Speaking up for Chief Whip in Welsh

Writing a post to prepare myself for interview tomorrow morning (Post Cynta Radio Cymru 8.10) about the goings on involving the Chief Whip. Nothing in this interview for me of course, but I always try to do Post Cynta, Post Prynhawn, CF99, Newyddion etc. because commitment to Welsh Language is important to me and to the Conservative Party in Wales. Some of my colleagues don't seem to get this - even though support for minority languages tends to be a centre/right phenomenon across the world.

Anyway, it's clear that its a sensitive area, and I'll have to watch my step. Don't know Andrew Mitchell well, but he did come to Montgomeryshire to support me during the General Election campaign. He's just about the best flesh-presser I've ever seen in action, genuinely seeming to enjoy it. After we swept through Bear Lanes, even the babies were smiling! Mind you his judgement was a bit suspect because he thought I had no hope of winning! Also spoken to him a couple of times in the lobby about international dev't issues. And he and I were amongst the few supporters of David Davis still standing when David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party. Enough there to give me good vibes about him.

No dispute that he acted wrongly when challenging the police, though there is ongoing dispute about what was actually said. Its just not right to swear at or about them - within hearing anyway. Chief Whip accepts this and has apologised. Unless something new emerges, that in my opinion should be it. I think the line to take tomorrow is "Time to move on".

What is odd to me is the portrayal of Andrew Mitchell as some sort of foul-mouthed brute who is going to sort out rebellious MPs in the media. In my, albeit limited, dealings with him, he has seemed entirely personable and reasonable - as was his predecessor as Chief Whip, Patrick Mcloughlin. But then perhaps they know that anyone telling me what I 'must' do will have the opposite effect. Anyway, so far I've not voted against the Gov't at all, and it would cause me great pain to 'go over to the dark side' by voting with Labour. So no-one can accuse me of trying to 'butter up' the new 'Chief' by speaking up for him tomorrow morning!

A Role for Shale Gas

Much the most significant disagreement I have with our Liberal Democrat colleagues is about onshore wind. I have the same disagreement with some of my Conservative colleagues as well. I love the wild places of Britain, and have total contempt for the casual way some would desecrate these special places with grotesque wind turbines and even more grotesque associated infrastructure. No-where is the damage these people want to inflict greater than in mid Wales, my home. In Montgomeryshire, we already have almost 300 turbines, and they want to add a 30/40 mile 400kv line on 150' high pylons, even more smaller cables and around another 600 turbines. Makes me feel sick just thinking about it.

 Even worse, the people of mid Wales feel that their Gov't have not the slightest interest in what they think. Mid Wales - not many people live there - just trample all over them. That's what the Welsh Gov't did when they announced its TAN 8 policy guidance in 2005. Well, they've had a bit of a surprise already. They found the people of mid Wales are no pushover. Ironically, the two Lib Dem MPs representing my neighbouring constituencies, Roger and Mark Williams are part of our protest group! I have to look down at the floor to stay calm in the debating chamber when I hear despicable words of justification - and usually from my own benches!

Most of this I have written on this blog before. What's stirred me up today are reports that Danny Alexander and Ed Davey are demanding an end to traditional gas power being a part of the UK energy mix. Not read anything so daft for ages. Can only hope it's empty posturing for the Lib Dem conference. And I can only hope the Treasury keep a grip on Gov't's sanity.

It will be madness even greater than the obsession with onshore wind if we ignore the shale gas that lies under our soil. Its been a game-changer in the US and is being developed all over the world. Now I accept there are several aspects to the debate about from where we source our future energy. Its just that I think the beauty of our wondrous wild places should be factored into the equation. And I feel that I have to shout to make people listen. Gov't policy should not be drawn up by philistines.

How Serious is Ukip Threat?

I've always had a soft spot for the UK Independence Party (or Ukip as its now to be known). Always stop for a chat at their caravan at local shows. Never voted for them, never signed up to Better Off Out and never committed myself to supporting an EU referendum. Inevitably this leads to sharp letters of disapproval. Which is actually rather daft. I was a Eurosceptic before many of them were born, having campaigned for an 'out' vote in 1975.

This week is the occasion of Ukip's annual conference, and they are being taken a bit more seriously at the moment because they are doing OK in the opinion polls - sometimes leading the Lib Dems. And its generally thought that most of Ukip's support comes from traditional Tory voters.  I suspect that's right. So I suppose we Tories should take some note of what's happening.

Some Tories think we should look to form a coalition with Ukip - which is a good idea if you prefer the freedom of expression that comes with sitting on the opposition benches. Some Tories tell me how attractive a politician is Nigel Farage. I agree he's a bit of a character, but too shouty and rude for my taste (which makes him ideal for Question Time of course). He reminds me too much of Del Boy - entertaining if not actually in charge of any levers of power.

So what do I think. I'll support every move by Gov't to resist the advance of the EU's integrationist tentacles. I greatly welcome the change in Gov't focus towards nations outside the Eurozone both in trade and diplomacy. I'm not against a referendum in principle and I do think the crisis in the Eurozone will lead to one of some sort eventually - though probably not an in/out. I will not support a referendum unless we know the Gov't that calls it will actually take seriously and act on what the people vote for. Reason I'm deeply suspicious of an in/out referendum is that I sense the 'ins' will win and will give a bright green light to the integrationists. Perhaps I'm bruised by what happened in 1975.

The reason Ukip is attractive is that they give the impression that they really care. Less slippery language and connect on the issues that worry people most. In Wales its the extra bureaucracy created by devolution, the madness and destructiveness of onshore wind, crime and immigration. An EU referendum to Ukip is a bit like 'independence' to Plaid Cymru - fundamental as a background theoretical philosophy but nothing to do with electoral success. And the joy of politics is that I could be wrong in so many ways.

What on earth are we to make of James Delingpole, independent candidate for the Corby bye-election. He's a great journalist and mad as a box of frogs - libertarian and sort of right-wing version of Rod Liddle. From me, this is a great compliment. I'm hugely fond of frogs. Not quite the same, but we have a resident toad in our cellar. And James is standing on a single issue platform - one that I passionately agree with.

But I declare in favour of the Conservative candidate - because we are in the same team. Bit like watching Wales play the All Blacks. Desperately keen for Wales to win, but standing in awe of the wondrous Richie McCaw and Dan Carter. Anyway, James wrote a cracking piece for the Telegraph this earlier this week, and I just wanted to repeat some of his writings. He's such an eccentric that I'm not at all sure he'll see it through to polling day, but his words flow over me like a mixture of honey and bile. Here's a few examples from the Telegraph article;

"wind farms are a cancer; one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated against the country by Westminster. I want to raise public awareness of just how disastrous these bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes are in every respect".

"their lives (the people), their livelihoods, their health, their views and their tranquillity are being ruined by wind farms".

"Its bad enough that a handful of wealthy landowners, mostly foreign owned energy companies and their hangers-on are getting vastly rich at the expense of the British public by building monstrosities that drive up their fuel bills, kill wildlife, blight views, destroy property prices, destroy the economy and make people sick - its being done with the connivance and encouragement of our elected representatives."

"The wind industry's for the environmental benefits of turbines is a lie....if there were a single plausible argument in favour of wind farms.... the wind industry is wrong in so many ways".

And he hasn't even started on the monstrosities that National Grid want to visit on many of the wild places of Britain  to connect the  bl****y things to the Grid!! I hope James does not get a taste for politics and decide to stand as a candidate in Montgomeryshire in 2015!

Time to 'Love the Lib Dems' again.

Sometimes my Conservative colleagues cause me despair. Never more than when they attack our coalition partners, the Lib Dems. I wonder what planet they're on whenever I hear references to "The tail wagging the dog". Some even advocate bringing down the coalition. Ill-considered nonsense in my opinion. Triumph of hope over reason. Its actually time for re-declarations of love, not filing for divorce.

Lets look at some of the facts.

 1) The Conservatives did not win the last General Election. There was certainly a case for 'going it alone' at the time, and instigating another election in a year or so which would hopefully deliver victory - but we didn't. We took a clear direction and decided that the economic and financial challenges were such that a coalition was the better option. Nothing has changed.

2) Its was the Lib Dems who had to make the biggest concessions - admittedly because their manifesto was hopelessly undeliverable. They signed up to higher student fees - despite promising the opposite. They signed up to a VAT increase despite making such a big deal of opposing this. 3)They signed up to nuclear power despite being supposedly anti-nuclear. And the consequence of this is that their opinion poll support has bombed. They took the massive risk of growing up from being woolly hatted idealists into hard headed realists. It was courageous.

3)Without the Lib Dems, the current Government wouldn't last long. OK, so fixed term parliaments are enshrined in law, but I do not believe we could limp on until 2015. I want to see Nick Clegg remain DPM, and the Coalition last the full five year term. I suggest some of my colleagues think how they'd feel with Ed Miliband as PM and Vince Cable/Tim Farron as DPM. Time they got real and stayed real.

I accept that I've always had a generally 'warm' attitude to Lib Dems - despite always having been committed to defeating them in Montgomeryshire. I developed my political interest working with former Montgomeryshire MPs, Emlyn Hooson and Alex Carlile, both hugely able politicians. Worth remembering that Emlyn was sceptical about the EU and Alex seems to have more support today on Tory benches than on his own party's.

And ask yourself what the Lib dems have got out of the Coalition. All their constitutional ideas have gone up in smoke. Their activists are in despair. And their biggest success, the huge uplifting in income tax free allowances, is a policy most Conservatives are delighted with.

Inevitably, there are some Lib Dems, both locally and nationally that I do not care for, and I'm sure that's mutual. Same applies between all parties and within them. Its just no big deal. Since I was selected to contest Montgomeryshire in 2007, none of my team has said one derogatory word about Montgomeryshire Lib Dems - and we pulled off the most spectacular victory at the 2010 election. Its a lesson worth learning. Some call it 'love-bombing'. Its time to buy some chocolates and flowers and turn again to our love armoury.

