Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

The Deputy First Minister doesn't go in for hyperbole - it must be the measured country solicitor in him.

So when Ieuan Wyn Jones says that "going forward into the next decade, Welsh public services will be badly affected" by cuts to the block grant, you can be quite sure that he means it. Tonight he described those budget cuts as "pretty severe indeed ... not just next year but well, well into the next decade".

On that he's in agreement with Plaid economics guru Eurfyl ap Gwilym, the man who costed their 2007 assembly election manifesto. He anticipates that between 2011 - 2014 the money the Assembly Government will have to work with "will be about Β£600m less than it would have been looking back a year or two. There'll be a real cut of about 2.3% and to that of course we have to add inflation. So it'll be a reduction of about 4.4%".

And when that sort of aqueeze happens, it's inevitable that jobs will have to go.

His figures. His predictions. But what does Ieuan Wyn Jones makes of his suggestion that to govern with less ought to mean bye-bye to free-for-all policies?

The adviser says:

"This idea of universal services is attractive as long as it's affordable. But I think a crunch is going to come ... For instance take free prescriptions by and large the people who benefited from free prescriptions in Wales, the extension of free prescriptions, are people on middle and higher incomes. It could be argued why should you be spending public money there rather than targeting that money on people on very low incomes? Similarly we've got this issue of university tuition fees which I warned about several years ago. A large proportion of young people going to university are still those who come from middle income families. Is that where you're going to put your money rather than helping children from poorer families say with free school nurseries?

The party leader and Deputy First Minister says:

"I think that free prescriptions have to be in a particular category of a universal service that we believe is necessary for people, but there may well be other things that you have to look at ... but what I will say to the people of Wales is - we will be sensible in the way we approach it, but you have to understand that sometimes there are fundamental issues that you have signed up to as a party."

The Tories say Eurful ap Gwilym has "let the cat out of the bag" on impending cuts. It must have struck them that whoever is left holding the bag after the General Election will find that cat, or no cat, it's pretty empty.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The First Minister, as he told his fellow Assembly Members yesterday, is "totally blog and twitter free". He spends no time at all reading blogs and so we must assume that he won't have seen .

'This' is a vocal, young, would-be Labour politician using the Bevan Foundation blog - the clue to their leaning is in the title - to tell Rhodri Morgan that people are fed up of waiting to learn when he intends to stand down. They're fed up, not because they obsess about it or want to put a date in their diaries. They're fed up because they want to get on with working out where the Welsh Labour party goes when the leader eventually does the same.

The picture that's emerged over the past few weeks is of a First Minister who does not, after all, intend to stand down on his 70th birthday on the 29th of September. He will instead tell us on his birthday that he's standing down. See what he's done there? Rhodri Morgan has always been careful not to set a date without leaving the door open to staying just that bit longer but lines like "There will be a vacancy for my job before the year is out" delivered at the Labour conference in Swansea mean it's not just ajar. It's now firmly wedged wide open.

Only when he says he's off will the race to succeed Mr Morgan begin and Labour HQ at Transport House have made it entirely clear that rules is rules. The timetable won't be changed for anyone. When Rhodri Morgan announces his intention to stand down, the process of finding a successor will take eight full weeks.

If he were to go on his birthday, those eight weeks would happen in August and September. If the eight weeks kick off on the last day of September, then do the maths. The present First Minister will remain for another full term while everyone else has their eye on finding the next First Minister. He or she won't be taking over until, or even just after, Christmas.

I asked Rhodri Morgan yesterday when he intends to stand down. He shook his head.

"I'm not going to say anything more about departures ... You know there's so much work at the moment I don't even think about it. I just get on with my work. I have nothing to add to what I've previously said on this issue".

I've heard more than one example recently of businessmen and people in charge of public spending picking up the phone to find the First Minister personally on the line, getting stuck into how any extra money squeezed from the purse can be spent to speed up economic recovery. They recognise he's getting his hands dirty, getting on with it. They admire his zeal even if they don't always agree with his conclusions.

