A view from Rural Wales

I was none too impressed by the arguments put forward by the two combatants in today's Politics Show, Rachel Banner and Nerys Evans. Rachel was outlining the case for a No vote in the forthcoming referendum on law making powers for the the National Assembly, and Nerys was making the case for a Yes vote. It wasn't Ciaran's fault. He was asking the right questions. Seemed to me that both of them were basing their arguments on very shaky ground. Bit depressing if this is to be a taster for the sort of arguments that will be used in the campaign.

Rachel first. She seemed to be implying that AMs are in support of extra power because it will lead to an increase in an AM's salary. I'm not at all sure this is true. In May 2007, an AM's salary increased by 8.3% because the power to make laws was granted in the 2006 Government of Wales Act. Its just that it has barely happened. Since the process of power transfer under the system that has applied since then has been so slow, it could be argued that AMs have been overpaid over the last two years! Whatever, the basis on which an AM's salary is calculated after a successful referendum will not necessarily change much. I can see that it will play well to people's current perception of politician's avarice, but it's falseness makes it a rather vulgar argument.

Nerys' turn next. She was trying to describe the change proposed in the referendum as a "tidying up exercise". That is not going to wash. Admittedly, the big principled change was made with the 2006 Act. But that has been a failure - despite what some MPs try to claim for it. But its still a big change. We've heard this phrase "Tidying up exercise" before, and it looked decidedly dodgy last time. If the Yes camp run with this, they will look dishonest, and may lose. I do think that we will have a referendum in the Autumn, and I hope the two sides come up with something rather better than we saw today.

Dominating today's Wales on Sunday are two stories. Front page headline reads"What were you thinking - Moment of Madness". Not sure which of the central characters this applied to - Alun Wyn Jones or Montgomeryshire's Assembly Member, Mick Bates. Photographs of both men, and then the line 'Politician apologises for night on the tiles he can't remember'. Now, getting splattered is not against the law (even if it is a little unwise), especially with a new hip - so I was sort of entertained by what I was reading. But the biggest headline of all screamed out "AM in 'Drunken Abuse' shame" - Matt Withers' first paragraphs read "An Assembly Mmeber is being investigated over allegations of abusive behaviour towards hospital staff". After reading that, I realised that this was not an entertaining matter at all - and I bet Nick Clegg and Kirsty Williams don't think so either. The BBC have also waded into the story.

Because Mick represents Montgomeryshire, it was no surprise to me that I received calls from the media to comment. I wasn't that keen. But Matt had dug out a quote from me a few years ago where I said "Since he arrived here, Mick Bates has treated the National Assembly as an entertainment centre". At the time I was dismissed as a 'fuddy-duddy'. I think that was after Mick turned up in the Debating Chamber in a Santa suit - to promote the Newtown Santa Run. Great cause, but I did think it demeaned the National Assembly. Mick's most notorious trick was to give the Presiding Officer 'the finger' in the Debating Chamber. Unfortunately it was caught on YouTube. Must admit that I was highly amused by Mick's 'explanation' at the time. He said that he "was showing Rhodri Glyn Thomas which finger he should use to operate the Assembly's modern push button voting system".

What this could really be about is the hot competition for the Wales on Sunday's annual 'Buffoon of the Year Title'. Mick had won this for several years in succession, and we were all stunned last year when the afore-mentioned Rhodri Glyn Thomas usurped him, courtesy of an incident with a cigar. It was a bigger shock than Phil Taylor losing a darts match. It could be that Mick wants the title back this year so that he can retire undefeated in 2011.

Never let it be said that this blog is less than fair. I'm in agreement with Kirsty Williams about this. Lets find out exactly what happened before we throw stones. And anyway, there's a bit of me that wants to support a fellow-Montgomeryshire man in trouble.

Yesterday, we learned that 3 Members of Parliament and a member of the House of Lords are to face criminal charges for claiming expenses to which they were not due. We were also told that a majority of MPs have been asked to repay some of the expenses that they had previously claimed. I suspect that many of these over-claims were innocent mistakes. I also suspect that many other not so 'innocent' mistakes, or claims which the voters would think outrageous were not included in Sir Thomas Legg's report. What I think of all this is of little consequence, but what is of consequence is that the people of Britain find it outrageous and shameful. Since that first day when the Telegraph began its exposure of what had been going on, the people have grown ever more incredulous. They would have been entitled to think that it could not get any worse. Well, today it did.