Trying to make sense of Constituency Boundary Changes

Soon after I was elected MP for Montgomeryshire in 2010, I was asked by my whip what I thought of the new Coalition Gov't's proposals to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, equalising constituency electorates at the same time. Must admit to using unparliamentary language to explain that I thought it a most unwise proposal - but that I would support a bill brought forward to implement the changes because it was a manifesto commitment. Conservatives had promised a reduction in number of MPs to 585, and the Lib Dems a reduction to 500. My concerns were that it would cause huge disruption, would be seen (unfairly) to be partisan, and would end parliamentary democracy as we've known it in the most sparsely populated areas (mid Wales).

Well, after months of bad-tempered debate, MPs passed an act to do exactly what I'd dismissed as unwise. There remains just one small step to be taken. The Boundary Commissions of England and Wales are having to redraw the map of the 600 new constituencies, with MPs nodding then through in October 2013. It was all to be a 'formality'. But Mr Nick Clegg has intervened. Because MPs refused to endorse his silly plans to reform the House of Lords, he's announced (without any justification) that as an act of revenge he's going to instruct his MPs to vote against the new boundaries - which looks as if its going to totally scupper the changes. Most Conservative MPs are outraged - but I have to admit that from a personal standpoint I am absolutely delighted.

If the new boundaries are adopted, the historic seat of Montgomeryshire would be ripped asunder, with the bits cast upon the four winds. My view is that parliamentary democracy as we understand it would be obliterated in mid-Wales. Locally, I have made it clear that I could not be a candidate in 2015. All my adult life I've worked for the interests of Montgomeryshire, and I could not face starting all over again in a seat which covers a huge chunk of North Wales, attractive though it is. I wouldn't even live in the constituency!

So let us consider the crazy position we are now in. All main political parties have decided to begin adopting candidates for the 2015 General Election on the current boundaries in two months time. Later this month, I will inform the Montgomeryshire Conservative Association that I would like to be considered for selection as their candidate. No doubt, the Association will begin planning and campaigning. And then towards the end of next year, (well into our campaign plans) we will have a vote in Westminster about whether we should introduce new boundaries, wiping Montgomeryshire and other equally loved constituencies from the electoral map - with all parties starting again and selecting a whole new slate of candidates. Its such a bizarre situation that I'm not confident I'll be able to explain it to anyone. Equally bizarre will be the position of the current Montgmeryshire MP if he's faced with a 3-Line Whip from his party to vote for new boundaries and an instruction from his constituency association to vote against! Even I'm beginning to find this whole scenario difficult to grasp. So better stop now.

Reshuffles, Rebellions and Coalition Tensions

Back to the politics of Westminster tomorrow. Warming up on Post Cynta from the Newtown studio at 8.10 in the morning. Don't know what its about except that its a sort of 'first day back' interview. So expect to hear stuff about 'reshuffle', rebellious backbenches and coalition tensions. I'll be doing my best to sound as if everything is under control. Which it is - or is that me practising!

Lets take these issues in turn. I am so sick of reshuffle talk - especially when its focused on individuals I like. No point in thinking about the big guns, who I would be shocked to see moved. And already made my support for Cheryl Gillan known in a recent blog. She's been good to me.  And I have huge admiration for Sir George Young, Patrick McLoughlin and Ken Clarke, who are often included in the gossip. But the PM will have to make some room for new faces - and the two I'd really like to see in the cabinet are Chris Grayling and David Laws. But I've never seen the point in reshuffling for its own sake.

The media is really trying to make a big issue of Tory backbench rebellion - and yet all the newspapers today can do is repeat the same few names of a disloyal half dozen. In any case, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the 'party line'. We all do that sometimes. The disloyalty comes from the 'where, when and how' its done - if its a genuine conscience disagreement, or a desire to undermine. They know who they are. Personally, I reckon the Conservative Party is as united as its reasonable to expect.

And then there's coalition tensions. No point in arguing that our coalition partners are not under pressure. The Lib Dem opinion poll indicators are dire. It would be very surprising if Nick Clegg wasn't making a few noises off to establish his 'independence' and 'distinctiveness'. In a few weeks time he has to face his activists at the Lib Dem party conference. I'm keen for the coalition to stand together, so want the DPM to stay - and feel sure he will.

All in all, I'm feeling quite relaxed about the politics - even if I cannot say the same for our public finances. Perhaps Gary Owen will want to talk about something else altogether in the morning. One of the joys of the 2010-2015 Parliament is that I have no real idea of what's going to happen tomorrow - which is why there is so much scope for us to gossip.

In Memory of Gwynfor Evans.

Gwynfor Evans was a great man of Wales. He was born 100 ago today - which is why he's been in the news. I never met him, but felt that I knew him. I did go to his funeral at Aberystwyth in 2006, representing the Conservative Group in the National Assembly. I was very proud to do so.

Generally, Gwynfor Evans is remembered for his threat to refuse food unless the Conservative Gov't of 1979-83 established a dedicated Welsh Language television channel. It had been a promise in the Conservative manifesto at the 79 election, and there was much concern that the promise would not be kept. I've heard a few versions of what happened, some of which portray Gwynfor Evans' role as being crucial to the decision to go ahead with S4C - and some which credit Willie Whitelaw, Nick Edwards (Lord Crickhowell) and the great Lord Roberts of Conwy of being the main influences on Mrs Thatcher. Anyway, its not important because to me that wasn't Gwynfor Evans' greatest achievement anyway. That was ensuring the survival of a modern political party, Plaid Cymru through its formative years - holding the ship together.

The Welsh Nationalist Party was set up in mid-1920s. Gwynfor Evans formed a local branch at Oxford University. In 1949 he was elected to serve on Carmarthen County Council, where he was particularly well known for campaigns to improve transport links - leading to him being known as 'Gwynfor duel carraigeway'. But the party didn't make much progress until 1966, when he was elected Plaid's first MP - for Carmarthen following death of Labour's Megan Lloyd George. He lost at the following election but regained the seat in 1974, when he was joined at Westminster by the two Dafydds - Wigley and Elis Thomas. Plaid Cymru had 'arrived'. In passing, I wonder what he'd have thought of the positions these two hold in political life today? His greatest achievement (in my opinion) was to carry Plaid Cymru through the 50s and 60s.

Gwynfor Evans politics were very different from mine. I'm a man of the centre/right. He was a pacifist and conscientious objector. But he loved and lived for Wales and he had a passion for the Welsh Language. On these issues we were as one. That is why I was so honoured to represent my party at his funeral and why I very much hope that the campaign to raise a permanent monument in his memory in Carmarthen is successful.

Help Midlands, North and Wales - Expand Birmingham Airport.

Very interesting letter in today's Telegraph under the heading 'Expanding Birmingham Airport would help encourage regional growth'. Its signed by several MPs, 3 of them Conservative colleagues. For years I 've thought development of international air services at Birmingham to ba a no-brainer. Lets consider the positives.

Biggest plus is that it would spread prosperity beyond the South-East, an already congested over-developed corner of Britain - greatly benefiting the North of England and Wales as well the Midlands. It would enable businesses in these areas to develop global links, which are so much more effective when they are direct links - not involving connections in one of the London airports. It would utilise the spare runway capacity that exists at Birmingham at present. And it would ensure that HS2 (if it goes ahead) would be a catalyst for moving prosperity from London to the North, rather than the reverse.

And it would benefit my constituency of Montgomeryshire. About 15 yrs ago I was involved in promoting inward investment. One of the companies was a specialist tool manufacturer from Canada named Fisher-Gauge. At the official opening I looked through the company's promotion brochures, which described its location as 'West of Birmingham'. When I expressed my disappointment that there being no mention of mid-Wales, the Chairman explained that his potential customers had never heard of it - but they had heard of Birmingham.

I have not been involved in the campaign behind today's letter. Didn't know it was so active. The letter prompted me to contact the writers to ask to be involved in the future.

Cheryl Gillan - Top Class SoS

Always a bit concerned when I get a mention in the threatening media - and none is more threatening to a Welsh MP that an appearance in a David Cornock or Betsan blog post - which is what happened to me today. I also made an appearance in the 'Indie' (so I'm told) making what was described as a chauvinistic comment about the Internet punch-up between ex-MP, Louise and Nadine. I deny this description absolutely. Seems I said I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of either of them - which is fair enough I think. They are both very ferocious in debate.

But back to Mr Cornock, and his blog post today. I'm entirely happy with what he wrote - perhaps a first. For months I have indeed been 'banging the drum' for my boss, Cheryl Gillan. I reckon she's done a great job as Secretary of State for Wales. On all the big issues she's called it right. She delivered the referendum on law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales - which I do not believe Labour's Peter Hain would have done if he had been returned to office in 2010. She 'kicked butt' to drive it on. She badgered her Cabinet colleagues to deliver major electrification of railway lines. She succeeded in getting all party support for the Silk Commission to advise on tax raising powers and extending other powers to the National Assembly for Wales. And much else. This is a bl*****Y good record, and one which deserves the full blooded support of the MP who has served as her PPS for the last 2 years.

Now I have no idea what the Prime Minister has in mind, and of course I'll support his judgement. I do not even know if its the 'done thing' for me to write what I'm writing - and under normal circumstances I would not have done so. But the 'armchair reshufflers' got to me - commentators outside of Wales, who know little of our nation openly diminishing the achievements of a hard-working, shrewd and top class politician. Whatever, I feel better for that.

No Third Runway at Heathrow - for now anyway.

