This site is no longer updated
Please use the links in the sidebar to visit the new sites!
Showing posts with label 4Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4Commission. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Monday, 8 February 2016
Assembly petitions reforms outlined
 |
| As attentions turn to the Fifth Assembly, a Petitions Committee review has recommended a number of improvements to the petitions system. (Pic : National Assembly of Wales) |
(Told you so.)
The National Assembly's e-petitions system, launched in 2007, has become one of the main ways the public and organisations influence decisions made on our behalf.
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Tuesday, 13 October 2015
A Comprehensive Review of Welsh Law-Making
 |
| We voted to give AMs law-making powers in 2011, so how has the process been handled since? (Pic : National Assembly of Wales) |
Making new laws is the National Assembly's most important function, though it's a role that – apart from a few high-profile cases like the Human Transplantation Act 2013 – draws little in the way of media coverage or scrutiny.
Thursday, 23 July 2015
Assembly Requests "Clear & Durable" Devolution Settlement
 |
| When the Prime Minister and that-other-bloke-who-used-to-be-important announced their response to Silk II, it looked like we were due constitutional clarity. So far it's still a bit cloudy. (Pic : The Guardian) |
Monday, 9 March 2015
Mo' money, mo' problems
 |
| They asked the audience....then completely ignored them. |
Monday, 2 March 2015
A St David's Day Deposit
 |
| Legend says the ground beneath St David rose so all of his audience could see and hear him. Like his namesake, the ground beneath David Cameron rose too, but it was a steaming mound of dung. |
Most people don't care about the constitution, what powers the Assembly has or the intricacies of how devolution works. They're more concerned about public services, and what the decisions made by politicians mean for themselves and their families.
Some of us realise the constitution determines what decisions politicians are able to make in the first place – all of which has a direct impact on the public.
As you probably all know, the Silk Commission published two reports between 2012-2014 as part of "the next step in Wales' devolution journey" etc.
The first report (Silk I) covered taxation powers for the National Assembly. Those powers are now on the statute book in the Wales Act 2014, meaning from 2018 the Assembly will have the power to set landfill tax, stamp duty and the aggregates levy. It also means the Assembly can call a referendum on whether they should have the power to vary income tax - which the First Minister is already attempting to scotch. This is despite the inclusion of a new funding review, which Carwyn Jones said would be required for his government to back a referendum.
Holding a referendum on such a technical subject is, as
Borthlas said today, "one
of the silliest ideas ever to be proposed by a government"
and very easy to lose.
As I've said before (Marching out of lockstep) a referendum on a general principle of fiscal powers - i.e. "Should the National Assembly have the power to fund devolved services by borrowing money and collecting taxes devolved to Wales?" - would be a juicer topic for the public to have a debate on and would definitely necessitate going to the polls to get a mandate from the electorate.
As I've said before (Marching out of lockstep) a referendum on a general principle of fiscal powers - i.e. "Should the National Assembly have the power to fund devolved services by borrowing money and collecting taxes devolved to Wales?" - would be a juicer topic for the public to have a debate on and would definitely necessitate going to the polls to get a mandate from the electorate.
The second report (Silk II) covered extra powers, which was taken forward by the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.), who set a deadline of 1st March – St David's Day – for a cross-party, cross-government consensus on Silk II's recommendations. You can read the full report, which was published last Friday to great fanfare, here (pdf).
Whisper it quietly, but I've been impressed with how Stephen Crabb has gone about his job. He's done more for Wales in 8/9 months than his predecessors have in the best part of a decade. I don't blame him personally for this brown whale, rising from the depths of the bowl to mock Ahab.
This may well be another "step forward on Wales' devolution journey", but it's also one last blast of Westminster's brand of constitutional Poodigree Chum out of the tradesman's entrance before the election.
What's been agreed?
- A reserved powers model, which should clear up what the Assembly's powers are by listing what the Assembly can't do. Except it won't clear anything up because of the piecemeal nature of Welsh devolution. Reserved powers would be like putting the current Schedule 7 in a mirror (if you see what I mean).
- Inter-governmental relations – Puts relations between the two governments on a more equal footing, with better co-ordination of policies in areas like training, economic development, cross-border rail routes and franchises as well as cross-border health services.
- Ports policy and development.
- Speed limits.
- Bus and taxi regulation, along with Traffic Commissioner functions.
- Places a duty on the UK Government to consult with the Welsh Government, and take into account Welsh energy policy, when approving energy projects of up to 350MW. This effectively means the Welsh Government will have a veto on "fracking".
- Sewerage and some aspects of water (with further negotiation).
- Marine licensing.
- At least one appointee to the Supreme Court should have an understanding of Wales.
- Local government elections.
- The Assembly itself – The Welsh Secretary will no longer have to appear before the Assembly, or have a right to participate in Assembly proceedings. The Assembly will also gain control over the age to vote in Assembly elections, the size of the Assembly and its name/branding. The National Assembly will also be recognised as "permanent".
- The First Minister should have the power to recommend appointments to Lord Lieutenancies (more on this from me later this month).
What's been taken off the table?
Some significant stuff – arguably the only significant powers outlined in Silk II.
- Youth justice and probation services.
- Policing (all aspects).
- There'll no longer be a review of devolution of the criminal justice system (courts, prisons, criminal law) in the 2020s.
- Drink-driving limits – this has already been devolved to Scotland.
- Network Rail funding – Scotland currently receives a population-based proportion of Network Rail's UK-wide funding (around 9%). In 2013, just 1% of Network Rail's budget was spent in Wales compared to a population share of ~5%. This means Wales will continue to, in nominal terms, "subsidise" English rail projects, resulting in significantly less than our "fair share" to invest here.
- The Crown Estate – It currently generates a £9.4million surplus in Wales, and is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
- State funding for S4C and appointment of S4C board members.
- Any and all aspects of social security - aspects of which will be devolved to Scotland.
- Responsibilities in relation to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
- Teachers' pay and conditions.
- The civil service.
What does this mean?
 |
| Thanks to the efforts of Nick Clegg and the "true party of Wales", the National Assembly is set to have power over shit. Literally. |
Not only are the UK
Government hamstringing devolution, but there are people in and around the
Assembly doing so as well.
The reason criminal justice powers have been taken off the table – the devolution of which would've finally put Wales on a near equal footing with Scotland – is because the Welsh Conservatives oppose it and must've vetoed it.
Welsh Labour probably did too, but they support devolution of policing at least (What's all this then?) – though Ed Miliband doesn't even want to go that far, promising some bizarre role in report-writing. It doesn't help that Owen Smith is arguably the most devo-sceptic Welsh Secretary-elect since 1999. He has to justify his position somehow.
