Leyla Zana wins seat in Turkish Election a cause for celebration.

News that the Kurdish Nationalist Party The Peace and Democracy Party BDP  has effectively won 36 seats in the  Turkish General Election (up 16) is welcome . I used the term effectively because the Members have been elected as Independents since there is a 10% electoral threshold and as the Kurds make up an estimate of 6-23% of the population make it almost impossible for a Kurdish party to meet..

Amongst those elected on perhaps what we can call The BDP coupon  is Leyla Zana  who is a particular heroine of the Kurdish National cause .

Mrs Zana, who had two children and only one year of schooling, became a leading campaigner for Kurdish prisoners, and in 1991 she was elected the first Kurdish woman MP.

While taking the oath of loyalty in parliament, she  caused an uproar in Turkish Parliament after adding the following sentence in Kurdish to her parliamentary oath during the swearing-in ceremony in 1994:

"I take this oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples".

Because of this in March 1994, the Turkish Parliament voted to lift the immunity of Zana and five other Kurdish DEP members: and they  were sentenced to 15 years in jail by the Supreme Court.

In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Turkey after a review of her trial; although Turkey did not recognize the result, in 2003 a new harmonization law permitted retrials based on ECHR decisions. In 2002, a film named The Back of the World, directed by Spanish-Peruvian filmmaker Javier Corcuera, examined her case. In April 2004, in a trial which the defendants frequently boycotted, their convictions and sentences were reaffirmed. In June 2004, after a prosecutor requested quashing the prior verdict on a technicality, the High Court of Appeals ordered Zana and the others released.

Since then she has constantly charged with offenses that we would have regarded as quite legitimate in our own democracy.

Not quite though though the argument over the swearing of the oath of loyalty to the Queen of England which recently was highlighted  by the  Boycott of the opening of the fourth Assembly whilst in no way matches the repressive actions of the Turkish State on Layla Zane and other Kurds has a degree of denial of the rights of democratic groups who philosophy different from that of the State to sit in their Legislators.

Clearly one of the reasons why the outrage  a woman was imprisoned for speaking  for 15 years  her own Language was that Turkey has been seen as valuable ally of the West. And it typical of the hypocrisy of Western Government that they do condemn Turkey whole heartily on the their treatment of the Kurdish people  in the same way they condemn Saddam Hussein treatment of the Kurds in Iraq despite the  blatant similarities.

The Kurds are most misused ethnic group in the World  they have no Nation State they can call they own as they have divided up between various other Nations. They have used terrorism as means of an end but often this seen by them as the only option and whilst in no way condoning such acts by organisations such as the
PKK. The Turkish authorities a have used as an excuse to exclude and even imprison though like Leyla Zane.

Hopefully one of the condition placed on any Turkish application to join the European Union will be one that recognises the rights of the Kurdish People to the democratic process. I would have liked to have written the Rights of the Kurdish People to self determination but whilst existing members like Spain  deny that opportunity to Basques and Catalans it would not be possible to do so.

The election of Leyla Zane and her colleagues is one for welcome but the victory of the ruling AKP a socially Conservative party  that will seek to amend the Turkish Constitution in order to consolidate its power is not.

When Two Blogs Go To War.

I have waited a few days to compare the reaction of two Blogs that I regularly look at to giv e them time to comment on recent events.

Both Syniadau and Freedom Central are blogs which are linked to Political Parties Syniadau to Plaid and Freedom Central to  the LibDems, but the way they cover the Welsh Political scene is vastly different.

Syniadau whilst openly putting the Plaid case and commentating on other parties, will openly say when they disagree with senior Party members.  or when defending Plaid often make it  clear that this not from a subordinate position and will add their own analysis as they did with Ieuan Wyn Jones absence from the Assembly.

To my knowledge Syniadau will always post a comment which opposes the views placed on the Blog  (barring obscene and racist ones I guess) and will respond to these comments with cutesy, and will often acknowledge someone who writes contrary to the post may have a point.