Just read Tim Yeo's article in the Telegraph today. Not impressed - not impressed at all. Just cannot believe a 'senior' colleague could write such a piece. Of course some of it made good sense, as you would expect - but that was only cover for provocative language.

Our last manifesto was absolutely clear - that's the manifesto that Tim and I and both coalition parties sought election on. We are not in favour of a 3rd runway at Heathrow - at least until we go to the people again. To simply our promise on its head before the next election would lead to major disillusionment amongst voters. I would be very disappointed indeed if such a change of policy were to happen before 2015.  I was also deeply disappointed by the turn of phrase used in the article. I accept that people who don't spend much time in the House of Commons cannot properly judge the qualities of the Prime Minister - but those of us who do know him to be a very able and strong leader.  He's certainly strong enough to stand up to pressure groups with an interest who are demanding this change of policy.

I should also add that I'm not convinced that major expansion at Heathrow is right in any case. Of course Tim Yeo makes excellent points about developing links to China and other rapidly developing economies - and its true that these would be best flying out of Heathrow. But its always seemed to me that capacity for these important developments could be increased by moving other business to Birmingham Airport. Not only would this ease much of the pressure on Heathrow but would spread some of the South East prosperity to the rest of the country. Be good news for North and Mid Wales as well.

But I do feel fortunate not to be involved in the decision making process about future airport capacity.

How to say 'Danny Boyle Test' in Welsh

Been trying to grasp what Damian Green meant when he wrote in today's Telegraph "Tories have to pass the Danny Boyle test". Seems its something to do with us being 'modern', and liking modern Britain, and not wanting to return to policies that defined the Conservative Party in the past. In general I agree with Damian about this (I think), but cannot see what its got to do with Danny Boyle. Don't much like the word 'modern' either. Sounds too much like Blair's meaningless language. But on refection, Blair was rather successful, so can't dismiss it out of hand.

Anyway I was looking for a Welsh perspective. What can the Danny Boyle test (modernism) mean for a Welsh MP. Seems to me it can only apply to 'devolution' - our attitude towards it, how we see the process developing, and how we cope with the challenges it throws up. And I really do think there's an issue here.

When I was asked before the General Election what role I thought I could play as an MP, I invariably said I wanted to "contribute to an effective working relationship between the UK Gov't and the Welsh Gov't".  Its not worked out like that - mainly because I was appointed a PPS almost as soon as I was elected. Convention dictates that PPSs do not adopt or publicly express firm opinions on issues which their bosses have responsibility for. So I'll confine myself to two innocent observations (which you might find obvious and uncontroversial anyway). Firstly the UK and Welsh Gov'ts should share objectives and information as far as is realistically possible in the interests of Wales (and I accept the word 'realistically' is elastic). And secondly, my own party will prosper only if those who represent it in Cardiff and Westminster work solidly for and with each other, in our separate parliaments and together. We are almost half way through this Parliament, and if boundary changes go through I may well be half way through my time as an MP. Makes me think. Of course, none of this has anything to do with Danny Boyle. I'm no further forward on that one.

Reflections on Prince Harry at the Snooker Table

There's only one issue in the news today - Prince Harry going starkers to the snooker table, along with others, at a private party. Everyone seems to have an opinion - and everyone I've talked to has dismissed it as of no importance. Not sure that's right. Certainly worth a comment.

There will be no moralising from me. I still recall leaping out the communal post-match bath at Shrewsbury Rugby Club one mid-winter afternoon, and along with others entering a foot race around the pitch in a snowstorm. I must leave details of this silliness out - but I can say that when we returned to the clubhouse, the changing room door was locked and the only way in was through the bar - which was of course a mixed bar. I do not recall anyone being offended. That was when I learnt that in extreme cold, all embarrassment withers away! I was around 20 at the time. Such silly behaviour is what lads sometimes do.

But its important because Prince Harry is 3rd in line to the throne. I just don't think it was a very sensible thing for him to do. Without being absolutely certain that everyone present would never let him down, there was always the chance of a photograph appearing. Its like the House of Commons Terrace. Every MP knows that any misdemeanour will be picked up by a long lens camera on Westminster Bridge.

I also accept that it can be argued that the pictures are in the public interest. He is heir to the throne. So I do not think there should be a law which bans publication. Such a law could be used to over-regulate free speech. But neither do I think that the Sun should have published the pictures on its front page today. Just because you can does not mean you should. It just made it look like a sleazy tawdry rag. Most sickening I thought was the Sun's 'freedom of speech' justification. It was just a way of selling more copies of the newspaper. I wish I took the Sun - so that I could cancel my order.

Finally, I have to admit that the story has caused me amusement. Kelvin Mackenzie was hilarious on Newsnight last night. And there was jollity in my office today. Now it needs to be forgotten. Whatever, I reckon the splendid Prince Harry will not want to play strip snooker again in a hurry.

Exporting NHS expertise overseas for commercial benefit

Can't decide how significant is today's story about the establishment of a new Gov't agency to link world renowned British hospitals with countries overseas. There has certainly been a lot of hot air expended over the issue. I suppose the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital at Gobowen could be considered an example of a world class Foundation Trust hospital which has an international reputation. So this issue could have a local interest for me.

In principle, I can see the potential - assuming all that is said about the high quality of our NHS is justified. Its not even a new idea. It actually builds on the last Labour Gov'ts plans to establish what former Sec. of State for Health, Andy Burnham's referred to as 'NHS Global' - the aim being to exploit the NHS's commercial potential overseas. But I certainly need to know more about how such a plan would work in detail before committing to it wholeheartedly. Seems to me that the private sector or overseas Gov't would need to put up the finance. Not sure why some are so outraged by the idea.  No-one objects to the free movement of doctors and nurses across international boundaries, (our NHS would collapse without it) so why be concerned about the free movement of expertise - which is what we are talking about.

Today's announcement certainly puts an interesting perspective on Danny Boyle's tribute to the NHS at the Olympics Opening Ceremony. Today that looks like a massive marketing exercise, playing to a watching world. Not sure that I can see this proposal taking off in a big way though, but could be wrong about this. All we cannot allow is for it to be a distraction from delivering quality healthcare services in the UK. No reason why in should do. But I do anticipate bucketloads of mindless scaremongering. On balance I'm rather supportive of the proposal.

Should it be a 'Welsh Parliament'.

Mr Andrew RT Davies, Leader of the Conservative Assembly Group is beginning to make his mark on Wales. Last week, he set about raising a few eyebrows. He will have engaged widely with his frankness in making public the difficulty he found reading as a young boy. People like honest and open politicians. And he was not afraid to make clear his disagreement with the cancellation of last year's Welsh Conservative Conference. Again its the lack of pretence that impresses. Andrew's not afraid to say it as he sees it.  He didn't agree, and felt comfortable saying so.

But much the most interesting, eyebrow-raising statement he made last week was that he believes the National Assembly for Wales should be renamed the Welsh Parliament. Its probably best if I don't express any firm opinion on this, while I'm a PPS in the Wales Office. But a couple of things do occur to me. While there may be some resistance to a legal change of name, there is nothing to prevent Andrew RT asking all of his AMs to use the term 'Welsh Parliament' whenever they have the chance. If all AMs, across all parties actually referred always to the 'Welsh Parliament', that's what it would be - no matter what it says on some legal document. In fact, I've sometimes used the term myself when seeking to differentiate between the 'UK Parliament' and the 'Welsh Parliament'.

Perhaps more interesting is why the still new leader of the Conservative Group has decided to make an issue of this. Its clear that he wants the Conservatives in Wales to stand very proud of its 'Welshness' - and rightly so. Following the granting to the National Assembly of the power to pass law, Andrew sees it as a 'Parliament'. None of this surprises me. Not today anyway. I've known Andrew a long time, and it might have surprised me 10 yrs ago. But, like me and others, he's realised that along with devolution came a new awareness of 'Welshness'. I've always thought that regional distinctiveness is important, particularly when the 'region' is a nation. Across the world, its a right-of-centre philosophy. Yes, Andrew RT Davies is proving to be an astute and interesting leader.

Coalition Sunday Morning Health Check.

Agreed to enter into discussion with Lord (Mike) German about the current state and prospects of the Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition - Sunday Supplement on BBC RadioWales (8.10am). Anticipate quite a bit of common ground between us - though I expect Mike will try to spin things a bit (as I of course never would!). In general, I reckon we'll agree the Coalition will survive the current flurry of turbulence, as both parties focus on the main reason we came together in the first place - coping with the economic storm breaking around the UK economy. But don't suppose this will be what Vaughan Roderick will be interested in. It'll be the turbulence for him.

Basic position is that Lords reform is dead - and Nick Clegg has said he's going to instruct his MPs to vote against the new Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Two big issues. Personally, I cannot see why they should be linked. But the Deputy Prime Minister thinks otherwise. Don't agree with him, but I'm not as critical as many. I understand why the Lib Dems feel so let down. They have always been obsessed with constitutional change - and all their hopes in this policy area seem to have bitten the dust. They feel very let down. So why should they agree to something that damages their cause and helps that of the Conservatives. Bitterness can be an illogical force, even when it is understandable. But the consequences of this have certainly left me scratching my head.

The proposed new boundaries obliterate my constituency of Montgomeryshire. They leave me with no seat to defend in 2015 - and after all the work I've put in. I've been proceeding on the understanding that to continue as an MP after 2015, I'd have to seek selection for somewhere else. Despite Nick Clegg's statement, (which on the face of it seems to knock new boundaries on the head) it seems my party is continuing to prepare on this basis. But it may be that both Labour and Lib Dems will immediately begin preparing to fight Montgomeryshire again. Already we've seen a letter that the London region Lib Dems have sent out, giving formal notice to all their candidates (after a meeting with their Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael)  informing them that the party will be selecting on existing boundaries. Yesterday, I heard that Labour in the London area is doing the same thing. No doubt my Lib Dem local party will soon begin campaigning on a Montgomeryshire basis. Hope I'm not left scratching my head for too long.

