In this post we’ll look at the proposed Senedd ‘reforms’, focusing on the closed list system, the method of counting the votes, the design of the ballot paper, and then I’ll try to explain it all.
There have been calls for many years for a bigger Senedd so that it can give better ‘scrutiny’. That may have been the original intention, but I believe other considerations came into play. And these account for the deviations from the original proposals made by the Expert Panel in 2017.
At present, we have 60 Senedd Members. One from each of our 40 Westminster constituencies, elected by first past the post; the other 20 from 5 regions, each returning four Members, these elected by the less than perfect d’Hondt system. Explained here by Labour MS Mike Hedges.
Wales’s representation at Westminster is being reduced to 32 MPs. Those controlling Senedd reform have decided to ‘pair’ these seats to give 16 huge and unwieldy constituencies each of which will elect 6 Members by the d’Hondt method.
◊
1/ THE EXPERT PANEL
The process that brought us to this point seems to have begun with the appointment in February 2017 of an Expert Panel (EP) to look into expanding the (then) Assembly.
This group reported in November 2017. And among other things, suggested three possible electoral systems (p 129). These were:
The system favoured by the Panel was the Single Transferable Vote.
You’ll perhaps note, by it’s absence, any mention of the closed list system that has been decided upon, and is now being widely criticised.
Or rather, the closed list was mentioned, and rejected (p 128).
This EP report was studied by our esteemed tribunes, its recommendations initially accepted, before being cast aside. Not because it wasn’t a fine piece of academic work, but because, as time went on, it could not deliver changed priorities.
Making the whole EP exercise a waste of time. Unless the hope was that the public would think what politicians subsequently came up with had the imprimatur of those experts.
◊
2/ COMMITTEE ON SENEDD ELECTORAL REFORM
The next step was the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, which first met in January 2020. The Committee was dissolved following a debate on its report on Wednesday 7 October 2020.
Here’s the Committee’s Report from September 2020, and here’s a summary of its recommendations. Note that it agrees with the Expert Panel in recommending the Single Transferable Vote.
Though it also makes a reference to “diversity quotas for protected characteristics other than gender”. I think we can guess where that’s heading.
◊
3/ SPECIAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE ON SENEDD REFORM
Now we move on to October 2021, when a fresh Committee was established to take things forward, with Huw Irranca-Davies providing continuity.
Here are all the members. From what I can see, the only Conservative, Darren Millar, soon distanced himself. I guess he could see the direction of travel.
The Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform published its report ‘Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales’ on 30 May 2022. Here’s a link to that report. Let’s pick out a few choice bits.
In the ‘Recommendation’ (pages 9-12) two that caught my eye were . . .
In 14 we read that all political parties are to be ‘encouraged’ to publish “a diversity and inclusion strategy”. More ‘diversity’!
I found 17 remarkable in that it says those framing these proposals fear being referred to the Supreme Court. Suggesting that what they’re proposing may be unlawful.
Moving on to ‘Electoral System’, on page 26, where we read, solemnly inscribed: “Electoral systems are one of the fundamental building blocks of democracy”.
Too bloody right, Comrade! Let’s all remember that.
The Expert Panel’s favoured system of the Single Transferable Vote, endorsed by the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, was rejected by Huw Irranca-Davies and his new playmates because it, ” . . . was an unfamiliar system in Wales and that the method of translating votes into seats would be seen as complex and difficult to explain”.
In other words, electorates around the world may have got used to STV, but Welsh voters are uniquely stupid.
So why not elect three Members from each of the 32 new constituencies in the same way we elect councillors? It’s a system we twp Taffs are familiar with.
Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat) favoured STV, so did Siân Gwenllian (Plaid Cymru), but, “in the spirit of achieving the supermajority required to deliver Senedd reform” Siân Gwenllian fell into line.
Not a whimper of dissent was heard from Elin Jones (Plaid Cymru).
So the Committee rejected the Single Transferable Vote, also the other two options recommended by the Expert Panel. Instead, and for no obvious reason, went for what it calls, “the closed proportional list” system.
Certainly, the current method for electing our regional list MSs is a closed list, but does any country elect all its politicians by the closed list system?
When it comes to working out who gets to go to Corruption Bay the EP looked at two methods. The d’Hondt and Saint-Lagué divisor systems. The latter gives a more proportional outcome, and also gives more of a chance to smaller parties and independents.
Irranca-Davies and his friends of course plumped for the d’Hondt method.
Now we come to the most remarkable and worrying thing I encountered in all 92 pages. Scroll to page 38, and there you’ll see under ‘Ballot Papers’ . . .
“We would anticipate . . . some of the names . . . of candidates will appear . . . “.
ALL candidates’ names on the ballot paper should be a ‘given’. That it’s even being discussed strengthens my suspicions of the true motives behind this exercise.