The UK Government have also, quite literally, devolved shit to Wales. So we need to be grateful for the existence of Nick Clegg. Without Nick, Wales wouldn't have powers over faecal poltergeists and used tampons – but, at the same time, we're not good enough to run policing. Lib Dems should put that on their election leaflets.
I'm sure quite a few AMs from all parties will be underwhelmed by the St David's Day agreement, but this is a mess partly of their own making, as they put far too much faith in the "proper process" to the point of being gullible. In short, the UK never has been, and never will be, a union of equals; while constitutional reforms are pushed through in reaction to immediate threats to the status quo, not political consensus and grand commissions.
The UK is a very dysfunctional "family" indeed.The Scots have proven that if you want something you need to rattle your sabres. In political terms that means electing nationalists but, unfortunately, even then Wales would have very few sabres to rattle.
I'm not going to use the same old tired clichés about Wales "being slapped in the face" or "insulted" or "offered third-rate devolution" because this is exactly the outcome I was expecting :
Nope, not going to happen. Again.
A cross-party commission's reasonable and proportionate recommendations have been watered down. Again.
Scotland is moving leaps and bounds ahead of Wales. Again.
Powers which, by rights, should be devolved (like abortion limits, medicine licensing, drink-drive limits, and Network Rail funding....because subjects like health and transport are devolved) have been taken off the table. Again.
The only person who has a right to be chuffed with this is the Llywydd, Rosemary Butler (Lab, Newport West). Her recommendations (Assembly Commission steps up to the oche) are included almost word for word.
So don't worry. The National Assembly might, in future be called Welsh Parliament because "National Assembly" isn't a good enough name for Wales....but it is for France, Greece, South Korea, Hungary, Pakistan and South Africa.
Oh, and all those 16 year olds chomping at the bit to vote may be able to (The X-Factor). Great stuff. Meanwhile, the "Assemblement" will be able to block "fracking" but won't be able to control any energy project that produces more power than a BMX dynamo. The UK Government will retain ultimate control.
I look forward to the recommendations of the Baroness Kirsty Williams Commission on Devolution for Wales in 2024, which will outline a lasting settlement and put the issue of constitutional reform to bed for....
The reason criminal justice powers have been taken off the table – the devolution of which would've finally put Wales on a near equal footing with Scotland – is because the Welsh Conservatives oppose it and must've vetoed it.
Welsh Labour probably did too, but they support devolution of policing at least (What's all this then?) – though Ed Miliband doesn't even want to go that far, promising some bizarre role in report-writing. It doesn't help that Owen Smith is arguably the most devo-sceptic Welsh Secretary-elect since 1999. He has to justify his position somehow.
The UK Government have also, quite literally, devolved shit to Wales. So we need to be grateful for the existence of Nick Clegg. Without Nick, Wales wouldn't have powers over faecal poltergeists and used tampons – but, at the same time, we're not good enough to run policing. Lib Dems should put that on their election leaflets.
I'm sure quite a few AMs from all parties will be underwhelmed by the St David's Day agreement, but this is a mess partly of their own making, as they put far too much faith in the "proper process" to the point of being gullible. In short, the UK never has been, and never will be, a union of equals; while constitutional reforms are pushed through in reaction to immediate threats to the status quo, not political consensus and grand commissions.
The UK is a very dysfunctional "family" indeed.The Scots have proven that if you want something you need to rattle your sabres. In political terms that means electing nationalists but, unfortunately, even then Wales would have very few sabres to rattle.
I'm not going to use the same old tired clichés about Wales "being slapped in the face" or "insulted" or "offered third-rate devolution" because this is exactly the outcome I was expecting :
The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpufThe question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpufThe question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf
04/03/2014 : "....if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future)."
The
question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result
acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind
yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to
achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved
in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf
he
question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result
acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind
yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to
achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved
in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf
There have been several
opportunities down the years to put the devolved powers issue to bed
once and for all and ensure Wales has a settlement that would last
more than a decade. People like me can then shut up about independence and further powers, and AMs
can concentrate on running the country, safe in the knowledge that
they would be on a clearer footing within the UK's
constitution.- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf
Nope, not going to happen. Again.
A cross-party commission's reasonable and proportionate recommendations have been watered down. Again.
Scotland is moving leaps and bounds ahead of Wales. Again.
Powers which, by rights, should be devolved (like abortion limits, medicine licensing, drink-drive limits, and Network Rail funding....because subjects like health and transport are devolved) have been taken off the table. Again.
The only person who has a right to be chuffed with this is the Llywydd, Rosemary Butler (Lab, Newport West). Her recommendations (Assembly Commission steps up to the oche) are included almost word for word.
So don't worry. The National Assembly might, in future be called Welsh Parliament because "National Assembly" isn't a good enough name for Wales....but it is for France, Greece, South Korea, Hungary, Pakistan and South Africa.
Oh, and all those 16 year olds chomping at the bit to vote may be able to (The X-Factor). Great stuff. Meanwhile, the "Assemblement" will be able to block "fracking" but won't be able to control any energy project that produces more power than a BMX dynamo. The UK Government will retain ultimate control.
I look forward to the recommendations of the Baroness Kirsty Williams Commission on Devolution for Wales in 2024, which will outline a lasting settlement and put the issue of constitutional reform to bed for....
Monday, 13 October 2014
Anything to declare?
 |
| "Financial interests" and "politicians" in the same sentence is always combustible, though proposed changes to National Assembly rules will dampen the fires a bit. |
A consultation with AMs began in January 2014, and a preliminary report was prepared by the Standards Commissioner in July 2014.
It's said five (of ten) categories of financial/personal interests were of particular concern:
- Remuneration, Employment, Office, Profession etc.
- Remuneration for other material benefit
- Financial Sponsorships
- Shareholdings
- Public Bodies
The Committee made 15 recommendations in total, which would mostly result in changes to the National Assembly's Standing Order 2 (pdf, latest version). All changes will need to be approved by the Assembly before coming into force.
Employment status of dependent children
At the moment, AMs need to declare the employment status/job of partners, as well as children aged 16-19 (where applicable). The Standards Commissioner considers the requirement relating to children as "intrusive" as it would drag the personal life of AMs' children into the public domain. Currently, the National Assembly is the only legislature in the UK that requires this information to be formally declared.
There are obvious exceptions to this – like an AM employing their own child, and that's dealt with under a separate set of Standing Orders – but the Committee believes AMs should instead make an oral declaration of a "family interest" of this kind where relevant.
The Committee therefore recommended that the requirement to register the employment status of a dependent child aged over-16 be removed.