Unbelievably, we learned today that the three MPs who have been charged with committing a criminal offence are trying to claim 'Parliamentary privilege' to avoid prosecution. Apparently, this 'privilege' dates back to 1689. They are claiming that their election as Members of Parliament granted them the legal right to steal money from the state (allegedly), and to cheat the state (allegedly) without fear of criminal sanction. Its sounds unreal, but it's not - and its happening in Britain today.

What a tragedy it is that a General Election was not called last year. For almost a year, the UK has suffered under the yoke of a stinking rotten parliament. The reputation of politicians, guilty and innocent has been trashed, and will be further trashed by today's extraordinary developments. And nothing will change (nor should it) until a General Election is held. The people must have their say. We're not in a position to find anyone guilty of a criminal offence, and have to await the judgement of the courts before doing so. But we can judge MPs who claim its proper in law to hide behind parliamentary privilege to avoid answering criminal charges. We should judge them harshly because of the damage they have delivered to our already tottering democracy.

Many years ago, I was playing in a semi final of the Shropshire Sevens Tournament. I was playing for Shrewsbury against Bridgenorth. We were leading by a point, with less than a minute to go. The referee gave a scrum to Bridgenorth. Totally disagreed with his decision. Red mist descended. I was forced to hand the ball over to their scrum half, but I 'accidentally' dropped it as handing it over, and then 'accidentally' trod on the scrum half's fingers as he was picking it up. Penalty. Three points. Bridgenorth were in the final. Taught me a lesson I've never forgotten. Its just a shame that Alun Wyn Jones wasn't playing for us that day. Had he been, he would not have been so utterly stupid at Twickenham today - and right under the ref's nose. 17 points while he was in the bin! My excuse was that I was young and impetuous, and was in my first full season after switching from soccer. I wonder what excuse Alun gave Warren Gatland!

Why on earth does the media take any notice of stories that have absolutely no traction at all. Last week there was an attempt to build up tension before next week's vote in the National Assembly for Wales about whether to trigger the referendum on law making powers for the National Assembly. It was ridiculous. Supposedly the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were thinking of abstaining - thus condemning the trigger vote to defeat. Oh Yeah! There was never the slightest chance that the 40 votes needed wouldn't be there. Then we have the story that an agreement has been negotiated. No idea what's been agreed, but I'd wager that nothing fundamental has changed from a week ago. Lets just hope that there are at least one or two speeches that do justice to the importance of the vote.

Just heard that there's to be an Emergency Meeting in Powys County Hall next Thursday, 11th to debate a motion that the controversial Draft Secondary Modernisation Strategy be scrapped. I suppose the consequence of this being passed would mean that the Steering Group will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with options that retain all the schools. Mind you, if the arm twisting and threats that have gone on in a vain attempt to stop Councillors signing up to this debate is anything to go by, the motion could well be defeated. Never seen this sort of thing in Powys before. Councillors have been a bit shocked. But the Conservative Group, Annie Holloway, Viola Evans and Gareth Morgan are made of stern stuff. A debate there will be.

I know that some think I've been behind this move for an Emergency Debate. They are totally wrong. I've been asked my opinion by several Councillors, but I've replied that they are in a better position to judge than I am. I will do all can to prevent the proposed wilful destruction of our outstanding secondary education, but campaign strategy is a matter for Councillors. Because this has been driven by Cllr. Aled Davies, who is my party chairman, some people will assume there is a political motive. They would be wrong there too. Anyone who suggests that does not know Aled Davies. Since I first discussed this with Aled on that first fateful Friday, I've seen a man who has put everything second to his mission to save Llanfyllin High School. He knows that removing the sixth form will visit huge damage on an extraordinarily successful school. Entirely properly, he is determined to do all he can to protect the school, and Aled is one determined individual. Arm twisting has no effect whatsoever on some people. One reason why this proposal has infuriated Montgomeryshire Conservatives so much is that we hold the 3 Council wards in North Powys, which is served by Llanfyllin. And for me, Caereinion is my old school and I've always had a special affection for Llanidloes.

