Tag Archives: Peter Hain

Vampires and Blood Banks

Well, the chickens have really come home to roost. In the blood bank, with a vampire as the overseer.

Remember how the ranks of unionist Labour politicians sallied forth to hold back the devolution of further powers to Wales? Well now they, and the rest of us, are going to be on the receiving end of some of the worst excesses of a Conservative ideology.

Let’s take this back to the Silk Commission. This was the Commission established by the Lib Dem-Conservative government to determine the scale of devolution that should be offered to Wales. It was – according to its author – going to bring a stable devolutionary settlement to Wales “for a generation, let’s say… 25 years”. I don’t know why anyone involved in the devolution process bothers making these ridiculous statements, or why they’re taken seriously. After all, I’ve shown that Peter Hain and Owen “end-game” Smith have got it humiliatingly wrong in the past. At any rate, Paul Silk’s ‘generation’ lasted all of 11 months, by which time its devolutionary limits had already been surpassed by the St David’s Day Agreement, which promised yet greater powers over, for example, electoral arrangements and energy.

But the Silk Commission was a work of compromise. The party representatives on the Commission (Part 2 – policy) were as follows:

One can only guess that these political appointees were carrying out the wishes of their respective parties. And given the Plaid aim of full independence, and the Liberal Democrat objective of ‘home rule’, it’s fair to assume that the hopeless policy recommendations of the Silk Commission were made so restrictive by a combination of Labour and Conservative intransigence.

So a combination of factors have conspired to leave Wales at the mercy of Conservative malignance. Firstly, a consistently feeble Assembly – not Parliament – with a devolved – not reserved – model of powers that left it wide open to constant legal challenge. This all put in place by the Labour party. Second, a risible selection of powers devolved. No police, no criminal justice, no taxation, no decent powers over energy, no broadcasting, the list goes on. This all put in place by the Labour party. Third, any chance to radically increase the scope of devolution to approximate Scottish powers consistently thwarted by the Labour and Conservative party. And now, fourth, a Labour party that promised to protect Welsh communities from the onslaught of Conservative policies falling apart in an election it couldn’t lose. Thereby leaving Welsh communities defenceless against that onslaught in all those policy areas that unionist Labour politicians fought tooth and nail to keep the preserve of Westminster.

It’s a classic case of Labour duplicity, incompetence, self-interest and downright malice. I should at this point state that although visiting right-wing policies on the Welsh people is a joint preserve of Labour and Conservative, I don’t blame the latter. They’re totally explicit about their chosen path. People who vote Conservative know what they’re getting.

So what lies ahead?

  • Ripping up the Human Rights Act. Michael Gove (who in 1998 was all for bringing back hanging people) will take sheer delight in making the UK (and Wales as the unhappy corollary) join Belarus as the sole European states unbound by the European Convention on Human Rights. This could have been avoided by the Labour party, if only they’d pushed for the devolution of criminal justice on the Silk Commission.
  • Dismantling the BBC. John Whittingdale, new Culture Secretary, believes the BBC licence fee is “worse than a poll tax”… “we are potentially looking at reducing a proportion of the licence fee”. This happens, of course, with Labour’s blessing. Because the Labour party could have prevented this happening in Wales through full devolution of broadcasting.
  • Caroline Dinenage is the new Equalities Minister. She voted against gay marriage in 2014. Equalities legislation could, of course, be the preserve of the National Assembly for Wales. If only the Labour party had pushed for it to be part of the devolution settlement.
  • The new Disabilities Minister, Justin Tomlinson, voted against protecting benefits for disabled children and cancer patients. He’s now in charge of the Access to Work Fund, which provides money to help people with disabilities get work. Any damage this man will bring to people with disabilities in Wales could have been avoided by the Labour party, if only they’d pushed for the devolution of benefits to Wales.

Which begs the question, who’s the vampire – and whose blood is being drained? Is it Conservative Ministers draining British institutions? Or is it Labour hegemony sucking dry the people of Wales?

Rho sylw

Filed under Conservatives, Equality, Labour, Welsh Government, Westminster

Welsh Politics Changes – for Good

The news that Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Green Party will participate in two of the three televised leaders’ debates has created a seismic shift in the power relationships of politics.

Plaid has faced problems of apparent legitimacy across swathes of Wales for decades. One memorable story is told of a young woman who, having been selected to stand for Plaid back in 2005, visited a relative in Newport to relay the good news. Her aunt was aghast, telling her “What on earth are you doing with those extremists!”

