Electoral Rules for National Assembly for Wales

Wednesday's 'Gracious Address' informed us that the Coalition Gov't has plans to change the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales. My understanding (and its no more than that) is that we are considering three changes. At this early stage, I am very much in favour of one, am very much against a second, and am marginally against a third. Let's run through them.

Firstly the possible change that I strongly support - reversal of the ban on 'dual candidacy'. Political parties should be free to choose whoever they want as candidates. Parties should be free to choose the same individual to contest a constituency seat, and be placed in a favourable position on the party's list for an 'additional member' place. The ban was brought in by a Labour Gov't as a blatantly partisan measure. Labour thought it would discomfort the Conservatives. It was shameful 'gerrymandering' - which rather backfired. I suspect there will be support for this change across all parties.

Secondly the possible change I don't support - a ban on individuals serving as an MP and an AM at the same time. Now, this is not to say I approve of such an arrangement. I don't. And I would discourage parties from so arranging. But I just do not think it right that we should be passing laws that unnecessarily restrict the freedom of political parties. If a political party wants to introduce such a rule - that's fine. But if a political party wants to put forward an AM to contest a Westminster seat, or put forward an MP to contest an Assembly seat, we should not be legislating to stop it. In general, I believe the governance of Wales would benefit from representatives moving between institutions and we should not be legislating to make it more difficult.

And thirdly, the change I'm marginally against, but not too fussed - legislating for a 5-year fixed term Assembly. In principle I do not believe we should electing 'parliaments' which cannot be dissolved if circumstances dictate. Westminster (in its wisdom) has legislated for a fixed term Parliament, but there is a mechanism for dissolution - albeit rather complex. And anyway 5 years is a very long time between elections. The 4 year Assembly term seems about right. I suspect international practice points to 4 year rather than 5 year parliaments. And why should there not be an Assembly Election and a General Election on the same date. Its to avoid this situation that such legislation is being considered. So happens, having both elections on the same day would probably help the Conservatives - not that this should influence my thinking. But it does give us an added benefit on top of saving a bit of money.

Now its very early days on all this. There could well be some changes before definite proposals are made. And this post is only me thinking aloud. Considered reflection (assisted by the Chief Whip's armlock!) might have some influence on my opinion. Only joking of course. I'll probably say all this in the next Welsh Grand Committee. Interesting to find out what my colleagues think.

Referendum on EU withdrawal

The dominant and immediate challenge facing the Coalition Gov't is putting the UK's public finances back in order. It is why the Coalition exists. But the most important issue (and most contentious) facing the House of Commons is the UK's relationship with the EU. Because it is such a 'toxic' issue, party leaders would prefer not to face up to it. Understandable. And I think its true that the public are not that exercised about it. It may still be that the next election is decided on "The Economy Stupid", but I do think the Europe issue will be up there as well.

Lets consider where we are now - or at least where I am. Always been a eurosceptic. Voted for 'Out' in 1975. But I've not been prepared to back a referendum on withdrawal until I believed we had a Prime Minister who would immediately open withdrawal negotiations if the people so voted. That's why I did not join the 'rebellion of 81' last year. Must admit I thought it was a pointless stunt. But things move on and its become clear that the public will have its say. Which is why I've been happy to support what I see as the game-changing commitment by David Cameron to hold a referendum on EU withdrawal in 2017. This was a mighty decision, which sensible Eurosceptics should support. I just cannot understand my colleagues who want a 'mandate' vote of some sort before the next election. What will that prove? What we need is to settle on a definite date, and then talk up the definite commitment.

The purpose of delay until 2017 (just 4 yrs) is that a 'renegotiation' of our relationship should take place. That 'renegotiation' cannot take place unless there is a majority in the House of Commons to act on it. At present there isn't. I hear grumbles about the Prime Minister's strategy from colleagues who lauded it when it was announced - but now want more. Many say the 'renegotiation' will not deliver anything significant - so what's the point. If it doesn't deliver something meaningful, I think the British people may well vote to withdraw. If significant change is agreed, we may vote to remain a member of the EU. Its going to be one hell of a debate after 2015, which will start before the election. In fact its started already.

Even though I voted for 'Out' in 1975, once we were fully signed up, I wanted it to work in the interests of all of our countries. But the integrationists were not content to simply let it work. They wanted to create a 'country called Europe'. And then along came the Euro, which many of us thought to end in disaster. At the time of the Euro's creation, I spoke on panels espousing my view that the Euro would destroy the EU, and may lead to bloodshed in some member countries. I was called an 'extremist'. Doesn't seem so extreme now. That's the trouble with politics. It doesn't stand still. There will alway be a drive to integration which will have to be resisted.

MPs will soon start declaring their hand - though in most cases its unlikely to be definitive until the 'renegotiations' are complete. That's certainly how I feel. What is the price of withdrawal going to be. Will Britain's trading status be undermined? Will Britain have to leave the 'big players ring'? Being the Eurosceptic that I am, my inclination is bound to be to vote for withdrawal from the EU - but I'm pragmatic as well. Four years will pass like the blink of an eye. Time to start thinking about it. And I have not mentioned UKIP at all.

Don't Panic, Don't Panic. Over Ukip.

I suppose I might lose my seat in the House of Commons at the next general election if Ukip make even a reasonable surge in Montgomeryshire. Only got a 1200 majority. So I suppose I should be jumping up and down looking for an antidote to the Ukip surge. But strangely I feel very calm about things. The way for my party to counteract Ukip's popularity is to do what we should be doing anyway - listening to them. I'm just thinking of some of the difficult issues for me that Ukip have latched onto.

The first is onshore wind - a massive and divisive issue in mid Wales. While I was not hugely opposed to wind farms before the Welsh Gov't published new planning guidance (Tan8) in 2005, I have been implacably opposed to the Mid Wales Connection Project ever since. The scale of it is breath-takingly horrific. This project has raised public interest in energy policy in Montgomeryshire. Many more people (in my experience) have become pro-nuclear, less anti-fossil fuels (esp shale gas) and more sceptical towards renewable energy in general. This is bang in line with Ukip policy - while I remain in favour of renewables where they are economically sensible and will make a worthwhile difference. So despite my support for protesters against the Mid Wales Connection Project, I could well be 'outflanked' by Ukip. And so could several other Conservative MPs. Desperately hope we can defeat this terrible proposal.

Another issue is 'gay marriage'. Now I didn't want to be drawn into a debate on this issue, and was upset when it was brought before Parliament. I am not in favour of redefining the meaning of marriage, but knew I would be accused of a homophobic attitude simply by voting according to my conscience. I hated the position I was put in - but had the consolation of sensing it was how the majority of my constituents felt. I don't want to make a big song and dance about it. But Ukip will again be quite happy to 'outflank' me with strong rhetoric. Could cost me some votes.

There's a few other issues as well. And then there's Europe. I've always been by nature Eurosceptic. I voted for 'Out' in 1975. I support our policy of renegotiating the terms of our membership of the EU and holding a referendum in 2017 to seek the support of the British people. And if the people vote 'No' I would want the UK to begin the process of withdrawal.  But now we find many wanting a referendum sooner than 2017 - as a response to Thursday's election results. I'm deeply uncomfortable with this - for two reasons. Firstly, I think our policy is correct, and secondly, I don't think Ukip should be writing our policies.  Ukip just want to withdraw, without regard to consequences. I'm expecting this to become a bit of an issue over the next few months.

But perhaps the reason I do not think my party should panic about Ukip's success is that the voters are not daft. When it comes to voting for a Gov't they will look beyond the rhetoric. At the 2015 election, it will be the Coalition parties which can point to a record of taking difficult decisions to restore our public finances, tackling welfare and bringing immigration levels down. And voters will understand that only the Conservative Party will be offering energy policies that protect them from high bills and export of jobs overseas. I try to listen to what the people I want to represent tell me. Its all my party has to do - ensure that the people of Britain believe we are listening to them. That shouldn't be too difficult - and its easier if there's no sense of panic.

My take on yesterday's elections

Now that was a really interesting election day. Not your usual nudge one way or another, or the media trying desperately to build something entirely predictable into a news story. It was a genuine story. And top line by some distance was the dramatic surge in support for Ukip. The South Shields result had been seen before. But to win around 25% of the vote in local elections across England was some result. This blog is never knowingly churlish so first up must be congratulations to Nigel Farage on the success of his party. Certainly there's probably an element of 'plague on all your houses' in this 25%, but that was some plague. And it may be that this will (to some extent at least) become a continuing feature of British politics. I hear the sound of rethinking across the British political firmament.  Luckily, I've always adopted a policy of being friendly and generous to Ukip. In Montgomeryshire, Ukip stalwart, the late David Rowlands was a very good friend.

It was not a good night for the three mainstream parties - though the Conservatives certainly did no worse than expected. The seats being contested yesterday were last fought in 2009, when Gordon Brown and Labour were deeply unpopular. And its also usual that governing parties taking through unpopular policies (no matter how necessary) take a mid-term hit in popularity.  But we still lost well over 300 council seats and came a poor third in the South Shields By-Election. No good pretending it was a great result.

Nor was it a good night for Labour. Despite its desperate performance in the 2009 election it made only modest gains - certainly less than commentators expected. Historical precedent tells us that yesterday's performance was not remotely good enough to anticipate victory in 2015. I suspect there will be more head scratching in Labour HQ tonight than in Tory HQ.