Receipt of public funds
A separate registration category for "receipt of public funds" was considered, but rejected as it would be a duplication. The Committee agreed that receipt of public funds (grants etc.) should be registered by AMs, but that clear guidance was needed on what would count as "public funds".
They also agreed that pensions should no longer be considered a registrable form of remuneration.
Assembly Contracts
AMs need to register an interest where any company they, or their immediate family, receive money from (including, presumably, things like shareholder dividends) are tendering for, or has won, a contract to provide services to the National Assembly.
The Committee believe this was unfair, as AMs might not always have knowledge of what companies are bidding for what. So the rules will be changed so AMs only have to register an interest when they know for absolute certainty that a company they're involved with has won a contract or is tendering for one.
Shareholdings
There's a general duty on AMs to register shareholdings they, or their family, hold that are worth more than 1% of the total shares issued by a company. There's a recommendation that share options (shares offered to employees in lieu of/in addition to pay) are included as registrable.
The big concern here relates to so-called "blind trusts" where the beneficiaries have no idea what investments are made or where as control is handed over to independent experts. This is an obvious advantage to politicians, who can gain financially from these schemes without attracting scrutiny, as any decisions would be independent of their political careers or unaffected by their political decisions. The recommendation is that AMs declare any "blind trusts" they hold.
Membership of an Assembly-funded body
The issue here was about clarity, specifically what "membership" means. Not declaring memberships of this sort is a potential criminal offence, so some AMs are registering memberships of organisations like the WRU and National Trust to be on the safe side.
The Commissioner believed it was more appropriate to focus on memberships of organisations where the AM's presence would, in itself, "put them in a position to promote a cause" – this includes being a patron of a charity, memberships of governing bodies, trustee positions and any sort of paid executive or administrative role.
The Committee recommended that Standing Orders be changed to narrowly-define what "membership" means, and require AMs to register "where they knew or ought to have known" about Assembly funding.
Financial Sponsorship
The Electoral Commission already requires elected representatives to declare sponsorship or financial donations, so requiring AMs to register again with the National Assembly was "double declaration" and a needless duplication. The Committee recommended that this "double declaration" be removed, and it's suggested they work with the Wales Office, Electoral Commission and Assembly Commission to get this underway – but it might take some time.
Oral declarations
There are rules already in place setting out when AMs need to make an oral declaration in Assembly proceedings if they, or their family, have a financial interest or would be set to gain financially by any decisions made in the meeting.
The Commissioner proposed changing the wording to ensure AMs declare an interest if they would benefit financially from any decision "to a greater extent than the electorate generally". An example's given where an AM who's a landlord might benefit from decisions made with regard rent regulations.
Dealing with breaches
It's a criminal offence for an AM to take part in Assembly proceedings without declaring personal or financial interests as outlined by Standing Orders – this includes both accidental/delayed omissions and deliberate omissions.
The Commissioner believes relations between AMs and the Assembly Commission would sour if "accidental"/"trivial" cases were referred to the the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) straight away, as set out in Standing Orders.
It was recommended, therefore, where there's a breach of Standing Order 2, the case first be referred directly to the Standards Commissioner, who would then decide – as an independent adjudicator – whether a case needs to be either referred to the DPP, be subject to code of conduct investigations or dealt with informally.
EXCLUSIVE : FINANCIAL INTERESTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERZZZ
You would've thought having "financial interests" and "Assembly Members" in the same sentence would've got the Western Mail salivating, but this was too boring even for them, and only warranted around 100 words from BBC Wales.
This is an important post, just to underline how strict the rules are so people don't get the impression AMs are routinely "on the take". It takes some accounting gymnastics and whopping big lies to get away with it.
I know you all loves a bit of intrigue and scandal, but the reality is that AMs are well-behaved and understand what they should or shouldn't do here. I can't remember any cases where an AM has come a cropper of these particular rules, and I don't believe there's a threat of that happening either.
Most of the recommendations here seem largely about making things clearer, adding the requirement about declaring receipt of public funds, and you could even say the rules have been relaxed a little bit or simplified. Why would we need to know if an AM's son or daughter is flipping burgers, for example?
It's worth pointing out that the consultation with AMs began before the Alun Davies sacking, and it's just very timely that it covers declaration of financial interests.
I don't believe this vindicates Alun at all (as touched on by National Left).
Although it's absolutely right AMs declare all financial and personal interests, it was the manner by which Alun handled it – some tu quoque political posturing which dragged in the civil service (after being warned not to) - that turned what was a perfectly legitimate point into a scandal.
"Keep cooly cool, boy".
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
The Assembly & The Democratic Deficit
Over the last year, Llywydd Rosemary
Butler (Lab, Newport West) hosted a series of debates – with
contributions from journalists, various experts and hyperlocals - on
how the National Assembly is covered by both Welsh and UK medias.
Termed "The Democratic Deficit", it's believed Welsh politics isn't given fair coverage at UK level, while improvements could be made closer to home. This harms democracy because the public aren't as well-informed about decisions taken in Cardiff Bay as AMs would like them to be.
When I covered broadcasting and media in September, I said this would be an "unofficial Part IX". I addressed some concerns in more detail in parts I, II (the press), V (devolution of broadcasting) and VIII (the internet).
As this process draws to a conclusion, a final "up yours" to the Welsh political class came from News International's Guto Harri at the Royal Television Society's lecture last Thursday. There are suggestions Guto's lecture wasn't exactly the response the Llywydd and AMs were hoping for.
What the Assembly proposes
I presume there'll be further details
provided, but last week the Llywydd briefly outlined what the
Assembly Commission plans to do to address the "democratic deficit"
:
Termed "The Democratic Deficit", it's believed Welsh politics isn't given fair coverage at UK level, while improvements could be made closer to home. This harms democracy because the public aren't as well-informed about decisions taken in Cardiff Bay as AMs would like them to be.
When I covered broadcasting and media in September, I said this would be an "unofficial Part IX". I addressed some concerns in more detail in parts I, II (the press), V (devolution of broadcasting) and VIII (the internet).
As this process draws to a conclusion, a final "up yours" to the Welsh political class came from News International's Guto Harri at the Royal Television Society's lecture last Thursday. There are suggestions Guto's lecture wasn't exactly the response the Llywydd and AMs were hoping for.
What the Assembly proposes
 |
| Improvements to press communications facilities and more open Assembly information are amongst the measures put forward. (Pic : ITV Wales) |
- Improve Assembly reporting by creating a "journalism hub" for national, local and hyperlocal media at the Senedd; provide better communication facilities for journalists, and offer induction sessions for journalism trainees so they understand the Assembly's work.
- Make Assembly data more open and accessible.