"I'm fully engaged with running a country and I don't obsess about topics like leaving dates" added Mr Morgan. I tried again. Was he aware that even if he wasn't thinking about leaving dates, others were? "You can ask me that question 25 times, 525 times or 5025 times, I've nothing more to say". I did suggest trying to ask in Welsh. He had the grace to smile but had no more inclination to give an answer.

Well here's news that won't surprise you. There are an awful lot of Mr Morgan's colleagues thinking about it and talking about it. There's an acceptance among them that there will be "a third candidate". Take Carwyn Jones and Huw Lewis as read. Add ...

Is it true, I ask Andrew Davies, as I've been told by a credible source, that he has told the First Minister he will not be standing? He has no idea where I've heard that and smiles as he politely turns on his heels.

It's certainly true that Mr Davies, the Finance Minister, has been struck down with a dose of mentionitis recently. Few interviews go by without a reference to the Health Minister, Edwina Hart. Could he - the MPs' favourite - be intending to throw in his lot with the MPs'-not-so-favourite, Ms. Hart?

Could the mutterings from other well-informed directions that she's been wise to have kept her counsel thus far be directed at Carwyn Jones? It's noticeable that confident assertions that 'he must remain favourite to take over as First Minister' are now, from some surprising and senior quarters, followed by "... isn't he?"

It's up to Rhodri Morgan when he goes. That is clear to everyone. As one voice from Westminster recently put it "He's the big beast. It's his decision and he's earned the rignt to decide when he goes. But if he were to ask my advice ..?"

If he were to ask their advice, he would be gone by the end of September.

But then the First Minister doesn't obsess about leaving dates and is fully engaged with sorting out the immediate problems of the economy. The reason others within Welsh Labour do obsess about it is the ticking clock, those two elections looming large, which will define politics - and their party - for the next two decades.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What's a few hundred million between friends?

You may not have tuned in but this afternoon, the Finance Minister gave his formal response to Alistair Darling's budget. We had the line about the "small degree of comfort" being taken that the efficiency savings of over Β£200m the Assembly Government will have to find next year weren't nearer Β£300m.

We had the admission that "the huge shockwaves caused by the global economic downturn" mean we'll have to tighten our belts.

And then we had this. "Looking beyond 2010/11, UK Government is seeking to find an additional Β£9bn of efficiency savings over the period 2011/12 to 2013/14."

Got that?

Andrew Davies was referring to an additional Β£9bn of efficiency savings OVER the period 2011/12 to 2013/14.

What Mr Darling in fact announced were planned efficiency savings from 2011 onwards, RISING to Β£9bn per year by 2013-14.

Let's put it like this.

Mr Darling's version, via the Barnett formula, would have considerably larger knock-on impact on future Assembly Government budgets; a few-hundred-million, dozen new schools, couple of state of the art hospitals and shockingly-good-news-for-local-councils kind of larger.

So who's right?

Mr Darling.

So this is a case of dodgy grammar rather than dodgy maths?

Let's hope so but the leader of the opposition is less charitable:

"A minister in charge of a Β£15bn-plus budget really should be able to get his sums right. This discrepancy could have serious consequences for public spending in Wales and the minister needs to set the record straight as to which is the correct figure" says Nick Bourne, adding that "the minister charged with delivering these savings in Wales actually knows how much needs to be saved, where they need to be saved, and when."

Will the Assembly Government clear things up?

They will. But no formal statement until tomorrow.

Someone must want to make sure the wording of the clarification is spot on.

UPDATE: That 'someone' worked quickly and put out a statement last night.

"Over the period 2011/12 to 2013/14 the UK Government has indicated it will find additional efficiency savings, rising to Β£9bn a year in 2013/14. The detailed levels of efficiency savings in the two preceding financial years - 2011/12 and 2012/13 - are not yet known. This is the position we are preparing for and this was the message behind the Minister's statement today ..."

It may have been the message behind what he said ... but it isn't what he did say. Prepare for some nifty footwork in this afternoon's opposition debate on the budget and public spending.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There's nothing like "a personal statement" in the morning to fill the lobby briefing room.