So too the Lib Dems. It lost over 12% of its vote compared to 2009, which was not good at all. And its performance in the South Shields By-Election was stunningly awful. Lib Dems are like ink stains where they are settled into constituencies. They take some shifting. But it was a very inconsistent result. On balance, I think this was the poorest performance of the day.

There is going to have to be some serious thinking about why there was such support for Ukip - and how to win our voters back. I was interested to hear Nigel Farage cite onshore wind farms as his first comment on Radio 4 after the 5.00 News. That would count big-time in mid Wales. I am a countryman, and no-one would ever describe me as part of any metropolitan elite - and I can see that Nigel Farage is aiming his appeal in my direction. As a general comment, I think my party should try to be attractive to me and my kind - a natural Conservative constituency.  

National Grid sending in the 'heavies'

Received an email today from a very upset constituent, who owns land under or over which National Grid wishes to construct its 400 kV power line between mid Wales and North Shropshire. This is the scar on our countryside which will be 50 kilometres long and facilitate the building of 500/600 extra wind turbines in mid Wales. It gives an insight into just what an out-of-control 'beast' National Grid has become. Sure they have nice friendly people putting on a sweet-faced front at public meetings. But the reality is oh so different.  When NG doesn't get its own way, things turn ugly.

Recently solicitors representing a company called Bruton Knowles just appeared in my constituents yard with a handful of legal 'notices'. His employees wondered what he had done. They thought "the bailiffs were looking for repossessions". These solicitors handed over 6 copies of 14 day notices for 'Taking Access' of his land. They also stapled another 7 notices to gateposts on the roadsides of his fields.  All of these 'Taking Access' notices displayed full names and addresses for everyone to see. Main reason my constituent was upset was it gave impression to passing public that some crime had been committed. The wording made it look as if the property was being repossessed.

This Stalinist style behaviour shows a total disregard for personal privacy. Since then Bruton Knowles have confirmed that they are 'coming in' later this week. Over the last two weeks my constituent tells me he has received 26 letters from Bruton Knowles. What sort of animals are we dealing with here.

This is the world that is being created by National Grid (these nice-on-the-surface people). This is happening in the gentle countryside of Montgomeryshire. Its scarsely believable. Bruton Knowles may be the heavy boots that trample over our rights, (and I know people who will never deal with this company again - including me)  but they are being directed by National Grid. I feel hatred rising up in my soul.

Shale Gas. What's the potential?

I am a DECC sceptic. Since I've been an MP, my confidence in the Dep't of Energy and Climate Change has collapsed. I no longer believe a word that emanates from anyone with any connection with DECC. And I do not think this will change until the whole wretched department is abolished. Until today, I thought I was a lone outrider in this opinion. But Peter Lilley almost matches my disillusionment in today's Telegraph - and he's a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee!

Peter has based his article around the attitude of DECC to shale gas. The shale gas debate took off after what happened in the US following development of huge supplies, and then the discovery of massive reserves of the stuff in N E England. Inevitably, anyone interested in the 'energy' question began asking questions about whether the same sort of price fall could happen in the UK - or at least a significant reduction in dependency on gas imports. All I've heard from DECC is discouraging noises, playing down any possibility of significant benefit. Leaves people like me, who have no confidence in anything DECC says without much idea of what the true position is. At least Peter Lilley is challenging the cosy consensus. I'll add a few quotes from his article;

" Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary was so upset by the British Geological Survey's new estimates, which show there may be 250 times as much shale gas as previously thought, that he told them to go and redo their figures. That means a delay of several months - on top of the 18 month moratorium previously imposed on drilling."  Mr Lilley describes this as reprehensible.  He suggests that anyone involved with DECC is desperate for shale gas to be a failure.  Certainly looks that way.

Speaking of all witnesses called by the Energy and Climate Change Committee he said "They assured us that previous reserve estimates were too high, that little of it would be recoverable, that the cost of extraction would be far higher than in the US and that planning problems would prevent its development" If any of this is true, why should they be bothered. It just would not happen. But of course the reality is that probably none of its true.

"Fracking is a tried and tested technology which has been used since the late Forties. Hydraulic fracturing simply involves pumping water under great pressure into shale beds several kilometres underground until tiny fissures open up...so that the gas can flow out. Over 100,000 wells have been fracked in recent years. Not a single person has been poisoned by contaminated water, not a single building damaged by the almost undetectable seismic tremors sometimes released. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concluded unequivocally that any health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing can be managed effectively in the UK..."  And there's a whole lot more besides.

Now I've not yet been myself convinced that 'fracking' is going to deliver the bonanza we would all like (except DECC of course) but every time I hear the case against being made by exaggeration and embellished by plain untruths, the more I feel inclined to support it. Peter Lilley, is undergoing a resurgence in his political influence - and interestingly has just been appointed a member of  Jo Johnson MP's policy committee reporting to the Prime Minister. He will not remain quiet. Hydraulic fracturing has a clear-thinking and redoubtable champion.

The 2013 Lions

Its Warren Gatland's team.  Not much doubt about that. He knows what he wants and he's picked men who he thinks will deliver it. Choosing Sam Warburton as captain was the biggest call of all. No question that he's a wonderful player and the most balanced 24 yr old I've ever seen grace the captain's armband. Personally, I'd have gone for O'Connell, but its not a point to argue over.  Sam is an easy man to develop a loyalty to.

Surprises are in the front row. While the test team will probably be all Welsh (for first 60 minutes of each test at least), the supporting cast were unexpected. I thought Rory Best would have been selected, but I suppose I was still mesmerised by the first 40 he played against Wales. Where did the Matt Stephens pick come from.  No-one saw that. Paul James can feel a bit miffed.

Second row and back row as expected - once assessment that Dan Lydiate was fit factored in. Ryan Jones unlucky and Robshaw might have made it but for the 30-3 capitulation.  There will be a big question about who plays 7 in the test team. I suppose it has to be Warburton now, but would not be surprised to see Tipuric in for 3rd test.

No surprises at half back, though media is wetting itself over Wilkinson - and making itself look thoroughly silly. Nothing wrong with taking two No 10s, but I would have expected a Hook or Twelvetrees just in case a third is needed. I think Priestland would have been Gatland's man if he'd stayed fit through the season.

Behind the scrum picked themselves except for Maitland who was a bit of a surprise - though a few sharp rugby men had been giving him the nod.  Really pleased to Tommy Bowe deemed fit enough. All in all, not a bad squad, and very much Gatland's men. I think they'll do well.

The Communications Data Bill.

I've known Lord Carlile of Berriew for a long time. He was MP for Montgomeryshire from 1983-1997,when he stood down, thus allowing Lembit Opik to take his place in Parliament. Alex was also my next door neighbour. I was elected the MP for Montgomeryshire in 2010, and have worked with Lord Carlile on several issues, particularly our mutual opposition to legalisation of assisted suicide. Because I have a great respect for his opinion, I like to discuss complex legal/political issues with him over a coffee in the Lords tearoom as going through the process of making up my own mind.

Alex and I had one such discussion about the new Communications Data Bill. I had found myself in two minds on the Home Secretary's proposals. Thought Alex could help me work through the issues. On the one hand I tend to be suspicious of prying authority - but not to the extent of leaving us exposed to a greater terrorism threat. I was surprised by the vehemence of his support for the Bill, particularly since he has always been, and remains a committed Liberal Democrat. He has also been the Gov'ts reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation for 10 yrs. Anyway, his article in today's Telegraph will have come as no surprise to me.  I will leave you with a few of Alex's quotes.

"put simply, the details of who communicated with whom, when and for how long are a proportionate response to a fundamental problem"

"responsible commentators should be seriously troubled by the inaccurate and misleading coverage of the Gov't's plans to update the legislative framework."

"communications data are vital to successful prosecutions. They are used every day in courts up and down the land - in murder cases, fraud trials and drugs prosecutions."

"In relation to terrorism, the availability and use of such data......saves lives."

"Like Mr Clegg, I am strongly opposed to the routine accessing of the content of communications...... but powerful controls exist to prevent that. The Gov't's proposals are about something quite different. They are about the data surrounding a communication; the fact of something being said, not what precisely was said. And the draft legislation provides for an equally stringent access regime to the current system, subject to regular independent oversight."

"Between July 2012 and Feb 2013, communications data were used in 95% of all serious organised crime cases handled by the CPS. They were also a vital part of every major counter-terrorism operation by the security forces over the last decade. Without updating the law, the simple reality is that these figures will fall over time."

"Parliament should be brave enough to press ahead with the plans, in the protection of the public interest."

Now this man knows what he's talking about when it comes to anti-terrorism law - so where does that leave Mr Clegg?

Taffe (not a Welshman) fined for 'sheep' insult

You might expect someone named Anthony Taffe to have a sympathetic approach to we Welsh. But it seems not. He has just been fined by Llandudno magistrates for referring to us as "sheep sh*****s". This seems rather impolite, as well as (in my experience) totally inaccurate. He claimed innocence on the charge of racially aggravated disorderly behaviour on the grounds that he was referring to all country people at the time. This seems a weak defence since he admitted that he called a policeman (whom I imagine to be Welsh) at the station where he was taken as a "Welsh Sheep Sh******r". And this was not even the policeman who sat on him when he was first seen shouting drunken obscenities at a holiday park. I'm a proud Welshman but feel untroubled by Mr Taffe's observation. Those of us who have lived in the mountains with our sheep are used to such offensive accusations. Actually, I've been called much worse than this since being elected an MP. And I have referred to Mr Taffe as something worse - though not where in could be heard by others. Anyway, the magistrates didn't accept his story and fined him £150 - which is more than the value of a Welsh ewe of good quality.