But that legitimacy has now been handed to Plaid on a silver platter. Because it’s very difficult for people in any corner of Wales to argue that Plaid isn’t relevant to the political discourse at a Wales or UK level when they’re on TV screens, beamed into 30 million homes from Islay to Islington.

One of the enduring myths of Welsh politics is that a vote for a particular party is a wasted vote; it’s one that it particularly commonly used by the Labour party to persuade people not to vote for Plaid. But as I’ve argued before:

…some parties will try to persuade you that your vote is wasted if you vote for so-and-so party in a UK election. That’s blatantly false, because it’s the one species of election where your vote is almost guaranteed to achieve nothing but send a message, regardless of the party you vote for.

This scenario couldn’t be a worse result for the ‘big UK’ parties. Instead of bickering amongst themselves to show who has the thickest fag paper to put between each others’ policies, they now face the prospect of policy humiliation by a determined, intelligent and telegenic trio of anti-austerity party leaders. The delightful schadenfreude is that it’s a result that’s been brought about by the parties themselves attempting to score cheap political points. David Cameron’s bluff has been called – he didn’t want to participate unless the Greens were also invited to the party (clearly he was unwilling to go into a contest where the only likely outcome would be his party bleeding votes to UKIP). But Ed Miliband can’t now refuse to participate, because of the extraordinary scenes in the House of Commons a few weeks back when he branded the Prime Minister ‘running scared’ for his stance and his Labour MPs ‘clucked like chickens‘. And with three left-wing parties in the fray, Ed Miliband now stands to lose the most.

In Wales, valleys seats that were formerly impregnable Labour fortresses will now start to drift into accessible territory for Plaid. The combination of new establishment-gifted legitimacy, the platform of the TV debates itself, and UKIP eroding Labour’s vote from the right mean that some veteran coasting MPs the like of Chris Bryant and Wayne David will have to start to work their constituencies.

It also signals the beginning of the end of the two-party system in the UK, and the one-party system in Wales. Although change happens relatively slowly under the first-past-the-post electoral system, the days of people sacrificing their principles to vote, with gritted teeth, for a candidate who is slightly less unappealing than the other candidate, are coming to a close. When people have a genuine choice over their options, they’ll give less of a fig about some fictitious formula where only X party stands a chance of being in government. The fact that every political pundit is saying this is the hardest election to predict for 100 years tells you that the field is wide open.

This 7-party debate, which I among many would have thought totally fanciful (although I participated dutifully in the social media to bring it about) has changed Welsh politics for Good.

Finally, it also vindicates the stance taken by Plaid of forming a bloc with the Greens and SNP. Some commentators (Simon Brooks, for example), have criticised Plaid for working with the Greens in the run-up to the UK election. However, it’s extremely unlikely that David Cameron would have used either Plaid or the SNP in the way he did the Greens in order to try to avoid the leadership debates, and which has ultimately led to this significant step forward for democracy in Wales.

 

1 Sylw

Filed under Conservatives, Democracy, Elections, Greens, Labour, Plaid Cymru, SNP, UKIP, Westminster

The Cost of Dependence

We in Wales were the first ones invaded and colonised by England, then came just about everyone else in the world.

At its height, the British Empire was the largest empire in history, covering 22% of the global land area (in 1922) and incorporating 20% of the global population (in 1938).

But just as the tides flow and then ebb, such has been the history of the British Empire. It’s left as a pathetic runt of its former glory, with just Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and Channel Islands), and 14 Overseas Territories including such big hitters as British Antarctic Territory (population 50), the South Sandwich Islands (population nil) and ‘Akotiri and Dhekelia’ (the UK army bases on Cyprus).

There’s an intriguing list of countries that have gained independence from Britain. 59 of them, all in all (excluding the four that have since seceded from others of the 59). And not one of them has asked, begged or pleaded to be let back in. They’ve gone their own way. And even though going their own way hasn’t always been a happy tale, in every single case they’ve preferred being independent than returning to the velvety warmth of the British bosom.

Many of these countries were poor at the time they achieved independence, some staggeringly so. But that never stopped them from demanding that the best place for decisions to be taken over their people was in their country.

I’ve got a theory.

The British Empire was – and still is – an extractive empire. Many African countries were exploited for slaves, the profits from which helped fuel the industrial revolution. The same is apparently true of India – which from the second largest economy in the world at the start of British Rule grew by zero percent for 90 years until they left, which is hardly surprising because there were huge cash transfers from India to London for the entirety of that period. Malaysia was a source of rubber and tin; and so on.