So, let’s recap . . .
This Committee not only rejected the voting system recommended by the Expert Panel and accepted by the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform in favour of the closed list, it also opted for the less proportional system for allocating seats, and finally, it even suggested not naming candidates.
How the hell does this improve democracy in Wales?
Moving on . . .
◊
4/ REFORM BILL COMMITTEE
A Reform Bill Committee was established 12 July 2023. In the panel below you can see the Committee’s remit and its members.
The role of this group was to go through the Bill that resulted from the report of The Special Purpose Committee on Electoral Reform. Making Recommendations where it felt the need.
The Reform Bill Committee’s report was published last month, and debated in the Senedd 30 January (No 8).
The motion: ‘To propose that Senedd Cymru in accordance with Standing Order 26.11: Agrees to the general principles of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.’ was passed by 39 votes to 14. All Conservatives voted against.
It’s a weighty tome, 224 pages, and you can read it if you’re so minded. But I’ll focus on the issues I’ve already discussed, and see what, if anything, has changed.
In his Introduction, the chair, Labour’s David Rees MS, has this to say:
We have not reached consensus on all matters . . . But, we are unanimous in our concerns about the proposed closed list electoral system . . . We believe the link between voters and the Members who represent them is paramount.
We therefore urge all political parties in the Senedd to work together to ensure the electoral system in the Bill provides greater voter choice and improved accountability for future Members to their electorates.
He’s clearly not happy with the closed list. Neither is former Labour minister Lord David Blunkett. But as things stand, we’re stuck with it.
Next, I went to check on the design of the ballot paper, which Huw Irranca-Davies’s Committee had suggested need not carry the names of the candidates.
On page 105 I found what you see below. The ‘Member in charge’ is Mick Antoniw MS, Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, who defends the recommendations of Huw Irranca-Davies’s group.
If the closed list is used in 2026 then it’s unlikely it will ever be changed, because those who’ve benefitted from it, and then control the Senedd, will not vote to change it.
On page 111 Antoniw is pressed as to why the Bill being presented to the Senedd does not state categorically that candidates’ names will appear on the ballot paper. He gives the mealy-mouthed reply that it didn’t need to be set out in the Bill, but the matter will be addressed in “secondary legislation“.
On page 129 David Rees makes it clear that he believes candidates’ names on ballot papers should be stipulated in the Bill itself, not left to secondary legislation . . . which may never happen:
In fact, a search of the published Bill for ‘ballot paper’ draws a blank.
I cannot believe that we have got this far in the passage of a ‘reform’ Bill that won’t promise candidates’ names on ballot papers.
But then, Antoniw is Zelensky’s man in Corruption Bay. And Zelensky’s not a big fan of democracy; he’s banned opposition parties and closed churches. But we’re still expected to believe that he’s fighting the Ivans in defence of democracy.
◊
MAKING SENSE OF IT
When this process started, back in early 2017, with the appointment of the Expert Panel, there may have been a genuine intention to ‘improve democracy in Wales’.
Somewhere along the way the focus changed, it became more politicised, more partisan, and less democratic. I believe we can pinpoint when this happened. And also explain it.
It happened some time between the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform reporting in September 2020 and the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform publishing its report 30 May 2022. A year and a half in the time of Covid.
And here’s why it happened . . .
There’s a phenomenon I’ve reported on more than once and why, last June, I published, Wales: Ruled By Pressure Groups.
Pressure groups and organisations, some global, others organised on a UK-wide basis with a Welsh branch, but all pushing the Globalist holy trinity designed to destabilise and weaken the West:
- A climate-nature ‘crisis’ that demands a ruinous drive to net zero
- Constantly reminding White people how evil and privileged we are
- 101 genders that means men can have babies by ‘chicks with dicks’
This also explains calls to constantly lower the voting age. For children who’ve come through a school system influenced by Stonewall and other groups may be unable to read and write but they’re more likely to be suckered by a charlatan pushing the Globalist agenda.
The so-called ‘Welsh Government’ is now controlled by Agenda-loyal pressure groups. Having just mentioned Stonewall, you can see from this table that the ‘Welsh Government’, whether directly or through bodies it controls, is now that group’s largest single UK funder.
Another worrying feature that I’ve observed recently is the ‘Welsh Government’ taking over various organisations that should be independent. This is invariably achieved through funding, in the form of loans or grants, which is then used to justify ‘appointees’.
We’ve seen it across the board, from the Welsh Rugby Union and the Football Association of Wales to Bannau Brycheiniog National Park. I wrote about this dangerous trend, also last June, in ‘Taking Control, Of Everything‘.
What we see happening with the subverting of the Senedd reform process is a synthesis between the growing power of pressure groups and the increasing control freakery of a Labour party wholly committed to the Globalist agenda.