Alun Davies AM, Labour member for the Mid and West Wales region, announced that he's seeking nomination to be the Labour candidate in Blaenau Gwent come the 2011 Assembly Election. The candidate will be selected on July 14th.

He's been mooting the idea in private for a while and already been asked why on earth he'd swap a safe seat - there's no suggestion Labour would put him anywhere other than at the top of their list in the region next time - for a hard slog that could end with him an ex-AM, back running a public affairs firm.

His answer then was pretty much his answer today.

"I was born and brought up in Tredegar and I am committed to the communities in Blaneau Gwent. My heart is in these valleys. The Labour Government has invested and is investing, hundreds of millions of pounds in the regeneration of the Heads of the Valleys. No other party and no other government would prioritise these communities in this way".

And then the strategy. He clearly and fully intends to play the man - or in this case woman - as well as the ball.

Trish Law, he said, has not been around Cardiff Bay, has missed most votes, sits on one committee that hasn't met and has "largely done nothing ... She's invisible, especially when she's on her feet". On his regular visits to his family home in Tredegar, old school friends have been among those telling him of anger and frustration that Trish Law's promises to continue to fight for the area, as her late husband, Peter Law had done, were being broken.

Hang on, I ask. Only yesterday another man who lives in the consituency and whose heart is in Blaenau Gwent was telling me Labour are nowhere near winning back the seat. Over the weekend the former Labour council leader John Hopkins left the party, along with another Labour councillor. The party machinery is still in dire need of some serious repair work. And though Trish Law may not be a big beast in Cardiff Bay, she turns up for the Operatic Society do here and the school do there and that matters more to many voters than turning up in plenary sessions.

Yes, admitted Alun Davies, Labour needed a strategy in Blaenau Gwent that was different to the past. His aim would be to work with the community, re-build confidence in the community. Having lost Blaenau Gwent in four elections - General and Assembly - he's aware of the need to "renew Labour's contract with the people of Blaenau Gwent". But to Trish Law a simple message: "You've let the people down. I''m going to take you on and beat you".

Only then, of course, does the career risk he's taking if selected - swapping a safe seat in Mid and West Wales - with the fight for Blaenau Gwent, make sense. So why is he doing it?

His version? "I recognise there's a personal risk here but the bigger risk is to Blaenau Gwent. The biggest risk of all is that children and young people won't have the opportunities they deserve".

Then again he has fought Blaenau Gwent before. He fought it in the General Election in 1992 for a Plaid-Green alliance. Could he perhaps want to be seen to be taking a risk for Labour this time? Laying it on the line for Labour, to expunge any lingering doubts about his past with another party?

Trish Law sees things rather more simply.

"He'll be another fly by night - but bring him on!"

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A lesson in the need to read your Emails carefully, to the very end.

A note arrives from a member of staff at the National Assembly. It includes, as a footnote, the National Assembly's new "positioning statement". That, at least, is what I'm told I should call it.

It goes like this: "The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people, makes laws for Wales and holds the Welsh government to account".

Notice anything? How about the absence of "Assembly" in the use of "the Welsh government?"

"Ah, you've noticed" comes the response. This was agreed by the four Commissioners at one of their regular meetings earlier this year. It's not an attempt to give the Welsh Assembly Government a new title of course. It simply refers to its status.

I wonder what the "Chief Wag", as Rhodri Morgan was once referred to by Nick Bourne, makes of it?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So first, the good news.

As the Chancellor sits down having delivered his Budget, the Treasury reveals the Barnett consequentials for Wales. We're up Β£60million (though the timescale isn't clear yet).

But now: by how much are we down?

Update 1410:

The Wales Office put the impact on the UK Government "efficiency savings" on the Welsh budget at around Β£150m over two years. In other words they say the Assembly Government will have Β£150m less to spend than they'd hoped because of the savings Whitehall departments will face.

The Finance Minister, Andrew Davies, if you remember, had talked about losing out to the tune of Β£292m next year as the worst case scenario.

That's "efficiency savings" (and as some cynics in Cardiff Bay had predicted, not a lot said about the extra Β£10b of savings to come. That's for future Spending Reviews ... and other goverments?)

But what about overall funding?