That’s not altogether surprising. Every empire has done the same. It would be rather pointless colonising somewhere and then investing more in that place than you’d reap from it. That would hardly please the natives back home.

And so to Wales.

There’s absolutely no doubt that the British state used to be an extractive operation. I don’t need to remind anyone of the history of extraction in Wales. The legacy of the water, slate, coal and steel that have been extracted are drowned communities, shattered lives and poverty-stricken communities. And a wonderful array of dazzling architecture – a small proportion in Cardiff, but mostly in London – paid for by the short, nasty and brutal lives of people in Wales.

But is it still extractive? After all, plenty of politicians tell us we’ve never had it so good, that we shouldn’t be ashamed of our poverty, that British beneficence is a marvellous testament to Unionist generosity.

Let’s think who makes the rules on funding. Who decides that the London Olympics were of such benefit to Wales that we paid our full share, despite them eschewing every single Welsh venue and building a hill in Essex rather than bringing Olympic mountain biking to the Afan Valley? That would be Westminster. At a cost of £8.9 billion.

How about Crossrail, the mega-project to make Londoners’ lives easier when crossing the megalopolis from east to west? Yes, we’d still be paying our full share of that – of course, it’s for the benefit of the entire UK, silly – if only the Scots hadn’t got all uppity and started voting for the SNP. The decision in 2007 that it was expenditure for the UK? That would be Westminster. Total cost = £14.5 billion.

Any other rail projects spring to mind? What about the white elephant known as HS2, coming in at a whopping £50 billion? Even the catatonic Labour Party in Wales has sprung into action, salivating at the prospect of £2 billion in Barnett consequentials. And the news from those holding the purse strings in – you guessed it – Westminster? All together now: “this project is for the benefit of the whole of the UK”.

Then there’s Trident – with costs estimated between £97 billion and over £100 billion (what’s a few billion pounds between friends?!), one of the most expensive projects imaginable. Wales’ share of that would be £5 billion. If you want to know how many hospitals that would build, Left Foot Forward has the answer.

And while we’re on the subject of warmongering, it appears that the British Empire’s attempt to exert influence in Afghanistan – that dismal, horrible failure of a campaign – cost £40 billion. For which the people of Wales shelled out £2 billion, or £670 for every child, woman and man in our country. Does that sound like value for money to you?

These are just the big projects, the ones we hear about because their expenditure is too colossal to sweep under the carpet. How many other decisions are taken against the interests of Wales because of inter-departmental jiggery-pokery?

Fancy giving £140 million to Cycling England? Sure. Does it operate in Wales? Hell no. Barnett consequential? Not on your nelly.

And to take just one more example, there’s all the highly paid civil servants in London. Now we know that civil servants are spread around the UK. But the ones at the very top of the tree?

This document is rather revealing. It tells us that in 2011 there were 3,192 Senior Civil Servants in UK, British or EnglandandWales government departments. And where are those departments all headquartered? London. The average salary of the lowest-ranking senior civil servants (pay band 1) is £73,000 (the highest-ranking (pay band 3) gross an average of £133,000). Most of the top echelons of the civil service will have been private-school educated in the Etons and Harrows of this world, raking in £100,000-plus and living in the shires. The whole system is designed to scratch the backs of the people with plenty. Who decides that these jobs are based in England? Why, that would be Westminster.

How many Senior Civil Servants are in the Welsh Government? A grand total of 123.

Let’s assume an average salary for these mandarins of £80,000. Wales’ share of those salaries (let’s not go near the bonuses, the pensions and the perks). The London salary packet is a shade over a quarter of a billion pounds per year. And Welsh Senior Civil Servants gross £10 million, or 23% less than we might expect is our entitlement if we got our Barnett share.

The list is probably endless. Every which way, the people of Wales are getting shafted.

Because these are the costs of dependence.

A series of posts is on the way. We’ll be looking at countries that have escaped from the punitive strictures of dependence to become free, independent, outward-facing countries on the world stage. I’m sure we’ll all be intrigued to find out whether or not having control over their own destiny has proven positive or negative for these vile splitters, nasty separatists and narrow-minded nationalists.

3 Sylw

Filed under Independence, Labour, SNP, Welsh Government, Westminster

How Long is One Generation?