Campaigning styles - Lebanon v Montgomeryshire

Thought I'd call at National Grid's meeting at Cefn Coch today where they were explaining their decision to site a 20 acre electricity substation there. BBC/S4C came up to interview me about an outrageous suggestion made by NG that some of my comments may have promoted threatening behaviour against their staff. I'd been so stunned by the letter sent to me that I'd published it this morning - together with my response. Media wanted to talk about it.

Anyway, it turned out to be an 'event' not to be missed. Cefn Coch has never seen anything like it. Never been 10 policemen in Cefn Coch at the same time before. And there was 'the beast' - a gloriously muscled Gladiator type, dressed in black jeans and t-shirt, leaning on cars like Gene Hunt. Made us local men look a bit second rate in the eyes of the ladies present. And then the Cefn Coch Steel Band arrived. Actually, the instruments were a few oil drums. Never heard such a din - which sounded quite beautiful to me. And then the steel band led a march of banner waving parents and children around the village hall - with singing and trumpets. It was a scene of smiling faces and joyousness - except for the white faced NG officials who had never seen anything like it before. In truth, I hadn't either. Police were quickly stationed on the doors and it looked as if poor mesmerised souls inside felt totally marooned. They had been expecting to recite their 'meaningless' lines about why its essential for the national interest that our countryside and heritage must be trashed. Instead, they couldn't make themselves heard above the Cefn Coch Steel Band - which was only formed at 6.00. I predict X-Factor next series.

I had retreated some distance from this media show. Its a people's protest, and I'm only wheeled out if called on. Was having a chat with the driver of the NG coach, when an obviously non-local man (leather and ponytail) started shouting at me to lead the crowd into the hall. His idea was that I would flatten the policeman on the door. The crowd would then follow me in and I would become a national hero following my consequent arrest. I tried to explain to him that our campaign was based on friendly legal protest led by local protesters, and that it would be a terrible mistake for me to become the story - undoing all the amazing work the protesters have done over the last two years or so. This is how we do things in Mid Wales. He explained to me that he had grown up tactics were a bit different. In the end, we agreed that if our tactics proved to be successful, I would offer my services to train campaigners in Beirut in Lebanon, where he came form.

As for the bizarre letter from National Grid which led to me going to talk to camera at Cefn Coch, the offending bit read. "I do need to say National Grid is concerned that a number of your tweets in recent weeks may be unhelpful and indeed unwittingly prompt threatening behaviour by members of the public." I have never read anything so outrageous. Clearly an attempt to pressurise me into not supporting the protesters - my constituents. Bizarre. It was me that led 2000 protesters to Cardiff Bay to a brilliant rally last year, where we left without leaving even a sweet paper behind, and had there been an exit gate, we would have closed it neatly behind us. We pride ourselves on our civility. Problem is that National Grid do not understand democracy - this odd concept of people not agreeing with them, telling them so, and continuing to tell them so. And now they have to deal with a steel band as well - which will surely reappear by popular demand.

Tough day for the Coalition - which I still back 100%

When I sign up to a deal, I like it to be 100% - even if I might not have been that keen on it in the first place. In May 2010, I signed up to a coalition with my long standing political opponents, the Liberal Democrats. Since then my commitment to the coalition has grown. I began with great admiration for a party that accepted that their manifesto for the 2010 General election was not deliverable in Gov't, and decided to put the interests of our country first by going into coalition with the Conservatives in order to repair the damage that Labour had inflicted on the British economy. They took a big hit. Its been an incredibly difficult journey for the Lib Dems, made much more so by two massive disappointments - the AV referendum and Lords reform. On both issues I disagreed with Nick Clegg, but I can see what huge blows they were to his party members.

Today, Nick Clegg announced that Lords reform is dead in this Parliament. He also said that he would instruct his MPs to vote against the new constituency boundaries. This was a big deal, and has led to much condemnation from some of my colleagues. I don't think they are being realistic. While I don't accept Nick Clegg's assertion that the issues of Lords reform and constituency boundaries are linked, I can see that he has to respond to the discontent in his party. If he were just to take the Lords reform defeat on the chin, without response, he would have great problems at the Lib Dem conference.  I am not prepared to join in the ritual 'kicking' of the Deputy Prime Minister - always the pragmatist.

Difficult to predict what will happen to the constituency boundaries bill now. Many assume its dead - but it seems there will still be an attempt to drive it through. It certainly leaves many Tory MPs in a very uncertain position. Where two existing MPs findn themselves forced to compete for a seat, they will have to begin 'campaigning' very soon. Other MPs (including me) do not know whether they have a seat to defend or not. Its also uncertain where the votes would come from to drive the boundary changes through - unless Nick Clegg changes his mind (which seems unlikely). Perhaps the cloud will clear over the next few days.

Whatever, I will be returning to Westminster on Sept 3rd, totally committed to working with my Lib Dem coalition colleagues, trying desperately to put today's statement by Nick Clegg and its consequences behind us. Seems to me that its the grown-up way to behave.

Complexity of making law in Devolved Wales

I'd been intending to post about The Local Government Bylaws (Wales) Bill. Now don't just switch off. Its really quite interesting. But it does depend on your being interested in how Wales is governed. Been prompted to blog now because have just read Matt Withers' take on this in his Wales on Sunday column today.

The Bill itself is strikingly inconsequential - except that it is the first bill passed by the Welsh Government since it was granted new law making powers last year. The purpose of the bill is to give to local authorities the power to pass bye-laws. Seems rather a good idea to me - and probably most people. But in achieving its purpose, the bill removes the power from the Welsh Government and the UK Government to confirm the relevant bye-laws. The problem arises because the Welsh Government does not have the 'competence' to remove power from the UK Gov't. That is the law - as it stands now. Matt seems to think this came as a surprise to everyone. Well it was not a surprise to me. I've known this has been under discussion for a long time.

Now, I have absolutely no objection to the content of the bill becoming law. Neither would I object to changing constitutional arrangements to prevent this sort of thing happening. But the constitutional settlement must be changed first. The Secretary of State for Wales has established the Silk Commission which will be looking at just this sort of issue - after its reported on how fiscal accountability can be vested in the Welsh Government this autumn. The thing about constitutional law is that you cannot just make it up as you go along. And its very amateurish to try.

This issue is of minuscule interest. But the same sort of difficulty could arise over the Welsh Gov'ts desire to change the organ donation system to one based 'presumed consent'. A bill to do this will be of much greater interest - both to me and more widely. When this matter was first proposed by the Welsh Gov't I was implacably opposed to it - but am much less so now. In fact, if the Bill contains a legal assurance that next of kin will always have a veto, I would personally favour going further than the Welsh Government. I would like to see the next of kin of every potential organ donor being approached in a positive sympathetic manner, rather than just those who had signed some register. But this is nothing to do with the legal point. Let me say what my personal approach would be if I were to be the decision-taker. I would not object to a bill because I didn't like it, or didn't approve of it. But if the Attorney General informed me he had doubts about the Welsh Gov'ts competence in this policy area, because of its 'human rights' implications, I would oppose it - and ask the Supreme Court to decide. That's what its for. So you can see - when its comes to it, the issue is quite simple.

Where now with Lords Reform

Several 'speculative' articles today suggesting that the Prime Minister may pull the plug on Lords reform next week. In particular, the article by Robert Winnett in the Telegraph gives an impression of being well sourced. Norman Smith of the BBC tells us with great confidence that the 'last rites' will be read next week. While I have thought there to be an inevitability about this since last month's rebellion in the House of Commons, I can see that it will could be very significant for the future of the Coalition. I can add that I would be pleased if this 'speculation' proves to be accurate. The prospect of MPs debating Lords reform for days (and perhaps nights) on end fills me with dread. The general public have very little interest in this issue and would prefer MPs to be focused on concerns about the economy.

I have seen it reported that the Liberal Democrats are totally opposed to this issue being shelved. It is an absolute 'red line' for them. Well, they cannot stop the Prime Minister 'pulling he plug' if he decides to, but there have been bloodcurdling threats about 'consequences'. The most obvious 'consequence' would be a refusal to vote through new constituency boundaries in time for the next General Election. From a personal perspective, I would be absolutely delighted if this were to happen, because it would save my constituency from obliteration, and leave me with a seat to defend.  Hope this declaration of pleasure will not cause me trouble. But from a wider 'party' perspective, it would make it more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority in 2015.  I would not expect the prime Minister to back down on this issue. Stand off.

So what is going to happen.  Wish I knew. I do think Nick Clegg would be sensible not to push this issue. If he let it go now, and came back with more modest reform, based on Lord Steele's suggestions, I sense he may get that through and have something to offer his party supporters. Of course it would not be the reform that Lib Dems want, but it could be seen as a start. Whatever, the reaction of party activists at the Lib Dem Conference on this issue will make it compulsive viewing for their coalition partners this year. I'm rather looking forwards to it.

Re-dedication to our Coalition.

I would have preferred it had the Conservative Party won enough seats at the last General Election to form a Gov't. But we didn't. David Cameron was left with a choice of leading a 'minority' Gov't and going for an early election - or forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. He chose to form the 'Coalition'. I agreed with that decision.

I still believe that David Cameron was right, and that he should strive to keep the Coalition together. I simply do not agree with those of my colleagues who seem to wish the Coalition ill. But even I can see that things need a bit of a boost. Seems to me we need a genuine re-commitment to each other. We need to put policies which help both parties and also connect with the people at centre stage. Because of my inconsequentiality, I can reflect on policy matter that I like personally, without causing any turbulence. Others will have their ideas.