What is a wealthy pensioner to do?

I should begin by declaring my high admiration for Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith. He is taking on just about the most controversial, thankless job in UK politics - reform of a welfare system that has become financially unsustainable, and which has 'trapped' millions of people in a life on welfare. The fundamental principles on which reforms are moving forward are that "work should always pay", and that "no-one's benefits should be more than the average workers's pay". But I didn't agree with his idea that wealthy pensioners should give back benefits to the state if they felt they did not need them. I'm not sure that there is a mechanism for doing this anyway, and most people will object bitterly to some of the ways Gov't would spend the money returned. I certainly would.

The real issue here is whether benefits such as winter fuel payments should remain 'universal'. There is a manifesto committment that they must remain so until the next general election, but what's going to be in the political party's manifestos for 2015. For what its worth, I am not in favour of 'means testing' if at all possible. Its a 'cheat's charter', it disincentivises, it creates 'stigma', and its complex to operate fairly. And there are no current proposals to move away from universality. That's dealt with that.

But what about those pensioners who feel they are too well-off to justify receiving benefits. IDS thinks they should pay them back. I prefer the idea of encouraging giving any money not wanted to 'local charities', or those special charities that the relevant individuals support. In Wales this could include Wales Air Ambulance and the hospice movement. And I mean 'local'. I've lost my appetite for some national charities which seem to me to have become professional fund-raisers, taking all the cake and leaving the cupboards of local charities bare.

Anyway, I got to say something along the lines of this post on the Sunday Politics Show today. Thought I was saying nothing noteworthy or controversial. Bit taken aback when I flicked onto BBC Online tonight to find out what great speeches had been made at the Welsh Tory Conference in Swansea to find me near top of the billing. Appearing on Sunday Supplement and on Sunday Politics is such a risky business.

One-Party-State - Look at Wales

Have you ever wondered how a one-party-state would work in a British context. Well, since devolution, we have a Government in Wales which is giving us a bit of an idea. Really good example this week about a committee system would work. None of this messing about with elections as we do at Westminster. None of this freedom for elected politicians deciding to influence policy through a democratic process - (like the recent election of clear-thinking Peter Lilley onto the Environment and Climate Change Committee in the House of Commons). No - if a committee member shows any capacity to think for themselves, or stand by a principle, just throw them off - immediately. And because this way of operating within Welsh Labour is no surprise, its not even much of a media story.

Better explain (though Betsan Powys does it better). The Children and Young People's Committee of the National Assembly for Wales are considering the complex Social Services Bill. Three Labour AMs are publicly in support of a legal ban on smacking children. The Minister is not. (I should add that I agree with the Minister, Gwenda Thomas). Anyway, just before the Committee was due to meet, to take evidence, and consider an amendment to introduce the smacking ban into the Bill, Labour's Chief Whip just sacked the three principled members, Christine Chapman (Chair), Julie Morgan and Jenny Rathbone - and replaced them with three others. When the meeting started, the microphones were turned off so that new chair, Ann Jones could explain that she had only just found out she was even on the Committee. Sir George Young must be salivating at the thought of such untrammelled power. Its what happens when one party is always in power. Independent, principled thought is banned,even if the smacking of children is not.

And this comes after news this week that First Minister, Carwyn Jones simply refused to answer a FOI inquiry about discussions between himself and Sir Terry Mathews. Now behind the request is the suspicion (I think) that Sir Terry has influenced, or sought to influence who is in the First Minister's Cabinet. Now again I have some sympathy with Carwyn Jones here. I've never been a fan of the FOI system - but can you imagine the UK Gov't getting away with this sort of high-handed behaviour. My oft-expressed view when I was an Assembly Member myself was that devolved Welsh democracy will not have 'grown up' until Labour in Wales is occupying the opposition benches.  No reason to change that opinion.

Making a Differnce as an MP ?

Parliament was prorogued at 3.15 this afternoon, bringing to an end the year long second legislative session of the 2010-2015 Parliament. We will return to Westminster on 8th May for the State Opening of Parliament and the third legislative session. I've reached my home in Montgomeryshire, booted up my computer, have taken a glass of Sanserre and am reflecting on the last twelve months. Was it worthwhile - from where I stand. Did I make any difference. James and Julie do all the valuable work with most constituency issues, simply using me as a sounding board as and when needed. Because of their commitment, my office is now working as I want it to. I just wonder where I made a difference - me ' personally. In some policy areas I made a lot of noise but no real difference. Good example has been my opposition to the appalling Mid Wales Connection Project (turbines and pylons) - but DECC is so totally impervious to local opinion, common sense, or the concept of democracy -  and so acts like a weird religious sect that it's hard to claim any actual progress - yet anyway. But not giving up on this one.

I reckon there are three areas where I might have made a real difference. Firstly, I did lead off a terrific debate last summer about the way milk processing companies and supermarkets were ripping off milk producers. It became the 'Parliamentary wing' of a national protest about ruthless and unfair dominance of small individual producers. The 'big boys' did not like being named and shamed in the House of Commons. I think that debate did made a bit of difference.

The second speech I made that had impact was about the Liverpool Care Pathway. It was and remains a sensitive and difficult issue. I thought it was important to transfer discussion from the sensationalist front pages of national newspapers to the floor of the House of Commons. With my usual modesty I thought I made a bloody good speech, which set the tone for an excellent 90 minute debate. I was really pleased about the way it went, and I think it has impacted on the general attitude to the Pathway.

And the third was this last week, when I spoke about the impact of the recent snowfalls and drifting on the upland sheep industry. Not so much the speech itself, but the build up to it and my determination to put what had happened on the agenda. Luckily, circumstances conspired to allow me a 60 minute adjournment debate rather than the expected 30 minutes. Lots of opposition MPs turned up to take part, and I think we made a difference to how the issue is perceived in parts of the UK not directly effected. My aim was to create an understanding of the scale of disaster that has befallen hill sheep farmers over the last month.  And I think it worked.

Now what is odd about an MP's life is that there has been almost nil local media coverage of these three issues. In Westminster they worked really well but in Montgomeryshire it's almost as if none of them happened. Its not that I don't have plenty of local media coverage (I do) - but its not about what I see as the big issues. Next week, I will be a male model, showing off stylish clothes on the catwalk at the Old Station in Welshpool (not joking). Money raised is for a cause very important to me - and I will try to strut like the real deal. Probably be coverage of that. Politics is a funny old world.

Income Tax Powers for Welsh Gov't

I suspect lots of Conservatives (and a fair few Labourites) will fiercely disagree with my opinions as outlined in this post. But here goes. I am in favour of devolving income tax to the Welsh Gov't - sharing the role with the UK Gov't 50-50. And I would go even further in that I would like to see this as a Conservative commitment in our 2015 manifesto - negating the need for a referendum if we form the next Gov't. I suppose readers (most of whom will disagree with me) are not going to become too exercised by this opinion though. Like me, they do not see much chance of it actually happening!

The reason I begin my post with such a provocative and controversial statement is that Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been in Wales today, talking about it. In his view there is a consensus in favour of transferring responsibility for 50% of income tax raising to Wales (Oh Yeah) - and he will not allow a Treasury response to the Silk Commission Part One Report which does not include these powers. Now this is very big talk indeed. I should remind those who do not share my interest (that's almost everyone else) in Welsh constitutional issues what 'Silk' is. The UK Gov't established a commission, chaired by Paul Silk to recommend how devolution funding arrangements should be changed to make the Welsh Gov't more fiscally accountable. Silk 'Part One' was delivered last year, and we are expecting to learn of the Treasury/Wales Office response 'soon'.  The Report made several recommendations, but the only one that would make a real difference would be to devolve income tax raising powers.

While I was not in favour of creating a National Assembly for Wales in the 1997 referendum, I accepted the Yes vote immediately, and ever since have believed it should have tax raising/varying powers. Made no sense otherwise. We had those powers when I chaired Berriew Community Council in the 1970s. At present all the Welsh Gov't does in allocate spending. Its not actually a Gov't at all in any real sense. Its a spending agency. Everything popular they say "We are great" and everything unpopular they say "the UK Gov't won't give us the money". No accountability. Needs to change. Welsh politics could really grow up then.

Where I am almost alone is believing there's no need for a referendum. I don't like referendums in principle. The proper way to govern is to inform voters of plans in a manifesto, and if elected act on them. If there's a coalition, both parties involved would have to have committed to devolving income tax raising powers. Problem is that if there is a referendum, voters will automatically assume that a Welsh Gov't will put up income tax, and they will vote no. Well, a future Welsh Gov't might vote to cut income tax. Huge amount of time and money wasted - and no financial accountability either. Anyway, it seems that Danny Alexander has decided it will go ahead! He will not allow anything less. Hmmm. Don't think he's been talking to the same people as me. Don't even think he'll have the Welsh Gov't onside, though could be wrong about this. Looking forward to seeing this response to 'Silk'. Its going to lead to some interesting debate at Westminster.

Inappropriate Use of the 'Thatcher' Name

The endorsement of Lady Thatcher, even in death (probably more so) is being claimed without always giving due regard to what the great lady actually believed. Perhaps the most glaring example I've noted so far have been claims in Parliament last Thurs. that Lady Thatcher would have been fully signed up to DECC's climate change policies. I'd thought she had reassessed her early opinions on this issue. It seems I was not the only only one taken aback by what seemed to be a misrepresentation of her views. Christopher Booker in today's Telegraph, has referred to Thurs's debate in Westminster Hall. He must have been listening in. Let me run through what happened - at least from my perspective.