It came to light recently that the Labour Party in Wales is moving towards the devolution of further powers to Wales. The nature of the offer is covered in more detail elsewhere, but one thought on Owen Smith’s comments got me digging through the archives.

Mr Smith – Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, no less – is quoted as saying:

While devolution will evolve we are getting closer to the end game

Servini

I wonder how much he knows about the history of Labour Party activity in this area?

It was the blink of an eye in political terms when someone else – as it happens, someone mentioned in Nick Servini’s immediately preceding tweet – expressed a firm opinion about the state of devolution in Wales:

The Welsh Assembly will not need further devolution for another generation… Whatever changing circumstances we face over coming years there will be no case for a successor Government of Wales [Act] in the decades to come

The omission of the word [Act] from the quote might have been a slip of the tongue. Or he might have been quite serious that no Government of Wales other than the one in place in 2006 (Labour) has a place in Wales regardless of “changing circumstances”.

Anyway, Peter might want to try explaining the futility of his work to Paul Silk, and of course to the Liberal Democrats who wrought the Silk Commission as part of the coalition agreement with the Conservatives.

Of course, Peter Hain’s got a great track record in political fortune telling. After all, he did tell us that the 2011 referendum bestowing primary legislative powers on the National Assembly for Wales couldn’t be won under:

any [foreseeable] circumstances

I suppose in one respect Owen Smith is correct. After all, any further devolution of powers is closer to the end-game if the end is federation, independence or ‘more devolution’.

Which of these comes under Owen Smith’s definition of foreseeable circumstances?

Update: It turns out we have a new definition of the length of a generation. While Peter Hain defines a generation as 8 years, Paul Silk has defined it as 25 years. Hands up who thinks the devolution offerings in Silk will bring “stability for a generation – 25 years”?

2 Sylw

Filed under Democracy, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Welsh Government, Westminster

Devolving Criminal Justice

This issue has sprung to life recently. By and large, most of us aren’t that preoccupied with constitutional affairs. It’s why there was such a low turn-out in the referendum on Part IV of the Governance of Wales Act (the one that vested certain law-making powers at the National Assembly for Wales). That’s right, the 2011 referendum the omniscient Peter Hain said couldn’t be won under “any [foreseeable] circumstances“.

So when people are asked by polling companies whether or not they would like to see criminal justice devolved to Wales, you’d hardly expect them to be gripped by fevered enthusiasm. For starters, I’m not sure I understand what’s encompassed by criminal justice, and I’m something of an anorak. Just how detailed Dai Jones Cwmbach’s knowledge of criminal justice is we can only speculate.

So it’s not a terrific surprise to see that in one of the only comprehensive polls asking the question, just 37% of people in Wales would like to see “the courts and criminal justice system” devolved.

But that may be about to change.

Because it turns out that on occasion the Home Office has decided that Wales is a good place to rehouse criminals convicted of serious offences. Criminals with no former connection to Wales, that is.

I was first alerted to this issue by Paul Flynn, who has written to the Home Secretary to complain following the news that a London gang leader at “serious risk of reoffending” has been rehoused in Newport.

And just days later, WelshNotBritish, in a blogpost titled with characteristic finesse, has uncovered the news that Gavin Benit, a convicted sex offender from Oldham, was “placed” in a flat in Colwyn Bay.

I mentioned earlier on that “on occasion” the Home Office has rehoused serious offenders in Wales. We can be reasonably confident that those occasions number no less than two.

But is there something more systemic going on here? Is the Home Office rehousing serious offenders in Wales as a matter of course? And is this one of the benefits of our criminal justice remaining a reserved matter? After all, Cheryl Gillan as Secretary of State for Wales stated:

I understand that the Welsh Government is planning a consultation on the establishment of a single legal jurisdiction for Wales. But why?

“What is the problem that needs addressing? How would such a change benefit people or business in Wales?

“The pitfalls of a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, and consequent devolution of the entire criminal justice system, are glaringly obvious. I see no case for changing the current system for England and Wales, which has served Wales well for centuries.

Perhaps those opposing the devolution of criminal justice to Wales, such as Cheryl Gillan, would like to speak to the 15-year old girl raped by Gavin Benit to find out just how such a change would “benefit people or business in Wales”.

It’s why constitutional affairs should bother everyone in Wales, even Dai Jones Cwmbach.