Freedom Centre on the other hand are merely an LibDem attack job. They seem to have Anti-Plaid bias in particular  and although they claim to be independent of the Party much of its contribution often comes from Peter Black and other  LibDem AMs . They will cut and Paste entire news items without comment on the problems of other Parties  without comment and before I am accused of hypocrisy (I admit to frequently  cutting and Pasting ) I hope I wil always add my own comment on the issue. not merely  copy something from the Western Mail or the BBC and leave it there in the hope this will be sen as unbiased .see Insidious brilliant take on on this.

But the main problem with the Blog I have  come to call "Subordinate Centre" is that not prepared to look at news that it is critical of the LidDems in Wales or their leadership. Just recently they have virtually ignored the controversy  over the exclusion of the LibDem AM's John Dixon and Aled Roberts  from the Assembly and it ironic that it Syniadau who appears to more supportive of the two .

In the last few days former North Wales AM Eleanor Burnham said her party's response in the impasse with regards the excluded AM's "looks like farce". and Subordinate Centre has totally ignored it . Peter Black who has also been criticised by his former AM has also not commented on his Blog. Burnahm may have her own agenda if Roberts was to be permanently excluded then she would as 2nd on the party list take his place but they could have pointed that rather than ignore the criticism all together.

They  willingly at   Suborninate Centre to recently  reproduces much of Synidau spat on Elfyn Llwyd (above link)  or to copy the Western Mail report on Senior figures move against Plaid Cymru leader again without any of their own analysis

They also seem to fail to publish comments that are critical of their post but I will grant them the assumption this may be merely due to  a technical problem.

So we have two Blogs both I think should be read but only one of them has important and serious contribution to make to the political life of Wales.

Labour vision there is none so better attack Plaid?

An interesting post on Wales Home on Wakes from New Labour AM Ken Skates.

Does he give his impression of Labours Plans for the next five Years?
Comment on the extensive progressive legislation He and his colleagues have in mind?
Show how Wales will differ from the right wing ideology led cuts and reorganisation the Westminster Coalition has outlined  for England. such as the so called NHS reforms?

Er No. Probably because there are none.

Instead this AM who has only been in the Senate for a month has chosen to concentrate those  Plaids AMs absent from the jamboree of the so called State Opening.

In an article entitled "Wearing badges is not enough in days like these" Ken Skates  rights he makes particular play on Ieuan Wyn Jones  absence

"I have just two simple points to make about this. The first, and most uncontroversial in a sense, is that as the leader of a major party in the Assembly, Ieuan had a special responsibility to be there on behalf of his group and on behalf of the people who voted for the party in May. Many of these people will not share Plaid’s anti-monarchist views and whether he has let them down is not my place to say, but I do think it was discourteous not to attend without a valid reason. It displayed a lack of judgement as he chose to put anti-Royal sentiment ahead of celebrating the additional powers that his loyal supporters had campaigned for". 

The second and more important point, I feel, is that the episode shines a revealing and uncomfortable light on a deeper and more fundamental problem for Plaid as a political party, namely its continuing failure to come to terms with both devolution and work within the new realities and institutions of Welsh politics to affect real change.

Bearing in mind the Queens speech was not outline of her Government in Wales plans for using these new powers, but merely a congratulations for having them.Was there any point if you are a Republican  or not in inviting her in the fist place.?

How much did it cost and who pays for it?

He goes on

The issue at hand here is one about politics. We now run our own affairs and take our own decisions. The irony that it is Plaid that is distinctly uncomfortable with the responsibilities and powers that it has been campaigning for is an interesting, if underexplored, development in Welsh politics over the last decade.

and

This week’s decision by Plaid’s leader to obsess with regional republicanism, instead of acknowledging the incredible distance Wales has come, illustrates his party’s inability to embrace the real business of public service. Missing First Minister’s Questions this week means he failed to raise awareness of, and provoke action on, the burning issues that affect our constituents this week. 