Budget 2008 predicted Β£14.2bn in revenue funding for Wales and Β£1.8bn in capital funding.

Budget 2009 predicts Β£14.0bn in revenue and Β£1.7bn in capital funding. That looks as though the shortfall in what the Assembly Government will have to spend next year could be as much as Β£300m.

But a health warning: given the figures are rounded up/down to just one decimal point, that makes it nigh on impossible to come up with accurate figures.

Let's see if everyone is agreed on what those final figures are.

One bit of news the further education sector won't have missed: the Chancellor has announced just over Β£14.5m extra money this year and Β£23.3m next year intended for sixth forms and further education colleges in Wales (as a knock-on effect of extra money given to the sector in England). It's up to the Assembly Government, of course, where it decides to allocate the money. Will it be ring-fenced, or not?

Update 14.40

Welsh Assembly Government figures are these:

Revenue funding is down by Β£216m next year
Add on a futher reduction of Β£200m in capital next year.

That's because of the reprofiling of NHS capital spending and capital that's been brought forward to be spent this year.

Most of the extra Β£60m - a welcome Β£46m - will be in this year's figures.

Andrew Davies' worst case scenario?

Β£416m is better. Andrew Davies won't be surprised by that I'm sure. But better, in this case, is still pretty bad.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Back from a break where I got an early feel for "efficiency savings in backroom technology". In other words there was no television. There was no computer either, no access to blogs, be they good, bad or plain ugly. Strangest of all was being cut off from the blogosphere only to read-all-about-it when the plain ugly amongst them hit the headlines a few days in.

So back yesterday to the sound of civil servants dusting down their calculators and preparing for some complex maths tomorrow that will reveal how deep a cut the Chancellor's "efficiency savings" will leave in the Welsh budget.

So far the maths - and worse case scenario total - according to the Finance Minister, Andrew Davies, had been going like this: a cut of Β£292m as a result of savings of Β£5b forced on Whitehall departments; a loss of Β£120m from the capital budget because of money brought forward to combat the recession and another Β£75m cut in capital spending due to underspends in the UK Department of Health.

His "perfect storm" maths - plenty of subtraction, very little adding up - led to a scenario of Β£500m disappearing from the Welsh budget. Public sector organisations have been asked to "wargame" what a 2% cut in their budgets would mean but also, where a 5% cut would leave them. The answers? 2%. Doable with belt tightening. 5%? Job losses, services to the public cut.

Now? Even worse to come, or a case of whipping up an even stormier scenario only to reveal that things aren't, after all, quite that bad?

Back too to thoughts on the , a conference organised by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, supported by the All Wales Convention. Sir Emyr Jones Parry, who must have taken to rehearsing that neutral face in the bathroom mirror, took it all in and let little out but it's fair to say the nay-sayers in the room were well outnumbered.

What the audience got for the first few hours wasn't, you suspect, what they'd expected. They listened to an almost relentlessely negative view of what's happened to the Welsh economy, what's been achieved for Welsh schools and hospitals over the past ten years. Between them the Prof, the Economist, the Education adviser and his Health expert delivered what the Chair called "a cold bath."

It was "wrist slitting time" suggested one who was near the front. Others might console themselves with the thought that cold baths are meant to be shocking but rather good for you.

Supporters of "efficiency savings" will perhaps be rehearsing the argument already that tomorrow's budget will deliver one hell of a shock but one that just has to pay off.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm off now until the end of next week. I hope you get a decent break too.

Pasg hapus iawn i chi i gyd.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Rhodri Morgan gives good metaphor - from ducks to sprints to noses, his evidence to the All Wales Convention last week was packed full of 'em, including his thoughts on "the art of holding one's nose".

The First Minister and Deputy First Minister were asked by Convention Executive member Rob Humphreys - former President of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, head of the Open University in Wales and one of the sharpest tools in the Welsh political box - whether the Welsh Affairs Select Committee weren't doing rather a good job. Their interpretation of their remit might be wrong, might be right he said but their modus operandi was working and wasn't that just as well given the "scrutiny deficit" that exists in the present system of transferring powers to Wales?