Lets put main focus on why we came together in the first place. The economy. Fundamental is re-balancing a pubic sector/private sector imbalance. And we also need to focus on lower paid 'hard working' families. Top of my list would be raising the tax free allowance even further. If it was raised to a level which would allow a symbolic increase in age-related allowance, the Lib Dems would feel valued - and we would re-engage with a section of our population that votes. Personally, I would also like to find a way of hitting the richest in a way which allowed the top rate to be cut to 40%, where the public could see it was about creating jobs and not benefiting the rich. That could be a step too far.

Another area I would strive for early agreement on would be House of Lords reform. In my view the current proposals look doomed, though I understand there's going to be an attempt to resusitate in the autumn. Why not scrap it now, and agree new reform proposals for the next Queen's Speech based on Steele Bill Plus. There would be a big majority for that. Perhaps Nick Clegg would not accept this, but I reckon he might find many Lib Dems would.  By November he might think its a great plan!

Another policy area that could combine both parties and the public would be onshore wind. Why not greatly reduce the subsidy for onshore wind and transfer it to offshore and other forms on renewables. Must admit I've found it a bit shocking that on this issue, the opinions of the public are being totally steamrollered. MPs opinions are also being trampled on.  MPs are not robots. We want to serve those who elect us. The coalition must always take seriously what the citizens we work for want. If we do, they will support us up to 2015.  Hopefully, they would also be happy to see us work together after that as well.

Loyalties Challenged by Lords Reform

House of Commons on Monday and Tuesday will be given over to discussing reform of the House of Lords. I am deeply frustrated that this is so. No constituent has contacted me by letter or email to ask for this. The reason we are going to be so occupied is because the Deputy Prime Minister has decided it should be so. So despite my frustration, and my preference for discussing the appalling treatment being experienced by our dairy farmers, its their Lordship's House that dominates my week. And this blog post.

At 2200 hrs on Tuesday, MPs will be summoned by the division bell to participate in two votes. The first will be on a motion to support the Coalition Gov't's Lords Reform Bill at Second Reading. The second vote will be on a motion to approve a guillotined timetable restricting the extent of debate on the Bill - described as 'the programme motion'.

I will listen to the debate, but I'm inclined at this stage to support the first motion.  Along with most other MPs, I support Lords Reform.  Most peers do also. But we don't agree with all parts of this Bill. In theory, it can be amended at a later date to make it acceptable. A vote in favour does not mean a vote in support of the Bill as it stands. It can be amended in committee. We're told that the Labour opposition intend to support this motion, so its likely to be passed.

The second vote is much more problematic for many MPs. Let me explain why. The Lords Reform Bill involves abolition of the House of Lords as we know it. It will be replaced by a largely elected body which will inevitably challenge the primacy of the House of Commons (even though the Bill is being written to disguise this). The new House of ;Lords will be elected by proportional representation, which means it will always be a 'coalition'. Incredibly its proposed that the new Lords will serve for 15 years and will not be allowed to ever face the voters again to seek re-election, turning the concept of 'accoutability' on its head. There will be lots of other highly significant clauses, but my purpose is to show how the Bill will impact on all aspects of the way we are governed. All 650 MPs have a direct interest in this Bill, and may well want to speak on several of the clauses. There must be a serious question about whether it is right to put a firm  limit on the time allowed for debate. Many MPs across the House will have serious reservations about this. We're told that the main opposition intend to oppose it. Its an issue of concern to me also.

And its not as if there's any evidence that the voters support these changes. They may well support Lords reform. Most of us support that. But do they support proportional representation for example? Last time we asked them, they gave the idea a resounding raspberry - which is probably why a referendum is ruled out. This is a funny sort of democracy. So there are two days of uncertainty ahead. Its just started raining again. I suppose it makes life interesting - or not!

Atrial Fibrilation - Pulse Checks in the NHS

I'd never heard of Atrial Fibrillation until I was diagnosed with the condition myself. My theory is that I overdid it campaigning before the last General Election. Was suffering a bit of mild inexplicable breathlessness. The condition was in the UK news a few years ago when Tony Blair was diagnosed with it, and had his heartbeat returned to 'sinus rhythm' by cardio-version - which involves an electric shock. Mine too. Worst part was having a lifetime's luxuriant chest hair growth shaved off. Good news for those who like their men to look like men is that the regrowth is also luxuriant. But it did itch for weeks!

Anyway, there are well over a million people in the UK suffering the condition. Chances of a stroke are multiplied by five. And the strokes are more likely to be fatal or permanently disabling. Treatment can be electric shock or just regular use of an anticoagulant. Some people take aspirin which provides minimal benefit. They should take Warfarin, or perhaps one of the new anticoagulants being developed. Its totally a win-win.

Because I was so shocked to learn that huge numbers of sufferers are being hit by strokes needlessly that I agreed to help establish an Atrial Fibrillation All Party Parliamentary Group.  Our inspiration was lady named Trudie Lobban. Our aim has been to raise awareness amongst the public and health care professionals. Today has been great. We have produced a report calling for 'Pulse Checks in the NHS'. I've been interviewed by ITV Wales for tonight's news and had a chat with Sarah Dicken on BBC's Good Evening Wales. That would never have happened two years ago.

Also need to add a word about Tom James, 28 yr old from Wrexham who won a Gold Medal in the Coxless Fours in Beijing.  He's after a second gold in the London Games in a months time. He's announced today that he intends to retire afterwards.  He saud that kast time! Tom suffers from Atrial Fibrillation - which shows that strength, youth and fitness doesn't guarantee freedom from an irregular heartbeat.  I hope he wins his second gold, and then comes to our next APPG meeting to talk to us and inspire us.  

Lord Carlile demolishes House of Lords Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew is the best mind on the Liberal Democrat benches - in both Houses of Parliament. He was MP for Montgomeryshire from 1983 to 1997. He was also my next door neighbour throughout that period. I have grown to know him well. But its a coincidence that Alex and I have found ourselves in much agreement since I was elected Montgomeryshire MP two years ago. We work closely together in our opposition to the desecration of mid Wales with wind farms and in opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide. He is a man of great wisdom who should be listened to.

In today's Mail on Sunday, Lord Carlile has written a thunderous denunciation of the Gov'ts proposals to reform the House of Lords. He argues as always with logic.  I know that Liberal Democrats throughout Britain will be stunned by the forcefulness of his intervention. Some quotes from his article should be repeated over and over again. And listened to. Its the voice of reason, experience and a brilliant mind.

Lord Carlile says "I cannot support....a shambolic, ill-conceived and politically naive venture. It will diminish Parliament, produce poorer laws and deprive the country of a remarkable and expert House.."  He goes on .."We should be proud of something that works well for us. Under the abolition proposals, all of it is to be trashed in the name of a false view of what is democratic......the public would barely have a say in the choice of the elected members of the new House of Lords. The selection of regional list candidates would be subject only to internal party procedures, potentially decided in the tribal atmosphere of party committees, a recipe for forms of demagoguery, corruption and false influence...." And then he says of the new Lords.."They would challenge the authority of the Commons at every stage - and why not, if they were elected. This is a recipe for constitutional chaos." This is a total demolition job.

I also watched Lord Strathclyde outlining his support for the proposals to Andrew Neil at lunchtime.  Couldn't make up my mind whether his enthusiasm for how well the current House of Lords works was greater or lesser than his enthusiasm for its abolition and replacement by the new proposals.

To hold an EU Referendum - and what Question.

Much discussion about an EU referendum flying around at present. In my opinion, this is all going to end in Eurosceptic tears. I recall the last such referendum in 1975. Biggest losers were those antis who made most noise demanding it. I was one of them. In general, I have a policy of learning the lessons of history. Be warned Eurosceptics. An EU referendum will lead to a green light for greater integration.

Anything but an In/Out referendum will not be good enough to satisfy the baying voices clamouring for a vote. Now, I should admit that I have no great fear of life outside the EU - and could see the sense of a referendum if I thought a potential UK Government would actually be prepared to open negotiations to withdraw from the EU if there were to be a Yes vote. No mainsteam party (and I still include the Lib Dems) has ever said that. References to an In/Out vote usually assume that the public would vote to stay in, or that the public's opinion would be ignored if it backed withdrawal. This is the unspoken truth - which is why I, a Eurosceptic, am deeply suspicious of the current debate. Even worse for me, a vote to stay in would be a massive boost to EU integration - as it was in 1975.

So all that's realistic is a referendum on some sort of 'renegotiation'. And it would have to involve quite significant changes to the relationship between the UK and the EU. We are already committed to a referendum if there's any further transfer of powers from the UK - so it has to be more than that. And I really don't think it would wash to go into an election promising to seek a renogotiation followed by a referendum. It would carry no traction with sceptical public unless a significant renegotiation had already taken place - so that there was something solid to take a view on.

Having written the above, I can see a momentum when it's in front of my nose. There are so many 'nods and winks' that we're approaching a position when it could become difficult to draw back from a referendum. No doubt it would inject some life into UK politics. Certainly needs it with the prospect of Lords Reform threatening to mire UK politics in glutinous treacle for months. Its just that I think it will end in tears, particularly for Eurosceptics.

Reforming the House of Lords.

Not a single constituent has ever raised with me the need to reform the House of Lords. Not a single one. Two have called on me to oppose continued presence of the bishops if reform does go ahead. I rather approve of bishops. But not a single person has suggested to me that we MPs should turn our attention to pushing through this massive change in how the people of Britain are governed.

Now I personally support reform. But what sort of reform. I suspect there are 100 versions of the type of reform individual Parliamentarians would support. I can see a case for capping the numbers at around 500. I can see the case for 'kicking out' miscreants. I can see the case for stronger 'independent' vetting and approval of new ermine-wearers. Most of all, I can see a case for reviewing the role of the Lords in scrutinising and amending new legislation emanating from the devolved Gov'ts.  But this is not what we are about to consider. Even though I've not seen the Bill yet, I understand that we are talking about a 'root and branch' change in how Britain is governed.