It will give Labour bosses control over the electoral system, and Senedd seats for pressure group parasitoids. Making the Senedd less representative because it will have more Members for whom the interests of Wales will be largely irrelevant.
It will also give the Senedd a near-permanent left / far left majority.
The only way to achieve a Senedd that works solely in the the interests of Labour and its rural variant (Plaid Cymru) is through a closed and anonymised list system.
Such a system also makes Plaid Cymru more of a hostage than a partner.
◊
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Until I started flicking through the various reports and other documentation I hadn’t fully appreciated how corrupted and dangerous the ‘reform’ plan had become.
Ask yourself – would anyone believe that in a European democracy in 2024 politicians could seriously propose closed list elections that are also anonymised?
Why recruit an Expert Panel and then reject all three of its proposals for organising elections? And then, after comparing the d’Hondt and Saint-Lagué divisor systems, why choose the one that’s less proportional?
The answer is obvious, and so I repeat – these ‘reforms’ are not to make Wales more democratic, or provide ‘greater scrutiny’. They’re intended to give the leftist political class total control through an electoral system that can almost ignore the wishes of the people.
It’s a very obvious power grab.
Power to serve The Agenda, that will demand the end of farming; 10mph (or no traffic at all to allow for daily Pride parades); 15-minute ghettoes; butchering confused 12-year-olds on the NHS; re-writing history; more foreign-owned wind farms; ‘inclusivity’ that will exclude most Welsh people, etc., etc.
While away from the noise of articulated idiocies and the din of clashing egos, out ‘there’, in the real Wales, people die in ambulances outside hospitals, and kids go hungry.
What has been stitched up by Labour and Plaid Cymru is so obviously anti-democratic, bordering on the dangerous, that it must be fought all the way.
To the Supreme Court, if necessary.
♦ end ♦
© Royston Jones 2024
My main concern is the bent bespoke electoral system, which has been specifically designed to perpetuate and even entrench the existing balances of power, and to make it very difficult for small parties to grow and for new parties to get started. Here is my latest letter to the Western Mail about this. Previous letters to the WM can be viewed via the Press Reader website.
———————
4.2.24, To: The Western Mail Letters Page
Labour’s sham PR plan
Dear Editor, Can any aspects of Labour’s cunning plan to debase our electoral arrangements in Wales be unpicked at this late stage? “It’s quite unlikely”, according to no less a commentator than Cathy Owens, a director of the influential Deryn public affairs agency, speaking on BBC TV at the weekend.
And so, a set of proposals cooked up by two party leaders meeting privately in a smoke-free room, and ruthlessly railroaded through a hapless Senedd committee that thought this was work that it had been given to do, will pass directly into law without thorough debate or any electoral scrutiny whatsoever.
My main concern is the poor level of proportionality that the replacement system of “proportional representation” will deliver, and this unsurprisingly is the least-considered aspect of the new legislative package. Except that “poor” does not do it justice, and even the word “abysmal” would be inadequate. The existing AMS voting system that we have had in Wales since 1999 is not great, certainly not as good as the AMS that they have in Scotland, but its replacement with arrangements that have received no systematic evaluation or scrutiny whatsoever simply beggars belief.
The replacement system will be based on “PR” procedures so coarsened and perverted that the outcome will be the exact opposite of what PR is supposed to deliver. By which I mean that the new system will bolster the prospects of the existing major parties and will act as a huge barrier to new and minority parties seeking greater electoral success. It is intended to lock Labour and Plaid Cymru into a permanent duopoly of power.
What’s the evidence for this claim? On 15 May 2022 during BBC TV’s Politics Wales programme, an illustrative example of how the new system would work was provided by Jac Larner, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. Using historic voting figures, he demonstrated that in a six-member constituency Labour might win four seats with a 40% vote share, the Conservatives might win a single seat with an 18% share, Plaid one seat with 16%, the LibDems would get no seats for 9% and the Greens nothing for 7%.
In this illustration, twice as many votes were needed to elect a Tory as to elect a Labour MS; Labour gained two thirds of the seats from two fifths of the votes; and 26% of the votes cast did not contribute to the election of an MS, ie those votes would be what enthusiasts for PR call “wasted”. Crucially, the minimum vote share needed to win a seat will be around 14%, as against 7% in the existing system.
Recently Mick Antoniw, Labour’s Counsel General for Wales, said that the new voting system “would be fully proportional, bringing about a much fairer result”. If that was true, a political party gaining 10% of the votes cast in each of the 16 new constituencies – cumulatively over 100,000 votes across the whole of Wales – would win 10 seats in the new 96-seat chamber. In fact that hypothetical party would win no seats at all.
I tried very hard to get the celebrated pollster John Curtice to comment on these proposals, but he would say nothing whatsoever, despite repeated approaches, which tells you what a hot potato this is. Politics lecturer Jac Larner, having exposed a little corner of the truth, perhaps unwisely, has also fallen silent.