Sir Emyr jumped in. That was the view they'd heard from some he said but others believed equally strongly that Committee members should confine their thoughts to vires - whether the transfer of powers is legal or not.

We know that opinions vary. Let me give you a few I've heard recently.

At the weekend the Culture MInister, Alun Ffred Jones, told S4C viewers that he thinks the current system of transferring powers is slow but is working ok with regard to the Welsh language LCO.

I recently met a senior lawyer and constitutional expert who's of the view that the Welsh Affairs Select Committee "macerates" bids for power put in front of them. He believes the present system has been a retrograde step for Welsh devolution, that too much power now lies in the hands of too few in Westminster.

It was recently made abundantly clear to a dinner table-full of journalists by possibly the best source of all on these issues that MPs regard bids for power as laws. Like it or not, you can't expect them to regard bids for power that will eventually have an impact on their constituents as anything else.

Alun Michael, a member of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and former First Secretary of course, firmly believes the system is a success story.

The Presiding Officer, Dafydd Elis-Thomas accuses the Committee of going against the spirit of devolution.

So back to the evidence session and Sir Emyr Jones Parry's question: "Where are we in that spectrum?" he asked. Where indeed.

Ieuan Wyn Jones went first. Committee members, he said, stray into the kind of territory where they're guided by whether they think the Assembly - or Assembly Government - are right to do what they're doing, not whether it is appropriate that they do it. "We need more clarity on that".

Rhodri Morgan went for a more colourful turn of phrase but seemed, in essence, to agree that the balance isn't yet right. When you describe the process of transferring powers, he says, people wonder "What is this strange animal? What the hell is it? It's abhorrent!" But the process is starting to work better and would work better still if the Welsh Affairs Select Committee honed their skills in the ancient "art of holding one's nose".

I gather they're about to be put to the test. The Committee tentatively inquired last week
whether the Presiding Officer might meet them informally to talk things through. This meeting, I hasten to add, was not to take place down a dark alley either but in daylight and with a view to ironing out some creases before they get too stubborn. They certainly hoped it would be seen as a good move.

I understand, however, that the office of the Presiding Officer has said no thank you. He is the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales and would take up any formal offer of a meeting but informal? Why, said one government source, should he?

At this point you might come to one of many conclusions but here are three to be getting on with:

You'll condemn him and accuse him of being determined to make trouble at a time when jaw-jaw - on any terms - would be a better bet than war-war;

You'll applaud him for reminding his Westminster colleagues that the Assembly is a institution they still haven't quite 'got' and deserves more respect;

You'll wonder whether that evening class in "The Art of holding one's nose" has room enough to accommodate everyone.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Blimey.

I disappear for a few days - (real) life intervening - and return to find you back in the bunkers, lobbing facts, stats and a fair bit of dirt at each other. Perhaps it's too much chocolate, or has Rhodri Morgan's 400 m-sprint-for-the-line comment concentrated minds and hardened attitudes on all sides of the debate?

For the record my own handwritten notes from his evidence to the All Wales Convention last week read "No have gone for marathon. We on Yes side - 400m sprint to the end." That end, however, is a referendum won, so no surprises that the First Minister's metaphor has cheered up some key Plaid figures.

More than one made it clear at their Spring conference that they've found the Convention's interpretation of the terms of reference they were given "slavishly neutral." The critics included some of those who drew up the terms of reference and who had clearly anticipated a different approach, or perhaps a different context to the Convention's work. There was praise for the way Sir Emyr and his team are "effectively measuring public opinion" (swayed, perhaps, by the opinon poll which gave the Yes side a clear lead) but they were castigated for failing to properly explain the current system of transferring powers.

At one fringe meeting both Cynog Dafis of Tomorrow's Wales and Helen Mary Jones AM suggested it was plain wrong to present the choice we might face in a referendum like this:

Do you want to stick with Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, so that primary powers are devolved a little by little? Or do you want them all in one fell swoop, in other words, move on at once to Part 4?

