The Wasting Mule today reports that .
The UK Government should reveal which parties blocked which parts of the Silk Commission’s recommendations for further devolution to avoid the impression of a “closed-door Westminster stitch-up,” Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards has demanded.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP Mr Edwards said:
So Mr Edwards seems to be blaming both the major Westminster parties which might explain why "Welsh" Labour's response to Devo Dipynbach has ben relatively muted.except from National Assembly Presiding Officer Rosemary Butler has launched the latest major attack on the UK Government’s planned changes to Wales’ devolution settlement.
The Labour AM has published an Assembly Commission critique of Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb’s draft Wales Bill which runs to nearly 9,000 words.
It would be embarrassing for Ms Butler if her own Party collaborated with the Tories to water down Silk
Mr Edwards continued:
A former leader of Labour in Scotland and its Parliament has complained that she was treated as little more than a Branch Manager.
I can only suggest that Carwyn Jones is regarded by his bosses as little more than a Senior Office Clerk.
The UK Government should reveal which parties blocked which parts of the Silk Commission’s recommendations for further devolution to avoid the impression of a “closed-door Westminster stitch-up,” Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards has demanded.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP Mr Edwards said:
“The draft Wales Bill has been rightly criticised for its lack of vision and ambition for Wales. Central to the charge against the Secretary of State is the manner in which he dismantled the cross party consensus achieved via the work of the Silk Commission.
“The Commission, of course, carefully crafted a comprehensive piece of work after the widest consultation process ever with the people of Wales and civil society on the development of our country’s democracy. It was an open and transparent process and meant a great deal of compromise on the part of Plaid Cymru.
“It provided a clear legislative pathway which would have moved Wales forward.
“Admittedly, it was composed prior to the Scottish independence referendum and the subsequent Northern Ireland and Scotland Acts which have provided far more powers for those nations.
“Silk, however, should have been the baseline of powers Wales required in the next Wales Bill. Instead, the Tories and the Labour party have cynically used the St David’s Day process to dismantle the package they had previously agreed to in Silk.”
So Mr Edwards seems to be blaming both the major Westminster parties which might explain why "Welsh" Labour's response to Devo Dipynbach has ben relatively muted.except from National Assembly Presiding Officer Rosemary Butler has launched the latest major attack on the UK Government’s planned changes to Wales’ devolution settlement.
The Labour AM has published an Assembly Commission critique of Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb’s draft Wales Bill which runs to nearly 9,000 words.
It would be embarrassing for Ms Butler if her own Party collaborated with the Tories to water down Silk
Mr Edwards continued:
Will there be a response from "Welsh" Labour and from which section . The Party at Westminster who seem to be working hand in glove with the Tories to deny meaningful devolution to Wales or the Party in Cardiff Bay who seem to be out of the loop when decisions on the Assembly.s future in Wales are made.
“Plaid Cymru entered those discussions in good faith, but the Secretary of State has cynically used that process to bring forward a Bill which has put the devolution debate in Wales in hyper-reverse drive compared to where it was after the Silk Commission finished their work.
“Of the Silk Commission recommendations discussed during the St David’s Day Process, less than half were accepted by the Secretary of State and the then Shadow Secretary of State Owen Smith...
Recommendations are not in the Bill ranging from the devolution of Network Rail functions and funding; devolution of policing; the appointment of a Welsh Crown Estates Commissioner; devolution of S4C; review of devolution of criminal justice; devolution of teachers’ pay. This indicates the scale of how Labour and the Tories here in Westminster have eviscerated the work of the Silk Commission.
“Now that the Secretary of State has based a Bill on his flawed St David’s Day Process, in the interests of openness and transparency he should publish which political parties reneged on their previous pledges, and which elements of Silk the Tories – and now Labour – no longer support. If he fails to do so he will be open to the accusation that his Wales Bill has been based on the worst kind of closed-door Westminster stitch-up.
A former leader of Labour in Scotland and its Parliament has complained that she was treated as little more than a Branch Manager.
I can only suggest that Carwyn Jones is regarded by his bosses as little more than a Senior Office Clerk.
2 comments:
Sorry to read this but actually we have yet to see any more powers devolved to Scotland, those which have or are about to be all have traps set in them. The only way for our respective countries to actually have a voice in how we are ruled is indeed independence and I know in Scotland it is only a matter of time.
This is the perfect situation for Labour in Wales, blame the Tories for doing Wales down while hiding from the fact they’ve be doing the same for years.
Don’t take my word for it, Labour in Wales doesn’t want more powers on IWA’s Click on Wales blog, Daniel Evans describes how Carwyn Jones in an interview with him said he was happy with the low turnout at Assembly election because he said if everyone voted they might not vote Labour.
http://www.clickonwales.org/2015/10/devolutions-passive-revolution/
As for Stephen Crabb and Tory intentions, over at Pedryn Drycin they write in damming tones
‘If you are bright, have a lot of stamina, and the media and your opposition is either weak or disinterested, you can sustain this diversion for as long as you want. You may never have to openly or honestly answer the questions you were originally presented with, questions, in this case (and I take the liberty of paraphrasing a myriad of critical sources), such as: ‘If the Silk Commission presented a potentially enduring ‘devolved’ constitutional settlement for Wales, in what way does this bill realise that vision?’ ‘If it doesn’t realise that vision, why, and what is the alternative vision?’ ‘Legal and academic authorities claim that this Wales Bill reverses devolution in Wales vis-à-vis the GoWA 2006. Does it, and if so why?’ ‘What referendum, manifesto or electoral mandate entitles you to reverse the constitutional settlement established by the referendum of 2011?’ ‘If you believe it doesn’t reverse that settlement, what legal advice has been provided to defend that claim?’
These are just some of the very basic but crucial questions Mr Crabb has been successfully avoiding for a week with elementary rhetorical diversion and obfuscation techniques about “nationalist lawyers and academics”, “emotional reactions” and “economic impacts”. But as I said, if the media or your opposition is either weak or disinterested…’
http://pedryndrycin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mr-crabb-his-wales-bill-and-dodging.html
Welsh politics in a nutshell, keep up the good work exposing it Glyn
Post a Comment