Because of my opposition to the Mid Wales Connection Project (500-600 turbines, 100 mls of new power lines, 20 acre sub-station, several years of traffic constipation, etc.), I take an interest in climate change politics. So on Thursday afternoon I trundled along to Westminster Hall to listen the three hours of debate on future climate change policy, particularly in relation to how we can influence the politics of China. It was not wholly what I expected. Peter Lillie, MP really livened things up by rubbishing the whole thrust of DECC policy. Startling stuff. Peter is a 'forensic' and fearless speaker. Anyway, I had just gone along to listen. But Energy Minister, Greg Barker must have said something that grated a bit and I intervened to ask him (quite innocently) about the importance of taking account of the voice of the people. Must admit to be totally taken aback by his response.

Firstly it was all about leadership and not being concerned about being popular - in the way that Lady Thatcher would have acted. As if she saw and the Minister sees virtue in promoting unpopular policies. And this was the day after her funeral. In any case, my memory of Lady Thatcher was that she did listen to the people, and would have been more than happy to ignore the 'metroploliton elites' which care nothing and understand less about landscape and rural life. But he went on (and on) reciting what Lady Thatcher had said in the 1980's about climate change. Now I would have been saying much the same thing in the 1980s - but time does create opportunity for scales to fall from the eyes. Now Greg Barker must have known that Lady Thatcher had changed her views, and publicly recanted on what she thought in the 1980s. Its just not feasible that I knew, but that the Energy Minister didn't. But I thought it better to simmer quietly to myself rather than extend embarrassingly inappropriate debate. The comments are made all the worse by being used by several other like-minded politicians over recent days - suggesting the use of  Lady Thatcher's name to 'legitimise' DECC's policy stances is a deliberate calculated ploy.  Its probably best if I don't write down what I think of this behaviour. Anyway, I do hope that colleagues read Christopher Booker's piece today, and read the Hansard report of proceedings, before judging for themselves.

Blogs freedom saved & why Rolf Harris not named?

Don't think many visitors to this blog are much interested in post-Leveson 'free speech' discussion. But I am. Its seemed to me that there was no clarity about whether blogs should be subject to full impact of the new press regulation regime - which we can agree would be utterly ridiculous. So I asked a Parliamentary Written Question to find out. Took a few days, but when I received my Written Answer from Minister Ed Vaisey, it left us with more questions than answers. Its pointed reference to 'single bloggers' and 'sole bloggers' suggested that by allowing any 'guest' blogger this blog would indeed become subject to new press regulator.

So I asked a follow up Written Question last week seeking clarity on this point. What would be the position if I invited a 'guest' blogger to contribute. I guessed this question would cause a bit of trouble. I hope so - because it had just not been thought through. Anyway today, we learn that the Gov't is putting an amendment to the Bill before MPs on Monday that exempt blogs with less than a £2 million turnover and less than 10 employees from the regulations. This is a very big change. It means that a blog with a £1,999,999 turnover and employing 9 full-time employees will be exempt. So no problem for me. It probably does not even include Guido, which will really 'hack off' Hacked Off.

And there is another related point which someone will perhaps be able to help me on. The questioning of Rolf Harris in connection with Operation Yewtree. As soon as the police interviewed Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson etc., the names were all over the mainstream media. When Rolf Harris was similarly interviewed, he was coyly referred to as an 82 year old man from Berkshire (Yewtree 5). Am interested in why the difference. No odds to most visitors to this blog because I expect they also visit the Guido blog, where Rolf Harris has been openly named for months. Does it have any connection with new press regulation. It this a sign of a "chilling" impact on press freedom we can expect in future?

Pain and tragedy for our hill sheep farmers.

I left school to join my father on the family farm in 1960. Though I was academic by nature and enjoyed writing in particular, father was seriously ill, and it was what only sons did in those days. My main responsibility was caring for the dairy herd, while he recovered enough to manage the sheep flock. Unfortunately my father became ill again and after a few years he died in 1976, when I was 32 yrs old. By then I was a partner in the business, which is still called TE Davies and Son, and we had given up selling milk. Our herd of 60 cows was too small, and we decided to switch to a beef and sheep enterprise (plus chickens). Around the same time, I began involvement in public affairs. But I always gave priority to the farm business from late Feb-early May to take personal charge of the lambing/calving season. Very hard work but I loved it. If it wasn't for my colostomy, I would quite like to go back to it.  We had about 900 ewes and up to 125 suckler cows. And for all but about 5 yrs we lambed outside - and I always worked the night shift.

The above is all by way of context. I know what its like to look after sheep in rough weather. And it doesn't come much rougher than we've seen over the last few weeks. Except in the incredible winter of 1963, when it was much worse and much longer - but crucially the big slow and drifting was earlier in the winter. I've spent days digging sheep out of ten ft snow drifts - and having to give up on lots, just collecting the carcases after the thaw. Its whats been happening this year.

Over the last two weeks we have watched some heartbreaking scenes on our television screens. And I've talked to hill sheep farmers who are going through desperate times. Wondered what I should do - being an MP representing many farmers who have suffered great financial loss. Agriculture is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, and theoretically nothing to do with me. And I would have rather left it at that - except that some hill farmers from Montgomeryshire feel very let down by what they describe as the attitude of the Welsh Gov't Minister, whom they tell me has seemed very dismissive of the problems they face. Not making a political point, but its what I'm being told.

I just think I want to raise the issue at Westminster, even if it is devolved. I've asked Phill on our first day back after Easter (Monday) to put a bid to the Back Bench Business Committee for a debate on the impact of recent weather conditions on upland sheep farmers. It might not make much practical difference but I sense its important to show that MPs understand the scale of the disaster in the hills. Unfortunately there is no PMQs this week. I'm sure Mr Speaker would have allowed me to raise the issue. It will have to be week after next. And I will ask the Leader of the House on Thurs morn to programme an urgent debate. All I will want to do is make sure MPs understand what's happened. I could be the only MP who has experience of digging sheep out of ten foot snow drifts. I have also arranged an opportunity for any sheep farmers who want to let me know the scale of the disaster at Welshpool Livestock Market week Monday. I think their words will carry more resonance than my 50 yr old memories. Its been a hell of a tragedy, and its important that the nation knows of its scale and the pain its caused to our farmers.

Gov't Censorship of Blogs?

I have written before about uncertainty about how the new press regulator will affect blogs - such as my 'A View from Rural Wales'. So I tabled a Parliamentary Written Question to clarify matters. The Written Answer, with its specific reference to 'lone bloggers' and 'single person blogs' leaves me just as uncertain about what I can do. Seems to be the case that the might of British Government is passing legislation, in effect, banning me from allowing Huw Cookson and Daragh Quinn from writing a guest post which they have done in the past.  That's the trouble with censorship. Its like volcanic larva - destroys all in its path.


Written Question from Glyn Davies, MP for Montgomeryshire.

....under what circumstances the blog of an hon. Member would be subject to the provisions of the new press regulation system ?

Answer from Edward Vaisey, relevant Minister.

As Leveson recommended and in line with cross party agreement on on 18th March, the Gov't will be establishing a system of exemplary costs and damages to create an incentive for the press to take part in the new self regulatory system. The clauses being introduced in the Crime and Courts Bill are to give effect to this new system and include a definition of 'relevant publisher'; groups such as lone bloggers and tweeters would not be expected to join the self regulator. This means that single person blogs, such as the hon. Member's 'A View from Rural Wales' would not be effected.

The obvious follow up question (and one which I will ask is what the position is if I invite friends to contribute 'guest blogposts' as I have done in the past. The words, 'Dog and Breakfast' emerge quietly from my lips.

Great success for organ donation.

Regular readers of this blog will know of my total rejection of the idea that our organ donation system should be changed from one based on opting-in on the basis of 'informed consent' to one based on 'opting-out on the basis of 'presumed consent'. This implacable opposition is driven by study of evidence, and extensive discussion with experts, which informs us that such a change will produce no more donated organs. There are strong ethical grounds for opposition as well. I steer clear of this because in our increasingly secular society, ethical argument is a negative. Depressing I know - but the reality. What the Welsh Gov't intends to enact, shockingly supported by the BMA, is tragic, and will do nothing but harm. That a Welsh Gov't can behave in this way has damaged my faith in devolution.

But the point of this post is 'celebration' about the great increase in organ donation in the UK over the last five years that has been in the news today. The number of organs donated has increased by 50% - with particularly large increases in Scotland and N Ireland. There's been only a very disappointing increase in Wales. Perhaps the focus has been elsewhere. Whatever, we need to look back on what has happened.

Around 2005/6, then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, decided that his Gov't should develop a strategy to increase organ donation. He believed 'presumed consent' was the way forward, and established an Organ Donation Taskforce to prepare a major report (reports actually) - fully expecting a supportive recommendation. But the Taskforce, chaired by the outstanding Elizabeth Buggins, after careful detailed consideration. recommended against 'presumed consent'. It made lots of other recommendations as well, based on better identification of donors, improving co-ordination at hospitals, training of specialist donation nurses, improving care of donors, and increasing number of organs per donor. The target set was to increase number of donors by 50% over 5 years. To Gordon Brown's great credit, these recommendations were accepted. And its been a great success.

There remains a lot more to do. The demand is increasing - partly because improving surgical skills are making more organ transplantation possible. We need a massive 'education' drive, based on 'Tell your next of kin your wishes'. Just talk about it with the family one morning over the breakfast table. We have to bring the refusal rate by next of kin down, particularly amongst BME communities. My opinion is that we need to reach a position where every potential donor's next of kin in approached by a specialist nurse. Butfor today, lets just celebrate what's been achieved. A great British success story for organ donation.

