Tag: Bannau Brycheiniog National Park

Gilestone And Other Developments

On By JacIn Abergavennyshire, Civil Service, Colonisation of Wales, Farming, Globalism, Greens, Welsh Government26 Comments

For those who don’t know the story, or have chosen to forget, Gilestone farm, near Talybont-on-Usk, was bought in 2022 by the self-styled ‘Welsh Government’ for £4.25m.

The excuse given was that Gilestone was to be a new home for the Green Man Festival, which holds its knees-ups not far away on the Glanusk Estate. They got away with it for a while, but the story was never really convincing.

Then ospreys appeared at Gilestone – the first sighting of these birds in southern Wales for over 200 years! Some said they’d been attracted there to cover the collapsed Green Man deal and justify ‘Welsh Government’ imposing access restrictions.

◊

GILESTONE, WATER, FARMING

As you might have guessed from previous postings on this blog, I soon stopped believing that Gilestone had been bought for the Green Man Festival. Especially after talking to a previous owner who claimed her family had been forced out of Gilestone by the (then) Brecon Beacons National Park Authority, using a solicitor in Swansea who soon after became a Labour Assembly Member.

Another factor for rejecting the Green Man explanation was learning that a new group called the Beacons Water Group (BWG) had been formed (May 2020), and among the directors were the owner of Gilestone, and his neighbour across the River Usk. And that this group had travelled to Upstate New York to study how the Watershed Agricultural Council manages the water supply to the the Big Apple.

Given the regular talk of moving water from Wales to southern England, and the fact that both the River Usk and the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal flow across Gilestone land, I concluded that the answer to why the farm was purchased lay in water supply.

A suspicion firmed up by learning of another group formed by Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) following the US trip (and a reciprocal visit). This was the Bannau Brycheiniog Mega Catchment group, copying what was found in the USA.

Matters covered in these posts: ‘Green Man, Red Herring?‘; ‘Gilestone Revisited‘; and ‘Gilestone: Thinking Outside The Box‘;

And there was definitely a political dimension to it all.

I say that due to the involvement of ‘Welsh Government’ civil servant David Ashford. He’d been working on “sustainable land management policies to replace the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Wales“, was then seconded to Dŵr Cymru just after the US visits (in the same month the BWG was formed), before returning to WG to work on the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS).

Why would a senior civil servant dealing with farming spend two years “Developing new partnerships to improve water quality and a range of other benefits across water catchments within the Brecon Beacons” . . . unless farming was involved?

And of course it was. Those who formed the Beacons Water Group were all farmers. Water quality figures prominently in the SFS (and other) legislation.

The US example contains powers of compulsory purchase (‘Eminent domain’ in the USA) to guarantee water quality. Compulsory purchase is not mentioned in the Welsh SFS legislation but it is covered in the UK government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Part 5), which became law in December last year. The Sustainable Farming Scheme in Wales launched the following month.

And let’s remember that the prominent Globalist, and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon was, in April 2023, openly calling for compulsory purchase “for wind and solar builds“.

So while the visit from the Watershed Agricultural Council in March 2018, and the visit to the Catskills in June 2019, followed by the formation of the Beacons Water Group CIC and the Bannau Brycheiniog Mega Catchment group, were ostensibly about water quality, farming was inextricably involved.

◊

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS, ABERGAVENNYSHIRE LINKAGES

A very recent development was the launch last month of Beacons Rural Energy Ltd (BRE). Three of the current seven directors of the Beacons Water Group are found among the nine directors of the new company.

But what’s the purpose of Beacons Rural Energy Ltd? Here’s what the Certificate of Incorporation filed with Companies House tells us:

So it’s “smart renewable energy projects“. But how will they produce, transmit, distribute and trade electricity? Being in a national park rules out large wind turbines and fields filled with solar panels. So what’s left?

Well, “Hydro” is mentioned. Which takes us back to water. And of course, DCWW.

Clearly, there’s a connection between Beacons Water Group and Beacons Rural Energy, and I believe it extends beyond the principals involved in both; Richard James Roderick (of the farm next-door to Gilestone), Keri Howell Davies, and David Stephen Thomas. Other links would be the Brecknockshire Agricultural Society, the National Farmers Union (NFU), and Farming Connect.

In February 2022 the NFU stated it would “do its best” to meet the 2030 net zero target. John Davies, outgoing NFU Cymru president, reminded us, “we were the first farming organisation to set the goal of net zero by 2040“.

The clip below is from the current NFU website. Rowing back a bit?

Our position remains that journeying towards net zero must not compromise food production, farm profitability, or export emissions overseas by replacing British food with imported food produced to lower standards of environmental protection.