The Convention's choice of imagery came in for stick early on: for colourful sweets in jars read primary powers. But the complaint at the conference was that the Convention's definition of Part 3 - devolving the powers little by little - is simply wrong. The process just isn't that simple, neither that direct nor straightforward. But present it in those terms and why wouldn't a lot of voters believe the little by little approach is preferable to a sudden "storm", as Cynog Dafis put it, of sticky sweeties?

One senior figure seemed convinced that by making his comment at all, Rhodri Morgan was suggesting he wanted to deliver a Yes vote himself. The theory went like this: having had to take a back seat when the vote was won in 1997, the Labour leader was now toying with the idea of calling a snap referendum, even before he'd heard back from Sir Emyr. More hope than belief in that one, surely.

From never using the word 'independence', Plaid now use it rather a lot. It is, as one member put it, a bit like a naughty boy who uses a rude word a lot just because he can. The party ought to discuss it solely as an academic exercise, went one theory, discuss it as one of many future options for Wales and be extremely wary of nailing just that one colour to the Plaid mast. Why on earth choose to hand ammunition to No campaigners and the slippery slope argument?

The other was that if independence is your long-term aim, then you should say so honestly, out loud and in context. The 'other side' will use it against you, whether you utter the word or not.

Take great care, came the retort. It is perfectly possible to deal with the difficulties that arise when you launch a website to promote independence for Wales even before a referendum is held on delivering a parliament - but you must absolutely intend to deal with those difficulties. Be warned.

Adam Price's use of the 'i' word in his speech was novel. He coupled it with that other hot topic at conference - 'that' Labour website and its adoption of Owain Glyndwr. "Labour now seem to support Welsh independence ... but only in the fifteenth century and a referendum in the next century ... maybe".

He clearly hadn't bumped into his more optimistic party colleague who has the referendum pencilled in for early next year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Student fees is an issue that hasn't gone away for Plaid Cymru.

They're not at each other's throats at the Spring conference in Cardiff. In fact the mood has been positive on day one but it should, perhaps, be no surprise that on student fees, they're not seeing eye to eye.

Heledd Fychan, one of the party's prospective parliamentary candidates writes this in an article for Barn magazine on the decision to reintroduce top-up fees:

"How can the party leader justify taking such a decision and taking it without discussing the matter with anyone outside the Assembly? Shouldn't it have been discussed with members before agreeing to support Labour? Indeed, why didn't Plaid Cymru in the Assembly stick to their election promise and steer a different course to Labour for the first time since forming the coalition?"

"How" she askes, "can voters be expected to have faith in politicians who say one thing but vote in a quite different way?"

Heledd Fychan is one of the party's brightest sparks. She has strong feelings on the issue and points the finger in her article at every party for failing to come up with a strong vision for higher education. The leadership is "relaxed" about her criticism but don't deny it's pretty scathing.

I spotted her earlier chatting to Plaid chair John Dixon. It was animated but amicable, a case of stiletto versus sandal - no idea who came out best.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Now that you've mastered d'Hondt and forgotten more than you ever needed to know about the New Zealand model of governance, have a go at this. It's the "Spaghetti Bolognese theory" of why granting primary law-making powers to the Assembly is a no-brainer.

First heard at a fringe meeting at the Plaid conference this morning, it's a product of Plaid's very own "two-brains" and Tomorrow's Wales leading light, Cynog Dafis.

It goes like this:

Shopkeeper: Can I help you madam?
Mrs Jones: I'll have some carrots, potatoes and a few parsnips for my dinner please.
Shopkeeper: No problem. Anything else?
Mrs Jones: Yes. I'd like some mince please.
Shopkeeper: What do you want it for?
Mrs Jones: Why do you need to know that? I haven't worked out my menus yet.
Shopkeeper: Well I need to know. I'm not handing it over until you tell me.
Mrs Jones: Well ... maybe I'll make spaghetti bolognese.
Shopkeeer: No, sorry. You'll have to make Shepherd's Pie - or the mince stays here.
Mrs Jones: But I don't like Shepherd's Pie ...

We break off as the Shopkeeper, played by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and Mrs Jones, played by the Assembly (on behalf, of course, of all those Mrs Joneses out there who want to decide for themselves what to have for dinner) try to strike a deal before the mince goes off. Let's hope they have better luck with Italian dishes than .

