Paul Flynn - Read My Day

Thatcher surrendered to threat

 

Today the full truth is revealed on how the Iron Lady  bent to the threat of  the creation of a Welsh martyr. 

I played a walk-on part in  one of the most momentous decision in the history of Wales. For five years from 1974 to 1979  I was a member of the Broadcasting Council for Wales-the ruling body of the BBC in Wales The historian John Davies had access to minutes of the Council and published details that I thought would always remain confidential.

The demand for the new channel united the people of Wales. In February 1977 Davies records that I welcomed the publicity for a Cymdeithas yr Iaith demonstration at the BBC World Service Centre. I said that it would draw attention to the absurdity of the BBC broadcasting more radio programmes in many obscure foreign languages than it broadcast for the indigenous Welsh-speaking population.

In June that year Chairman Glyn Tegai Hughes, disappointed with government timidity, urged the council to consider a fall-back position. Future chairman Alwyn Roberts argued in favour of considering new approaches because a Welsh Channel Four seemed unlikely now. I remember my own anger at this apparent weakness and betrayal. My recollections are dim now but Davies reports that I argued that the Channel Four campaign was very much alive.

In September 1979, when I was acting chairman of the body, Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw announced that there would be no fourth channel for Wales. Could the long years of campaigning, the sacrifices and prison sentences endured by our brave young people be all in vain? All destroyed by a few sentences uttered by a man who knew little of Wales and nothing of Welsh broadcasting? 

I rang the BBC Wales controller Owen Edwards and told him that I would make the only possible effective protest. My period as acting-chairman is almost certainly a record that will never be beaten. It lasted fifteen minutes. I announced my resignation in protest at Whitelaw’s decision. The Council expressed their sympathy but understood. The protest was heartfelt but was quickly brushed aside by Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards. My resignation had an ephemeral and slight influence. But Plaid Cymru’s leader Gwynfor Evans’s threat to fast to death terrified Thatcher. She was then studying Irish history. Her fear was that Wales would have a similar martyr to those of the Easter Rising in Dublin.

My part in the campaign was long but minor. Victory was sweet. At last, Wales had won a significant battle. The reality of S4C’s spectacular later success was beyond the most extravagant dreams of those of us who planned it a decade earlier. S4C secured the future of Welsh as one of the world’s most thriving minority languages. There is modest satisfaction that I have played a small role as a Welshman in securing the future of Welsh as a living vibrant tongue.

To give the impression that she was not surrendering to blackmail, a stunt was set. Three wise men were invited to meet Thatcher and convince her of the value of a decision she had already made.

Today's news confirms that she capitulated to Gwynfor Evans' threat. According to the account all but one of the Welsh Conservative MPs favoured going back to the manifesto position of a promise to set up a fourth channel..

But it was the warning by Lord Gibson-Watt – who as an MP and opposition spokesman for Wales represented Tory leader Edward Heath during the aftermath of the Aberfan disaster – that was the “decisive moment” for the Welsh Secretary.

Lord Gibson-Watt warned he would find it “very difficult” to back the Government in the Lords. The Home Secretary was also convinced that a change of policy was vital.

The Cabinet ministers were aware that “if the Government were defeated in the Lords, they would be faced with trying to restore the position in the Commons after Mr Evans had begun his fast”.

The minutes state: “The Home Secretary said that he had now made up his mind that the policy must be changed. He could not recommend to colleagues the continuation of the present approach. “The Prime Minister commented that the last thing the Government needed was to inflame nationalism again.”

Mr Whitelaw proposed that the Welsh channel should be launched under a three-year trial scheme, despite there being no chance of it being scrapped. According to the minutes: “He proposed to accept this, even though he believed that this would be bogus as a trial. The die would be cast after three years.”

The politicians discussed how to handle the U-turn: “Mr Whitelaw said that all his political experience had taught him that, if one made a mistake, it was important to get out of it as quickly as possible. He accepted that the problem had been entirely his own responsibility.”

It goes on: “Mr Nicholas Edwards argued that it would be a great mistake for the Home Secretary to be allowed to present the change as the result of an Englishman’s mistake in handling Welsh affairs. It should be presented as the Government collectively bowing to the strength of public feeling on the issue.”