In today's Telegraph, Boris Johnson wrote "Clegg's scheme needs to be liquidated, vaporised and generally terminated". Lots of MPs have told me today that they agree with this. It seems that there will be a crunch vote in a few days time.  The public will not fully grasp what it means. It will be a vote on a 'programme motion'.  Essentially this guillotines debate on the Bill. Many clauses are likely not to be debated at all. And we are told that asking the people to express their views in a referendum will not be allowed either. We are told that the 'promoters'of this legislation want to ensure a timetable that effectively removes the current House of Lords from the decision making process by using the Parliament Act. That why there's such a hurry. Its accepted that their Lordships will defeat this Bill when it goes there, before returning it to the Commons - where the Government will be able to re-introduce the Bill in the next Parliamentary session, and after the period of one year, ram it through the Lords using the Parliament Act. And nothing, dear friends could be done by anyone to stop it.

I have to admit that when I was elected a Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire in 2010, I did not envisage facing such a situation. I've always been inherently loyal to 'my team'. I have been ferociously loyal to the Gov't - not ever having voted against the whip. Friends and colleagues, I am deeply troubled.

Machynlleth for the Pasty Tax. Lol

One of the hottest topics in Machynlleth, Montgomeryshire over the last few years has been the 'Pasty Tax'. Today I called in at where it started for me - at 'Hennigan's Top Shop', a very fine fish and chippie on Maengwyn St.. The family who own it were celebrating 30 yrs supplying it's top quality produce. To celebrate the occasion, fish and chips were on offer at £1 for today only. Same from my local in Welshpool, the very excellent 'Andrews' on High St. last Thurs cost me £4.95. Unsurprisingly, there was a long queue down the street all day.

Now my first encounter with Hennigan's was when daughter Anna contacted me almost two yrs ago about the appalling unfairness of having to charge VAT on hot pies, when the nearby supermarket did not charge VAT on pasties. After much investigation and discussion, I called for equalisation of tax on pies and pasties. At the time I was thinking more of exempting hot pies from VAT, but I decided to be supportive when Chancellor introduced VAT on pasties in the recent budget. On BBC News Channel, I was credited with single-handedly inspiring the budget decision to act on this gross unfairness. Well we know what happened to that little campaign. I was left stranded by a U-turn!

Ironically, my main critic over this issue is also from Machynlleth. He's actually started a web site specifically to campaign against me - for all sorts of other reasons as well. I'm sure you'll agree this is quite a coincidence. But I should add that I am looked on with great favour by fish and chip shops in my constituency. Win some and lose some!

Anyway, I went along to join the Hennigan family at their celebration today. I even got to serve myself the fish and chips, for which I paid the princely sum of £1. Mr Hennigan is David and Mrs Hennigan is Eleanor, but she's known locally as Lol. Its a good job she contacted me over the VAT issue, and not the Prime Minister. He could have been a tad confused if she had signed off her letter  'Lol'.

Bit of Turbulence at Powys Council

I take an interest in the politics of Powys County Council - partly because I know quite a few of the Cllrs. We need to consider some background. For many years Powys CC was made up of mostly 'Independent' cllrs, led by Cllr Michael Jones from Radnorshire. Then a few years ago, the Council split into 'political groups' which effectively ended the concept of the 'Independent' cllrs in any meaningful sense. A Conservative Group came into being, to join the Labour and Lib Dem Groups -  and the 'Independents' split into 2 groups, the 'Montgomeryshire Independents' and the 'Powys Independents' - (more to do with 'personality' than 'policy'!) The Council was 'managed' by a 'Board' of 15 - chosen in proportion to the size of the various groups. Then just over a year ago, the 'Powys Independents' and the Lib Dems voted through the adoption of a 'Cabinet' system - and formed a coalition to run the Council. Perhaps they assumed this arrangement would carry on for ever. And through all this Cllr Michael Jones stood proudly at the helm. Then we had May's Council election. Big change.

Labour gained seats, Conservatives gained a seat, and the Lib Dems/Powys Ind. lost ground. Leader of the Montgomeryshire Independents (now called the 'Shires Independents), Cllr. David Jones from Guilsfield was elected Leader. He won the votes of everyone except the Lib Dems and Powys Independents'. It was enough. This was 'seismic' - and has led to a total change. Great for me because I've known David for 40 yrs. He was Cllr. for Guilsfield when I was Montgomeryshire Council Chairman 1985-1988. In my opinion, he's made a terrific start.

Unsurprisingly there's been a bit of turbulence in the Powys Independents - coming to terms with 'opposition'. From here on I'm depending on hearsay. Please correct me where I'm awry. It seems there's been a bit of pressure to have a leadership election, which came to a head this week. After decision to hold an election, I'm told that Michael decided , with some drama, to leave the group to become an 'unaligned' cllr.. I'm also told he left blasting on two particular cllrs. for behaving in a way which had led to the Group's defeat. No names, but both are from Montgomeryshire. Where it goes from here, I have no idea. I'm told that favourites to replace Michael Jones as leader of the Powys Independents are Cllrs Geraint Hopkins and Evan Morgan. Whether anyone else will desert the group we do not yet know. This is an ongoing situation. I also suspect I'm the only citizen of Powys who finds this interesting.

Cutting onshore wind subsidies.

Ben Brogan has written a hugely encouraging article in today's Telegraph. The subject is the amount of subsidy that's being fed to satisfy the voracious appetites of international energy leviathans to visit a general ugliness on the most beautiful parts of Britain by building huge numbers of wind farms. This wanton desecration will be nowhere greater than that proposed for Mid Wales.

For some time its been accepted that the level of subsidies is absurdly high, enabling the leviathans to warp the debate by lavishing 'community benefit' on lovely rural Britain, as ugly billionaires buy the affection of beautiful young women with diamonds. For some time its been accepted that a 10% reduction will allow the advance of turbines to continue unabated. To have any genuine impact, and ensure that costs are driven down, a 25% cut in subsidies is vital. Ben Brogan reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering such a cut. If true, this will make George Osborne mindblowingly popular across Mid Wales. He will immediately become even more popular with me than he already is.

We are also told that First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones has repeated his view that the targets for onshore wind in Mid Wales (as proposed in his infamous TAN8 policy)  does not need National Grid's 20acre substation and 100 miles of cabling, including a 400 kV line on massive steel towers all the way from mid Wales to mid Shropshire - a truly terrifyingly hideous prospect. In any other policy area, one might think this opinion would carry weight - but we're not dealing with normality. We are dealing with an industry that respects no-one, and tramples the opinion and lives of human beings underfoot, as wholly expendable in pursuit of their 'religion'.  Let us hope, for the sake of the beauty of Britain that Ben Brogan is accurately informed.

Welsh Gov't and Organ Donation.

Today the Welsh Government published it's draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill for consultation. The aim of this bill has been said to be to introduce a system of organ donation in Wales based on 'presumed consent' - where anyone who does not sign a register specifically stating that they do not want their organs removed will be deemed to have given consent for this to happen. I have consistently argued that this is a wrong, both ethically and because it will not work. There is no evidence to support the notion that 'presumed consent' will increase availability of organs. Today's headline on BBC Wales today which states "Law will increase organ donation" is untrue and is sloppy journalism on the part of the BBC. It is based on assertions (made by the Minister which the small print makes clear) without any evidence that stands up to examination. But putting this aside,  lets look at what is being proposed. I'm always willing to approach things with an open mind.

There is one very important and interesting line in this Written Statement. "Not opting out will be treated as a wish of the deceased to be a donor and a decision which families will be sensitively encouraged to accept." Well, as long as this procedure is written clearly into any future Assembly measure, I could well find myself in the position of  thinking the proposals should go further. My view has been that the next of kin of everyone who could be a donor should be 'sensitively encouraged'  to agree. All of our efforts should be put into ensuring people's wishes are known by their next of kin. My speech in the House of Commons last year was titled "A Presumptive Approach to Organ Donation." Evidence shows that such a high percentage of people are content for their organs to be used that discussion with next of kin in the inevitably traumatic situations should start from the basis of presuming agreement. My principal position has always been that no organ should be removed without express permission of next of kin. This should be written into any Act

So I'm left wondering what all the fuss has been about. Why on earth do we need an opt out list at all if everyone is to be treated as a potential donor. Best performing country, Spain, does not have a list. Would it not be a better use of resources for the money needed to draw up and maintain an opt out list be spent promoting a campaign based on "Let your next of kin know your wishes". Its increasingly beginning to look as if the exercise has been based on a desire to be different for its own sake.

This post is a very preliminary assessment of what I've read.  I need to discuss the issue with lawyers and transplantation experts before making definitive judgements. At this stage I'm rather less alarmed by what's proposed than I feared I would be. Wasting money is one thing.  Taking an organ where next of kin had not given approval is another thing entirely.

Force Feeding - Thoughts in Hindsight.

I was well taken aback when a casual tweet about a High Court Judge deciding in favour of force feeding an anorexic sufferer from Wales became front page news. Had not expected anyone to take the slightest notice. While I had no wish to take the matter further, I did  agree to join a phone-in discussion on Radio 5 last night. Also spent part of yesterday just reflecting on what I'd said. I usually find that my considered thoughts are similar to my first instinct.  I still think the judge made the wrong decision - even though most of those who have engaged with me in discussion don't seem to agree. Don't suppose you're interested but just in case, lets consider the way my thought processes have gone.