Lady Thatcher RIP

I'll now be able to watch the film - having steadfastly refused to watch 'The Iron Lady' while Lady Thatcher lived. My tweet on hearing the news was "Like Denis Thatcher, I married an attractive Miss Roberts. My wife changed me. His wife transformed the world. Irresistable woman power". Because Lady Thatcher had reached the good age of 87yrs, and had been reported to be in poor health for a long time, I don't feel an emotional sense of sadness. Its more a question of acknowledging and celebrating the life of one of the world's greatest politicians of the 20th century.

She changed the Conservative Party. No longer to be the unconfident compromiser it had become. When Edward Heath's time as leader was up, it was only Margaret Thatcher who had the gonads to take him on. That was probably because she was an 'outsider' - not part of any political elite. At the time I expected Willie Whitelaw to become leader, and he probably would have done if he'd been equipped with Mrs T's ruthless streak. Instead he became her greatest support - and much admired for it. It was also quite a thing for the Conservative Party to elect a woman as its leader. Always been a party of surprises.

She changed Great Britain. Many of us think she saved it from a spiral of decline. I remember the 1970s, when most of us assumed we could not go on without compromising with the unions. Britain was an economic 'basket case'. Of all the transformative changes Mrs Thatcher drove through, her confrontation with and comprehensive defeat of trade union power was the most important. She was fortunate to have the strategically inept Arthur Scargill as her opponent - but it still needed steel and vision to succeed. She created a new generation of property owners by selling tenants their council houses. And she showed the world that Britain was not going to be walked on by retaking the Falkland Islands after the outrageous invasion by Argentina. Like many at the time I thought that was a very risky venture, and would have chickened out. No-one but 'The Iron Lady'. I recall having the radio with me in the garden every evening, listening for latest developments. Its easy to forget now, but when the Sheffield and Glamorgan were hit by Exocets, things were not looking good. Again she showed that she was the only one with the necessary gonads.  She showed us her "lion-hearted love for her country".

She also played a big part in changing the world. Through the personal relationships she developed with the hugely under-rated (in the UK at least)  Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, she helped defeat the dangerous Soviet communist threat to world peace and prosperity.  And that, above all else is why history will be very kind to Margaret Hilda Thatcher.

Mrs Thatcher was brought down by her own party - which used the EU as its weapon. But even here Mrs Thatcher was right. She was always supportive of an extended EU, bringing in a wide range of countries into a trading relationship - and more. But she suspected that France and Germany were intent on creating a federal Europe, diminishing the role of nation states. She was not supportive of that. She would have been a passionate opponent of the madness of the Euro, which will some day create serious conflict in Europe. Today, the people of Britain, in my opinion, share the view she had of the EU at the time that she was ousted. The truth is she never lost a General Election, and the brutality of her ousting continues to discomfort the Conservative Party today - though diminished by time.

There will be many who take a very different view from mine. It's simply is not possible to tear apart old orthodoxies and vested interests as she did, and not create enemies. And there were failures, notably the Community Charge. But the reality is that almost all of the changes she presided over have not been reversed by successive Gov'ts including 13 yrs of Labour dominance. She was one the four greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th Century - a truly great politician. Lady Thatcher RIP.

Mick Philpott. What's a Proper Reaction.

The case of Mick Philpott forces us to confront two very difficult issues- connected but also in my opinion quite separate. Firstly how on earth can a human being be quite as evil as Philpott. We read of such behaviour in different cultures, but not in Britain. The way in which he treated women was beyond imagination in the UK. He incarceration will be reviewed after a bit over 16 years. I tend to be on what Mrs D thinks of as the 'wimpy', second chance side of the rehabilitation debate, but Philpott is in a different league. Just hope he's never released and the key is lost. This is fairly straight forward.

The second issue is the system whereby the state pays for however many children irresponsible people bring into this world. Philpott and his women had 17 children between them. His 'lifestyle' was entirely paid for by the taxpayer. The way in which the two issues are connected is that it was greed for the benefit payments linked to the children that let Philpott to concoct his terrible plans - which led to the death of 6 of his children. The evil of the man is otherwise disconnected from the welfare issue, but the question of the degree to which the state pays for this sort of lifestyle and an unlimited number of children has been put on the agenda by this tragedy whether we think it should have been or not.

My wife and I have four children. It was a conscious decision to have four.  Then we decided it was enough and I had 'the chop'. Our four children were careful not to consider having children until they felt they were in a position to afford them. We have only two (and a half) grandchildren. We would have loved to have had more. At the same time we also see children being born to people who seem not to have taken the matter seriously, and depend completely on the state to pay for bringing them up. The question being asked by many is whether its right that the state should pay for the lifestyle of people like Philpott or for an unlimited number of children they have - expecting responsible people to pay for it all. So happens the only objections I've received to the £500 per week limit on benefits have been from very large families.

Several of my parliamentary colleagues have called for a limit on child benefits for just two children. I don't support this. Its not the children's fault. And with so many men and women having children in multiple relationships it would not be possible to operate such a limit easily or fairly. But there is going to be a debate. Personally I think there may be diminishing levels of support as the number of dependent children increase. Whatever, its to be very controversial.  But I'm not at all sure the British political system is capable of holding it. It might all be just too 'difficult'. The country may have to actually go bust first.

The Churches and the Welfare State

The BBC are really going big on a story about four churches attacking the Gov't over changes to the welfare state. The four are the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the United Reform Church and the Church of Scotland. The story is being sold as if its the four Church's Easter Message. I'm told the Guardian has also gone quite big on it. Surprisingly, I can find no mention of it in the Sunday Telegraph or the Mail on Sunday, which we take at home. Makes me suspect it was not an Easter message at all. In fact, the Guardian tells us that it was a report published by the Churches 'earlier this year'. It very much looks as if its been recycled by the BBC at Easter in an effort to give it greater impact. I suppose you could say it was re-making a story to pursue an agenda.

Whatever. Lets consider what the churches are supposed to have said. I cannot make much of it, except that they don't like references to benefit recipients in pejorative language. Well I'm with the churches on that. The single issue referred to is the limit on uprating benefits to 1% for the next three years. I accept this was a tough call by the Chancellor, but I cannot see that he has much choice. Since the Coalition Gov't came to power and set about reducing the deficit, public sector workers have received only 1% per year at best - and employees in the private sector have fared even worse. And last year, benefits were uprated by a whopping 5.2%. I cannot but feel some re-balancing was needed here - particularly since the squeeze on wages in both public and private sector is going to carry on for longer than we wanted or hoped. Others oppose this 1% limit as well, so I'm not criticising the Churches for their view - just disagreeing with it. But I bet the Churches are a bit miffed that this has been portrayed as the big Easter Message.

In general, the churches should think through their positions a bit more carefully. Their comments make no reference to the need to make savings. Do they not know about the appalling financial disaster the current Gov't inherited in 2010. Do they not think comments would be taken more seriously if they at least recognised that there is a deficit to be tackled. Do they not realise that the only countries where the welfare state has actually been cut back is where Gov'ts have lost control of the public finances. Nothing has caused more human tragedy than the way the welfare state was used by the last Labour Gov't to create a dependency culture - where young people are effectively written off while still at school. Reforming the welfare state into one that is a 'safety net' rather than a 'dependency trap' is perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Coalition Gov't. None of us are sure this reform can be pulled off. The Labour opposition I can understand - but you really would have thought the churches would have wanted to help.

Mathew Parris 10 Questions in Today's Times

Mathew Parris has written an interesting article in today's Times. Interesting to me anyway. Its based on telephone interviews he conducted last week with 30 Conservative MPs in marginal seats. He promised that none of what he'd write would be attributable. I wasn't bothered about that. I can't see the point of being an MP unless you can say what you think - within limits. After all, I did before being elected so why stop now. All the whips really care about is that you don't vote against the Gov't. So I thought I'd share with you what I said to Mathew about the 10 issues he raised when we had our little chat.

Q1 - Immigration. The Coalition Gov't has it about right. I dislike the anti-immigration rhetoric that is rife at the moment. But I do think we need more control. We promised to bring levels of immigration down and its reasonable to expect delivery on the promise. Immigrants in the UK illegally should be sent home. But we need to welcome able students and workers from developing nations - India/China in particular.

Q2 - Euro referendum. I support the 2017 date for an In/out referendum. Its what the Prime Minister has promised. He should stick to it.

Q3 - I am not willing to sign up to voting for withdrawal from the EU at present - though I do not rule it out come the referendum in 2017. I may well vote for 'Out' when the time comes. What on earth is the point of entering into any sort of negotiation if a decision has already been made.

Q4 - Human Rights. I am not yet signed up to withdrawal from the European Convention, and not yet in favour of scrapping the Human Rights Act either. But I am heartily sick of the way some judges are interpreting (and undermining) the human rights legislation. Before withdrawal from Human Rights act, we should try simply ignoring the most outrageous decisions. Wouldn't rule out withdrawing altogether though.

Q5 - Taxation. I do not support significant tax cuts before the next election. Would look and be irresponsible. However I do support tax cuts that do not cost the Treasury much - which is why I fully supported the top rate decrease. Personally would have favoured returning to 40p, the rate Labour held top rate at for the 13 yrs they were in power. If there is any scope for cuts, I'd like to see us take all on minimum wage earners out of tax altogether.