Today’s release of papers also features a letter sent by Plaid Cymru MP Dafydd Wigley in which he urges the Prime Minister to prevent the hunger strike and asks her to meet him and fellow Plaid MP Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

The papers also include an account of a private meeting between the Welsh Secretary and Mr Evans on July 21 at St Fagans.

It states Mr Edwards made clear he “admired Mr Evans as a person and he found it difficult to believe he would contemplate a destructive and violent act which would stir emotion and violence in Wales”. “Mr Evans said that this was the last fight that he could make and it was the government who were being perverse. It was they who had changed tack.

“His own fast was not intended to stir up violence. His movement had always opposed violence. If there were people who were bent on violence they would behave that way anyhow whether he fasted or not.”

Two days after the September 15 Downing Street meeting, Chancellor Geoffrey Howe – now Lord Howe of Aberavon – wrote to the Home Secretary suggesting that a channel might not prove popular during a trial period and that people might back a return to Welsh broadcasts on BBC and ITV.

He wrote: “My strong personal hunch is that most Welsh people will wish to revert.”

However, S4C was launched on November 1, 1982 and continues to broadcast. Mr Evans died in 2005.

 

 

 

What will Cameron not say in 2012

 

'The Big Society is working' 

Tension between West and Iran must be reduced

400 is the final total of the UK death toll in Afghanistan

The NHS is safe in my hands

Badgers and foxes must not be killed for fun

The drug laws are not working

We will investigate additional post-Fukushima costs of nuclear power

All school pupils will share the privileges of Eton.

CPI inflation changes are a cheat. We are returning to RPI

Farmers subsidies will not be increased

The Jubilee celebrations are cancelled to save cash

 

Itch to brawl

The big decision next year will be what will  U.S., Israeli, and European leaders do about Iran.

The choice is either a military attack with unknown consequences or the risk of another nuclear armed state to add to North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, China, USA, France, UK and India.

The message coming from the US/UK/Israeli military is that the costs of allowing Iran to become a nuclear weapon state far outweigh the costs of using a military attack to prevent it from becoming one.

Simon Jenkins is more convincing. In November he wrote about America's 'itch to brawl.' Today he persuasively describes the UK's futile wars in which none of our interests were threatened. He has been the most consistently sane voice against our pointless involvement in Iraq and Helmand. The bravery of our solders is beyond question. They are as valiant as any in our history. But, for what?

I have asked several defence ministers to provide example of plausible future situation when the UK could use our nuclear weapons independently. None have come up with any example. Nor can I can foresee any situation when Iran could do the same.  

 

Now there are eleven

 

Pre-Fukushima nearly all 54 of Japan's nuclear power stations were operating. They produced 30% of Japan's  electricity.  Now only 11 are operating. By April it will probably be none. 

 

This is not a decision by the Japanese Government or the industry. It's the municipal authorities that are refusing to allow reactors to generate after they have been shut down for maintenance. 

A new nuclear disaster somewhere in the world is virtually certain within the next ten years. The UK could then be littered with half-built reactors. They are always years late and vastly over-budget. An expensive mega-spin operation by Government and industry has blacked out the awful truth about Fukushima in the British media. Another disaster would kill the world's faith in the false nuclear god.

 Within just a few weeks of Fukushima, the German government announced that all eight of the nation's reactors that were built prior to 1981  were to be temporarily shut down as a precaution and to allow time for safety checks. On 26 March, Germany witnessed its largest ever anti-nuclear demonstration when 250,000 people marched demanding that the government "heed Fukushima". By the end of May, Chancellor Angela Merkel had confirmed that Germany would speed up its retreat from nuclear and by 2022, would have shut down the last of its reactors. To compensate, it would instead ramp up its supply of renewables from 17% to 35%.

The UK had no such reaction. The Pied Piper of nuclear power has bewitched both politicians and press.

 

Hunt stunt punted

 

Poll showing 69% support the Hunting with Dogs ban and that only 6% see it as a gov priority was nationwide by YouGov 14/16 Dec this year!