- Inform AMs about digital communication tools and how to use them to greater effect.
- "Take the Assembly out into communities they represent" by hosting regional media days.
The first measures are the
most important ones. Though considering the Senedd is a modern
building, you would've expected half-decent media facilities anyway.
Offering more induction sessions is an obvious one, but – again –
you would've expected things like that to already be in place.
On open data, I don't think it's a problem at Assembly level. All information is there if someone wants to find it. I've said it many times, but the Assembly itself is transparent. The real issue is at Welsh and local government level. If an institution gets too many FOI requests, they're probably not very open.
On digital communications, most, if not all, AMs give the impression of knowing the importance of social media. Twitter and Facebook pages seem to be a popular way for AMs to keep constituents updated with their work, though some AMs use social media more effectively than others. There's no harm in updating AMs, but I suspect it would only tell them what they already know.
Local papers and hyperlocals do a reasonable job of giving AMs column space and opportunities for statements, promote campaigns etc. The Glamorgan Gazette, for example, has a rotating column for local AMs, MPs and senior councillors, though it's not as prominent as it should be, tucked away with the news from neighbourhood correspondents. I don't quite understand the concept of "regional media days" to be honest.
I think it's worth giving you an idea of what I believe my part is in the grand scheme of things, and my views on why there's a democratic deficit in the first place.
I realise the following will be typically wordy, but after the effort Rose Butler and David Melding have put into addressing the news deficit on our behalf, the subject deserves a thorough evaluation.
How outlets cover the Assembly
Coverage of Welsh politics by the UK media is
awful and hard to defend (with exceptions, notably The Guardian). In
that respect, Guto Harri was talking out of his backside, but his
reasoning for lack of coverage – "not knowing what the big
stories (in Wales) are" and political differences "not being interesting in itself" - is correct.
The BBC have improved, but I don't think there's any chance of UK newspapers following suit (more detailed explanation here). Welsh politics only gets prominent coverage at UK level when a devolved issue either potentially affects the UK as a whole or England directly - like the Human Transplantation Act. The solutions will have to come from within Wales, and it's a huge challenge.
Coverage by "national" media (including BBC Wales and ITV Wales) is as good as can be expected based on available resources, but it's second fiddle to UK stories which are Anglocentric by default. As I said, many local and hyper-local outlets give reasonable coverage to the Assembly and Welsh Government initiatives. The issues are at a national, not local level.
Online coverage is OK for a country of Wales' size, though nothing compared to Scotland. It's also dependant on people actively seeking it out. The Welsh political blogosphere isn't as big as it used to be - mostly due to the rise of social media - with peaks and troughs around a core of established bloggers who've done it for a while.
The blogosphere's biggest single weakness is a lack of women (with obvious exceptions like Caebrwyn). Though I'd estimate, based on various measures, that around 30-40% (sometimes up to half) of my audience is female, whenever I've covered what could be termed "women's issues" - like rape, abortion, FGM and female representation in the Assembly - I've felt like a fraud, as though I'm not doing it justice or getting the perspective right.
My other concern is that there's a lot of knee-jerk and self-parodying stuff online. If the internet commentariat isn't already seen as consisting of tin foil hat wearing cranks, it'll happen soon enough. As a result, independent internet commentary is perhaps seen as a fringe source of political news/commentary instead of a serious source.
The Assembly itself
I don't have any strong opinion on using computers during
debates etc. and it's a weak criticism. I appreciate AMs have a heavy workload and I'm glad they can multi-task. I have no issues with
"standards of debate" either. The written record proves AMs
know what they're talking about. My issue would be ministers dodging
giving direct answers to questions.
My pet hate though, is "jargon". You get the impression AMs say certain things to reassure themselves they're "doing the right thing" – but whenever they use such terms, they're talking to "The Bay Bubble" not the public.
Also, many Assembly and committee discussion topics - however important - are incredibly dry, bordering on impossible to make interesting to a wider audience. You can't say I haven't tried! You can understand why newspapers and broadcasters gloss over the details and go for headline-grabbing facts, which are often thin on the ground.
I find it amusing when AMs attempt Churchillian speeches on subjects like free car parking, trees and badgers. I understand part of their job is to be riled-up on behalf of those for whom such things really are important, so I'd never criticise them for it.
I wouldn't mind more forthright opinions from AMs to create talking points, but I'd be concerned about how such remarks would be interpreted by the press, as we've seen outspokenness slapped down before.
Instead, there either need to be more individual member debates, and/or a more prominent role for short debates. They tend to be topical (like the Page 3 debate) and possibly more interesting to the public. AMs seem to get more passionate about issues they take to heart, or issues directly brought to them by constituents, charities and other organisations.
The Assembly website is excellent, though the Welsh Government website is cluttered. I'm pleasantly surprised how quickly proceedings are transcribed, while outreach initiatives and things like the Member's Research Service are second to none (though I prefer to do research myself). There's also the opportunity for more direct influence, like creating and signing petitions.
It's down to us - the public - to make good use of those things, but you can only lead a horse to water.
How I source Assembly stories
My main sources are online (the Assembly itself, other blogs, BBC, Wales Online etc.). I don't watch/listen to
political programmes often (because I likely already know the details
what's being discussed) and the only print newspaper I read is the
Glamorgan Gazette. I think I'm the exception there , so offline sources are still important.
I usually get the headline and an overall picture of the story, then look into the details under my own steam.
I rarely watch Assembly proceedings (live or recorded) because I don't have time to. Instead, I use Y Cofnod to look for relevant quotes, see what arguments/issues are being put forward by AMs and ministers, and because it's quicker. I can scroll through a one hour debate in 5-10 minutes and still get the jist of what's been said.
I don't have any "Assembly sources", so I only use what's on public record. I've never been "told" to write something – politely asked a few times, though never by AMs or their staff - and what I choose to cover's up to me. The only time I've been approached to write something by anyone associated with the Assembly was the photography competition in 2012.
Choosing what to cover
I
weigh up : how much interest it would generate, whether others have covered the story in detail already (so I don't need to cover it), how long it would take
me to write, and how easy it would be to cover all of the relevant
points and source evidence.
Coverage of technical Assembly matters like committee reports and legislation is probably seen as my "niche". In terms of legislative and committee work - not including casework, evidence, consultations etc. - if AMs produce it, most of the time I have to read it. I'm not paid £50k+ to do that though, so if I believe it'll take too much time, I usually don't cover it unless I believe I'll get a return in terms of views/shares.
The economy, health and education tend to attract more views, but it depends on the specifics. My South Wales Programme post generated more interest and was more "sharable" than my post on the NHS Finance Bill, for example. One directly affects people (and myself) and had been in the mainstream press a lot; the other's a bit anoraky, but still an important part of what AMs do.