What burning issues? . Oh yes the  complete lethargy of the Assembly since the 4th  one was elected last May including the filing of Committee places the failure of the new Labour Welsh Government to live up to their promise to stand up for Wales apart from a veiled statement that Carwyn Jones is claiming today that "borrowing powers could be on their way" following yesterday's JMC meeting. although his London boss Peter Hain has seemingly rejected the idea.

Yes perhaps Ieuan Wyn Jones should have been there to point that out but I believe there probably a good case that he really needs a rest after along and disappointing electoral campaign. There a huge difference in your energy levels when you are  winner compared with the despair you feel when you lose.

But theres a complete different issue when comes to the moral stance of boycotting the Queen.

What Ken Skates appears to be saying is that Plaid should simply become just another Party within the British system some of us would argue that this has been their problem and they have lost the Radicalism and Fire that many of who used to be active embraced and John Dixon reminds us this in his Borthlas blog.

Plaid should never emulate the London run Parties  who play by the rules of convention that emulates and
suits their establishment values.

Ken Stoats writes like a long term grandee rather than a fresh face his use of the term anti-monarchist rather than Republican is a typical conservative form syntax with its negative implications.

I am sure than none of the AM had any resall animosity  to the Queen. They just don't want her as our head of state.

But there will always be a time when those frustrated with the Political process will use other peaceful means  so that the rest of us can here their voice so often stymied by the mainstream media and the boycott was just one example of this.

From what this AM is implying we will not be seeing him or any of his colleagues on a protest against government cuts seemingly  being allowed to ask the occasional question of the  First Minster will be sufficient.

But the issue of Republicanism  is one that can only take place outside the Welsh Senate and Westminster because open debate on the topic is not allowed, in the debating chamber.

Of course if Labour  were in opposition in Wales it would be different story and with the aid of the Trade Unions, who have always put the interest of the Party before that of they members will  have no doubt taking part in more than one type of extra parliamentary  activityi Including the wearing of numerous badges.

It has never taken long for young Labour radicals to become establishment figures once elected, but Ken Stoats seems to have done so in record time.

Boundary Changes What Wales might look like.

The organisation Democratic Audit has Looked at the potential outcome of the ConLib government plans to cut he number of constituencies in the UK. This is not definitive analysis and the actual  result from the boundary commission due to b published in the Autumn nay be quite  different but they have used the same criteria.

The first interesting thing that emerges is that the biggest losers may well be the Liberal Democrats.

It is ironic that if the AV referendum had succeeded and if the Libdems were to poll anything like the 20%+ vote they have come to expect in a General Election then they would have probably been by far the biggest gainers in Westminster seats. However the plan to cut the number of MP's was coupled with the AV legislation but was not subject to the referendum. So even if the Libdems do not  suffer the same meltdown in votes that they had in the Scottish and Welsh elections they are likely to regret allowing the Conservatives to place this alongside the AV bill.

The analysis by Democratic Audit  also using the Boundary Commissions attempts to give us a possible likelihood of what the new Welsh constituencies may look like.

This of course is based on what would the result have been if the seats had been fought on these boundaries and the same %vote for each party at the  2010 election but it does give us some indication of what the future Welsh Electoral Map for Westminster may look like.

BlogMenai has added a useful critique of the analysis which is well worth looking at (you can use goggle translate if your Welsh like mine is shamefully not up to reading it directly).

As I have said this is largely an hypothesis and it may well see a big difference when we vote again in 2014. Or  we may be voting earlier as the Libdem wake up to the fact that even if they overcome the current toxic effect of being coalition with the Tories and they recovered the percentage of the vote they received in 2010 they are still likely to lose nearly a quarter of their current seats. Indeed in the next few months this may well be the biggest strain on the coalition. However I don't think the public will regard a stand purely on the Libdems self interest to kindly

I am a Citizen not a Subject.

 Good for Leanne Wood who has announced that she is once again boycotting the State Opening of the Assembly  because of her Republican beliefs.

I expected the usual claptrap from the forelock tuggers in support of their Queen  but as usual the most ridiculous criticism has come from Peter Black.

