SILENCE FROM THE RED CORNER

The news that the Westminster government's remaining 30% stake in the Royal Mail is to be sold and some £3 billion pounds are to be cut from government spending this year won’t surprise many people. 

The last remaining UK Government stake in the Royal Mail currently valued at £1.5 billion is to be used to pay down the national debt. Another£3 billion pounds of cuts are pending, they will be announced in July. Back in July 2013 the news that the Post Office profit rose from £ 152 million pounds to £ 403 million pounds (in the 12 months up until the end of March 2013) would once have been warmly welcomed. 

The increase in Post Office profits actually made little difference; the Lib Dems (notorious locally for campaign to keep open local Post Offices that were not under threat of closure) with their Conservative collation partners decided to privatise the Post Office. The Party formerly known as Labour (in Westminster) were understandably silent over the matter of Post Office privatisation, understandably as they had spent years crying crocodile tears, as they tried and failed (under Peter Mandelson) to privatise the Post Office themselves during what is increasingly been seen as their largely wasted 13 years in government.

Now don't get me wrong, I had absolutely no problem with the publically owned Post Office exercising the maximum amount of commercial freedom to go out and diversify and to make money (as happens in the Netherlands and in other countries) but happen to firmly believe that the privatisation of the Post Office was entirely ideologically driven and unnecessary. I still have major concerns about the longevity of the unprofitable rural postal operations – how long will it be before they are dropped because they don’t make enough profit? 

The Post Office, rather than be simply sold off to a private company was floated on the stock market, and its shares were sold off. The business has been valued at something between £ 2 billion and £ 3 billion pounds with up to 10% of shares being set aside for postal workers. Not surprisingly, probably along with most people, the members of the Communication Workers Union were understandably firmly opposed to the privatisation of the Post Office – unlike the Labour Party.

There are still potentially big and as yet unanswered questions as to how will the government go about selling it off? Will Westminster’s friends in the City - big institutional city investors - get some sort of preferential opportunity to buy shares? Perhaps the Conservatives will go for a big share sale to the public or drip feed shares into the market, as has happened with the Lloyds Bank shares?" Whatever happens expect near complete silence form the Party formerly known as Labour…

NO SURPRISE THERE THEN...

The debate surrounding the debate around the Wales Bill (and the important related issue of fair funding for Wales) which took at Westminster has flushed out some blatant contradictions within the party formerly known as New Labour both in Wales and in Westminster. So rather than bringing clarity to the Labour position on devolution in relation to further financial powers and fair funding for Wales we have ended up with an increasingly bizarre series of contradictions.

Differences of opinions (which have existed for some time) have now fully emerged between Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith MP (an individual with diverse and contradictory opinions on the tax lockstep as he is both for it and against it) in relation to devolution and how it should or should not develop. Whatever Labour in Wales and Westminster is or is not saying about devolution in Wales, they are saying something different in relation to Scotland.

People may well ask just exactly who speaks for Labour on devolution and just exactly who speaks for Wales. Some of this, I think, can be put can be down to simple ineptitude and some of it can be put down to  barely disguised self-interest on the part of Labour in Westminster MP’s. I suggest this as some of these peoples comfortable jobs will be on the line if Wales gains more powers and the number of Welsh MP’s are understandably reduced.

Most of the responsibility for this  confused and inherently contradictory Labour vision for Wales is down to the fact that Labour in Wales remains deeply split over devolution. The problem is that this shambolic situation does not help the people of Wales very much who are struggling with the effects of the Con Dem Government’s ill-thought out austerity programme. It also further strains the paper thin credibility of Labour in Wales's claim to be standing up for Wales.

WHO SPEAKS FOR ENGLAND?

The report by the McKay Commission suggested that English-only laws need to be backed by a majority of MPs who represent English constituencies and that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs could see their roles reduced if proposals to give English MPs more say on laws for England are eventually brought in. The Con Dem Westminster government said that it will give the report "serious consideration" this may well be Westminster speak for kicking it into the long grass.

The McKay Commission was set up to examine how MPs should deal with English legislation in the wake of devolution. For some time there has been a potential problem over what’s been known as West Lothian Question - the ability of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs to vote on England only matters - for several decades, but this has intensified of late as a result devolution.

Back in 2004, support from Scottish and Welsh Labour in Westminster MPs meant that the then Blair government could push through the introduction of university top-up fees in England. The McKay Commission has concluded that the current situation is "unsustainable" and that changes were needed. The Commission has proposed the principle that House of Commons' decisions that involve a "separate and distinct effect" for England should "normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs sitting for constituencies in England".

The same principle would apply for decisions that affected only England and Wales. The Commission has recognised that while Westminster law-making had inevitably come to focus on England, or England and Wales the actual processes for making law at Westminster have not significantly changed or taken account of the developments of devolution.

Understandably people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and may support some changes to the Westminster legislative process. English people are beginning to fell disadvantaged and understandably have concerns that MPs who represent the devolved nations are able to vote on matters that directly affect England but not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Clearly the status quo is unsustainable and there is a clear need to sort out the problem of all England legislation

Even the Party formerly known as New Labour (and Ed) has recognised the problem and have made tentative efforts to embrace the political elephant in the room that is Englishness and they have admitted that they (Old and formerly New Labour) have apparently been somewhat reluctant to talk about the sleeping elephant (in the room) at the heart of the UK - Englishness. There is more, apparently they have decided that the issue of national identity (English or British perhaps?) should not be a closed book.

Last year in a keynote speech on ‘England’ Miliband managed to hit his thumb squarely rather than the head of the nail, saying that Britain should be a country "where it always possible to have more than one identity" and people should not have to choose between being British, English, Scottish or Welsh. The acknowledgement of "multiple allegiances" potentially raises some interesting questions about national identity and effectively accepted that Labour had done its best to try to avoid having to articulate a vision of Englishness.

Plaid has long called for a partnership of equals, but it is pretty clear that Ed's current position on the English question is that they do not deserve their own Parliament. Not unsurprisingly the party formerly known as New Labour, has done its best to largely ignore the thorny matter of the West Lothian Question and English votes on English laws, perhaps hoping the problem will go away.

Labour’s failure, may remind older participants in the devolutionary process of not so long ago, of typical old Labour fudge. Labour is still apparently currently keen to continue devolving powers to local authorities in England, which is one way to fudge the issue and avoid calls for an England-only parliament to balance those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that based on the way labour plays the devolutionary game, I predict that this means that in about 10 to 15 years Labour will embrace the cause an English parliament....