Boring, Boring Senedd

(Pic : topnews.in)

He hasn't been in there long, but one of the new intake of AMs – Steffan Lewis AM (Plaid, South Wales East) – caused (a bit of) a ruckus a few weeks ago after claiming Assembly proceedings were "dull to watch".

Steffan didn't say anything that hasn't been said before, though it prompted a reply from former Lib Dem AM, Cllr. Peter Black, as well as Jayne Bryant AM (Lab, Newport West) – both of whom saying to varying degrees that politicians aren't supposed to be entertainers.

Politicians have said enough. As a lay person I've had more experience than most of watching the Senedd. So it's time to call it as I see it from the other side of the screen and make this never-ending boring discussion even more boring.

Is the Senedd boring?

I can't possibly imagine how anyone could get the
impression Assembly debates are "dull to watch"....

Yes.

Anyone who says differently is either: an AM with their head shoved so firmly up their backside that if you pulled them out you would be crowned king or queen, a liar puckering up to kiss arse, or someone whose idea of taking a walk on the wild side is buying a Coldplay album then going trainspotting without a coat.

I only watch a small number of Assembly proceedings, but 95%+ of what I see is a cure for insomnia. It's therefore  no surprise they wanted to film Spectre there, or that state broadcasters use post-midnight showings of parliamentary sessions as a clear "Go to bed, citizen!" order.

The things AMs say are important and that's why people sit through it; but being important doesn't mean it can't be boring at the same time: a neuropharmacology seminar for instance or, just to prove I'm not blinkered,  this site.

As for why debates might come across as boring:

• Too many AMs speak to the clock when they don't need to (I cringed at Peter Black's suggestion the 5 minute limit should be lifted. If anything it should be cut to 3 minutes and I doubt it would make much difference to the substance of AMs' contributions). This generates a lot of hot air because....
• ....There's an over-reliance on contrived, long-winded pre-prepared speeches and answers to questions which often read much better on paper; the average 5-minute AM speech is usually similar in word count to a typical post on this blog (800-1500 words). It makes AMs appear to be attempting something as futile as grey corporate spokespeople trying to be Churchillian at a regional sales conference for plumbing supplies.
• A few AMs are very poor public speakers; this can be fixed with training. I won't say who as I'm not that cold-hearted and an AM's job is about more than that, but I'm picturing AM support staff and Assembly Commission staff nodding furiously....and I'm sure some AMs groan internally when certain members are called to speak.
• A reluctance to let debates flow and take interventions (though it varies).
• One of my pet peeves is repetition of the same points and questions (or rephrased versions) within the same debate – a sign AMs don't pay full attention to what they're saying to each other and just want their full 5 minutes. This was amply demonstrated during April's steel crisis debate.
• The same topics pop up in opposition debates two or three times a year and just send everyone around in circles. That's why I stick to the more topical member's debates that would otherwise go under the radar. The short debates (what Westminister calls adjournment debates) sometimes cover interesting topics but lack substance to be of any real use, often done in front of an empty or near empty chamber.
• Too many buzzwords, particularly from the cabinet (Translation for the Nation).
• We live in an era where people go on dating shows completely naked because we don't do subtlety anymore and having an attention span is soooo 90s. AMs cannot reasonably expect the public to drop whatever they're doing to watch the Communities, Equalities and Local Government Committee discuss local council collaboration for two hours. There'll never be any mass interest in committee meetings unless reported in a bite-size manner.

Before I get it in the neck, all of that ^ is completely normal for a parliament. The problem with this debate isn't that the Assembly is "boring", but that that the issues are being portrayed as unique to Wales when they're not. I challenge anyone to sit through a House of Commons debate other than PMQs (try a Westminster Hall one), the Scottish Parliament or a local council meeting and say they're any better. So none of this is an argument for the Assembly to be scrapped "for being a talking shop" either.

There's no quick solution to this and I don't know what can be done because I have little idea of how the Assembly works behind the scenes. It's ultimately down to the culture in Cardiff Bay, how individual AMs choose to present their arguments or, indeed, what AMs see themselves as being there for – legislators and public representatives, or entertainers and minor celebrities seeking drama for drama's sake. See also : Assembly set to bare all for the press?

Chamber Issues

Would a few mass brawls get viewers tuning in?
(Pic : Telegraph)

One of the other well-trodden complaints is that AMs are glued to computer screens during plenary sessions and don't seem to pay attention to debates, just tapping and clicking away.

The computers allow AMs to catch up on work, do last minute research or use things like the internal instant messaging system (I think they use it to indicate when they want to speak). As long as AMs are making proper use of it there's no problem, but I can understand why casual viewers - if any exist in the first place - won't be impressed.

If things were run like Westminster (or even Holyrood), these AMs wouldn't even be in the chamber as they would have to do that work in their offices instead. The chamber would be emptier than it sometimes is with AMs constantly coming and going or just turning up to debates to be seen to turn up.