In his Blog Peter makes a claim to be a republican but  he claims that  Leanne and those joining he in a boycott.

"However, that did not stop them taking the oath of allegiance to the Queen, nor does it prevent them serving as a member of a body that constitutionally takes its authority from the crown and whose laws have to be approved by the monarch, no matter how academic that approval may be.

Nor can they deny that the monarchy enjoys majority support amongst Welsh people, who expect their elected politicians to represent them at events such as this. Irrespective of my personal views my duty on Tuesday is to be in the Assembly representing my constituents at the official opening and celebrating the birth of a new phase of Welsh democracy"

Excuse me?How can you celebrate a democracy that forces people to swear an oath to

... be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.  

And claim that this a democracy?

It's the heirs bit that really gets me I'm perfectly willing (until we decide otherwise to to accept ) Elizabeth 11  as head of state even of an Interdependent Wales but I am not willing to accept this should be forever and certainly  to any heirs .This is undemocratic and makes a nonsense of Peter's position and those  who claim to be  republican bit do nothing about it...

 I remind Peter and others that

"Those elected to the House of Commons, to the Scottish Parliament, or to the Welsh Assembly who refuse to take the oath or affirmation are barred from participating in any proceedings, and from receiving their salaries. They could also be fined £500 and, have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempt to do so. ] Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1855, any peer voting, or sitting in the House of Lords without having taken the oath, was subject, for every such offence, to a penalty of £500".

So if you are a Republican in order to take you seat you must  lie under oath or in Peter's case simply accept the situation and say and do nothing about it.

In the Northern Ireland Assembly however there is no requirement for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to take an oath of allegiance, or any other oath, nor is there any form of voluntary oath prescribed for those who may wish to swear one. However, members are required to sign the Assembly's roll of membership, designate their identity as "Nationalist", "Unionist" or "Other", and take a Pledge of Office. Ministers can be removed from office if the responsibilities of the pledge are not met. Members pledge to...

(a) discharge in good faith all the duties of office; 

(b) commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;

(c) to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination;

(ca) to promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future;

(cb) to participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council;

(cc) to observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister;

(cd) to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts;

(d) to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government;

(e) to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly;

(f) to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;

(g) to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

So in order to bring in to mainstream politics Republicans who in the past advocated violence against the state  they are not required  to swear an oath.

Peter Black is right in one sense there is a Republican Dilemma  but its whether to speak out  and campaign for the Democratic right to advocate the end of the Monarchy and face the wrath of the establishment and media or to remain silent.

But how can anyone who claims to be a republican as Peter does remain silent and accept this situation and criticise those who have the courage to make even a modest stand on principal.

If Peter wants to "celebrating the birth of a new phase of Welsh democracy  " let him be the first to propose that the Welsh Assembly adopt the same form of oath as their colleagues do in Northern Ireland .

Best of the Worst.

Listing to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday . I heard a voice from the past.

The item was on the claim that So many asylum seekers have been given leave to remain in the UK that it "amounts to an amnesty",

One interviewee was Keith Best mer chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, who said many of the applicants had simply been "forgotten about" and "left in limbo" by the authorities.

In 1979 Best had produced one of the biggest political shocks in Welsh political History  when he took what was then the safe Labour seat of Anglesey (Later Ynys Mon) with a 7.6 swing.

The shock was even greater because Best was a Brighton councillor and Barrister with no connection to the island and spoke no Welsh.

He established himself however and learned the Language where he was confident enough to be interviewed in it.

Beating of a challenge from Plaid Cymru 's Ieuan Wyn Jones in 1983 he looked like he was set for a long tenure as Ynys Mon have not voted out a siting Member of Parliament since Cledwyn Hughes beat Megan Lloyd George in 1951.

So Plaid may have well failed to win the seat in 1987  because  Keith Best was not the candidate then as he he had been  forced  to stand down after admitting  fraud; during the privatisation of British Telecom, Individuals were limited to one allocation of shares and  . Best was discovered  to have  illegally submitted many applications by using minor variations of his name  and was prosecuted  .