4 Sylw

Filed under Conservatives, Democracy, Police, Welsh Government, Westminster

Target Seats in Wales: Plaid

Plaid Cymru’s situation throws up a series of interesting findings. For the other parties, there was by and large a clear correlation: those seats where the party does well in share of the vote are those where it is relatively close to the incumbent party. For Plaid there are a slew of seats where they pick up a decent share of the vote (ten seats they don’t hold with 20% of the vote or more) but are way behind the victorious party. The reason is, of course, the Labour hegemony in south Wales.

So here are the stats for those keenest amongst us.

Plaid already hold: Arfon, Carmarthenshire East & Dinefwr, Ceredigion, Dwyfor Meirionnydd and Ynys Môn.

And here’s the top 10, in order, of seats that Plaid will be eyeing up in 2015:

  • Llanelli
  • Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire
  • Caerphilly
  • Aberconwy
  • Clwyd West
  • Neath
  • Clwyd South
  • Cardiff West
  • Rhondda
  • Preseli Pembrokeshire

This gives us an indication of the scale of the challenge facing Leanne Wood in her decision to contest Rhondda in 2016. The reason it’s only the 9th-best prospect is because Plaid were a massive 34% behind the first-placed party in the last poll, despite recording nearly 30% of the vote themselves. It’s a mountain to climb. People talk in awe about Alex Salmond’s astounding capture of Gordon in 2007. That required an increase in the share of the vote of merely 19%. Leanne needs an increase of 35%. Such a result would be spectacular and – excepting Brent East (itself a special case) – unprecedented.

Should Labour be complacent? The stats tell us a bit more of the story. Leighton Andrews’ 12,650 votes were only 1,400 more than Wayne David’s in 1999 – and would not have been enough to deny Geraint Davies from taking Rhondda in 1999. In that first Assembly election turnout was 50.2%; turnout in the last Assembly election was just 38%. It seems to suggest that when there’s an interesting political contest, turnout is boosted. And history suggests that the boost in turnout benefits one party more than any other.

Enough of Rhondda. Because we need to take account of the fact that Plaid don’t hold the same constituencies in both Parliaments, Ceredigion and Ynys Môn arrive at the top of the list, pushing Rhondda to 11th spot. Our list now looks like:

  • Ynys Môn
  • Ceredigion
  • Llanelli
  • Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire
  • Caerphilly
  • Aberconwy
  • Clwyd West
  • Neath
  • Clwyd South
  • Cardiff West

It’s no surprise to see Ynys Môn at the top of the list. Following Plaid’s recent success in the local elections, and with Ieuan Wyn Jones announcing his resignation today, Plaid would be in pretty poor shape to lose the seat at the upcoming by-election. Expect lots of visits to the island from Peter Hain and other Labour big guns, and a non-stop discussion of Plaid’s uncomfortable position on nuclear. Following by-election success, Ynys Môn is clearly a major target for Plaid in 2015, with Albert Owen’s majority of under 2,500. Ieuan Wyn as the candidate, perhaps?!

Ceredigion has become a much more interesting contest with the selection of Mike Parker as candidate for Plaid. Mike is one of the most interesting candidates Plaid could have picked for this constituency. Erudite, English and engaging. Someone who can fire people’s imagination.

I said previously that Mark Williams would be “firmly in control of the seat for 2015”. Suddenly I’m not so sure. Let’s remember that Cynog Dafis pulled in an additional 8,200 votes to take Ceredigion for Plaid in 1992. And Mark’s majority? 8,300. Hold onto your hats!

Llanelli looks distinctly less achievable for Plaid in the UK election than at the Welsh election. Nia Griffith commands a 4,500 majority, and although that was reduced at the 2010 election, it was a poor election for Labour in general. And given that the totemic Ron Davies couldn’t take Caerphilly in an Assembly election that is always more benign for the Party of Wales, it’s not likely to fall in 2015. 

In the face of a Labour party expected to improve on its 2010 performance – although not spectacularly, given Ed Miliband’s struggling leadership – most of the rest of the top 10 look challenging. Add in the UK context under which UK elections are (unsurprisingly) fought, alongside the London-centric bias of the broadcast and print media, and the picture looks tough for gains of more than one seat. Holding onto Arfon will be enough to keep the troops busy between now and 2015.

10 Sylw

Filed under Democracy, Elections, Labour, Plaid Cymru, Westminster

The Line-Up

So it’s official. The by-election for Penarth and Cardiff South will be on 15 November, the same day as that for the Police Commissioners.