The IT systems in the chamber were upgraded recently and I'm surprised they haven't shifted whole scale from desktops to tablets (which would lessen the impact of the computer screens). Presumably that's down to costs and issues like secure wi-fi, but AMs earn more than enough to buy tablets themselves (if they don't already own them) and I've seen AMs use tablets in committee meetings.

There've been complaints about electronic voting, but I don't see the point of roll call. Instead of a few minutes, voting could take up to half hour or more each time. It's not as if the public will tune in in droves to see AMs vote on Stage 4 of a Bill, and I doubt many care who voted for what unless it's a controversial issue (which is very rare, maybe once or twice a term). It would just be a pointless inconvenience for all involved.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I believe too many oral questions are tabled. Although questions that go unanswered are usually replied to in writing, some of the questions asked by backbenchers perhaps aren't as incisive or as urgent as they might think; they might be better pursued as a member's debate instead (particularly where AMs from different parties want to ask similar questions). The suggestion there should be a shorter notice period for question submission and more questions without notice is a reasonable enough, but it's not going to boost interest on its own unless, again, there's something controversial being discussed.

The relative informality is a saving grace as the Welsh have never liked a big head. Working on first name terms might seem too informal but it also makes AMs, up to and including cabinet members, appear accessible and down to earth – much more so than the artificial pomposity of Westminster.

Speaking of pomposity, I don't see how the Senedd has suddenly become more important than what it was a few months ago because it'll soon have powers over sewerage and the ability to tax rubbish. The main difference between then and now - from what I've seen so far - is a bigger wage bill and the prospect of fewer Bills  over the next four and a half years. Debates over the name/branding and how that affects public perceptions can wait for another day but – and I rarely agree with David Taylor - even contemplating discussing that now shows an unhealthy institutional naval-gazing. They've got bigger issues to worry about at the moment.

The "Engagement" Paradox

(Pic : scarfolk.blogspot.com)

One thing everyone in and around the Bay Bubble is preoccupied with is "engagement". That translates as "getting the public actively involved with, and interested in, the Senedd, its members and its proceedings".

The Assembly Commission's outreach service have been unsung heroes, particularly when it comes to schools and young people as well as raising awareness the Senedd as an institution. That doesn't necessarily extend to AMs themselves. Nevertheless, there are plenty of ways the public can "engage" with the Senedd that don't involve watching proceedings, neither do you really have to watch it to understand how it works. If anything, watching it on a regular basis will put people off.

You can whinge at AMs on social media at all hours of the day, you can send letters and emails to AMs, you can attend public meetings and surgeries, you can look up the latest news for yourself on the Assembly's excellent websites – all of that is "engagement". When someone reads one of my blogs on an plenary debate they're indirectly "engaging" with the Assembly too.

Now there are suggestions the public should tell AMs what they should prioritise and feed them questions. It doesn't hurt to ask us what we would like them to focus on from time to time (particularly the committees), but there is such as thing as too much engagement and that presents AMs with a professional quandary.

On the one hand, AMs are paid a small fortune to ask the right questions on our behalf – it's one way we judge whether they're up to the job or not or whether they're representing us properly. If they don't know what questions to ask by instinct, they have serious engagement problems of their own or are out of touch with the communities they represent.

On the other hand, if AMs pay lip service to the opinions of constituents and take a high-handed approach to what they believe is the right thing to say or do, then they'll continue to exist in a "bubble" and the public might not feel they're represented at all, only the ego and personal opinions of the politician – see Brexit and immigration. There are very few, if any, AMs who are like this; it's more a problem with MPs but it's something all politicians are tarred with and one of the main reasons there's a feeling of disillusionment.

For example, if a school explodes in their constituency or region - sending burning children running through the streets, and parents rage-posting on Facebook that little Tyler now looks like a Sunday roast – but a local AM asks questions on endangered newts (because they're a member of the local Newt Society) or hails the latest Third Sector brainfart, they probably shouldn't be an AM. Ditto if you were of a certain persuasion and were celebrating blacked-up Welsh people wailing and waving their arms about as a glorious return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.

Balance is key. Listening to the public is a main part of what all politicians do, but AMs shouldn't become a slave to it. The public aren't always right and there's nothing wrong with AMs speaking out of turn with public opinion, or going after something they feel passionately about but isn't considered mainstream, as long as they justify it properly.

Summing up and putting it in the bluntest terms, I have a life (seriously) and I've voluntarily sacrificed part of it to cover the Senedd. Many things are more important than politics and following politics is, at the very least, an unpleasant part-time job that, more often than not, saps the joy out of your life and ruins your day by filling sunny skies with black clouds. I get enough of that from Arsenal.

By all means make it easier for the public to follow Welsh politics, but never expect them to see it as their duty, or an obligation to themselves. A majority of people have simply given up because it's too much work, relentlessly negative and they don't want that in their lives.

It shouldn't be like that of course - and we take the civic-minded spirit of people who go into politics for granted (even if they chuck it away sometimes) - but until the public regains some faith in the political process, AMs will have to learn to work with it. That's no reason to give up trying though.