Areas I don't cover as often – because they never generate as much interest as I hope – are : the environment, rural affairs, social justice matters and things like culture. Whenever I've covered the Welsh language, for example, it's not "serious" posts like this and this that draw wider audiences, but....this and this. The only exception were posts relating to census data.
If I'm asking a question, or covering something controversial, I'll get more views than for more mundane topics. However, if I frame a "dull topic" in a certain way - the M4 bypass, for example - then it makes a difference. So how something's presented is as important as the information itself, and it changes levels of interest in the story.
That's something the Assembly and AMs need to take on board too if they didn't already know. Statements full of buzzwords or ideological grandstanding will go over most people's heads.
Meanwhile, reducing things to an overly hyperbolic rump just makes them look silly - comparing TVs to the fall of Rome for example, or saying satirical photos relating to controversial public service reforms were puerile and offensive.
Whenever statements like that are made, I don't think "This will not stand! I can't wait to vote for that person and/or party in 2016!" Instead, I hope the AMs/sources in question have taken their blood pressure medication. Basil Fawlty, Nora Batty, and Homer Simpson often spring to mind.
I don't think AMs realise how fortunate they are Wales doesn't have any prominent satirists. Such people would be merciless as the jokes often write themselves.
Audiences and reach
I can only speak for myself, but I suspect most of my audience are "seriously interested in politics" anyway, not "the public at large". Some well-known figures know of the blog's existence, but I doubt politicians, their staff or Assembly staff read it to any extent.
Most of my hits are search specific or from other blogs. Social media is important but only when I get shares from those with lots of followers, or multiple shares.
Shares from politicians and media personalities are very rare, but definitely broadens a post's reach and audience, often making the difference between three-figure views and four-figures.
I presume I don't get many shares because : I don't use social media much anyway, AMs/staff are careful not to spread "news" from an unsolicited source (which is eminently sensible), I'm only covering what they already know/already said, they're too busy, my posts get lost in news feeds, they simply don't agree with what's been written or I'm not on the radar.
PR problems and bad news stories
In Westminster politics, there are more opportunities for headline-grabbing stories about things like criminal justice, foreign affairs, major constitutional issues like membership of the EU and daily life matters like energy prices and macroeconomics.
Health is probably the closest we have to a "headline generating topic" in Wales that's completely under the Assembly's influence. While, as I've said, many other Assembly matters are dry or technical. So a big chunk of prominent Welsh political stories fall under the categories "scandal" or "waste of money" or in terms of public services a combination of the two.
I believe it's because journalists are looking for the few opportunities to provoke a public reaction, and those types of stories are the easiest way to do it in the absence of eye-catching policies from the Assembly itself.
Public service failures are worthy of coverage - no issues there. When it comes to the Assembly or AMs, I approach "scandals" and "questions of propriety" objectively, trying not to jump to conclusions. I make it a point of principle not to delve into personal affairs unless it directly affects public roles, and I won't let mainstream headlines or other blogs guide that. I'm more likely to ignore the story, or criticise an over-reaction by the press.
In terms of "waste of money stories", I weigh up : the circumstances surrounding the use of money itself, the relative size of departmental budgets (a £50,000 misspend has a bigger impact at local level, for example, than at the Assembly) and whether it was spent in good faith/no hints of irregularities before deciding whether or not to cover it. Stories relating to the Assembly which involve poor judgement but no clear wrongdoing are often hysterically blown out of proportion (like recent office furniture spending at Ty Hywel). Meanwhile, more serious but dull stories don't get the coverage they warrant - Y Cneifiwr's look at the failure of the COASTAL project, for example, which involves tens of millions in public funds.
Taxpayers Alliance-style press releases, "propriety investigations" and anonymous source smears are often spiteful and childish. There's a real danger such stories will create a "cry wolf" effect too, where people just switch off because genuine scandals are conflated with tittle-tattle about spending too much on stationary, toilet paper etc.
Having said that, "going for the jugular" often - sadly - guarantees publicity and comment. Therefore, a bit of self-awareness from AMs and public bodies wouldn't go amiss.
Decisions should probably pass a test - let's call it a "Shipton Test" - before being undertaken. If you can picture a negative Western Mail front-page splash as a result of what you/your party/your department are about to do, either re-think it or thoroughly explain the reasoning. Don't do a Carmarthenshire and hide behind process to avoid being transparent, and don't expect ordinary people to simply defer to your authority and follow your logic.
Even if such investigations are done - genuinely - in the public interest to hold decision-makers to account, largely unrelated criticism of AMs and long-standing failing policies (perhaps going back generations) is often used as an avenue to attack the Assembly as an institution. That's damaged Welsh politics, and public perceptions of Welsh politics, in terms of media coverage more than anything else.
On open data, I don't think it's a problem at Assembly level. All information is there if someone wants to find it. I've said it many times, but the Assembly itself is transparent. The real issue is at Welsh and local government level. If an institution gets too many FOI requests, they're probably not very open.
On digital communications, most, if not all, AMs give the impression of knowing the importance of social media. Twitter and Facebook pages seem to be a popular way for AMs to keep constituents updated with their work, though some AMs use social media more effectively than others. There's no harm in updating AMs, but I suspect it would only tell them what they already know.
Local papers and hyperlocals do a reasonable job of giving AMs column space and opportunities for statements, promote campaigns etc. The Glamorgan Gazette, for example, has a rotating column for local AMs, MPs and senior councillors, though it's not as prominent as it should be, tucked away with the news from neighbourhood correspondents. I don't quite understand the concept of "regional media days" to be honest.
I think it's worth giving you an idea of what I believe my part is in the grand scheme of things, and my views on why there's a democratic deficit in the first place.
I realise the following will be typically wordy, but after the effort Rose Butler and David Melding have put into addressing the news deficit on our behalf, the subject deserves a thorough evaluation.
How outlets cover the Assembly
 |
| Due to low circulation figures in Wales, it's unlikely the UK print press will ever cover Welsh politics to a great extent. (Pic : BBC Wales) |
The BBC have improved, but I don't think there's any chance of UK newspapers following suit (more detailed explanation here). Welsh politics only gets prominent coverage at UK level when a devolved issue either potentially affects the UK as a whole or England directly - like the Human Transplantation Act. The solutions will have to come from within Wales, and it's a huge challenge.
Coverage by "national" media (including BBC Wales and ITV Wales) is as good as can be expected based on available resources, but it's second fiddle to UK stories which are Anglocentric by default. As I said, many local and hyper-local outlets give reasonable coverage to the Assembly and Welsh Government initiatives. The issues are at a national, not local level.