Wake up people, or you will be stuck with this from 2026 and quite probably for ever.
Dave Bradney
Llanrhystud
This, approximately, is how it “went down” …
In the beginning there was a special purposes committee of the Senedd, which was looking at possible electoral reforms and was not expected to come up with anything like this at all. Then a private but alas not secret meeting took place in a smoke-free room between Mark Drakeford and Adam Price (remember them?) They, just them, decided what was actually going to happen, and wrote to the committee to tell it so. They said that between them they controlled what they called a “supermajority” of Senedd votes on this, ie more than 2/3, so there wasn’t any point in arguing. The Tory (forget his name) resigned in disgust. The LibDem squeeked slightly. The Plaid rep, despite the fact that some aspects of the decisions outlined contradicted Plaid policy, said she thought it was her responsibility to act constructively (something like that). The resultant imposition was piloted through the rump committee by Hugh Huw? Irranca Davies, who despite his rude nickname is a master of implication and evasion. Everything in this para is on the record.
The resultant legislation, which is still evolving on the hoof (but not this aspect, which is being presentationally minimised), is now being piloted through the parliament by Antoniw, in his role as chief piloter of legislation (ie the Senedd’s legal officer/Counsel General). I have a feeling he doesn’t understand much about how PR works (common in Labour circles).
The Tory, who stepped aside, was Darren Millar.
” alt=”null” />
Did you miss this event??
“Two party leaders, alone in a smokefree room”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-61392204
Having read your essay, I then read Martin Shipton’s piece on the Nation Cymru website:
https://nation.cymru/opinion/our-democracy-is-threatened-in-multiple-ways-and-on-multiple-fronts-its-time-to-draw-a-line-and-work-for-change/
You will no doubt have an opinion on the Carmen Smith appointment to the HL, and on Plaid’s nomination of her following a bogus internal election stunt.
But there is one crucial factual error that has been repeated by Nation Cymru, see:
https://nation.cymru/news/plaid-cymru-row-over-house-of-lords-nominations/
…. and in the erroneous article by Mark Mansfield on Smith in Wikipedia (where he repeats Shipton’s mistake), which I feel compelled to correct.
Carmen Ria Smith does not have a law degree from Bangor University. She completed the first year of her law degree at Bangor in 2015-16 before taking a job with the NUS. She never returned to her studies and complete her degree.
Let’s get to the facts. Any twenty seven year old elected to a life peerage must be a prodigy, a genius, by standards that a reasonable and right minded person can see.
This must have been the case here, so much so that she didn’t have to complete her degree, let alone obtain any postgraduate or professional qualifications awarded by a body other than the proverbial chumocracy. She was too clever. Forget the steep ladder that humans must climb. She rose without trace.
Something here stinks.
I have just put out a wee tweet.
It’s so totally depressing. We all know that there is no political party in world more deeply attached to the hereditary principle than the Welsh labour party and this will allow them to keep the perks of office within the family for generations with the electorate not even realising what is going on, let alone demonstrate their disapproval of it. Ultimately it ought to poison them, but that may be years away and, in the meantime, our nomenklatura will scarcely believe their luck.
Labour’s conception of democracy is entirely political and not at all civic. A fair election is one Labour wins, because it’s entitled to win. The bruvvers’ role as tribunes of the people cannot be shared. It’s said that when Arthur True was the sole Communist councillor in the Rhondda, he sat with the Conservatives because they had more in common.
I noticed this when living in Co. Durham, another red wall fiefdom. Two friends, quite independently, stood against the Labour candidate in their respective wards, a few years apart. Both got the standard reaction: they were bad people who had caused public money to be wasted by forcing a poll, an ‘unnecessary election’ in territory where Labour was traditionally returned unopposed. For Labour, nomination is as good as election; not trusting the party’s judgment on this is ‘divisive’. ‘The workers united will never be defeated.’ Even if their voice locally is that of a well-trained parrot. One of the friends – who had no connection with Labour – had written to the local paper and was phoned by the Labour councillor to be told that the correct method was to speak to him and not to raise issues in public. Anyone non-Labour elected to a Labour council could look forward to four years of being patronised by the committee chair if they asked any searching questions. Sometimes there was violence, threatened or actual, towards those viewed as no more than an electoral species of scab.
The key procedural improvements to local democracy – public admission to meetings (1960) and committee membership proportional to party strength (1989) – were Conservative initiatives. It remains unclear why ‘the people’s party’ is so afraid of the people and so resistant to incisive scrutiny by them. The theory long maintained is that Labour – and the working class – are the perpetual underdog and must therefore employ whatever sharp practices are needed to gain ground. There are less-flattering theories.