The Judge tells us he considered the 32 yr old Welsh woman to be intelligent, articulate and above all else did not want to eat food or be force fed. This was not in doubt. However, along with much expert opinion, he considers anorexia a mental illness, and as such the patient should be regarded as not competent to decide. So he did not accept her wishes.

The Judge tells us that those closest to the woman (presumably family) supported her wishes. She was in hospital and we are told that those caring for her also support her wishes. We are not told whether this included doctors, but we do know the case was taken to the High Court by the local authority, rather than the local health board. The Judge decided not to accept any of this - perhaps because the terrible pressures on all of these people may have influenced their judgement.

The Judge also tells us that the woman was gravely ill, and only has a small chance of survival.  He put it at 20%. His reasoning suggests that even at 1% he would have made the same decision. That 1% could be 100% for the woman if she were to recover.

I simply cannot see any other way to interpret this judgement except that force feeding should be available as a form of treatment in all cases of anorexia. This must also the logical conclusion of those who have disagreed with my opinion on this particular case.

Two other points I'd like to make. Firstly the Judge has presented his judgement in a very high profile way, which will inevitably lead to it being seen as a 'precedent' which will influence managers and other decision makers in the health care system. Its not unreasonable to suppose this was the Judge's intention.

And finally, most people with whom I've spoken tell me of the shockingly patchy service that anorexia sufferers can expect - particularly across Wales. There is clearly need for much improvement. But what will be now be the response of decision makers. I fear it will now be to see force feeding as the 'standard' procedure. I have a fair idea how the minds of officials work. This decision may well lead to a poorer service for anorexia sufferers.

I am not opposed to 'force feeding' where there is a reasonable expectation that it will help a sufferer. In this case, the background to the case suggested to me that if ever there was a situation where the views of the patient should have been respected, and she should have been allowed to die with dignity this was it. That's why I disagreed with the Judge.

When is it OK to force feed anorexic patient.

A High Court judge has ruled that a 32yr old Welsh woman suffering from severe anorexia should be force fed. It is reported that the woman is intelligent, articulate, wishes to make her own decisions, and that her carers and family oppose force feeding. They also believe she should be allowed to die with respect. Its also reported that she has been on a course of palliative treatment for a long time, not having eaten for many months. What is one to make of this decision. Must admit that I find it quite shocking.

I accept that force feeding of anorexic sufferers is not always wrong. Its an awful condition, and if a judgement is made that the patient is not competent to make a decision, and there is a good chance of recovery if force feeding takes place, it may be reasonable to force feed. But we' re told that this woman is 'intelligent and articulate" and "wants to make her own decisions". We're also told of the long term nature of her condition and the conclusion of her carers, and those who know her best believe she should be allowed to die with dignity.

My first instinct was that this is a quite awful decision, where the 'state' has decided to take ownership of a 'competent' person's body, and to take an unreasonable action to extend life. I accept that its easier to take a view not knowing who the patient is. Even after thinking about it, I still consider it to be a bad decision. But I do want to discuss it with those to whom I look for discussion about the ethics of these sort of issues - Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lady Finley of Llandaff and Robert Preston of LDW. Already I am a strong opponent of 'assisted suicide' and of 'presumed consent'. Is this to be another cause to persue?

Third Heathrow Runway and MP's duty to constituents.

I like Zac Goldsmith. Don't always agree with him, but he seems an MP who stands by his beliefs. Great respect for that.  Don't like opportunists. Nothing offends me more than when I've been accused of opportunism myself - like about my opposition to the Mid Wales Connection Project (something Zac and I might disagree about!). I was opposed from 2005, when the full horror was first put forward. Most people were in favour of it, and I was thought a bit 'cranky'. And no-one was much bothered because I was in such a small minority. All changed now.

But what are we to make of Zac's declaration today that if the Coalition Gov't performs a U-turn in favour of  3rd runway at Heathrow, he would not stand as a Conservative at the next election, and might force a by-election if it becomes Gov't policy before then (at least that's what I think he said). And I reckon he means it.  This is big talk indeed. I cannot criticise anyone who refuses to support a U-turn as controversial as this one, after a cast iron promise to constituents. Personally I don't have a firm opinion about a 3rd runway, and it never came up in Montgomeryshire - even if I've never been able to understand why extra business and investment is not directed to Birmingham, which is probably nearer to Heathrow than Boris Island in time and convenience terms.

Anyway, Zac has will have made a few of us think about whether there is a vote that would be too far for us to swallow. Not sure it would be wise to go public if there were. The only policy where I know my constituents would expect me to die in the ditch would be the appalling proposals to destroy Montgomeryshire with multiple wind farms and pylons. I would be in trouble if it were to come to a vote - which at this stage I cannot see happening any time soon. But I don't suppose Zac Goldsmith thought there would ever be a vote on a 3rd Heathrow runway (which there may never be of course). Definitely an issue to watch.

The Euro and UKIP

I was always implacably opposed to UK membership of the Eurozone. Nothing to do with a desire to retain the Queen's head on coinage, which Euro-enthusiasts liked to accuse us of.  It was entirely because I do not believe a single currency can succeed if its not part of a single political union as well.  I still recall sitting on panels locally (alongside other Welsh politicians all Euro enthusiasts) being dismissed as an 'extremist' because of my views. I've never had the slightest doubt that at some stage the Euro will collapse - or at least be reformed to include only those countries which actually want to to be part of a political union. Despite today's 'resolution' of the Spanish banks problem, nothing has happened to change my mind. Its but sticking plaster.

Charles Moore has written an excellent article for today's Telegraph which wraps this simple proposition in the more elegant language that makes him my favourite writer. I feel that there are many other MPs (particularly Conservative MPs) who share this opinion.

This issue has often been the basis of discussions I have enjoyed with my Ukip friends in mid Wales. The Euro is an issue we generally agree about. But where I disagree is that I'm not in favour of withdrawing from the European Union - at this stage anyway.  Though I do think the consequences of the fight to save the Euro in its present form could seriously threaten the long term existence of the EU altogether. Its impossible to know where its all going - not helped by debate about an In/Out referendum which seems to me to be a massive distraction, and an excuse to avoid facing the real issue, which is the Euro. I've always thought there's a more honest philosophy underpinning Ukip. They support a referendum as a stepping stone to leaving the EU. Now that's a straight forward 'easy to understand' policy.

Is Winsor best man for Inspector of Constabulary?

Police Minister, Nick Herbert tells us that he considers Tom Winsor is much the best person to take over as Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. Home Sec, Theresa May agrees with him. I spent an hour with Mr Winsor a few days ago and there is no doubt that he is a confident and competent man.  I didn't agree with every answer he gave but it was clear that he had thought everything through, and was not willing to back down or be bullied by MPs - especially Conservative MPs.

But the Police Federation do not accept that anyone who has not been out on the streets as a serving officer can possible do this job. Its worth repeating a statement that Chair, Paul McKeever has put out - which seems to be an attempt to 'veto' the Home Sec's prefered candidate, and have one of their own given the job instead.

Statement
The role of HMIC is one of the most important in policing. The HMIC provides advice on policing matters to the Home Sec. and if ever there was a need for sagacious advice from someone with a profound understanding of policing, it is now. We warned the Home Sec there would be riots, crime would rise, and that 20% cuts would have a detrimental effect on the policing front line, putting public safety at risk, and we were called scaremongers. We look forward to hearing from the Home Sec how the appointment of Tom Winsor provides the profound understanding of policing that is so important for public safety."

Must admit I do not remember the warning about riots - but let this pass. Neither do I recall warnings that the previous Gov't was spending so much public money that major reductions would be inevitable -  but let that pass as well. The reality is that the Conservative Party, in its manifesto, and later the Coalition Government promised to reform the police force and make it more 'accountable' to the public. Its true that in general the Police do not like this, but that's democracy. Seems to me that the appointment of Tom Winsor is a statement of intent by the Home Sec. that she will not forced into a U-turn on police reform. There's going to be a bit of a rumpus over this I suspect.

The example that is Tom James

Tom James is a Welsh Olympic champion. He won a gold in the coxless fours in Beijing four years ago. Yesterday he was confirmed as one of three Welsh rowers in this year's GB rowing team. He's also a reigning world champion, so his selection should not be a surprise.  But.....

Tom James suffers from Atrial Fibrilation, a heart condition which causes an irregular heart beat. I am Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AF, and a sufferer myself - or at least I was. The condition affects sufferers differently. I found myself short of breath sometimes and needed to breath deeply to steady things down. My doctor thought I was suffering a heart attack when he did an ECG. It was eventually fixed by an electric shock to the heart which returned my heartbeat to normal (sinus rhythm). Tony Blair famously underwent the same procedure.

Reason I'm so keen to promote awareness of AF is that it increases the chance of a stroke five fold, and is often very easily treated. People do not realise they have AF.  I didn't. Huge numbers of people have AF without being aware of it. Tom James is an example to us that AF, if treated, is not necessarily going to prevent an ordinary life - or even an extraordinary life in the case of Tom James.  I hope he'll come along to one of our meetings when the Games are over.

An In/Out EU Referendum.

Doesn't happen often, but this morning a constituent engaged me in political discussion. He accusing me of being dominated by the 'whips' and not representing my constituents. Its true that I believe I have a responsibility to support my party in the lobbies. But I do not think this is contrary to the interests of  my constituents. I pointed out that its not possible to represent all of my constituents on all issues all of the time because they hold divided opinions. In any case, its not possible to know what is majority opinion. I then asked for an example of where I had voted contrary to what he (or I)  thought to be the right course as a result of pressure from the whips. It was then that we cut to the chase. It was all about an In/Out EU referendum.  I had not joined the 81 rebels who voted against the Government over such a referendum earlier this year. It rather surprised my constituent when I said I did not support an In/Out referendum because I think, at present, its a thoroughly bad idea. And that I thought the 81 rebels were wrong.