Have to change my plans for next Thursday. I want to be there - not inside the chamber, but standing with anyone from my old school, Caereinion High. I wonder whether Westminster politics is as cut-throat as Powys politics has become.

A major issue affecting Newtown in Montgomeryshire at present is the potential loss of 180 jobs at Shop Direct in Newtown. The loss of these jobs is a massive blow to the local economy, and an emotional break with Newtown's industrial heritage. The current call centre operation is an extension of the mail order business established on the same site (The Royal Welsh Warehouse) by Pryce Pryce-Jones in 1879. I refer to the job losses as 'potential' - because there is the usual statutory 90 day period before confirmation.

I know that there is much constructive discussion going on with the owners of this business, by the Assembly Government civil servants based in Newtown, the Town Mayor and others. No point in me replicating what they're doing. So I thought I'd meet a few businesses in the town to search out some alternative employment opportunities if the worst comes to the worst. This afternoon I met the Joint CEO of Laura Ashley Ltd at their hugely impressive Texplan unit in Newtown. We had a terrific hour, walking around Texplan and discussing issues where I may be able to help. I've been involved with Laura Ashley in one way or another for most of my life.

The great news for Newtown is that Laura Ashley Ltd are looking for around 20 new employees to train up as machinists. A training programme would be provided, and the opportunities are there now. Neither the company , nor I, would wish to interfere in efforts that are being made to save the Shop Direct jobs, or to find a buyer for the business. But its great to learn that there are other opportunities for employment in the town. Next week, I've arranged to meet some other businesses in Newtown. I suppose I am the perennial optimist and always think there's some way to improve bad situations - but only if I work at it.

One question that flows from the rumpus about secondary school modernisation in Powys is whether Powys is a sustainable entity for delivering public services. Its clear that in some policy areas, Powys as a county is being disbanded. Firstly we had mental health, which had been delivered by the Powys Local Health Board. For whatever reason this has come to an end. Montgomeryshire is now considered to be a part of North Wales, and mental health is now managed by the Betsi Cadwalladr University Health Board. And now we learn that the new renal dialysis unit proposed for Welshpool is also to be provided and managed by the Betsi Cadwalladr Trust. alongside this dismembering process, work is progressing on merging the Powys LHB with the Powys Council (target date 2012) but the question that's emerging is whether there will be anything left of the LHB to merge!!

Sometimes the extreme efforts to which Assembly Members will go to create a difference of opinion amongst themselves verges on the heroic. The shenanigans about next Tuesday's vote on whether to ask the UK Government to arrange for a referendum on transferring law making powers in currently devolved policy areas to the National Assembly for Wales is near to laughable.

Firstly, we've had weeks when Labour and Plaid have declined to say whether the vote will be a 'trigger' for the referendum request to be made. Well, since there would be nil point in holding it for any other reason, and the Plaid- Labour Coalition would be likely to collapse if it wasn't, this was a no-brainer. It was very kind of the BBC to bother to report on the question at all. And now we have reports questioning whether the vote will be passed. Its a bit like speculating on whether Usain Bolt or Mr Blobby would triumph over 100 metres. Still, its an important issue, and I suppose they have to find some angle.

Must admit that I don't quite understand the point of dispute. I do understand that the referendum should not be held on the same day as the Assembly Election in May 2011. I thought everyone was agreed on that, including the Electoral Commission. Even if it were to happen, it would be so cynical as to be self defeating. I most certainly would not want to have any part in such a election-warping exercise. What surprises me is that the date would be a matter for the Assembly. I would have expected it to be an issue that had to be settled before the referendum legislation is approved. Must check this out tomorrow - unless you constitutional experts who read my blog are kind enough to clear it up for me. What I do know is that there is no way the Liberal Democrats will let the trigger vote fail, and I will be desperately disappointed if the Conservatives vote against. I suspect a political stunt here somewhere. If I was still there it would take a very powerful three liner to bring me into line. Have no fear. Usain Bolt will beat Mr Blobby.

