Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Grandstanding
Adam Price's front page article in today's Western Mail threatening to sue the Assembly Government if they introduce top-up fees in Wales is the finest piece of spin dressed up as principle I have seen for a long time.
Mr. Price has written a letter to Education Minister, Jane Hutt telling her that her plans are unlawful. His reasoning for this is that it is in breach of the One Wales Agreement, which he says links the issue to the lifting of the cap on top-up fees in England. He says that this is an event that now looks unlikely to happen.
Of course if it were unlawful to breach the One Wales Agreement then Plaid Cymru's own Minister would be in court for failing to deliver the promised daily Welsh Language newspaper.
Adam Price also lists a lot of other factors such as the nature of the consultation but his prime objective appears to be to try and distance Plaid Cymru from decisions by its own Ministers in the hope of limiting the electoral damage. Once more he is trying to have his cake and eat it.
There is no doubt that there is a deep split within Plaid Cymru on this issue. One Assembly Member I spoke to yesterday was deeply troubled by the decision to ignore party policy. However, Plaid Cymru are in government and as such the party has to accept responsibility for the decisions that are made.
As many of us suspected, a party that has built its reputation on protest and easy popularism is having major problems adjusting to the responsibilities of power, chief amongst them being to keep your manifesto promises.
Mr. Price has written a letter to Education Minister, Jane Hutt telling her that her plans are unlawful. His reasoning for this is that it is in breach of the One Wales Agreement, which he says links the issue to the lifting of the cap on top-up fees in England. He says that this is an event that now looks unlikely to happen.
Of course if it were unlawful to breach the One Wales Agreement then Plaid Cymru's own Minister would be in court for failing to deliver the promised daily Welsh Language newspaper.
Adam Price also lists a lot of other factors such as the nature of the consultation but his prime objective appears to be to try and distance Plaid Cymru from decisions by its own Ministers in the hope of limiting the electoral damage. Once more he is trying to have his cake and eat it.
There is no doubt that there is a deep split within Plaid Cymru on this issue. One Assembly Member I spoke to yesterday was deeply troubled by the decision to ignore party policy. However, Plaid Cymru are in government and as such the party has to accept responsibility for the decisions that are made.
As many of us suspected, a party that has built its reputation on protest and easy popularism is having major problems adjusting to the responsibilities of power, chief amongst them being to keep your manifesto promises.
Comments:
<< Home
Whilst agreeing with you that the Plaid Ministers take responsibilities for their decisions I think there is a fundamental difference between wanting a change in student finance arrangements and agreeing to one. Nevertheless the Plaid Ministers should have followed their party policy on this. I hope that should the review process proceed then all AMs vote with the will of their party membership.
I believe there is a strong case for a Judicial Review here, without even mentioning a breach of the One Wales agreement.
A number of years ago Greenpeace were successful in their Judicial Review against the UK Government on the basis that a consultation on Nuclear Power was "flawed". Whilst I do not know all of the details, the Judge commented that "insufficient information" was made available by the Government, and that a decision had already been agreed before the consultation had completed. This clearly flys in the face of the purpose of consultation.
There are other elements to the Greenpeace case but let's bring the above two points in relation to the WAG. Consultees were asked to comment on wide range of questions which had not even been mentioned in the review. Examples of these are PGCE students, EU students and debt relief schemes. I would say that insufficient information has been provided for me to make an informed response.
As for a decision already decided why did Ieuan Wyn Jones inform National Council that he wouldn't be able to do what the party has asked for? Why aren't the minutes from the Cabinet meeting (which first discusses the issue) available online? Could it be that the Government had already decided what it wanted to do?
I'm not holding my breath for an answer.
I believe there is a strong case for a Judicial Review here, without even mentioning a breach of the One Wales agreement.
A number of years ago Greenpeace were successful in their Judicial Review against the UK Government on the basis that a consultation on Nuclear Power was "flawed". Whilst I do not know all of the details, the Judge commented that "insufficient information" was made available by the Government, and that a decision had already been agreed before the consultation had completed. This clearly flys in the face of the purpose of consultation.
There are other elements to the Greenpeace case but let's bring the above two points in relation to the WAG. Consultees were asked to comment on wide range of questions which had not even been mentioned in the review. Examples of these are PGCE students, EU students and debt relief schemes. I would say that insufficient information has been provided for me to make an informed response.
As for a decision already decided why did Ieuan Wyn Jones inform National Council that he wouldn't be able to do what the party has asked for? Why aren't the minutes from the Cabinet meeting (which first discusses the issue) available online? Could it be that the Government had already decided what it wanted to do?
I'm not holding my breath for an answer.
I have to agree with you Peter. Mr Price seems overly wordy in his challenge which is always a sign of bullshit in a politician (from my experience, anyway). More worrying is the Western Mail and its hysterical headlines, Plaid ripped apart by civil war, etc). Whatever happened to "policy disagrements"?
# posted by 
: 1:12 PM
: 1:12 PM
I think you raise some very valid points, I chose not to blog on Adam Price’s letter, because frankly it seemed something of a gesture to even enter into the ‘legality’ debate.
Any moves my Plaid along the lines of Greenpeace would spell the end of the One Wales coalition, a party cannot bring the action against the Cabinet which houses its leader.
Post a Comment
Any moves my Plaid along the lines of Greenpeace would spell the end of the One Wales coalition, a party cannot bring the action against the Cabinet which houses its leader.
<< Home