I believe that for many in Labour this was about more than ideological differences on economic strategies, and social measures. It was a kind of crusade against an evil that – unless resisted – would overwhelm or subjugate those Labour was defending. This kind of Manichaean approach to politics was never confined to socialists.
Across the water, the Ulster Unionists believed that unless they fought to defend the Union, and all it brought to their people, then they would drown in a sea of popery and a United Ireland. Yes, you voted Ulster Unionist, but you knew this transcended mere politics.
That was very much my understanding too. The fear was still there that the coalowner’s agent was listening in, ready to evict any troublemakers. The problem for Labour today – having abandoned Clause IV and often looking down on working class concerns – is that the Manicheanism has become ritualised and ridiculous: ‘It’s not us, it’s the Tories!’ It can only be sustained for so long in changed circumstances.
We live in a time of extensive political indifference. Too big a slice of the electorate don’t give a toss until an issue lands with a big bang right in their laps and they go off on a fit of rage which fails to maintain any momentum. Inevitably this detaches party activists and careerists from the indifferent herd, and the party eventually descends into an echo chamber of competing but usually equally deluded fantasies.
They note the issue that caused a flicker of interest and will be careful to make soundbites that remain “on side” on such matters.
That’s where Labour are today, so too the Tories. The rest don’t really matter except here in Wales the split personality of Plaid manages some of the time to cosy up to Drakeford ( not always Labour) and on other occasions even exceed the delusions of Labour. But almost all their policy is in la la land as far as the general public is concerned hence another reason for indifference.
Why has TATA been able to steamroller its “greening” plan through UK Gov and Bay regime ?. No one was planning ahead. Had anyone thought deeply about the future of home produced steel they would have begun some serious strategic thinking of the technological kind not settle for recycling scrap metal cos it’s using electric, see, and we got loads of that coming off solar and wind farms.
By the way given the way internet usage and AI applications are rising there will be a shortage of electricity just to keep those datacentres running safely. We have to learn to live with a bunch of academic sociologists, shrinks and dud lawyers running the country with no trace of any kind of practical engineering technical appreciation. Oh and don’t forget you will only be allowed to use power at certain times unless you carry a senior Party card.
“No one was planning ahead.”
Least of all the Future Generations Commissioner.
Love it!
The F G C was a vanguard for the Bay Regime engaged purely in daydreaming to create some fantasies that would be adopted as substitutes for hard grounded policies. No planning required just a vivid imagination or an ample supply of substances to trigger the outer limits of the headspace.
I think this article helps to explain where we are in Wales at this point in time.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/wales-a-testing-ground-for-the-wellbeing-economy
Interesting read. After a while it becomes repetitive, no fault of the writer, but simply due to the sheer intensity of all this madness that is inflicted on our country. We are being reduced to lab rats by a bunch of mediocre politicians and their servants who all fancy themselves as some kind of elite community.
“Power to serve The Agenda, that will demand the end of farming; 10mph (or no traffic at all to allow for daily Pride parades); 15-minute ghettoes; butchering confused 12-year-olds on the NHS; re-writing history; more foreign-owned wind farms; ‘inclusivity’ that will exclude most Welsh people, etc., etc.”
You have a remarkable way of joining the dots Jac. I cannot disagree with your conclusion.
I just wish more people could do the same. But they are waking up.
My question is …. what can we (the people who do not live in the Bay Bubble) do about this proposed change …
as i didn’t realise that devolution included tweaking how we vote…
First, contact your local Senedd Member, she how he / feels about these changes. Make sure they know how you feel.
Also, write to your MP, especially if your MP is a Conservative, get it raised in Westminster.
thanks for advice – my MSs is Vaughan Gething – he smiles as he makes a mental note not to do anything for you … I am also familiar with my MP – one Stephen Dougherty… another ineffectual bloke in my experience. Neither will rock the boat
As such I have rasied it with
devolution@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Sounds to me like you are sitting precariously on a one legged stool when raising concerns about our democratic processes. That combination of Gething and Doughty is classic monolithic party machine stuff. Unless you can get them blown out at next elections you best bet is to move out of the area ! There again anywhere in Wales will be blighted if these criminals have their way with rigging choices and candidate lists.
I got a bit confused on the distinction between a closed and anonymous list – they kind of look like the same thing on the surface of it!
Wales is like the City of London, only without the obscene wealth – a state within a state, a law unto itself, but still very much toeing the line when it comes to all things King and Country. Cf. the WRU, which you’ve mentioned the WG has taken control of – a few times a year it serves its purpose as a conduit for some state-sanctioned anti-colonialist ‘punching up’ against the Old Enemy (or as I like to call it, sandbox nationalism), but when the whistle blows, it’s time to accept a pat on the head from Saint Kate and Ponce Baldy in the changing room. When it’s a career on which the final whistle blows, how many retired players are then waiting for The Big Pat On Head in the form of an MBE?