He was eventually s sentenced to four months imprisonment and fined £3,000. On 5 October 1987, the Court of Appeals ruled that the jail portion of his sentence was too harsh,  (rightly so to my mind)and Best was released. However, his fine was increased to £4,500.

If he had not got involved in such  a stupid and greedy venture he may have well been Secretary of State for Wales in 1993 instead of John Redwood and Wales may have  not have been so alienated against the Tories that some might have survived the 1997 wipe-out.

But since his disgrace Keith Best has rehabilitated himself.

He was director of Prisoners Abroad 1989–93. which supports British citizens who are imprisoned overseas. It also works with ex-prisoners returning to the UK and with families members and friends of those detained.

In 1993, he became chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service providing direct legal assistance to refugees, asylum seekers and others needing advice and guidance around British immigration law.

In  April 2010 he took up the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

Since my last two Blogs have been about political slease  then its a pleasure to find that one former disgraced MP who at least has chosen to use his talents in such a manner, especially when you consider the raft of ex-ministers who on leaving the House of Commons or returning to the back-benches  go on to earn lucrative directorships with companies they had contact with in their ministerial role, especially Health and Defence.

So an even an old cynic and Anti-Tory like National Left would like to congratulate Keith Best  and wish him all the best (No pun intended) in the good works he is carrying out.

361 Lords not leaping.

Another politician has fallen from the sleaze allegations "Lord Taylor", once one of the most promising Tory politicians of his generation, was jailed for a year  for defrauding the taxpayer of more than £11,000.

Taylor had denied fraud, claiming that he had been told by a fellow peer that he was entitled to claim travel costs and an overnight allowance despite living in London. He said that he regarded his fraudulent claim as "In Lieu of Wages"

In other words he regarded this as Perks and his claim that other Peers made similar fraudulent claims has properly an element of truth.

Personally I can't see that much difference between Taylors fraudulent claim  and that of David Laws  who had claimed over £40,000 on his expenses in the form of second home costs, from 2004 to late 2009, during which time he had been renting rooms at properties owned by hiss "secret lover" .

Certainly  I can't see anybody getting away from falsely claiming Housing benefit  by claiming "he didn't want to disclose his sexuality".

And of course in reality Taylors fraud is no different  from a factory or office worker nicking goods from their place of work because they feel they deserve it as "Lieu of wages"  and claiming as Taylor seemed to be alleging  "We all do it it's Perks",

Of course there's  a major difference between Taylor than any other person found guilty of stealing from his employer he has not been immediately dismissed Taylor need not even feel l that his political career is over. An anachronism in the British constitution says that a life peer is a life peer, no matter what. Even a Community Councilor would have lost his or her seat if they had been convicted of even a relatively minor offence.

And theres no reason to fel that the second chamber would change things. Thy  recently they voted down Nick Clegg's  proposal for reform of the House of Lords .About 500 peers, including former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, showed up for the vote and Peers backed plans to remain as a fully appointed house by 361 votes to 121 - a majority of 240.

So "Three cheers for Democracy". well done the 361 who obviously don't want any chance of someone entering that august chamber who's  not one of the remaining Hereditary Peers, A Bishop of the Church of England or a receiver of political patronage including those rejected by the Electorate as John Taylor was at Cheltenham in 1992 ( there may have been an element of racism in his defeat but it was small).
So how do we reform the House of Lords How about?

• Making all Citizen of the realm a Peer on their  18th Birthday  

• Having elections amongst those eligible for the Lords  (ie all of us) based on multiple constituencies using  STV.

• Removing the ban of Peers sitting in the Commons. .

This could prove a lot simple method than working out what do do we the existing member of the Lords . They would still have their Peerages It would just mean that there would be lot more of us.

So in anticipation of my and everyone else elevation . I sign  myself

Lord Glyn of Beddau.

•