Actually I am thoroughly Eurosceptic. I would be content to support an In/Out referendum if the Government holding it committed to opening negotiations to withdraw if the 'Out' vote won. But I cannot support an In/Out vote if one of the two possible outcomes is likely to be ignored. Such a situation would lead to a massive loss of confidence in our system of democracy. In my discussions with Ukip friends over many years, I have explained that this is one of the two main reasons why I disagree with them.

The second reason I oppose an In/Out referendum has its roots in the 1975 vote on whether to stay in (the EEC in those days). I campaigned for an 'Out' vote then and we were routed.  It was the biggest 'green light' to European integration imaginable. I fear the same would happen again. Despite what many campaigners for a referendum claim, I believe the 'In' side would win - and if it did the inevitable result would be another 'green light' to integration. Another case of the result being the opposite of what's wished for. Anyway, I spent 30 minutes chatting to my constituent. I don't think we managed to persuade each other of much. But I thought it was a better debate than the one in the House of Commons.

U-Turns!

Been so much stuff in the media about U-turns lately that its become rather 'old hat'. I'm featuring in an article in today's Western Mail by the ever-thoughtful David Williamson.  As always I'm very content with what he wrote.  What usually happens is that we talk freely for a good 10 minutes about an issue, and he picks a line or two to suit. Its always risky from my position because he makes me think aloud. Dangerous practise.
Question is how should we look at Gov't U-turns (or changing of minds in response to public reaction).  Since Mrs T made a virtue out of of not U-turning, its generally portrayed as a sign of weakness. But is it?  In passing, I reckon Mrs T would have been better off if she had U-turned on the Community Charge/Poll Tax! Whatever, lets take some of the budget proposals.
Firstly the most important change of policy - the decision not to impose 20% VAT on static caravans. Its no secret to those I discussed this with that I did not think this was a great idea. I understand why it was put forward. Logical that mobile and static caravans should be treated equally - but it would be too disruptive, particularly to manufacturing businesses.  The new proposal for a 5% rate is sensible.  So I'm rather pleased with this U-turn. I still remember the first time I was left up a tree without a paddle - on the proposals to change forestry ownership. I thought that proposal was right too, said so publicly and was well stranded by a U-turn - the day after I wrote to 250 constituents backing it. But it was what the people wanted, and no-one mentioned my embarrassment to me - not one single person.
Secondly the pasty tax. I agreed with this proposal and went on national TV to support it. My constituency has lots of good fish and chip shops! The U-turn left me stranded. But I can see that it was a highly unpopular. Left me stranded - but its what the people wanted.  I'll soon get over my discomfort - already have! Would we really have been right to push on with it. Perhaps its better to be wise than strong. Much the same can be said about the changes to charitable donations.
The big changes in the budget have been left intact.  This is being completely ignored by the media, and there is little public debate about it. There has been no U-turn on the proposals to equalise the level of tax free allowances across age groups, taking huge numbers of people out of the tax system altogether - or about the important Corporation Tax changes.
OK, so the media have had a field day over what were less important issues in the budget. But Mrs D, who is a good judge of these things doesn't like it at all. She likes the idea of 'you turn if you want to, I'm not'. But I'm left asking myself whether this is all a bit of old fashioned 'macho'. At a very basic philosophical level, every Gov't makes proposals which it comes to regret, but its only a very stupid Gov't which carries on after realising it. Discuss.

Postponing Mid Wales Connection.

National Grid has informed us that it is postponing its announcement about which part of Mid Wales it wants to desecrate with its landscape wrecking 400 kv line from Shropshire to a 20 acre electricity substation in mid-Montgomeryshire to serve around 500/600 new wind turbines. Personally I welcome this postponement.  Eventually the madness of onshore wind in general and this scheme in particular will become obvious to all, so the longer its put off the better. Griff Rhys Jones came up with an interesting observation today when he described onshore wind as the "hypocrisy of green tokenism".

Amusingly, National Grid are putting it about that they are agonising over a difficult decision, and want to consider carefully impact on our countryside. You can believe that if you want. Is that a pig with a propeller on its back flying past my window! Far more likely that National Grid decided to postpone its decision so as to avoid its horrible plans being a Council election issue, and realised that to announce this week would expose its blatant tactics - so another postponement might make it look better.

Not sure that National Grid realises just how hated its becoming in Mid Wales. No-one likes a bully, no matter how the brutality is dressed up in nice words and glossy leaflets. In Mid Wales, National Grid  is the black enemy of the people.

Assembly Electoral Boundaries.

The Secretary of State for Wales has today published a Green Paper on 'Future Electoral Arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales'. Its a 12 weeks 'consultation paper'. There are several proposals up for consultation.

1) That the National Assembly should continue to have 60 members.

2) That the Assembly electoral boundaries should be changed to allow for 30 rather than 40 Assembly constituencies, coterminous with the new constituencies being introduced for the House of Commons.  Its also proposed that if the decision is to retain the current 40 constituencies, the boundaries should be adjusted to equalise the number of voters within each constituency. (to a tolerance of 5%).  The Government has a preference for the 30/30 split, though retains an open mind. Personally, I'm not expressing an opinion about this until the consultation period is over.

3)That the ban on candidates standing for a constituency and also taking a place on the 'regional list' should be removed. Now I am very much in favour of this, and considered the ban when introduced by Peter Hain and Rhodri Morgan to be a spiteful, opportunistic exercise in gerrymandering. Needless to say it didn't work.  Gerrymandering rarely does.

4)That Westminster politicians should not be permitted to stand for election to the National Assembly - an end to what's known as 'double jobbing'. Have to be an arrangement for individuals wishing to 'transfer'.  Wonder what Lord Elis Thomas thinks of this!

Not been much immediate reaction that I've seen.  The Welsh Government seem to be suggesting that this issue is a matter for the Assembly. And First Minister has said that the Prime Minister reassured him that there would be no change in opposition to the will of the Welsh Assembly. We will find out in due course whether this is in fact the case. Not sure whether Labour are still advocating the ridiculous suggestion of Peter Hain that there should be 60 elected by FPTP, two from each consituency. 

Its also interesting that the Assembly Conservative Group is in favour of the status quo. At least that's what one of the leading members of the Group made clear on yesterday's Politics Show. Another one to watch.

I wonder how much interest this matter will generate amongst the public!

Melding's Mission

Now I've had the greatest respect for Conservative Assembly Member, David Melding. He's always been a lateral thinker, and is currently preforming splendidly as Deputy Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales. I've often heard people say that "Of course, he's not really a Conservative at all". Oh yes he is.  There are times when I think he's rather more Conservative than the Conservative Party.

Anyway, it seems he's launching a centre/right think tank, and hoping to attract supporters of Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to sign up.  I like the idea, but am not convinced its a bird which will fly - at this early stage anyway.  I hope it does. Might be a better plan to try to 'infiltrate' the centre/left Institute of Welsh Affairs !

I'm looking forward to learning who the individuals involved in this new think tank are going to be.  It will be no use if its just populated by ex-politicians, and a few quagocrats. It needs some quality names like Brian Griffiths and Patrick Minford (or their youthful equivalents) and a strong base in universities. I'm sure David's got some good ideas. I wish it well.

New Powys Council Cabinet

I'm told that new Leader of Powys County Council has chosen his Cabinet.  Geographically balanced across the County. Must admit to one or two surprises though. But then I'm but an outsider. I wish them all well, and I'll do all I can to support them. Its going to be a seriously tough job.

Cabinet Leader - Cllr. David Jones
Property and Assets - Cllr. Garry Banks - Radnorshire
Planning - Cllr. Graham Brown - Montgomeryshire
Finance - Cllr. Dai Davies - Montgmeryshire
Children's Social Services - Cllr. Melanie Davies - Breconshire.
Adult Social Services - Cllr. Rosemarie Harris - Breconshire
Corporate Governance - Cllr.Gary Price - Radnorshire.
Human Resources - Cllr. Gareth Ratcliffe - Breconshire.
Highways - Cllr. Barry Thomas - Montgmeryshire.
Education - Cllr. Michael Williams - Montgomeryshire.

Goings on in Powys Council

My local weekly, the Montgomeryshire County Times has an irreverent 'Nelson's Column'.  This week 'Nelson' has given us an insight into the problems faced by new councillors in trying to agree a Cabinet to run Powys County Council.

"There are several problems with forming an actual working majority to run the Council. The 48 Independents split into two groups, the 'Shires' Independents and the Powys Independents. The actual policy differences between them isn't clear, and to be frank its difficult to find anyone who can tell you otherwise. There are numerous councillors in both groups who are well known to have an allegiance to a mainstream political party but bizarrely refuse to stand on that platform. The upshot is that we now have two 'independent' groups who refuse to work with each other. The Lib Dems who refuse to work with anyone (they've probably had enough public flogging for one decade) and Labour and the Tories (like children not trusted by their parents) who are not allowed to work together".

Nelson was very well briefed on what's been happening behind the scenes. In the end what happened was that the Leader of the smaller 'Independent' group, David Jones was elected Leader of the Council by 36 votes to 34. He was backed by the Tories, Labour and his own group. The Powys Independent Leader, Michael Jones, was backed by the Lib Dems (who had previously made clear they were going to sit on their hands) and his own group (best guess - secret ballot). I'm told that the Powys Independents were shocked after ruling the roost for so long that several of thier members broke down in tears at such seismic change. To the outside word Powys is still run by an Independent named 'Jones' - but inside the Council we've just witnessed a revolution.

It seems that the new Leader intends to choose his entire Cabinet form his own group (or cllrs ship-jumping from other groups)- which has led cllr, Gareth Ratcliffe to jump the Tory ship just a week after being elected as a Tory - which should lead to some blue disgruntlement down in the South of Powys. Updates as and when.