“.. but does any country elect all its politicians by the closed list system?”
Yep – lots.
Didn’t the UK run it’s EU elections using a closed list system ?
You call that a success ? Low turn outs, no real interest ? I guess a cynic would say go for it cos no one will notice. And the Bay Bubble is a tub full of cynical exploitation.
Can you offer an example of a country using a comparable system to what Labour-Plaid is suggesting? If there was an example, I’m sure they’d have used it.
As you know, I’ve always been a great admirer of the Green Party, and so I was impressed by this letter in today’s Llais y Sais.
I was not familiar with the case of Janusz Niedzwiecki, but nothing would surprise me in relation to Nathan Gill. Though an east European connection makes sense because another line of business was ‘hostels’ for immigrant workers from Poland and neighbouring states, that had recently joined the EU. Though the information I was given would not have encouraged me to make a Russian connection.
But then, I can understand Russia wanting to help ‘disruptive’ political parties in the West as much as the Globalists want to help the parties promoting their agenda.
As regards his other funding, I heard so many stories, from trips to China to selling used tyres to Africa. There was a big tyre dump at his father’s place on Ynys Môn. The man was an absolute rogue, he and his American Mormon brothers-in-law, one in particular.
It’ll be interesting to see if he is a Reform candidate. As for Brexit funding through the IoM that, I concluded, was managed by others. Found no evidence of Gill being involved.
To answer your question Ifor, no.
Elections to the European Parliament was via the open list system. It means if an elected person died or resigned the next named person on the list at the election is appointed. A closed list is where the party decides later to appoint someone who has never appeared on a ballot paper. The ‘next named person’ has previously been appointed via an open list to the Senedd. Mid and West Wales region. Simon Thomas resigned after being found guilty of child sex offences, so was replaced by Helen Mary Jones, who appeared second of the Plaid Cymru list when the election took place. It means the voter can consider all the possibilities and candidates prior to casting a vote. In a closed list system, this choice is removed from the voter and is decided by the party executive. In the case of Labour or Conservative, this can be someone in London deciding who sits in the Senedd.
So open and closed lists are nothing to do with the regional lists then, it’s just a more general list of who is registered to step up and replace if necessary?
Re destroying Welsh democrary with Senedd “reforms”…I don’t suppose it matters much here in Mid Wales. The 21st century “clearances” that are going on in the name of unreliable and unsustainable onshore wind power will soon drive us all away anyway. Even if people are still here waiting to sell their unsellable properties when this totally undemocratic power-grab is finalised, I doubt they will bother to vote. I certainly won’t. So I suppose it serves a purpose for those hoping to cling to power in the Senedd. Not, however, for a large proportion of the people they purport to serve. We’d better get saving up for the Supreme Court. Thank you Jac for a full and proper explanation of the situation.
I wouldn’t give up yet. With this power grab they are over-reaching themselves. The reason for that is because they are increasingly trapped in the Bay bubble. Talking to each other and divorced from the real world.
Since the Stradey Park Hotel protests and the 20mph fiasco Lee Waters has hardly been seen in his Llanelli constituency. (Though he wasn’t seen there much before, seeing as he lives in Penarth.) He and others are almost under siege. While areas like yours, which are of no interest to Labour and Plaid – except for wind turbines and buying expensive farms – might as well be on the far side of the Moon. In fact, for Labour, that applies to most of Wales.
The Supreme Court is definitely the way to go. I used one reference to it, but I came across a number of them. And after the SNP getting knocked back for it’s dolls wi’ todgers nonsense, the Bay consensus is walking on eggshells.
Supreme Court is looking more attractive by the day, other issue with their wind obsession is that the Mach Loop and that plan to dot 220 metre turbines there might upset the RAF who do low flying there those monsters cause turbulence, and might interfere with flight radar in the aircraft.
If it transpires that Gwlad or some other pro-independence group brings such a case, it must be unambigiously reinforced that it is not some sort of appeal to or reconciliation with Westminster and Unionism.
Of course not, but we are where we are. There is still time for Labour-Plaid to come to its senses. Or top be brought to its senses.
In that case, let “d’Hondt” begin. Oh, was told today that there’s no money in Wales for psychiatrists on the NHS. Funds being diverted to ishoos, or perhaps a prevailing paradigm where nobody is mentally ill or has anything ‘wrong’ with them, it’s all part of the rich tapestry of ‘diversity’ and therefore to do anything but celebrate is bigotry? The two could also be seen as a chicken and egg situation.
Isn’t mental health being rebranded partly by the rush to accept neurodiversity as the latest fashionable item under the scope of Equality, Inclusivity and Diversity? Therefore doesn’t need a cure or mitigation just acceptance, tolerance, indeed adoption as a norm. That’s so much less expensive to NHS but possibly very costly to families and wider communities.