Q6 - Welfare. I accept there must be a continued focus on controlling the welfare budget, but it is unrealistic to speak of significant cuts in welfare budget. Its just not going to happen, and we shouldn't pretend it is.

Q7 - NHS Reform. I sense that we have seen enough structural reform until next election - and maybe the one after that. I don't much care about whether providers are public sector or private sector, as long as focus in on care of the patient. No way can we cut the NHS budget but we do need to bring social care and healthcare closer together.

Q8 - I support the UK Gov't standing by our international obligations on foreign aid.

Q9 - Gay Marriage. I was and remain implacably opposed to changing the meaning of the word, 'Marriage'. I thought it was a seriously bad proposal. But it would not be sensible for the Prime Minister to change his position. It would just not be credible - much as I would like it. I would very much like to see the legislation  defeated in the House of Lords though.

Q10 - David Cameron. Mathew asked whether 'on balance' ...etc.  I was the MP who said "Not just 'On balance' but David Cameron is by far and away our strongest card". I know there are some who cannot take his privileged background, but this comprehensive school educated hill sheep farmer could not care less about background. I know a 'class act' when I see one.  And DC is a class act.

For the record, Mathew did not ask about onshore wind, which in my view is Ukip's strongest card by a mile,and will do the Conservative Party real damage in rural constituencies come the next election.

UK Energy policy killing huge numers of elderly people

That Fraser Nelson who edits the Spectator is a very sharp fellow. Talks a lot of common sense. And none more than his major article in today's Telegraph. "Its the cold, not global warming we should be worried about". Its always been my opinion. Yes, I do think its been sensible for British Gov'ts to adopt policy positions that take account of carbon impact, but it has always seemed 'barking'  to me to adopt policies which would have the effect of killing huge numbers of our fellow citizens, and export millions of jobs, and destroy our finest landscapes - just so that we can feel some sort of weird environmental 'holiness'. I know there's a strata of people who think themselves intellectually superior to Christopher Booker and his type. I see it all the time in the House of Commons when I start to rant about wind farms - being so outraged by what's happening that I find it very difficult to stay calm. I think of it as the 'DECC sneer'. Anyway its great to have more top class respected commentators coming onside as well.

The theme of Fraser's piece today is the number of elderly people who are killed by the crazy policy of driving up the cost of energy (just to make renewables competitive). Over recent weeks the entire nation has been rightly outraged by the failing of the NHS in Mid Staffs. Perhaps over 1000 died as a result of poor care. Shocking. Disgraceful. Must never happen again, etc.. But much worse than Mid Staffs happens every year as a consequence of DECC policies. Fraser tells us that last winter, over 24,000 vulnerable people died of 'cold-related illnesses' - and that was a mild winter. I dread to think how many old people will have died this last week. A and Es are full to bursting all over the country, as people succumb to cold related illnesses. And still politicians, National Grid and wind farm developers plan to desecrate mid Wales with more wind farms, trampling over local people, leading to more and more people dying a cold and lonely death as they face the choice between eating and heating. The 'environmental' taxes should be renamed the 'fuel poverty taxes'.

And on the international plane, the UK's carbon saving is virtually insignificant. Coal fired power stations are being built by their hundreds every day. When I think of what British Gov'ts could have achieved in terms of insulation of homes if the billions that have been raided from consumers by the energy companies in 'environmetal' taxes had been ploughed into home insulation instead, I wonder what sort of a mentality could have developed such lunatic policies. There's no doubt that the scales are falling from the eyes of more and more people about the appalling waste of money, and waste of lives that must be laid at the feet of DECC and the energy companies. One day soon, the utter disgrace about what is happening will become a dominating issue. It cannot come soon enough.

Today's Mini Reshuffle ? - OK Maybe

Now, what are we supposed to make of the changes David Cameron's has made to his Gov't today. Because I was otherwise engaged for most of today, didn't pick up on the story til well into the afternoon - and have  not had the chance to chew it over with colleagues at all. So this is me just think aloud. Will not be able to come to a firm opinion until we're back after Easter.

Initial feeling was one of disappointment. John Hayes has injected a healthy dose of common sense into the Dep't of Energy and Climate Change in the short time he's been there. So first reaction was one of despair - big setback in our hopes to save mid-Wales from the worst excesses of DECC. It has always seemed to me that any employee and Minister walking through the door of DECC, loses  capacity to listen to anyone but those sharing the Dep't's own religious fanaticism. All answers are designed to obfuscate rather than explain. Nothing must stand in the way of their desire to destroy the countryside with wind turbines and pylons. Nothing must ever be said that could cause the slightest offence to foreign energy companies, the leviathon subsidy junkies, who grow ever fatter and greedier at the expense of consumers. In mid Wales DECC is looking down on one of the greatest scandals of Gov't trampling over the people in modern times - and averting its eyes.

But wait a sec. John Hayes is now around the Cabinet table, working in No 10. And he is not the sort of man to just move on and forget the terrible things he was trying to stop while he was at DECC. And his default position is to 'listen'. And Michael Fallon is not the sort of man to fall easily for the DECC disease either. Michael has great knowledge of Treasury issues, and of business costs. He's not going to hoodwinked by the 'reverse Robin Hood' policies of DECC. He might not be as flamboyant and as blunt speaking as John Hayes, but I would expect him to be cut from the same cloth. I think we have seen two men in touch with the grass roots of the British people being promoted into positions of real influence. For those of us who are committed to resisting the desecration of Mid Wales, perhaps today's changes have not been such bad news at all.

The West Lothian Question

Ever since Ireland was granted a degree of self determination in Gladstone's time, constitutional academics have been considering how such arrangements should be legislated for.This consideration grew in public discourse when devolution was being considered in the late 1970s. The issue was best encapsulated in a question put in the House of Commons by Tam Dalyell, MP for West Lothian.  He wanted to know;

"How long will English constituencies and English hon. members tolerate hon. members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important decisive effect on English politics, while they have no say on the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" One would have expected this to be known as 'The English Question'. But in his response to Tam Dalyell, the great Enoch Powell suggested it should be known as 'The West Lothian Question'. And that is indeed what it is known as.

It was rather a good question, which over the years I've though about quite a bit - and my view has always been that its one of those questions which should not be answered. There is no doubt that the current position is a constitutional anomaly. But my opinion is that all the possible answers to the West Lothian Question create new constitutional anomalies - like flattening a bump in a water bed. The recently published McKay Commission report has just offered another one - equally flawed. Though if I put my partisan hat on I can see some real attractions to this one.

Lets consider some of the various answers. First up an 'English Parliament'. Now do we really need to create another 'parliament'? Is this what the people of Britain want? I have heard it suggested that current MPs sitting for English seats could meet as an 'English Parliament' each Friday at the House of Commons. Well, I would not want these English MPs deciding on health and transport policies in Shropshire without my being there, or air transport policy just because the actual airports are in England. Increasingly specialist services are going to be in England.  Lots of mid Wales services are in Shropshire. Some form of an English Parliament is supported by those who want a 'federal' UK. Personally I do not thing a 'federal system is sustainable when one of the 'federal partners' is around 85% of the whole. Think Cyprus and the Eurozone!! Many sensible people like this idea. I don't.

So what about 'English votes for English laws'. Personally I think this is rather better, but would be horrendously complex and difficult to operate. Every bill would have aspects which affected England only. House of Commons would be like a non-stop Hokey Kokey. But this would be good for job creation - the million civil servants needed to make it work.  This is not for me either - unless we unwisely decide 'Something must be done'.

So what about cutting back on the number of MPs representing the devolved nations. A few like this idea. It was proposed by Michael Howard when he led the Conservatives. The idea was (at the time) that if law making powers were not granted to Cardiff Bay the reduction would be to 33 MPs rather than 40 (pro rata the comparative populations), and if law making powers were granted (as they were by the 2006 Act) the number would be 26 MPs. Not sure there would be many takers for this. Just imaging all those hour long Chris Bryant speeches. God save us.

Of course we could just make the four nations 'independent' or scrap devolution altogether. While there would be a quite a few takers for both of these options, they are just not going to happen  - anytime soon anyway. So we must consider what the McKay Commission is suggesting. I have not read the report yet (depending on media coverage only) so cannot make too firm a conclusion. But I cannot see the idea of English MPs having a veto on UK legislation (which affects only England) if there is no majority of 'English' MPs in support.  I can see some attractions for the Tories here because of our relative strength in England. But we would still be the almost impossible position of identifying which bills (and clauses of bills) would qualify..... This game of possibilities could go on for ever!

Just One True Cost of Welsh Organ Donation Change

The Welsh Government continues to press on with its misguided proposal to change the organ donation system in Wales from one based on opting-in to one based on opting-out. This action is causing real distress in the Dep't of Health, and amongst all the people involved in the donation system that I have discussed it with. It will cause great damage to the integrity of the National Assembly for Wales itself. It leaves me and people who agree with me about this issue wanting to reverse devolution of health back to Westminster! This policy is going to go badly wrong and its very vulnerable people who will be paying the price.

Lets look at just one aspect of this in this post. Fundamental to the policy change is that everyone in Wales is required to know about it for it to be legal. So must everybody who moves into Wales. The requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights is that individuals are fully aware of the need to consent or object, and be fully aware of the consequences. The people of Britain know that we have an opt-in system. Over the decades, billions have gone into promoting it. The cost of instilling knowledge of the change into the population of Wales (as well as those moving into Wales) is in my view unachievable, and it is one I believe the Assembly Gov't has seriously underestimated.

