Monthly Archives: February 2010

What’s in a name?

Wales on Sunday’s Matt Withers takes the BBC’s John Pienaar to task for allegedly getting the name of Plaid Cymru’s leader in the Welsh Assembly wrong:

It’s not too often that Plaid Cymru get much coverage on a UK-wide level, so they must have been pleased to hear their conference being discussed on Radio 5 Live’s Weekend News last Sunday night.

It was an in-depth discussion of the challenges and opportunities facing the party as they go into the general election – and really, a feature which could only have been improved had presenter John Pienaar got the party leader’s name right just once.

It’s Ieuan Wyn Jones, John. Not just Wyn Jones.

I have known Mr Jones since the late 1970s, when we worked together in a Ruthin law firm.  He was always known as plain Wyn to all the members of staff.

What’s more, I still call him Wyn.

And, more importantly, so does his wife.  Or, at least, she did the last time I spoke to him.

Plaid up the pole

An article in today’s Daily Post has left me completely bemused:

THE Welsh Dragon flag will fly from Conwy Castle on St David’s Day despite ongoing problems with health and safety and seagull droppings.

Historic buildings and ancient monuments body Cadw, who took the flag down at the end of the summer tourist season as usual, say the castle has a particular problem with seagulls

Spikes were placed on its flagpoles to deter the birds, but fluttering cloth gets snagged on the spikes and rips.

A Cadw spokesman yesterday said it is costly to get specialist contractors to climb up and detach the remnants of the flag.

He said: “The flags are getting tangled and soiled and we are still working on a solution.

“But the Welsh Dragon flag goes up on important occasions and it will be up on St David’s Day.”

Plaid Cymru Conwy County councillor Phil Edwards is baffled why Conwy is a special case. “The Welsh Dragon can fly from other gusty landmarks like Caernarfon Castle and Harlech Castle. It’s ridiculous, given the brutality of Edward I towards the Welsh, that health and safety steps in 800 years on to prevent us pulling a flag up a pole.”

I really can’t understand the nature of Cllr Edwards’s gripe.  Cadw appear to be saying that the Red Dragon will be flying from the castle, despite the best efforts of the healthansafety brigade.

Fair play to him, however, for managing to get the obligatory anglophobic jibe in, no matter how abstruse the grounds.  Plaid will be proud of him.

Roger’s secret

Yesterday, I wound up for the Opposition in the annual St David’s Day debate in the Commons.  The debate was opened by Peter Hain, who spent most of his time denigrating the Tories; he must be deeply worried, which pleases me greatly.

An intriguing moment came when the veteran Labour Member, Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley), spoke about her early days in Parliament:

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): I first became an elected Member in 1979, when the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) was in Brecon and Radnorshire, which was in my European constituency. I hope that I do not embarrass him, but I was very grateful for his help at that time. We remain good friends, even though we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, and I hope that he might help me in other campaigns some time in the future.

Roger Williams, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, turned scarlet.

“Were you one of them, Roger?” asked Cheryl Gillan, but received no answer.

So was Roger a Labour supporter?  Perhaps a reader knows the answer.

Madness in the Commons

PMQs were even more eagerly anticipated than usual today, given the incendiary allegations published in the Observer on Sunday, the flames of which had been fanned by Alistair Darling’s assertion on Sky News that No 10 had “unleashed the forces of hell” against him in 2008 for daring to predict (correctly, as it transpired) that the recession would be the worst for 60 years.

Would there, we wondered, be a certain froideur evident between the PM and his next-door neighbour? Would they each sit at extreme ends of the front bench, legs crossed in opposite directions, and stare at the rafters?  Would the body language, in short, be bloody?

As it turned out, when Gordon and Alistair arrived they were joined at the hip.  Literally.  They entered the chamber in a curious manner similar to the sub-conga shuffle formerly adopted by the 80s pop group, Madness, Darling almost physically attached to the back of the PM’s jacket, both grinning self-consciously.  You couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them. 

They sat down together.  Very close together.  An ironic cheer erupted and the Speaker had to ask us all to settle down.

Of course, David Cameron asked Brown about the briefings against Alistair.  I mean, he had to.  There was an open goal and it would have been unprofessional, indeed disrespectful of the PM, not to have a crack at it.  Gordon, intensely discomfited, affected a sort of hysterical insouciance by pretending to chat cosily with Alistair, who, in fairness, played along and chatted back.  It didn’t deter Cameron:

Mr. Cameron: Just as we need openness in the health service, we need openness at the heart of Government. After the Chancellor’s extraordinary statement last night, the Prime Minister said this morning on GMTV:

“I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor”.

Will he try to stand up with a straight face and tell us that that is true?

The Prime Minister: Not only is that correct, but this is the nearest that the right hon. Gentleman has ever got to talking about the economy in the past few months.