Online coverage is OK for a country of Wales' size, though nothing compared to Scotland. It's also dependant on people actively seeking it out. The Welsh political blogosphere isn't as big as it used to be - mostly due to the rise of social media - with peaks and troughs around a core of established bloggers who've done it for a while.
The blogosphere's biggest single weakness is a lack of women (with obvious exceptions like Caebrwyn). Though I'd estimate, based on various measures, that around 30-40% (sometimes up to half) of my audience is female, whenever I've covered what could be termed "women's issues" - like rape, abortion, FGM and female representation in the Assembly - I've felt like a fraud, as though I'm not doing it justice or getting the perspective right.
My other concern is that there's a lot of knee-jerk and self-parodying stuff online. If the internet commentariat isn't already seen as consisting of tin foil hat wearing cranks, it'll happen soon enough. As a result, independent internet commentary is perhaps seen as a fringe source of political news/commentary instead of a serious source.
The Assembly itself
 |
| Once hailed as a sign of a 21st century parliament, the use of computers in the Siambr is now seen as a distraction during debates - one of many unfair criticisms IMO. (Pic : Wales Online) |
My pet hate though, is "jargon". You get the impression AMs say certain things to reassure themselves they're "doing the right thing" – but whenever they use such terms, they're talking to "The Bay Bubble" not the public.
Also, many Assembly and committee discussion topics - however important - are incredibly dry, bordering on impossible to make interesting to a wider audience. You can't say I haven't tried! You can understand why newspapers and broadcasters gloss over the details and go for headline-grabbing facts, which are often thin on the ground.
I find it amusing when AMs attempt Churchillian speeches on subjects like free car parking, trees and badgers. I understand part of their job is to be riled-up on behalf of those for whom such things really are important, so I'd never criticise them for it.
I wouldn't mind more forthright opinions from AMs to create talking points, but I'd be concerned about how such remarks would be interpreted by the press, as we've seen outspokenness slapped down before.
Instead, there either need to be more individual member debates, and/or a more prominent role for short debates. They tend to be topical (like the Page 3 debate) and possibly more interesting to the public. AMs seem to get more passionate about issues they take to heart, or issues directly brought to them by constituents, charities and other organisations.
The Assembly website is excellent, though the Welsh Government website is cluttered. I'm pleasantly surprised how quickly proceedings are transcribed, while outreach initiatives and things like the Member's Research Service are second to none (though I prefer to do research myself). There's also the opportunity for more direct influence, like creating and signing petitions.
It's down to us - the public - to make good use of those things, but you can only lead a horse to water.
How I source Assembly stories
 |
| The written record of proceedings is usually more important to me than live/recorded feeds. Though I make full use of most of the Assembly's online resources. (Pic : BBC) |
I usually get the headline and an overall picture of the story, then look into the details under my own steam.
I rarely watch Assembly proceedings (live or recorded) because I don't have time to. Instead, I use Y Cofnod to look for relevant quotes, see what arguments/issues are being put forward by AMs and ministers, and because it's quicker. I can scroll through a one hour debate in 5-10 minutes and still get the jist of what's been said.
I don't have any "Assembly sources", so I only use what's on public record. I've never been "told" to write something – politely asked a few times, though never by AMs or their staff - and what I choose to cover's up to me. The only time I've been approached to write something by anyone associated with the Assembly was the photography competition in 2012.
Choosing what to cover
 |
| Some topics - especially health and the economy - attract more views and shares than other, equally important, devolved areas like the environment. (Pic : BBC Wales) |
Coverage of technical Assembly matters like committee reports and legislation is probably seen as my "niche". In terms of legislative and committee work - not including casework, evidence, consultations etc. - if AMs produce it, most of the time I have to read it. I'm not paid £50k+ to do that though, so if I believe it'll take too much time, I usually don't cover it unless I believe I'll get a return in terms of views/shares.
The economy, health and education tend to attract more views, but it depends on the specifics. My South Wales Programme post generated more interest and was more "sharable" than my post on the NHS Finance Bill, for example. One directly affects people (and myself) and had been in the mainstream press a lot; the other's a bit anoraky, but still an important part of what AMs do.
Areas I don't cover as often – because they never generate as much interest as I hope – are : the environment, rural affairs, social justice matters and things like culture. Whenever I've covered the Welsh language, for example, it's not "serious" posts like this and this that draw wider audiences, but....this and this. The only exception were posts relating to census data.
If I'm asking a question, or covering something controversial, I'll get more views than for more mundane topics. However, if I frame a "dull topic" in a certain way - the M4 bypass, for example - then it makes a difference. So how something's presented is as important as the information itself, and it changes levels of interest in the story.
That's something the Assembly and AMs need to take on board too if they didn't already know. Statements full of buzzwords or ideological grandstanding will go over most people's heads.
Meanwhile, reducing things to an overly hyperbolic rump just makes them look silly - comparing TVs to the fall of Rome for example, or saying satirical photos relating to controversial public service reforms were puerile and offensive.
Whenever statements like that are made, I don't think "This will not stand! I can't wait to vote for that person and/or party in 2016!" Instead, I hope the AMs/sources in question have taken their blood pressure medication. Basil Fawlty, Nora Batty, and Homer Simpson often spring to mind.
I don't think AMs realise how fortunate they are Wales doesn't have any prominent satirists. Such people would be merciless as the jokes often write themselves.
Audiences and reach
I can only speak for myself, but I suspect most of my audience are "seriously interested in politics" anyway, not "the public at large". Some well-known figures know of the blog's existence, but I doubt politicians, their staff or Assembly staff read it to any extent.
Most of my hits are search specific or from other blogs. Social media is important but only when I get shares from those with lots of followers, or multiple shares.
Shares from politicians and media personalities are very rare, but definitely broadens a post's reach and audience, often making the difference between three-figure views and four-figures.
I presume I don't get many shares because : I don't use social media much anyway, AMs/staff are careful not to spread "news" from an unsolicited source (which is eminently sensible), I'm only covering what they already know/already said, they're too busy, my posts get lost in news feeds, they simply don't agree with what's been written or I'm not on the radar.
PR problems and bad news stories
 |
| Two types of high-profile stories tend to dominate domestic coverage of Welsh politics - "scandals" and "wasting money". (Pic : Wales Online) |
Health is probably the closest we have to a "headline generating topic" in Wales that's completely under the Assembly's influence. While, as I've said, many other Assembly matters are dry or technical. So a big chunk of prominent Welsh political stories fall under the categories "scandal" or "waste of money" or in terms of public services a combination of the two.
I believe it's because journalists are looking for the few opportunities to provoke a public reaction, and those types of stories are the easiest way to do it in the absence of eye-catching policies from the Assembly itself.