Moving from Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act to Part 4, say Tomorrow's Wales, is no more than common sense. To persuade a majority of voters in a referendum of that argument, they are about to launch a campaign to pave the way for a Yes campaign, the "400m sprint for the line" as Rhodri Morgan described it yesterday. They intend to appoint a development officer who'll set up a network of groups on the ground, thoughout Wales, who will go out and sell that common sense argument.

Their instructions will be along these lines:

You will not panic every time True Wales are quoted in the paper
You will not give ammunition to the opposition (a direct dig at Plaid's decision to launch a website to spell out the advantages of independence)
You will make the message louder, clearer and do what the Convention has not succeeded in doing: explaining to people the complexities of the current system and why a Yes vote in a referendum would lead to better, more effective policies, delivered sooner, for the people of Wales.

Unfortunately for Plaid someone else has put 'mince' and 'ammo' together this morning and put a shot across the bows of those who support further devolution. The CBI may not yet have come across the Spaghetti Bolognese theory but their Director, David Rosser, doesn't mince his words:

"Of all the constituencies comprising Welsh society, the business community is the most exposed to differences between legislative and regulatory framework in Wales and that applying in the rest of the UK. It is imperative that 'Wales being different for business' equals 'Wales being better for business'. However, there is an overwhelming view among our members that politicians and civil servants do not fully understand the business consequence of their decisions and, as a result, the Assembly has yet to prove itself to the business community in Wales. Therefore, we do not therefore believe that a referendum would be appropriate at this time."

As ammunition goes, No campaigners will be pretty happy with that.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What goes around, comes around.

A few months ago after inferring that he'd not signed off a dossier that attacked the First Minister personally. The dossier itself turned out not to be a very good idea but denying he'd known about it was Mr Bourne's real mistake.

A few days ago Rhodri Morgan didn't just infer that he had no prior knowledge of the Aneurin Glyndwr website. In an answer to a question put by my colleague Vaughan Roderick at the lobby briefing on Tuesday, he said bluntly, unequivocally and rather angrily that he'd known nothing about the website that launched the Delilah video ... the one that attacks, amongst others, Nick Bourne.

Here's what he said in full:

"Let this be the only further question on the website. Look, let's be clear. There was no advance authorisation or awareness on my part or the Secretary of State's part or Labour Party Wales' part of the plans to develop this website. None whatsoever. So the website was developed by a team of Labour supporters as a way of getting into new media engagement ... a lot of excitement after the Obama election victory and everyone says "Oh isn't it brilliant the way they've done the new media engagement, the way they've got all these websites springing up from everywhere" and you know they've had a go at doing it. Now, you know, we were not aware they were doing it, didn't approve the contents, weren't aware of the contents, style or anything whatsoever. So you know that's all I can say".

Vaughan Roderick: "But you gave them the quote. You gave them the quote".

Rhodri Morgan: "Pardon?"

Vaughan Roderick: "You gave them a quote. They quote you on the website".

Rhodri Morgan: "Yeah, but its very naughty of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to imply that quote could be construed by anybody as implying approval or endorsement of the content or the style of the website. Since I haven't seen it or read it or had any foreknowledge of it, it is very very naughty to imply that the content or style of it has in some way been endorsed by me. Now it hasn't nor by the Secretary of State nor by the Labour Party Wales. Now that's it. This is not about the website this morning. I've said what I've got to say and I've criticised the media for implying I'm associated with this content. I am not associated with this this content and that's it as far as I'm concerned. OK. Least said soonest mended. That's the only question on the website. I'm not going to say any more about it. This is not about the website. This a government press conference not a party press conference, ok?"

No-one else did ask about the website. But it wasn't ok and it was less ok when Peter Hain wasn't the only one to suggest that the First Minister had indeed known about it.

What we now understand - and Mr Morgan would not dispute - is that he did know about it, before it was launched. It seems he had a brief and confidential conversation about it, though it was sold unseen. It didn't turn out to be the website highlighting Labour's achievements that he'd perhaps expected and hoped to see.