Not a terribly good answer, but the Labour backbenchers, heavily whipped, roared.  Not very enthusiastically, you understand, but roar they did.

Cameron was still undeterred:

Mr. Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to talk about the economy, we can talk about the Prime Minister trebling the deficit, about wrecking the pension system, about ruining the tax system and about bringing this country to its knees. Right now, six weeks before an election, with a record Budget deficit, at the end of a long recession, I want to ask why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war with each other. This is what we are told—

Gordon and Alistair were continuing their animated love-in, pretending not to listen to the beastly man, their heads almost touching.

Mr. Cameron: If they get any closer, they will start kissing. We are told that Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s spin doctor, was “spreading poison against Darling” and that he

“told every journalist who had access to a pencil that Alistair’s interview was a disaster.”

We are also told that there was the most poisonous briefing against him. Last night, the Chancellor said that after he had said what he had said, No. 10 Downing Street unleashed “the forces of hell”. Why does the Prime Minister think that he said that?

Gordon rose wearily:

The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I never instructed a briefing against the Chancellor.

And perhaps he didn’t.  But he did look extremely uncomfortable.

The session was leavened at its very end by the House’s jester-in-residence, Stephen Pound, Labour Member for Ealing North, who, with a grin spread wide across his Punchinello countenance, asked in stentorian tones:

Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I enjoy a pint of porter and a game of darts as much as any old Etonian, but there the similarity ends. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to strain every sinew to try to achieve an international agreement on a Robin Hood tax, bearing in mind that we all know who in this House speaks for the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Even we laughed at that.

The friendly question had clearly come as a huge relief to the embattled Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister: I cannot beat the humour which my hon. Friend brings to this occasion.

Very true, Gordon.  But I’m sure you did your best.

A strong heart

I received a letter this morning from one of my favourite regular correspondents: a 92 year-old lady who lives in a nursing home in the constituency.  I always enjoy hearing from her, because she invariably lends a touch of good-humoured sanity to the otherwise manic life of Westminster.

Her latest letter, however, is a touch sadder than usual.  She tells me that she is now, at the end of her long life, waiting to die.  She concludes:

“I can’t read this through – sight is failing, hearing is failing, the will to live has virtually failed.  But the heart goes on ticking. 

“A strong heart is the best friend all through life, but the worst enemy in the end.”

Probably the most poignant words I have read for a very long time.

Almost irresisitible

Among the invitations I received this morning was one to attend the International Coalition against Prohibition conference in The Hague on 15 March.

I have to say that I was sorely tempted, particularly when I learned that one of the speakers is to be Dr. Kamal Chaouachi, who is “the world’s leading expert on waterpipe smoking”.

How many lesser experts are there, I wonder? 

Sadly, I will be engaged on Parliamentary business that day.

Peter Hain should relax

A panicky-sounding Peter Hain is warning that Plaid Cymru could be contemplating dirty dealing after the election:

“Plaid could never form a government in Westminster, and all the signs emerging from their conference are that they would do a sordid deal with David Cameron.

“The Tories, propped up by Plaid, would be a change we in Wales cannot afford. The election this year will be a choice between a Labour government securing our economic recovery and jobs for Wales, or a Tory government putting everything at risk.”

Understandable anxiety, but I really do think that Peter ought to relax.

After all, most of  the sordid deals that Plaid have done to date have been with the Labour party.

Plaid Cymru’s principles

Arrived in London after a less than pleasant road journey and decided to watch The Politics Show on catch-up TV.

To my delight, it included a profile of the constituency of Ynys Môn, the scene of what is likely to be one of the most interesting Welsh contests in the forthcoming general election.

After interviews with the young and enthusiastic Conservative candidate, my friend  Anthony Ridge-Newman, the old independent warhorse, my friend Peter Rogers, and the incumbent Labour MP, my friend Albert Owen, there was a short exchange with the Plaid Cymru candidate, Mr Dylan Rees, with whom I am not yet acquainted.

Mr Rees was filmed standing outside RAF Valley, one of the few major employers on Anglesey.  Despite Plaid Cymru’s anti-military stance, Mr Rees seemed generally well disposed to the presence of the Royal Air Force on the island.

Mr Rees also spoke enthusiastically about the prospect of a replacement for Wylfa nuclear power station.  When it was put to him that Plaid disapproved of nuclear power, Mr Rees asked, rhetorically, how he could oppose a project that would bring up to 5,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs.  To heck, he seemed to be saying, with policy.

Plaid Cymru’s blithe willingness to jettison apparently rigid political principle when it suits their purposes is a constant source of amusement.  The incumbent Welsh Assembly member for Ynys Môn, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones (who happens to be Plaid’s leader in the Assembly), has also welcomed the replacement of Wylfa, despite having approved a manifesto which confirmed the party’s “total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales”.