The Police Commissioners’ election could scarcely be less relevant. After all, Police Commissioners are opposed by all parties in Wales (nominally the Welsh Conservatives are in favour, but a shoe-in for at least 3 Labour politicians to high profile jobs for life must seem a bitter pill for them to swallow on behalf of their Westminster masters). And it’s a policy that could seriously backfire. Not least because the one thing you can guarantee voters will want is more bobbies on the beat. And as far as the Audit Commission is concerned, wandering the streets is a “not effective” way for highly-paid police officers to be tackling crime.

Why are no such elections happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland, by the way? It’s because policing and criminal justice is devolved to those countries, and their governments appear to have more sense than the UK Government, which is grimly pushing ahead because it’s a manifesto commitment (not that that appears to be a major impediment). And as I’ve previously suggested, given the majority support in Wales for devolution of policing, the Commissioners could be out of a job before too long in any case:

Stephen’s going to have to get used to being branded hypocritical. Because in relation to police numbers, if we look north to  Scotland, police numbers are actually rising. But then police and criminal justice is devolved to Scotland (and Northern Ireland), so they’re much better equipped to withstand the ‘vicious cuts’ that Stephen is so concerned about. Perhaps he’d be better off asking Peter Hain why he thought policing would be better off financed by London than Wales than bleating about 750 officers being lost as a result of Labour’s failure to devolve when they had the chance…

I’m with Stephen that privatisation of the police forces a la Lincolnshire – policing for profit – is a bad idea. But the only cast-iron way of ensuring it doesn’t happen in Wales? Devolve policing and criminal justice – something, incidentally, that’s supported by a substantial majority of the Welsh public.

But irrelevant as these elections are, there’s one thing that keeps me from taking Lord Ian Blair’s advice and not voting in the election. And this, despite my reluctance to give any credence to the grotesque and not credible advertising that the Home Office has been taking out in its desperation for this election not to be the farce that many expect.

Regular readers of this blog will know that Alun Michael’s not my favourite politician. And it’s not just for the reasons I gave here:

I won’t be shedding many tears over Alun’s departure. His awful performance as First Secretary to the National Assembly for Wales along with his ‘strong support’ for the Iraq war and for renewing the UK’s nuclear arsenal are a matter of public record (I guess it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money when you’re on an MP’s salary). I just hope that the general contempt in which he appears to be held in Penarth is replicated throughout south Wales and he fails to get the £85,000 top job at South Wales Police. I know of die-hard Labour supporters who either abstain or vote Labour with a peg on their nose and with gritted teeth because of Alun Michael.

A few people I know are more than a little disgruntled because they’ve never received responses from multiple attempts to contact Alun Michael – and yes, these are constituents of Penarth and Cardiff South. Active citizens who’ve given up on their MP because of his poor record on communication. So Alun, you won’t be racking up a vote from this blog – in fact I’ll be having a think about the best tactical vote to be made to give you an early retirement. I figure if someone’s crap at communicating as an MP they’re not likely to be much ‘cop’ as a Commissioner – where communication with the plebs is crucial.

I won’t be offering publicity to the candidates this time round because I’m focused on the real issue of the day. If we’re still saddled with the donkeys of Commissioners in four or five years’ time I’ll reassess.

But we can put Commissioners to one side for the time being, because this post is really about the fantastic line-up of articles coming your way in the next few weeks. Last month I said:

On sequential days running up to the by-election I will publish an election message from each candidate in the election. The election address should be no more than 500 words, and I will publish it unedited (provided it doesn’t include defamation, incitement to violence etc.).

I confess it may not be possible for me to post one after the next each day, but I’ll do my best. In any case, all candidates who fit the criteria I stipulated here will get their election messages in time for the election.

So barring mishaps where a candidate fails to pass on their election material in good time, this is the line-up we’ll get on 8 days leading up to 15 November:

  • Stephen Doughty (Labour)
  • Roberth Griffiths (Communist)
  • Andrew Jordan (Socialist Labour)
  • Bablin Molik (Lib Dem)
  • Luke Nicholas (Plaid Cymru)
  • Anthony Slaughter (Greens)
  • Craig Williams (Conservative)
  • Simon Zeigler (UKIP)

Candidates: you should send your election messages (500 words or less) to penartharbyd[a]gmail.com to arrive no later than 31 October. And as a final caution, don’t think that you’ll earn any favours by not continuing to pass on your election material after your election message has been published!

Good luck persuading the electorate…

8 Sylw

Filed under Conservatives, Democracy, Elections, Labour, Police