Hunts attempted publicity stunt on Boxing Day rebounds on them with fresh revulsion against sadistic killing for fun. Strengthen the ban.

Derision, contempt and controlled abuse should greet today's fox hunters demand to bring back the barbarism of tormenting animals for fun.

Cameron to rat on Coalition pledge for a free vote on hunting. Majority of MPs will back present law and probably insist on full enforcement

 Exploiting hatred of foreigners is a popular rallying cry for piffle artist politicians seeking instant gratification.

  

'

 

 

Nasty party's priorities

Slaughter badgers needlessly, deny prisoners votes, bring cruelty back to hunting, be foul to foreigners-the major obsessions of NASTY party

'Keep clergy out of politics' cry from Tories whose Leader said that their core policy of the Big Society began with Jesus 2,000 years ago.

"Give us back the right to be cruel' is the fox hunters demand today. All that's missing from their 'sport' is gratuitous animal torment.

Time to fold tents

Total of British deaths in Afghanistan = 393

Occupy protest has brilliantly proclaimed big message. Time now to fold tents and move before fragmentation of unstable community fouls nest.

Anti-Preeza accusations are screamed in media-fest of giant headlines in autumn. News that he is not guilty is whispered on Christmas Eve.

Shapps sqeaks again at Prezza even though Shapps/Pickles' snide jibes are proved false. Silence on Pickles undeclared feast with lobbyist.

Shapps/Pickles face probe by statistics watchdog into accuracy of housing statistics released by them this month bit.ly/tSEZBI

State terrorism?

If today's alleged acts of terrorism are the work of the Government of Syria, they would not be the first by a state. 

They are out of character for the Arab Awakening but they fit neatly into the fictional narrative that Syria is spinning for international observers. 

The Russian Federation are suspected of doing the same by exploding lorries filled with explosives near Russian apartment blocks and blaming it on Chechens. It gave them a pretext for the vicious repression that followed.

The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974, that killed 33, were admitted to be the work of the Ulster Volunteer Force in 1993. However the collusion of the SAS has long been suspected.

The loathsome Government of Syria are capable of any barbaric act. 

 

 

 

385 British deaths ago

Total of British Soldiers killed in Afghanistan = 392

 

There is q quickening of the pulses among the political Neo-Con zealots.. Where will the next war be? Iran, Somalia, Falklands?  Liam Fox bigged up the tension with Iran backed by his Neo-Con  funded  chum Adam Werritty. Somalia and the Falklands are both 'doable' as new military adventures for the glory-seeking admirals and generals. 

Parliament will not meet again until the 4th January. We could swiftly drift into war. We know that to Thatcher and Blair war was an exhilarating viagra. Nothing has changed. Cameron would rejoice in an escape route from the wreckage of his ruined Big Society and his crumbling NHS plans. Posturing as a war leader would appeal to him.

Today's carnage in Iraq should give Cameron a pause for thought. Does he recall his enthusiasm in 2003 to back Blair's disastrous deception and send 179 British troops to  die in Bush's war? Does he recall his silence in 2006 when the Helmand incursion hoped that 'not a shot would be fired." That was 385 British deaths ago.

History will judge that our involvement in Iraq and Helmand replaced rotten Governments with other rotten Governments at a tragic cost in blood and treasure.

We must not stumble into another war with unimaginable consequences.

 

Councillor Les Knight  1930 -2011

Les had been a councillor in Newport for 42 years.  Kind and courteous he was a devoted servant to his constituents in Allt-yr-yn and the rest of the City of Newport. 

He was one of the few surviving councillors who were serving on the old Newport Borough Council when I was elected in 1972. I had been elected in a by-election in Malpas after I had been soundly beaten
in Allt-yr-yn by the Tories - probably Les. For a politician he was a spare communicator. So rarely did he speak at council, he became known as 'silent knight'. But he was not inactive. He was constantly but quietly involved in the micro-surgery of the thousands of acts of service that make up a councillor's life.

I recall meeting him in 1981 on Newport Bridge in surreal circumastances. He was the mayor and we watched in amazemant at the hugh ice and frozen snow masses that flowed down the Usk in that dreadful winter. A vast fall of snow had kept me in London for two days because snow had blocked the main railwayline.