I don’t think it’s quite ‘there’ yet in Right On circles. Certainly not as trendy as Islam or LGBTQETC. Put it this way – I have autism and I was shafted by a previous employer who, going by internal newsletters and magazines, you’d have taken to be a very bleeding-heart sort of place, irritatingly so really in retrospect.
Exhortations to “Support your fasting colleagues during Ramadan”, and to “Join us outside HQ tomorrow to take an aerial photo of the LGBT+ acronym made out of people – brightly coloured clothing all the better!” and the like were commonplace. I now see it as a virtue-signalling twat-hole spouting woke bollocks so as to appear caring and shiny and happy. Notably, I can’t recall any of their ‘bulletins’ wishing Christians a happy Easter or Lent.
The “Copenhagen Criteria” are the rules that define whether a country is eligible to join the European Union. One of those criteria is the ability of citizens to have the right to establish political parties without any hindrance from the state AND for those parties and their representatives (candidates) to participate equally in elections. This criteria would make both Ukraine and Wales ineligible to become members of the European Union.
Ironic, that, seeing as those pushing these changes are also the ones most vocal about re-joining the EU.
But for all the veneer of democracy, the EU is itself increasingly undemocratic. More and more citizens of EU states realise this. And they’ll be making their feelings known in the June elections.
Yes, the irony.
The countries that use the ‘closed list’ electoral system are: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Ecuador, Moldova, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay. The change will mean adding Wales to that list. The EU does not consider a ‘closed list’ electoral system as suitably democratic. Any list system can only be used if it is an ‘open list’. This was a point made by Prof Laura McAlister.
It’s not a list that screams – ‘Respected democracies!’ is it? Disappointed to see Argentina there. I wonder if Milei will try to change things.
Am sure you are aware (until recently) the corrupt influence in Argentina. Cash for influence in Congreso. Many made rich at the expense of the people. It’s a flaw in closed list elections.
I was aware of the corruption, and I hope that Milei can make changes. But there will be powerful forces ranged against him, desperately trying to make him fail.
The irony for Plaid Cymru is that while a member of the European Union, Jill Evans MEP, sat in the European Free Alliance grouping in the European Parliament. The EFA set up and supports a body that champions the democratic process called the “European Platform for Democratic Elections”. Very much a democratic champion. One of it’s most recent findings relate to payments made to agents of the FSB, the most notable being Janusz Niedzwiecki, a Polish national arrested in 2021 in Warsaw, found to be in possession of Kremlin cash and interference in elections both within the EU and in Ukraine.
https://www.epde.org/en/news/details/the-rise-and-fall-of-a-polish-agent-of-the-kremlin-influence-the-case-of-janusz-niedzwiecki.html
Significantly, one of the flaws in the ‘closed list’ voting system proposed for Wales is that it allows the ‘party machine’ to trump the electorate when appointing members of the elected chamber, in our case the Senedd. Whist Labour and Plaid Cymru may be under the illusion that it may benefit their destiny, it also can be influenced by external and somewhat malicious activity. Here is an example of one.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.europarl.europa.eu%2Fmepdat%2Fattach%2F124965_84076bcc-3868-4aba-86d7-17c2bc5fe5c9_4.docx
It was a meeting between Janusz Niedzwiecki and Nathan Gill (all expenses paid trip). Your previous blog investigation on the finances of election funds of Gill, then of Ukip, drew a blank in the secret funding stream in the Isle of Man. It is not without foundation that Gill, now a candidate for Reform UK, a political party which would easily be able to ‘appoint a Senedd member’ from it’s rank that falls under the desired influence.
FPP and STV and Open List allows the people of Wales, regardless of political opinion to remove or select specific candidates to vote for. Closed list does not. Allows Putin to appoint a preference by proxy. Mick Antoniw MS may have a Ukrainian background but he’s pathologically stupid. Elin Jones MS would be wise, as Llywydd, should seek advice from the Intelligence and Security Committee at Westminster. Her silence can be rudely interrupted by ‘we do not confirm or deny’ such matters.
On the theme of colonisation and theft of land and other resources NC report that the preliminaries are now under way to develop high ground near Llyn Clywedog for yet another “energy park”.
Plans for weather testing equipment could pave way for giant wind turbines (nation.cymru)
FFS doesn’t this Bay regime know anything other than wind ? Smashing up 100’s of hectares of pristine country which will require loads of access roads before any real construction work gets done. It’s shades of Bryn Brawd and the Upper Towy/Doethie/Pysgotwr scam all over again.
That closed list system with 96 party drones toeing the line in the hope that they secure long term career progression will be on a par with the clapped out Soviet model. Party loyalists will thrive and the rest of us can rot for all they care. It’s already started That’s why so many people are dead before they get to the treatment stage. That’s why so many jobs are on shitty terms and conditions with seasonal contracts, zero hours, minimum wage etc.