In adopting what might be most charitably described as a flexible approach to well-established party policy, therefore, Mr Rees is doing no more than following an equally well-established Plaid practice.

Take a second look at Brown’s behaviour

The Prime Minister has denied that he has ever hit anyone.

Speaking in an interview on Channel 4 News, Mr Brown said:

 ”Let me just say, absolutely clearly, so that there is no misunderstanding about that: I have never, never hit anybody in my life.”

I fully believe the Prime Minister’s assurances, particularly since nobody has ever suggested that he did hit anyone.

The allegations against him are all of violent outbursts that stop short of actually throwing a punch.  They are repeated in today’s Observer and include:

  • grabbing his deputy chief of staff by the lapels and snarling: “They’re out to get me”;
  • thumping the back of the front passenger seat while travelling in his official car, causing his protection officer to flinch with shock;
  • stabbing the same (presumably now reupholstered) seat with a black marker pen;
  • screaming four-letter words at his American speechwriter;
  • employing similar vocabulary when irate at the prospect of meeting European ambassadors; and
  • turfing a No 10 typist out of her seat and taking over her computer.

The Observer now tells us that Brown’s conduct toward his staff was so bad that the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, was obliged  to give him a stern “pep talk” and order him to change his behaviour.

If these allegations are indeed true, they must give huge cause for concern as to the Prime Minister’s fitness for office. I sincerely hope that they are not, but they should be answered as part of the process of “taking a second look” at the way Mr Brown has governed our country.

Deafness is not an option

Labour candidates gathered in Warwick this weekend are to be told not to campaign on the party’s record in office.

A leaflet entitled Operation Fightback (embarrassingly for Labour, a title shared with a BNP campaign) sternly counsels activists to avoid mentioning the party’s record in power, on the grounds that:

“Labour needs to ensure that the next election is not seen as a referendum on the government.”

Which surely must present Labour candidates with something of a dilemma.  After all, the events of the last thirteen years are bound, one would suspect, to come up from time to time on the doorstep, in the High Street or at hustings meetings during the course of a four-week campaign.

So what are they expected to do?  Feign deafness or laryngitis?  Plead a pressing engagement and swiftly retreat?  Faint?

No, on balance, I think that they are going to have to be prepared to deal with wholly reasonable questions about why the country is in such a dreadful mess and who got us into it.

Sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la-la-la just isn’t a viable option.

Welcome support from Plaid

Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones, the leader of Plaid Cymru in the Welsh Assembly, says that a hung Parliament would be “the best outcome for Wales”.

Nice to see that he is looking forward so eagerly to the prospect of substantial Tory gains, and I can assure him that we will be doing our very best to surpass even those  unexpected ambitions.

Sound sense from Julie

I’m delighted to see that one of the first-time Conservative voters featured on the party’s new poster campaign is Julie Fallon of Llandudno.

Julie, who volunteers at the Happy Faces charity shop,  also features in a video produced by the party.  It’s worth hearing what she has to say:

Lower case neutrality

The Observer relaunched yesterday, announcing its aim “to build on a heritage founded on the age of reason”.

Introducing the latest revamp of the perennially ailing Sunday, its editor, John Mulholland, explained:

The Observer remains an independent voice and one that is committed to liberal and social democratic values.

Which it demonstrates by avoiding the use of capital letters.

A BNP welcome

So the BNP have voted to extend eligibility for membership to black and asian people.

Given the warmth of the very public welcome they  gave the Times journalist, Dominic Kennedy, I am sure they will be bracing themselves for a positive avalanche of applications from members of ethnic minorities anxious to experience the same sort of hospitality.

Who is biased at the BBC

Sylvester McCoy, the actor who played the most forgettable incarnation of Doctor Who for two years in the late 1980s, has disclosed in today’s Times that the serial’s scriptwriters introduced anti-Conservative themes into its plots with a view to undermining the prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher.

McCoy explains:

“We were a group of politically motivated people and it seemed the right thing to do. At the time Doctor Who used satire to put political messages out there in the way they used to do in places like Czechoslovakia. Our feeling was that Margaret Thatcher was far more terrifying than any monster the Doctor had encountered. Those who wanted to see the messages saw them; others, including one producer, didn’t.”

No doubt complaints to the BBC at the time about left-wing bias would have been dismissed as neo-McCarthyite hysteria; indeed, even after learning of McCoy’s confession, a BBC spokesman commented:

“We’re baffled by these claims. The BBC’s impartiality rules applied just as strongly then as they do to programmes now.”

Quite clearly, those rules were being wilfully ignored or insufficiently rigorously enforced in the 1980s. 

As, indeed, many feel they are today.