In a recent Assembly Health Committee Meeting, Ministers were questioned about the mere £2.9 million pounds sidelined to implement this policy. This is peanuts - and very small peanuts at that. The previous Assembly Health Minister, Lesley Griffiths, the Minister has claimed that the figure is appropriate and that the she reached that conclusion based on the campaign to raise the awareness of the smoking ban. These are completely different issues. The smoking ban attracted national media attention, was discussed in every pub and club, on every shop floor and at every dinner table. The change to organ donation is a subtle and complex change to a law covering a highly emotive subject that will undoubtedly leave many in our communities with no idea what the law is. What really bothers me is that I really don't think the Assembly Gov't cares. It just wants to push the law through - to hell with the consequences. Never felt more disappointed that I lost my seat in the Assembly. Rosemary Butler would have her work cut out controlling me when ever this issue cropped up.

£2.9 million pounds will fail miserably to inform the population of Wales of this important change - won't even scratch the surface. Done a few sums of my own to demonstrate lack of realism. Recently ITV ran a brilliant week long campaign ‘Heart to heart’ to promote organ donation. It resulted in around 120,000 people signing up to the opt-in register - a fantastic achievement. I asked ITV how much it would’ve cost to produce and broadcast the campaign - what was the value of the promotion. Answer was, without exaggeration, ‘you simply cannot put a cost on it’. But I have tried - on the basis that a 30 second advert at prime-time costs £51,000. A two hour programme at this rate would cost almost £12.5 million - though I suppose there might be a quantity discount.. In addition to the two hour programme, there were dozens of national news bulletins, features on Daybreak, on This Morning, on Loose Women and a 30 minute programme focusing on organ donation for viewers in Wales. We're talking £100 million plus - which tells me the cost of an effective campaign is completely unachievable
.
One problem those of us who oppose this misguided change is that the Welsh Gov't has invested heavily in it politically. They cannot back down. They will be looking for ways to justify what they are doing. One hope is that a new Health Minister has been appointed, Mark Drakeford, who I'm told is a very sharp cookie. I know he's been receiving evidence about issues like the shocking disinformation that was included in the consultation document. I was copied in. If he's as good as I'm told he is, he might just find a way of stopping the madness before it goes further. I really do hope so.

Spare Room Subsidy/Bedroom Tax

Perhaps the most contentious policy I've ever blogged on - but feel it should be done. Can't be ducked. Its taken me a while to feel completely comfortable backing this Government policy myself. The issue is changes to housing benefit, where there is some dispute about terminology. One man's ‘spare room subsidy’ is another man's ‘bedroom tax’. The gist of the change is that Housing Benefit will no longer be paid for bedrooms that are considered to be surplus to needs. But its not straightforward and I'll not pretend it is. I support the change - but I expect as many readers to disagree as agree.

Let me begin by setting out the context. Firstly, The incoming Gov't in 2010 faced a position where the outgoing Gov't had spent £150billion (that's £150,000,000,000) more in the previous year than it had coming in. There is not the slightest chance that Labour would not have been forced into making the same level of reductions in spending as the Coalition. And there are but two areas of major spending where these reductions could reasonably have been made - public sector pay and welfare (in a broad sense). Its highly questionable that enough reduction has yet been made. At current spending levels, the implications for future generations is horrific.

 Secondly private sector tenants are already subject to similar legislation. The previous Gov't introduced a 'local housing allowance scheme' which meant no Housing Benefit would be available for private sector tenants. At the time there was a huge hoohah about evictions etc - which simply did not happen. There are over one million private sector tenants on housing benefit. Why is it 'fair' for tenants in the private sector, but not in the public sector?

And thirdly, what about the 250,000 households living in seriously overcrowded conditions - and the hundreds of thousands who are waiting for a home, and do not have a bedroom at all!  Can this be fair when one third of working-age social housing tenants on Housing Benefit are in accommodation that is bigger than that which they actually need. There are nearly a million spare bedrooms, supported by the tax payer to the tune of £500 million per year. The main purpose of the change is to make more efficient use of our social housing stock.

The principles on which this change is based is entirely logical. Polling also shows that in general the public support the change - which is probably the reason behind some Labour spokespersons letting it be known that they are no longer opposed to the principle - and now fully support efficient use of social housing. Despite this, they still shout about the 'Bedroom Tax' at every opportunity, knowing that the reality is too complex for the media to report.

 But as so often with a change of policy, there are difficulties at the 'individual' level. There are 'hard cases'. Always are. Which is why the legislation allows for 'exceptions'. It must, and always has excluded tenants who would find the change unacceptably difficult. The tactics of the 'Opposition' has spread great fear amongst tenants. Money is being given to local authorities so that they can help people on a case-by-case basis. I was particularly disgusted by the fears caused to foster families, which became so bad that the Gov't decided to make specific reference to them in the Bill.  Some other 'exceptions' to the policy include disabled people requiring a non-resident overnight carer, as will pensioners and those in supported ‘exempt’ accommodation. Other exemptions allow a spare room where a child’s disability means they cannot share a bedroom. and will allow armed forces personnel to keep their bedrooms within their parent’s home when they are deployed on operations.

The new policy works so that each person (or couple) is allocated a bedroom. Only children under 16 of the same gender will have to share or children younger than 10 regardless of their gender. The reduction for having one spare bedroom will be 14% of the Housing Benefit, or 25% for two or more spare bedrooms. The coalition has calculated that the average reduction will be £14 per week - £2 per day.

This change is based on the principle of fairness. Fairness to those in overcrowded homes, fairness to those in the private rented sector who cannot have a spare bedroom under the current rules, and fairness to the taxpayer. As usual there are plenty of myths circulating these changes, many of which are completely unfounded. Of course, when policy makers initiate reform, they accept there will be tweaks to make before the reforms are introduced. Coalition Government is listening to the genuine concerns that have been expressed by we, MPs as well as the public. We are doing all we can seeking to make this reform one that is fair and workable. Its not a reform that MPs want to do, but Coalition MPs believe we have no choice.

My Take on Six Nations.

Well that's it for another winter. The Six Nations over. What did we make of it. Lets run through the teams in the order they finished in the championship.

Wales. Terrible start. At half-time in the first game against Ireland, no-one sane would have bet on Wlaes winning. But they improved each game and played some smart rugby to beat France, Italy and Scotland. And today, under the closed roof of the Millennium Stadium produced the best team performance by a Welsh team I have ever seen. I cannot name a single player who started who should not be on the Lions tour. And Wales had the player of the tournament in Leigh Halfpenny. To beat England 30-3 was beyond every Welshman's dreams. Cannot name any others because they were all brilliant today.

England. Good tournament, but as always became caught up in the overblown hype whenever its England. They looked a good solid but inexperienced team which will get better. Today they were up against a class team right on their game - and the English boys were just not good enough. Even today they played well enough in the first half, showing some great defence - but were tsunamied in the second half. The ridiculous over expectation piled on Tuilagi's shoulders was exposed. But he may well make a great player - as may Barritt and the two second rows. Also think Farrell will turn out OK. I think these five should go on the Lions tour. Plus Dan Cole and Robshaw.

Scotland. Not great, but we weren't expecting much. Stole victory against Ireland. Did well against Italy and did really well to come third. Cannot see many Scots going on tour. Had really fancied Hogg until today, and would take still take him. But Gatland will have several options at full back. No stand out players but a few who would not let Lions down.

Italy. Great tournament. They have the second best player in the tournament (and he would probably be best player if with another team. Parisse is a wonderful player, whom I never tire of watching. But Italy now are more than a one man team. Masi, Canale and others are good solid players. A trip to Rome has become a very tough fixture.

Ireland. Deeply disappointing tournament. Very unlucky with injuries but will have to recruit a new coach to regroup and rebuild. Felt really sad to see Brian O'Driscoll failing to make an impact, and being reduced to a sly stamp today which earned a yellow card - especially after his great play in the first 50 minutes against Wales. I would still take him on tour though, and Kearney. Sexton, Heaslip, and Tommy Bowe if fit. Expect Ireland to be back as a threat next year, but its been a tournament to forget. Still produced the best moment of the Six Nations when Zebo flicked the ball up with his foot into his hands to score against Wales.

France. What an incredible disaster of a season for a team bursting with natural talent. Less said the better - with just a mention for Picamoles, Huget and Fofana. And perhaps Bastereaud who was my man of the match against the Scots today.

Anyway, that's my take. Any other views welcome.

Statutory State Regulation of the Press - Strike against Democracy

Have to admit David Cameron's decision to bring cross party talks on Lord Leveson's proposals to statutorily regulate the press to an end took me by surprise. I had expected an agreement based on Royal Charter. I am hugely disappointed no agreement has proved to be possible, but I am pleased that we are going to put this taxic issue to bed on Monday. Personally, I do not support statutory regulation - no matter how its dressed up. It crosses a Rubicon for me. No matter how appallingly the press has behaved, (and some of it has) the answer is to come down ruthlessly when the law is broken, not to pass new laws designed to regulate it. So while Monday's debate and vote may be difficult for some, it will not be so for me. I know exactly which way I will vote.

Now I know lots of people will disagree with me over this - which discomforts me. They genuinely believe the press should be brought to heel by state regulation. I understand how angry those whose mobiles were hacked feel. They were treated appallingly - and the guilty should feel the full force of the law. I've had my fair share of what I thought to be very unfair coverage in the press over the years. Damn near broke me once. But in the end I just took it and said nothing. Life moves on. And its not that I have any sympathy at all for the press (in general anyway). It's unacceptable behaviour has brought this situation about. But responding by using the law to regulate the press is undermining what makes the UK a free and open society. I cannot vote for it.