As for Farming Connect, this is run by the ‘Welsh Government’ as a kind of club for farmers who go along with Corruption Bay diktats. Either from Ministers, or from civil servants, like David Ashford, answering to their bosses in London.

Maybe some of the ‘good’ farmers from Farming Connect and Beacons Water Group will be helped make some money through renewable energy projects.

But will these projects be economically viable? And will public funding be involved?

One name among the directors of Beacons Rural Energy, Andrew Geoffrey Matthews, was new to me. But I think I found him in this document of the Aberhonddu Lodge of Freemasons. It may be ten years old, but it’s still informative.

In addition to Worshipful Master Bro Andrew G Matthews you’ll see that I’ve also highlighted Steward Richard J Roderick. There may be others involved with the Lodge, it’s not easy to tell with so many common Welsh surnames.

Think about it, here we are in 2026, after 27 years of ‘progressive’ administrations in Wales; and a bunch of men who like to dress up and spout nonsense in a men-only group still have influence with politicians and civil servants.

Then again, in Globalist-left Wales, men in funny outfits spouting bollocks are almost the norm. Certainly accepted. And influential.

Back to the bigger picture.

Abergavennyshire has proved very attractive to left-liberal do-gooders with ideas on how to save the planet – usually with our money. And how to make better human beings of us all – but only if we listen to them.

They’ve been colonising the area for a few decades. Which would be bad enough in itself, but they also have political clout. The results are everywhere. So are the linkages.

A director of BWG is Anthony Hugh Martineau, who has, or had, connections with Coleg Soros in Talgarth. The current chair of the trustees there is Chris Blake. Here’s his Linkedin bio.

One of his current ventures is The Green Valleys (Wales). Below is a clip from the most recent accounts filed with Companies House, for year ending 31.10.2024.

I’m not sure what happened, but it don’t look good. Turnover and profits slumped, and it all seemed to go tits up. Then, the other directors left last month. Among them Grenville Ham, former capo in the Greens, who switched to Plaid Cymru when the Greens refused to set up a Welsh party.

Green Valleys would appear to have folded. Is the recently-launched Beacons Rural Energy some kind of replacement?

◊

CONCLUSION

One of the attractions of the Abergavennyshire and Bannau area is of course its scenic beauty, helped by the absence of wind turbines and vast acreages of solar panels. But this is problematic for the ‘Welsh Government’, which wants every area of Wales to be seen to be saving the planet.

The maps below might help. On the left is the official map showing areas “pre-assessed” for industrial scale wind turbines in southern Wales. On the right, a map produced by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW), showing existing or planned windfarms. (In the case of the latter category, those that are known about.)

The red lines on the CPRW map are pylon runs.

Outside and to the east of area 6 there are a number of projects planned. These are in the wild, unspoilt Elenydd. Reminding us that the “pre-assessed” areas are just a rough guideline, but national parks are still off-limits . . . for the time being.

Which must also vex the fanatics who want Wales to have more ‘renewables’. Clearly, something else, a different approach, is needed. Which is where the various outfits mentioned above may give a clue.

Because I still believe water is the key to understanding the developments we’ve seen over the past eight years or so, and that includes buying Gilestone. So with wind turbines and the rest ruled out, are the Bannau to become a hot-spot for hydro schemes?

Another hoped-for advantage of focusing on doing good things with water resources might have been generating good publicity for Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. Unpopular with the public at large but long defended by the ‘Welsh Government’, Natural Resources Wales, and environmental groups.

Who, for differing reasons, blamed farmers for every discharge or spillage.

If so, then it failed. Because too many recent cases have made everyone aware of what many of us always knew. Here’s a recent case that resulted in a £45m fine.

But then, what’s one more lie added to all the rest? As George Carlin used to say in explaining how shadowy forces control things: “It’s a big club – and you ain’t in it“. (This short video is worth a watch.)

Difficult to believe that was recorded over 20 years ago. He was right then. And it’s a hell of lot worse now. R.I.P. George Carlin.

♦ end ♦

© Royston Jones 2026

Buy Me A Coffee

Gilestone: It’s All About Water

On By JacIn Colonialism, Englandandwales47 Comments

Over three years ago, with ‘Gilestone: Thinking Outside The Box‘, I suggested that the ‘Welsh Government’s controversial £4.25m purchase of Gilestone farm is about the transfer of water.

Much of what follows may look, superficially, like a rehash of that earlier piece; if so, it’s because that’s unavoidable in bringing the story up to date.

But there is more evidence. Which convinces me I was right.

◊

THE BACKGROUND

We’ll start by looking at what I think are the major milestones in this saga, in the order they happened.

1/ The Thomas family, who owned Gilestone pre-2010, had problems with the (then) Brecon Beacons National Park. They felt hounded. It cost them a lot of money to fight officialdom, and resulted in them selling up in October 2010.

