU situation should suit Liberal Democrats in Wales and in the London elections, as we have consistently been the most pro-EU party in the UK. Away from the City of London, there has been a dawning realisation that jobs of ordinary working people will almost certainly be lost - even before the negotiations for exit begin - if the referendum vote is for "Leave".

How many jobs would be lost, and how soon, is a matter of debate. Somewhere around 3 million jobs in the UK are linked to the EU. That is not to say that they are all dependent on the EU, but only a Little-Englander would claim that they would not be affected. I can believe Nigel Farage and his friends when they claim that the City would continue to thrive, but much of industry would wind down. Airbus wing production would surely move to Poland and Tata's future would be bleak, for instance.

That dispute over job numbers illustrates what will be the besetting trouble of the public debate over the spring and early summer: that both sides, but mainly the "Leavers", will be flinging extravagant claims back and forth. The unedifying AV referendum campaign of 2010 gives us a glimpse of what is to come. In that, the reactionary side resorted to misrepresentation and even downright lies, which were not corrected by that supposed bastion, the popular press. UKIP leaders have been peddling untruths for some time and surely worse is to come.

It is depressing that Iain Duncan Smith, who claims to have negotiated in Europe, is ignorant of the democratic basis of EU decision-making in claiming (as on The World This Weekend) that policy is dictated by unelected officials. (His other claim that staying in the EU increases our risk of terrorist attack smacks of desperation.) Michael Gove's statement has rather more intellectual rigour but there are some disputable points which I want to come back to in a later post. He correctly identifies that decisions are made by elected people, both in the parliament and in the council of ministers, but when he argues that "Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out." he ignores the fact that our elected ministers in the Council and our elected MEPs contribute to that law-making. He also consciously or unconsciously echoes the complaint of the Scottish Nationalists who chafe at the decisions of a Conservative government in Westminster which Scotland had overwhelmingly rejected at the polls.

In the end I fear it is going to come down to personalities as the average voter is more clear as to whom he or she trusts than they are able to evaluate all the opposing statements. So far on that score, "Remain" is winning on points!

64

Katharine Whitehorn's discussion today with Michael Berkeley over her taste in music had no revelations for someone who had followed her career even after giving up The Observer on a Sunday. She has been rather more candid in previous BBC features. However, it is a good starting point for someone unfamiliar with the journalism she pioneered. (Is there any chance of BBC repeating on Radio 4 Extra her original reading of her autobiography?)

One thing I would object to is Michael Berkeley's assertion (and her apparent acquiescence) that at the time of the Beatles, "when I'm sixty-four" was generally seen as an age when one was doddery. It is true that when the first state pension was introduced* it was payable at age 70 when "only one in four people reached the age of 70 and life expectancy at that age was about 9 years" (Paul Lewis, http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm). Setting the virtual retirement age so high is seen by some as a cynical move by the Treasury to save the taxpayer and employers money. From just before she was born, though, the pension age was reduced to 65 which clearly recognised that people had active life after retirement. In the early 1960s, when "When I'm 64" was written, in large part because of the NHS, it was already a cliché that there were people who were busier in retirement than they had been during their working lives.

* by David Lloyd George, in that great pre-war Liberal government which also included Winston Churchill, who had brought in William Beveridge as a senior civil servant.

Cameron is a secret outer

How else to explain:

• denying the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, the section of the population most likely to appreciate membership of EU
• preventing long-term residents of continental Europe who retain their UK citizenship from voting
• making a big song-and-dance about renegotiation and returning with an agreement which meets only a small part of his demands*

and now holding the referendum on 23rd June when so many English and Welsh football fans will be away in France for the European Nations Cup? Moreover, only just over a month after national elections in Scotland and Wales, some local elections in England and PCC elections throughout the nation, voter fatigue will have set in. Only the most EU-obsessed electors will be bothered to turn out.

* and on the social security front, less than could - and should - have been achieved by normal negotiations out of the public eye, in my opinion.