Public service failures are worthy of coverage - no issues there. When it comes to the Assembly or AMs, I approach "scandals" and "questions of propriety" objectively, trying not to jump to conclusions. I make it a point of principle not to delve into personal affairs unless it directly affects public roles, and I won't let mainstream headlines or other blogs guide that. I'm more likely to ignore the story, or criticise an over-reaction by the press.
In terms of "waste of money stories", I weigh up : the circumstances surrounding the use of money itself, the relative size of departmental budgets (a £50,000 misspend has a bigger impact at local level, for example, than at the Assembly) and whether it was spent in good faith/no hints of irregularities before deciding whether or not to cover it. Stories relating to the Assembly which involve poor judgement but no clear wrongdoing are often hysterically blown out of proportion (like recent office furniture spending at Ty Hywel). Meanwhile, more serious but dull stories don't get the coverage they warrant - Y Cneifiwr's look at the failure of the COASTAL project, for example, which involves tens of millions in public funds.
Taxpayers Alliance-style press releases, "propriety investigations" and anonymous source smears are often spiteful and childish. There's a real danger such stories will create a "cry wolf" effect too, where people just switch off because genuine scandals are conflated with tittle-tattle about spending too much on stationary, toilet paper etc.
Having said that, "going for the jugular" often - sadly - guarantees publicity and comment. Therefore, a bit of self-awareness from AMs and public bodies wouldn't go amiss.
Decisions should probably pass a test - let's call it a "Shipton Test" - before being undertaken. If you can picture a negative Western Mail front-page splash as a result of what you/your party/your department are about to do, either re-think it or thoroughly explain the reasoning. Don't do a Carmarthenshire and hide behind process to avoid being transparent, and don't expect ordinary people to simply defer to your authority and follow your logic.
Even if such investigations are done - genuinely - in the public interest to hold decision-makers to account, largely unrelated criticism of AMs and long-standing failing policies (perhaps going back generations) is often used as an avenue to attack the Assembly as an institution. That's damaged Welsh politics, and public perceptions of Welsh politics, in terms of media coverage more than anything else.
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Do Assembly plenary sessions need a revamp?
 |
| Will Carwyn and Andrew start arm wrestling over fishing boat regulations? Do we need a more macho, confrontational Senedd? I'm not convinced. |
The National Assembly
is back in session after Christmas, and the first big talking point
is, unsurprisingly, about the Assembly itself - this time plenary
debates, and First Minister's Jeopardy Questions in particular.
Both Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) and Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) raised concerns about how oral questions are answered in the Senedd by government ministers, and the procedures surrounding questions.
There was also the farce of an announcement being made by the Welsh Government via Twitter during the plenary session, while the First Minister himself wasn't providing any answer to a question relating to it. Whoop, whoop, whoop. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
This little fact might take a few of you by surprise – I rarely watch Assembly proceedings, including FMQs.
I might watch the Senedd a half dozen times a year at most – if there's something important, like a big vote, or a debate on a subject that interests me. I use the Cofnod because I can search through it and it saves me time. I'm not around to follow Twitter feeds live, but I monitor other blogs too.
I say that as one of the more prominent, hardcore political anoraks in the whole country. To those who sit through them and who aren't paid to do so one way or another – I salute you. It's always comforting to know there's someone sadder than me out there.
Some might say that's an argument for not broadcasting it at all to save money or whatever, but you need an audiovisual record, simply to prove that transcripts and votes match what's said. It's also important to determine the tone by which questions are asked. I wish we had a Welsh C-Span or version of BBC Parliament, but I doubt that can be justified. Lest we forget S4C2.
I think AMs are unfairly criticised for the standard of debate. We have a very different system to Westminster. There's more consensus building and it seems as though they work on a first name basis. It's more casual. I prefer that. I reckon most AMs probably prefer that too.
I believe it's a bit more grown up than the "yah-boo" stuff in Westminster, but it might be a little too informal and relaxed. I think the Scottish Parliament balances it better.
I imagine one reason Andrew Davies, and other AMs, might want a shift to a Westminster "confrontational" style is because they have no indoor voice. As though shouting more loudly, and getting more worked up about something makes you stand out more. Perhaps that's right to a certain extent. However, it's hard to get excited about some of the stuff coming out of plenary or - if we're going to include written questions - how much Carwyn spends on Christmas cards.
We need to remember that the Assembly has a restricted scope within which to ask questions. Sometimes that means questions are very narrow or vague, leading to very narrow or glib answers. Look them up yourself and see how many times ministers are asked about "their priorities for X,Y, Z" or to "make a statement on X,Y,Z."
But I challenge anyone outside politics to put themselves in the position of an AM or Minister when criticising or defending policy. It probably looks easier than it actually is.
I'm reminded of my viva voce, where your dissertation is ripped apart in front of you by people who know what they're talking about. I imagine Assembly debate is a watered-down version of that, but week after week.
I don't think those criticising will have ever been challenged like that by someone of any real standing before, and think it's a simple case of standing up and waffling on. AMs can't do that without looking like a plonker. Yet, I do think a minority of AMs do that occasionally, but not too often. No names mentioned.
However, the committees are as good as those in any of the other legislatures. I believe most of the AM's important work goes on there, not plenary. It's just not as "sexy". FMQs is just a fraction of the stuff that goes on in Cardiff Bay, but it's supposed to be the "highlight". It's not, is it? I'm not sure it ever has been, to be honest.
That's not to say there aren't any issues. The First Minister has a point when saying the opposition don't necessarily ask the right questions (from his perspective).
Carwyn Jones is a barrister. He's been professionally trained to use questions and answers to good effect. It comes naturally to him, maybe some other AMs too. That's not to say those AMs are smarter than the rest, just they know what makes a good question and they will know, instinctively, how to bat those questions away.
The trouble is, I believe he's become so used to that since becoming First Minister, he does it every bloody week. FMQs is a bit of a joke and part of the reason I don't watch it is, simply, questions aren't answered, they're generally thrown back at the questioner. Carwyn seems bored of it, and I don't blame him.
The standard of debate, whilst not perfect, has improved substantially down the years – I can tell that from transcripts alone. The Lib Dems have always been good at it. Jocelyn Davies (Plaid, South Wales East), has made excellent use of motions during plenary over the last few months on her party's behalf. The Conservatives are more than capable of delivering a sucker punch every now and again.
Notice how I've left out one group – Labour backbenchers.
How many well thought out questions and debates have come from the Labour benches the last year or so? Questions that don't involve praising the front bench, latest policy initiative or attacking the UK Government (directly or indirectly)?