(A curious feature of the business was that the solicitor acting for the Park was a Julie James. Who, in May 2011, became the Labour Assembly Member for Swansea West.)

2/ Next, seemingly out of the blue, a buyer in the form of Charles Weston turned up. He bought Gilestone for £900,000 through his company Sharpness and Severn Transport Ltd, re-named CWW Farming Ltd in November 2019. (Though the title document I’ve linked to does not cover all the Gilestone land.)

(Sharpness, Bristol, Newport, and Cardiff, are the major ports on the upper Severn estuary.)

3/ In March 2018 Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) organised a trip to Wales for representatives of the Watershed Agricultural Council based in the Catskill Mountains of New York State. This is the body responsible for keeping the Big Apple’s water supply up to standard. This visit was reciprocated in October 2019, when a party from the Beacons visited the Catskills.

(Which meant DCWW was studying a model under which a rural catchment area supplied water to a metropolis some 100 miles away.)

4/ This link resulted in DCWW setting up the Brecon Beacons Mega Catchment (BBMC). Though apart from the change of name to Bannau Brycheiniog I can’t see much recent activity on the website. There’s been nothing on the Facebook page since July 2022 and the Twitter/X account has been closed.

Next, in May 2020, the Beacons Water Group CIC (BWG) was launched.

The Beacons Water Group was established under Welsh Water’s Bannau Brycheiniog Mega Catchment initiative (BBMC), our landscape-scale approach to safeguarding our drinking water sources now and for the future.

Among the founders we find Weston of Gilestone and his next-door neighbour across the River Usk. (Weston left BWG in October 2022.)

BWG definitely enjoys political support. As does DCWW, which seems to get a free pass from the ‘Welsh Government’ and ‘environmental’ groups when it comes to river pollution, with farmers copping all the blame. One director, Hugh Martineau, was an ‘advisor’ with Coleg Soros in Talgarth.

5/ In March 2022 the ‘Welsh Government’ bought Gilestone farm for £4.25m. The reason given was to allow the Green Man Festival to expand from its Glanusk Estate site.

OK, that’s enough background. Let’s try to put meat on the bones and get up to date with other developments and findings.

◊

FILLING IT OUT, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

What I suggested back in October 2022 was that the key to understanding the purchase of Gilestone might lie in the proximity of, on the one side, the River Usk, and the other side, The Monmouthshire and Breconshire canal.

Even so, this in itself tells you little. For it to make sense we need to link this abundance of H2O in Wales to southern England running dry of the stuff.

And let’s remember that, in addition to the river and the canal, Gilestone is just a couple of kilometres from Llangorse Lake to the north east and the same distance from Talybont reservoir to the south west.

The reservoir already connects with the Usk very near to Gilestone. It would be relatively simple to connect the lake.

I explain this because taking water from Wales has long been a favoured option to meet the increasing shortages in southern England. Boris Johnson talked about it in 2011. Johnson’s name was invoked in August 2022 in renewed calls for a national water grid.

As Nation.Cymru put it, quoting the Daily Mail:

Senior Conservatives are floating the idea of a ‘Great Boris Canal’ named after the outgoing Prime Minister to transfer water from the north of Wales to the south of England.

Though this plan has water from Llyn Efyrnwy diverted into the river and then into the Severn just over the border. As this Guardian article from March 2023 explains.

The “Cotswold canals” mentioned must be the Thames and Severn Canal, currently being restored.

Alternatively, the water will be piped straight into the Severn. Then it will be abstracted lower down, either at Deerhurst, north east of Cheltenham, or near to Sharpness.

Which serves to remind us that Charles Weston bought Gilestone farm in the name of Sharpness and Severn Transport Ltd, based in Sharpness docks. Where the Gloucester and Sharpness canal begins, connecting with the Thames and Severn canal in Gloucester.

It seems like every which way we turn in the Gilestone saga we hit water.

Taking us further and further away from farming and music festivals.

While the plan to transfer water from Wales to southern England has been mooted for decades, one reason for increased urgency in recent years is the planned growth in the numbers of AI data centres.

But it’s not just London and the south of England affected, there are other areas that will need much more water. Such as Cambridge, where there are (somewhat vague) plans for a ‘Forest City‘ of one million people.

One of those behind the plan, while admitting that water from Wales is a serious option, fears we Welsh are a bit touchy about the subject. Us!

Maybe that’s why the talk is of using rivers and canals. Perhaps some people think we’ll be too stupid to notice.

Having mentioned AI data centres, it’s worth remembering we have them in Wales, too. Especially around Newport and Cardiff. With more planned. Let’s get back to Gilestone.