Is it possible that he got mixed up between the website and the video? That he thought at the time he was being straight with the lobby?

It might well be but from what we now know, it's seems pretty clear that he wasn't.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I had no idea that there was such a thing as a Dictionary of Difficult Words but it's just come in very handy.

Patriarch, patriotic, patrician - with you so far - but what exactly is a "patrial connection with Wales". And I mean exactly. It's important that we understand exactly what it means because .

Not having one and watching Wales coming to a decision without the Cymry-oddi-cartre (the best kind if you, like our family, had a copy of the Dictionary of Difficult Welsh Idioms handy) or the Welsh diaspora, he suggests, would be "hurtful." It is, says the former Electoral Commissioner Glyn Mathias, "an interesting idea" though not one, you suspect, that many people will take seriously.

"What we're saying" says Lord Garel Jones, "is that we would like our opinion to be listened to because we feel Welsh. If you went to Bethesda chapel every Sunday until you were 7 years old you carry that in your heart for the rest of your life and I can't get away from that. I am Welsh". However given Lord Garel-Jones left Wales soon afterwards and that quite a few significant votes have happened since then, we must assume that this is hurt that has built up over the years.

The Dictionary of Difficult Words suggests the meaning of patrial is "pertaining to, derived from, or signifying native country. n. British, person having at least one parent or grandparent born in Britain". For British, then, read Welsh. So all of those with at least one parent, or perhaps grandparent, born in Wales ought to have a vote in the referendum.

Lord Garel-Jones recognises that there may be trouble ahead. "Clearly" he says on tonight's Dragon's Eye, "one wouldn't want to reach the point where a couple of hundred thousand people in Southern Argentina, who left Wales in 1850 were voting, but I think if the principle of Welshness is accepted then I think it would be good."

Before you say it, I've looked it up and this time the Dictionary of Difficult Words can't help me. I can't find a definition of the "principle of Welshness" anywhere, at least not one that would satisfy finicky people like Electoral Commissioners.

Perhaps we could come up with a test? Or suggest a threshold of Welshness, of the tortuous over- Β£200,000-public-subsidy kind that's included in the Welsh Language LCO.

Over to you.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On the steps of the Senedd, Plaid Cymru's Rhodri Glyn Thomas addresses protesters against the planned cuts in further education.

"As far as the (Plaid) group is concerned, we are unanimous in our support for this. We need that funding for further education in Wales. We will fight for it and as far as I'm concerned, this is an issue where there is no possible means of doing anything other than reinstating that money for further education."

He's drowned out by applause.

Amongst the protesters - though some stood well away from the placards -15 Labour and Plaid politicians. They listened as the cuts were slammed, the cuts introduced by their own government.

This from Labour's Alun Davies:

"We're going to be making sure that we're campaigning to make sure the funding is available, to make sure that the promises we all make as politicians are realised. There's no point in people standing here making speeches if we go home and forget about the speeches we've given and the commitments that we've made. We're going to be making sure that when you're marching, we're marching with you".

But when we're voting ..?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee have put out a statement, one that a teenager would probably call "random".

Have a read:

"The Welsh Affairs Committee is aware that confusion still exists about the origin of the proposed veto in relation to the housing Legislative Competence Order (LCO).

The Committee's report on the LCO, published on 14 October 2008, did not include any suggestion that a veto should be introduced. There is no mention of a veto anywhere in the Committee's report.

The suggestion was the result of the redrafting of the Order by the Welsh Assembly Government and the Wales Office. This was communicated to the Committee in a letter from the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy, who wrote to the Committee on 9 January 2009 and advised that the proposed draft Order would be rewritten 'to require the consent of both the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State before any provision of an Assembly Measure could abolish the Right to Buy, Preserved Right to Buy or the Right to Acquire".

And there it ends. Curious stuff.

Why have they put it out at all? Because "confusion still exists" as they put it, or because they know who DID suggest the controversial, possibly unlawful veto as a way forward in the first place and want it made very clear it wasn't them.

At a guess then, it wasn't the Secretary of State either. Why point the finger at the boss?

So, any volunteers?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?