The collusion of UK Gov and the Bay muppets with the globalist TATA to kill off good jobs in the Port Talbot area is just another example of how the UK and Wales are being robbed of opportunities to earn a decent crust in manufacturing while Drakeford and his mates roll out the prayer mats and worship some twat preaching the latest version of the green gospels.
I’m going to lie down in a dark room otherwise I might start getting angry, again.
Many of these companies are shell companies and have only been trading a few years getting on and off the cash bandwagon. Carbon 0 is not achievable for one huge reason – the internet. The amount of elec required to cool the data servers is beyond our capacity to generate. Everything is now going over onto app based for users of utility, streaming tv, banking, etc etc…all this requires extra capacity within the already struggling mobile network which is why 3g is being phased out to add capacity…has anyone noticed that unless you are in the middle of a city or town there is very little access…I have to set my mobile to 2g in order to get text messages which we all get these days for security verification etc….so its a total sham…but it has been for a long time..atm the National Grid is not fit for purpose and elec generated by wind turbines has to be ditched due to capacity…we cant store it..Pembrokeshire had a tidal energy unit dumped off Ramsay sound that cost millions…it now sits abandoned on Pembroke Dock…all these are being funded by the Welsh Govt…who are supposed to produce what they spend over 25K for view by the public but this data is no longer being kept up to date but lags 6 months behind…making what they do undiscoverable…
“diversity quotas for protected characteristics other than gender”
eg Welsh first language?
I doubt that would be a Labour priority.
But is Labour policy
Labour also talks a lot about ‘democracy’.
Excuse my language Jac, but WTF would we do without your forensic analysis of the continual barage of self serving b******* that is issued from the Sendd?
It feels like living in an “Alice in Wonderland” country at the moment with these pious, conceited, virtue-signalling politicians dismissing any criticism raised against them and their toxic bubble. Perhaps its the circles I move in, but people despise WAG, rather than dismisssing it, now. Those who voted against it in the referendum (closer than Brexit) feel vindicated and those that voted for it are filled with remorse for their failure to anticipate what it would lead to.
As ever Jac thank you so much, and I hope others, like me, buy you cups of coffee, which you probably need more than ever in this storm of excrement.
Thank you for your kind words.
If we had a functioning media we’d all be better informed. But if we were better informed then politicians wouldn’t dare try to get away with stuff like this.
Great piece of detailed analysis of what is clearly a removal of the democratic right of every citizen to choose who they want to represent them. Faceless candidates is sheer madness – it is bad enough now with the current cohort of MSs that there personal ability to do the role is very suspect- the closed list will introduce a motley selection of misfits who cant get real jobs and are only interested in a personal agenda on a singular issue.
When county reorganisation was on the agenda last to reduce from 22 a senior Official in WG told me it will never happen as the projected votes would be detrimental to Labour so recommendations kicked into the long grass despite huge savings opportunities – the protection of the Party came first.
There needs to be a way of making MSs see some of the reality included in this article – if not you and the closed list runs in 2026 you can bet that Wales will be on the floor by the next election on 2030/31 (depending if they keep to 5 years or drop to 4).
Wales democracy has not been under so much threat since the days of the English invasions.
Keir Starmer will write off Wales totally as he will see straight through the divisive nature of Welsh Labour. If the majority predictions are correct he actually does not need the Welsh Labour MPs to get his majority to form a Government.
I’m sure Keir Starmer would prefer to avoid this embarrassment, but I’m equally sure that, in an election year, the Tory media won’t let him.
The closed list system gives ultimate power to parties & is uber centralisation. Politicians who for example do not bow to pressure and may do things like ask questions of political lobbyists could be removed. Scrutiny goes out of the window unless new parties make a breakthrough. Don’t give up writing Jac!
Everybody can see it. Wigley spoke out. Even David Rees, the Labour MS in charge of the committee, could see the danger, Laura MacAllister has spoken our, even David Blunkett chipped in to condemn it – so why did they vote for it last week?
Because its a done deal…total corruption…I went up against a Local Authority and the Wgov over a major planning application…and I learned over 5 years that it was a waste of time…they bent and changed the laws to suit…so now I have given up…learn to accept that theres stuff you can change and stuff you cant..and concentrate on that….while ppl in the Valleys Bleet their sheepish acceptance…Orwell!!…then theres nothing anyone can do….
That closed list proposal is partly a direct response to their horrific experience in trying to silence you during your time in that Bubble. It must have caused no end of bed wetting among those toeing the collective line to have you rampaging through armed with real world, well- informed evidence. Those people live in a parallel reality, a never ending dreamscape where everything conforms to whatever the current iteration of green/inclusive/diverse/equal gospels may be. The closed list is aimed at shutting out such trauma.