We’ve seen that the River Usk and the Monmouthshire and Breconshire canal flow over or close by the property. Both waterways then run in a southeasterly direction towards Newport and the Bristol Channel.

My original thinking was that water could be transferred in either direction, whichever best suited the purpose of the exercise at any given time. But the canal only runs to Cwmbran, and is now effectively banned from taking water from the river.

As this piece from the Brecon & Radnor Express last month explains:

Earlier this year, Natural Resources Wales imposed new restrictions on the canal’s long-standing abstraction licence from the River Usk. It means that during periods of low water, the canal is no longer permitted to draw water from the river – a supply it has relied on for more than a century.

This has affected those who rely on the canal for their livelihoods, largely in the tourism businesses. Which seems to have resulted in intervention by the ‘Welsh Government’ with what looks like compensation.

With £5m announced in July. And what appears to be further funding announced earlier this month.

It seems clear that the flow of water in the Usk is a priority, and must be safeguarded.

◊

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Earlier I said that Charles Weston of Sharpness & Severn Transport had turned up at Gilestone out of blue. Perhaps I made him sound like a wraith appearing from nowhere. Which would be misleading.

Because before buying Gilestone Weston had, in 2004, bought 182 acres at Tan-y-fedw, south of Sennybridge. This sits on Afon Crai, which runs into the reservoir a few kilometres south.

And as AI Overview says of the reservoir: ” . . . much of its water is diverted to the Swansea Valley, while the remainder flows down to meet the Usk”.

Four years later he bought 76 acres at Allt-fechan, a couple of kilometres north west of Brecon. This holding stands on Ysgir Fechan, which runs into Afon Ysgir, which runs a few more kilometres into . . . the Usk.

Having received its orders from London the ‘Welsh Government’ plays its loyal part in this scheme. We see politicos, DCWW, and Natural Resources Wales, all working towards the objective . . . without being able to say what they’re really up to.

With the ‘environmental’ lobby chipping in. Remember Gail Davies-Walsh, former employee of DCWW, now of front organisation Afonydd Cymru, which shields the water company from criticism by blaming farmers for all river pollution?

Re-acquaint yourself with Gail by scrolling down in this piece from three years ago. Read her contribution to this article from March this year.

In the very same building in Talgarth where Afonydd Cymru is based we find the cross-border Wye and Usk Foundation, with its staff of 34 and its considerable income. Roughly half the grant money comes from that generous old soul, “Other“.

Ah! sweet Talgarth. Home of that noted and venerable seat of learning – Coleg Soros.

∼

Finally . . . We know there’s a plan to take water from Llyn Efyrnwy, into the Severn, and then, via pipe and canal, to the Thames. I believe there’s a wider plan that includes the Usk, Wye, and other sources. And this may be where Gilestone fits.

It would be relatively simple to connect Usk and Wye to the plan shown above. It would then be a multi-source option less likely to draw attention and criticism. For as Severn Trent is keen to stress (my emphasis):

This will be using water that is currently taken from Vyrnwy and occasionally redistributed elsewhere.  No additional water will be taken from Wales.

This, “some from here, some from there” approach, with no valleys drowned, will avoid another Tryweryn.

And seeing as Usk and Wye are within Dŵr Cymru’s territory, it explains the Catskills connection, Mega Catchment and Beacons Water Group. Why else would DCWW study how a hilly rural area supplies water to a metropolis 100 miles away?

Another factor worth considering is flooding. The existing wind farms on hills above the Severn and its tributaries cause greater run-off of rainwater, increasing the risk of flooding. With more windfarms planned, this risk will only increase.

So taking water from the Severn could also serve a flood prevention purpose. Though this is unlikely to be admitted, and never linked to wind turbines.

The wider plan I’m suggesting would also explain the quasi-sacred status given to the Wye by writers like George Monbiot, and bodies such as the Wye & Usk Foundation and Afonydd Cymru. For no other river in Wales gets this attention.

Whatever the details, it’s clear that Wales is to supply water to southern England. Much of it from resources in Wales owned by Severn Trent of Coventry.

But Wales won’t get paid a penny.

Ain’t devolution wonderful!

♦ end ♦

© Royston Jones 2025

Labour And Plaid Cymru Plot To Destroy Welsh Democracy

On By JacIn Corruption, Plaid Cymru, Welsh Government, Welsh Labour59 Comments

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.

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

This group reported in November 2017. And among other things, suggested three possible electoral systems (p 129). These were:

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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.

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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 remit and the committee. Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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 . . .

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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’ . . .

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

“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.

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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.

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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:

Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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:

  1. A climate-nature ‘crisis’ that demands a ruinous drive to net zero
  2. Constantly reminding White people how evil and privileged we are
  3. 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?

Try not to laugh. Click to open enlarged in separate tab

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