Its clear that the Labour Party and our Coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats want new legislation as recommended by Lord Leveson. I did not, do not and it seems that David Cameron doesn't either. He knows its wrong and he knows he will take some stick - but he also knows he's doing what he believes to be right. This is how a Prime Minister should behave. So lets be done with this poisonous issue. Its been hanging over our democracy like a black rancid cloud for too long. If a majority of MPs want to back state regulation of the press, they must vote for it - and if they are in a majority, so be it. Let the evil deed be done, and we can move on to other things. I'm pleased that David Cameron has said (I think) that should he ever control a majority in Parliament he would reverse it - but once we are on the road to state regulation it will be damningly difficult to get off. It does strike me as rather sad that great political parties which have played a proud role in how our democracy has developed, underpinned by a free and sometimes unruly press, are contemplating bringing an end to press freedom as we know it. Thank God for the Internet.

Let 6th formers learn about Organ Donation

Have attached my name to a Motion to bring in a Bill called 'Blood, Organ and Bone Marrow Donation (Education)'.  The motion is Seema Malhotra's, a new and talented Labour MP.  I was pleased that Seema asked me to become involved. Its always better if Private Member's Bills have cross-party support.  The reality is that this bill is unlikely to become law, but it enables Seema (and me) to raise awareness of a an issue that is important to both of us.

As regular visitors to this blog will know, promoting organ donation is one of my many obsessions. I want Gov'ts to encourage more people to donate their organs. The key to increasing organ donation is to encourage everyone to tell their next of kin of their support - which is a far more effective way of improving organ donation than the misguided plans of the Welsh Gov't to change the donation system in Wales to one based on opting out rather than opting in - a dreadful mistake in my opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever that this change will improve the position - and there's fear at the Dep't of Health that it will do real harm. What would make a difference is educating people during school years ensuring that organ donation is a part of life that we all understand and appreciate - and that its important their next of kin knows their wishes. 

But back to the Seema's motion.  Its purpose is to establish a duty on schools and colleges to educate pupils aged 16 and over about organ donation. Great example of how we should be integrating health and education.  Meeting the demand for donations can be tackled by educating young people about how they can save a life.  Most of us are potential donors but most of us just don't turn our attention to organ donation while we are fit and well. In circumstances where donation is an option, next of kin will be better prepared to deal with what will be a traumatic situation - and thus more willing to agree to donation.
An opt-in system allows next of kin to refuse to allow organs to be donated.  But there is overwhelming evidence that education and forethought provide the crucial difference between the next of kin of a potential donor agreeing.  ITV's hugely successful 'From the Heart Campaign' that ran for a week over Valentine's resulted in a surge of 120,000 people joining the organ donor register, primary evidence of the value of raising awareness.

As a society we are poor about discussing difficult issues. There is nothing more difficult than our own death!  I am planning to write to local schools and sixth forms in Montgomeryshire and raise the possibility of holding debates/discussions on this issue. Let us build on the magnificent initiative of ITV.

Tories should look more kindly on Lib Dems.

Its probably because my experience of Lib Dems at a personal level is positive that I was comfortable with the idea of a Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition being formed in 2010. I had great respect for two of my predecessors as Montgomeryshire MPs, who were also good friends - the late Lord (Emlyn) Hooson and Lord (Alex) Carlile. I always took notice of what Emlyn said, and I still talk through some issues with Alex before settling on an opinion. More controversially, it seems I'm one of the few who have some admiration for Nick Clegg. Like David Cameron, he has a very difficult hand to play. They've both shown the skill and tenacity needed to herd cats and nail jelly to the wall at the same time. So it will come as no surprise that I'm not overly aghast at the thought of another coalition post 2015.

Of course I would prefer that my Conservative Party come cruising home as runaway winners in the next election. Even though there are over two years to go until the election, the polls are not offering much encouragement that this happy conclusion will come to pass. It inevitably leads to tentative consideration about whom we might climb into bed with come May 2015. There seem to be two possible candidates, Ukip and the Lib Dems - though we do not know whether Ukip's popularity will carry through to 2015 in sufficient strength to win seats. My instinct tells me that Ukip's surge will last until mid 2014, but fall back after that. We will have to wait and see about that. Anyway, this same instinct is telling me that the Lib Dems will remain a force in the House of Commons, and if my party fails to win an overall majority, will be the only potential partner. The choice again will be do we soldier on as a minority Gov't or enter coalition. In those circumstances I'd support giving it another go.

Of course the next two years are not going to be easy. Nick Clegg will have to show a lot of yellow stocking to his fractious party, some of whom have not come to terms with the responsibility that comes with governing. And David Cameron will have to show some blue stocking to his troops, some of whom do not know what playing for the team means. And on both sides there are 'players' positioning themselves in preparation for the event of defeat. And there's the tearoom tittle-tattle that keeps the keyboards of James Forsyth and Tim Montgomerie in business. But so far the Coalition has delivered more than could have been expected. The Lib Dems signed up to big cheques in the Coalition Agreement. And they are still signing cheques. Last week it was 'secret courts'. Danny Alexander, David Laws, Steve Webb (in particular) - and Vince Cable is much more sound than he would have us think. My message to my colleagues is to look at the price the Lib Dems have paid and think about the alternatives - pre 2015 and after 2015.

Early Call for the Lions Team

Still a bit early to settle on the Lions team, but here's my assessment of what Warren Gatland will be thinking about as we approach the run-in to final selection. Inevitably there's a bit of Welsh bias in my selection, even if I've tried to avoid it. But I have picked seven Welshmen. The next two games could change that.

Prop - Gethin Jenkins. Back to form now he's back to playing. Needs to be back in the UK.
Prop - Adam Jones. Still the best in my book.
Hooker - Rory Best. Obvious choice.
Second Row - Geoff Parling.
Second Row - Alun Wyn Jones, though he needs two good games to tell us he's really back to form.
Blind side - Tom Croft, just ahead of Sean O'Brien. Both will step aside if a fully fit Dan Lydiate returns.
No 8 - Toby Faletau.
Scrum Half - Mike Phillips.
Stand Off - Johnny Sexton - after Farrell's petulant display against France.
Inside Centre - Brad Barritt. I really like him. Not flash. Just very good.
Outside Centre - Brian O'Driscoll. Controversial call this. No complaint if Tuilagi's picked.
Wing - Tommy Bowe. Brilliant and just hope he's back in time.
Wing- George North. Very Special player.
Full Back - Leigh Halfpenny. Obvious choice and goalkicker.

There are a few others who could be selected without dispute from me - and I have assumed some anticipated form improvement over the last two rounds. Here's my respected alternatives who will make the tour - Dan Cole, Tom Youngs, Richie Gray, Joe Launchbury, Johnnie Beattie, Jamie Heaslip, Justin Tipuric, Sam Warburton, Ryan Jones (Captain of mid week side), Ben Youngs, Owen Farrell. Manu Tuilagi, Jamie Roberts, Jonathon Davies, Stuart Hogg.

Reflecting on Eastleigh

Been too busy to think much about the Eastleigh by-election result until now - even though I've done a few interviews on the subject, and am on Radio Wales soon after 8.00 in the morning. I do not believe it is a game changing result - even if it's quite interesting. Ironically, I reckon a Conservative victory would have been much more destabilising for the Coalition. But I did not like being 3rd. In a few days time, the by-election will be forgotten. But I do not want to forget about it. I hope we learn from it.

It was a bad night for all the three mainstream parties - even if less obviously so for the Lib Dems. It is frankly ridiculous of Nick Clegg to describe the Lib Dem success as a "stunning" victory. The Lib Dems lost half their vote! But at least they did had a victory to console them. The Conservatives didn't. We lost a big chunk of our vote as well. The result was big-time disappointing. It was also pretty disastrous for Labour, which made no progress at all despite unpopular decisions having to be taken by the Coalition and favourable mid-Parliament polls.

The big winners were Ukip, and the "stuff the lot of you party". My view is that if the campaign had lasted another week, Ukip may well have won. If Nigel Farage had had the gonads to stand, Ukip might have won. Whatever it was a very good night for Ukip. We do not know how long this success is going to last, but I simply do not think it is much to do with Ukip policies. Have no doubt that its in part a 'protest vote - despite what Ukip says. Ukip is not seen as a serious governing party and offers a convenient way for voters to express unhappiness and displeasure. This is not to suggest I don't take the Ukip threat seriously. Where mainstream parties lose the confidence of the voters, non serious parties take over the space. The recent Italian elections inform us of what can happen - and it could happen in Britain.

Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that voters do not think they are being listened to. Its not just that the Government does things the voters disagree with. That's always been the case. Its just that it sometimes seems to me that voter's opinions are dismissed out of hand. In Montgomeryshire, we see this with the wind farm debate. The majority of voters are utterly incensed by the Gov'ts intentions (both at Westminster and Cardiff Bay) to destroy our landscape with many hundreds of pylons and turbines. We have tried everything to try to get a hearing. But every word coming out of the Welsh Gov't and DECC equates to "Dear Voters - Get Stuffed." Its like shouting in the middle of the Sahara. The voter's message from Eastliegh is "Please listen to us. Give us  hearing. Don't talk down to us. Use language we can understand." Oh how I'd like to think the Eastliegh election result could be a turning point - inspiring us to grab a victory out of the jaws of defeat.