His special interests on the Council included promoting Newport's stately home of Tredegar House. He was energetically working there until recently to ensure that a new generation appreciated this treasure in the same way that he did.

Few others have devoted so many years of loving service to the people of Newport. Les deserves to be remembered with pride and gratitude.

 

No sign of legitimate Liam Fox probe

The investigation into the Fox Werritty affair conducted speedily by the Head of the Civil Service was unsatisfactory and illegimate because the sole enforcer of the code is Sir Phillip Mawer.

It is known that Fox was conducting a policy on Sri Lanka that was independent of Government policy. Was he doing the same on Israel? Those groups who funded Werritty to the sum of £150,000 a year have a far-right agenda that could push the UK into a war with Iran. The same groups were influential in leading the UK into the disastrous war in Iraq.  Bob Kerslake will soon take over his new role as Head of the Civil Service.

Q503  <Paul Flynn:> Who is the enforcer of the Ministerial Code?

Sir Bob Kerslake: The enforcer in terms of Ministers will be the Cabinet Secretary.  My role would be in relation to the Civil Service Code.

Q504  <Paul Flynn:> What does Sir Philip Mawer do then?

Sir Bob Kerslake: As you know, there is a change being made there.  In terms of who is the guardian of the code, it lies with the Cabinet Secretary, and clearly the successor to Sir Philip Mawer will play a key part in the case of where there are issues to be investigated.

 

Q505  <Paul Flynn:> It seems to say in the Ministerial Code that the sole enforcer is the holder of the office that Sir Philip Mawer holds now.  No?

Sir Bob Kerslake: He clearly has a key role in terms of enforcing the code, but I thought your question was about who, between myself and the Cabinet Secretary, took that lead role.  I am quite clear that, on ministerial matters, the Cabinet Secretary would be undertaking the investigation.

Q506  <Paul Flynn:> In the Fox/Werritty affair, there was evidence that civil servants from his Department had expressed their unhappiness to Liam Fox about his conduct, but did not pass that on outside the Department.  Is this how they should behave?

Sir Bob Kerslake: In his review of the issues, Sir Gus made it clear that effective communication of issues arising in Departments through to the Cabinet Secretary is an important part of the system here. 

Q507  <Paul Flynn:> In that particular case, and in another issue that was less important involving your Department, it was suggested that Ministers can divide themselves in two.  On some occasions, they can behave privately; on other occasions, they can behave ministerially.  The occasion with your Department involved the Secretary of State, who had a meal provided by Bell Pottinger, which could have been thought to be a lobbyist.  The firm at the meal was seeking some favour with his Department, but he claimed that he was eating privately that night and not ministerially.  There is a rather serious issue involved in the Fox/Werritty affair, where the Secretary of State, Werritty and one British official spoke to a group of Israelis who, according to The Daily Telegraph political correspondent, were Mossad, which is a matter of some interest, I would have thought, given the fact that we might be moving to a war with Iran.

<Chair:> Can we just get to a substantive question?

<Paul Flynn:> I have to give that background, I am afraid, to make sense of this.  Do you think that, in the circumstances, there should not be a division between somebody eating or having meetings privately or ministerially?

Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two or three points to make on this.  The first point to make is there is a distinction between an event that somebody is going to in a private capacity or in their capacity as an MP, which is different from their capacity as a Minister.  As you know, the judgement on that issue ultimately lies with the Minister to make, but they very often do so with advice and discussion with their private office.  There are clearly different ways in which such meetings are handled.  If it is a meeting as a Minister, they will get a briefing and, very often, in most cases, someone from the private office will attend that meeting. 

What I think we found in the Werritty case, if you look at the recommendations from Sir Gus, he said that, if there are meetings where substantive issues of departmental business are discussed, clearly someone from the private office should be there.  At the very least, the meeting should be reported back.  So I think there is a difference between the two types of meeting.  What I think emerged in the Werritty review was that where a meeting occurs that palpably may have started as, or was thought to be, a private meeting but moves into departmental business, there has to be a reference back.  I do not think you can drop the distinction between the two, but it needs handling with care.  If you move into a different situation, you need to be aware of it.