The dominating issue of the last few days has been the appearance of Witness 69 before the Chilcot Inquiry. A lot of hoohah over nothing much at all in my view. It told us nothing that we didn't know already. We knew that Tony Blair is a highly skilled operator, accomplished in the art of verbal gymnastics. He used every conceivable form of rhetorical flourish, deflecting any ball threatening his stumps down the leg side with Gavaskar like precision. The former Prime Minister wiped the floor with them - as anyone who's watched Blair in action over the years would have expected.

So what do we know now (at least as I see it). We know that Tony Blair decided to join George Bush in an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We know that the concept of 'cabinet government' had been much weakened under the Blair Government, and most of them were not told the truthful reasons for going to war. Instead, the Cabinet, all other MPs and the people of Britain were told that Saddam Hussein had access to weapons of mass destruction, which could be activated against Britain within 45 minutes. It was on that basis that our Parliament supported Tony Blair's decision to launch the invasion. Many people (including me) are angry that we were mislead. I still find it difficult to believe that a British Prime Minister would deliberately mislead the British people in order to secure support for war. We know that Tony Blair was convinced it was the right action to take, still believes it was, and has told us that if he could 'rewind the clock' he would do it again.

Though my opinion was of no consequence, at the time I supported the decision to go to war. Later on, I was much angered that this support had been secured on the basis of untruths. But sitting in my office as I type these words, I cannot write that I would not have supported the war if the Prime Minister had told us the truth about why he considered it vital to British interests - if he had said that he wanted Britain to stand beside the US, and invade Iraq to achieve regime change. In the climate after the attack on the Twin Towers, I may well have supported Blair. I'm sure many other British people who supported the war, and are angry about being mislead, would share my uncertainty if they were to ask themselves the same question.

The issue that has most confused the position is the way 'International Law' is being spoken of as inviolable. Personally, I've always thought 'International Law' as riven with uncertainty and contradiction. In the end, its often a question of who carries the biggest stick. The evidence given to Chilcot so far, leaves most of us believing that the war was 'illegal' - but it seems to me that as long as the Attorney General said it was 'legal' (even if his arm was up behind his back at the time) it was legal. And the final question must be whether, in hindsight, it was the right decision. I usually say "its too early to say". Its clear that the post-war strategy failed. But no-one can say what the situation in the Middle East would be today, if Saddam Hussein was still in power. All Chilcot does (and will do) is raise more questions, and I'll be surprised if it delivers any certainty in its answers.

The witch hazels are just coming into their pomp at the moment - though photographs never do justice to them. They always feature in my opening garden blog of the year. These are about ten feet tall - and you can note the spidery flowers which appear in close-up on the next photograph. We grow several different types of Hamamelis, including some of those with orange flowers. But the best is the old favourite, Hamamelis mollis. I think this one is named 'Pallida'.

This candidate business takes a lot of time. Even with my access to Wi-Fi, via my new Netbook, this blog must feel neglected. She may even be upset that I've started a relationship with Facebook. Anyway, we're back together for tonight - and I've been reading the newspapers today. Let's begin with Mr David Davies, MP for Monmouth. Over the last few months, he's been the subject of much disparaging comment. In particular, there has been a huge hoohah following some comments he made about a rape case recently. Personally, I do not think all this frothing at the mouth is justified.

I've disagreed with David about several issues. Have done since I first met him about 12 years ago. Didn't agree with what he said last week about the rape case. Most significantly, we don't share the same approach towards devolution. But what I do like about him is that he has opinions, which he believes, and he's not afraid to express them. He's about as far from the political establishment as its possible to be, while remaining an MP. He and I have the same attitude to the 'standard' press release and 'approved' comments. How unusual and astute of Matt Withers to write a major article in today's Wales on Sunday, extolling David Davies' 'virtues'. Perhaps strengths and positives are better words. He describes him as a 'Politically incorrect firebrand' - and 'scourge of the political elite'. I also know him to be always polite and courteous and genuinely funny - much more so than some others who are portrayed as being 'nice', when I know them to be deceitful and unpleasant.

I do not know whether David will read Matt Withers' article, or whether he would take his advice if he read it. The David I know is not that good at taking advice!! Daresay I'll carry on disagreeing with him on some issues, but I still believe he could become a free thinking and innovative Minister if he puts his mind to it.