Before he became a Deputy Minister, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) was quite good at it during the One Wales government.
A government should fear its backbenchers. One of Westminster's big plus points is that backbenchers wield quite considerable power. The same can be said of the Scottish Parliament. I'm not saying they should oppose everything for the sake of it, that would be stupid. However, effective critique of the government from their own side is the best way to hold said government to account. Ministers have to listen to them. I believe Labour backbench AMs hold far more power than they perhaps think they do, especially when there's no majority.
I don't think it comes down to abilities or skills, just that they're caught in an awkward arrangement and, perhaps, their questions duplicate one another. There's at least one glimmer of hope from the current lot – Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West). And even then, he's not perfect.
Both Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) and Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) raised concerns about how oral questions are answered in the Senedd by government ministers, and the procedures surrounding questions.
There was also the farce of an announcement being made by the Welsh Government via Twitter during the plenary session, while the First Minister himself wasn't providing any answer to a question relating to it. Whoop, whoop, whoop. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
This little fact might take a few of you by surprise – I rarely watch Assembly proceedings, including FMQs.
I might watch the Senedd a half dozen times a year at most – if there's something important, like a big vote, or a debate on a subject that interests me. I use the Cofnod because I can search through it and it saves me time. I'm not around to follow Twitter feeds live, but I monitor other blogs too.
I say that as one of the more prominent, hardcore political anoraks in the whole country. To those who sit through them and who aren't paid to do so one way or another – I salute you. It's always comforting to know there's someone sadder than me out there.
Some might say that's an argument for not broadcasting it at all to save money or whatever, but you need an audiovisual record, simply to prove that transcripts and votes match what's said. It's also important to determine the tone by which questions are asked. I wish we had a Welsh C-Span or version of BBC Parliament, but I doubt that can be justified. Lest we forget S4C2.
I think AMs are unfairly criticised for the standard of debate. We have a very different system to Westminster. There's more consensus building and it seems as though they work on a first name basis. It's more casual. I prefer that. I reckon most AMs probably prefer that too.
I believe it's a bit more grown up than the "yah-boo" stuff in Westminster, but it might be a little too informal and relaxed. I think the Scottish Parliament balances it better.
I imagine one reason Andrew Davies, and other AMs, might want a shift to a Westminster "confrontational" style is because they have no indoor voice. As though shouting more loudly, and getting more worked up about something makes you stand out more. Perhaps that's right to a certain extent. However, it's hard to get excited about some of the stuff coming out of plenary or - if we're going to include written questions - how much Carwyn spends on Christmas cards.
We need to remember that the Assembly has a restricted scope within which to ask questions. Sometimes that means questions are very narrow or vague, leading to very narrow or glib answers. Look them up yourself and see how many times ministers are asked about "their priorities for X,Y, Z" or to "make a statement on X,Y,Z."
But I challenge anyone outside politics to put themselves in the position of an AM or Minister when criticising or defending policy. It probably looks easier than it actually is.
I'm reminded of my viva voce, where your dissertation is ripped apart in front of you by people who know what they're talking about. I imagine Assembly debate is a watered-down version of that, but week after week.
I don't think those criticising will have ever been challenged like that by someone of any real standing before, and think it's a simple case of standing up and waffling on. AMs can't do that without looking like a plonker. Yet, I do think a minority of AMs do that occasionally, but not too often. No names mentioned.
However, the committees are as good as those in any of the other legislatures. I believe most of the AM's important work goes on there, not plenary. It's just not as "sexy". FMQs is just a fraction of the stuff that goes on in Cardiff Bay, but it's supposed to be the "highlight". It's not, is it? I'm not sure it ever has been, to be honest.
That's not to say there aren't any issues. The First Minister has a point when saying the opposition don't necessarily ask the right questions (from his perspective).
Carwyn Jones is a barrister. He's been professionally trained to use questions and answers to good effect. It comes naturally to him, maybe some other AMs too. That's not to say those AMs are smarter than the rest, just they know what makes a good question and they will know, instinctively, how to bat those questions away.
The trouble is, I believe he's become so used to that since becoming First Minister, he does it every bloody week. FMQs is a bit of a joke and part of the reason I don't watch it is, simply, questions aren't answered, they're generally thrown back at the questioner. Carwyn seems bored of it, and I don't blame him.
The standard of debate, whilst not perfect, has improved substantially down the years – I can tell that from transcripts alone. The Lib Dems have always been good at it. Jocelyn Davies (Plaid, South Wales East), has made excellent use of motions during plenary over the last few months on her party's behalf. The Conservatives are more than capable of delivering a sucker punch every now and again.
Notice how I've left out one group – Labour backbenchers.
How many well thought out questions and debates have come from the Labour benches the last year or so? Questions that don't involve praising the front bench, latest policy initiative or attacking the UK Government (directly or indirectly)?
Before he became a Deputy Minister, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) was quite good at it during the One Wales government.
A government should fear its backbenchers. One of Westminster's big plus points is that backbenchers wield quite considerable power. The same can be said of the Scottish Parliament. I'm not saying they should oppose everything for the sake of it, that would be stupid. However, effective critique of the government from their own side is the best way to hold said government to account. Ministers have to listen to them. I believe Labour backbench AMs hold far more power than they perhaps think they do, especially when there's no majority.
I don't think it comes down to abilities or skills, just that they're caught in an awkward arrangement and, perhaps, their questions duplicate one another. There's at least one glimmer of hope from the current lot – Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West). And even then, he's not perfect.
Maybe because there was such a high turnover of AMs in 2011, nobody wants to rock the boat in
their first term. Some backbenchers could have their eyes on the front row, and don't want to ruin their
chances with the boss.
Who's the most likely to make that step up at the moment? – Mark Drakeford.
Who's been, arguably, the most constructive critic of the Welsh Government this term from the Labour side? – Mark Drakeford.
That's not a coincidence. Think about it. Would a First Minister want to move a party loyalist nodding donkey to the front bench? Or one of the biggest, but friendlier, critics?
It wouldn't hurt opposition AMs, and their staff, reviewing how they present their arguments. But, far from criticising other parties for the standard of debate, I think Carwyn needs to turn around and look at his own people too.
Who's the most likely to make that step up at the moment? – Mark Drakeford.
Who's been, arguably, the most constructive critic of the Welsh Government this term from the Labour side? – Mark Drakeford.
That's not a coincidence. Think about it. Would a First Minister want to move a party loyalist nodding donkey to the front bench? Or one of the biggest, but friendlier, critics?
It wouldn't hurt opposition AMs, and their staff, reviewing how they present their arguments. But, far from criticising other parties for the standard of debate, I think Carwyn needs to turn around and look at his own people too.
