It has been announced that Barry-born Julia Gillard will remain as Australia’s prime minister after winning the backing of two key independent MPs.

Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott held the balance of power in parliament after fellow independent MP, Bob Katter, backed opposition leader Tony Abbott.

Today’s dramatic announcement ended more than two weeks of political stalemate following indecisive elections.

The result should be of interest to electoral reform campaiginers in this country.

Australia is one of the few countries to use the Alternative Vote system.

Despite polling fewer votes and winning less seats than the Liberal/National Coalition, the Australian Labour Party will cling on to office having hatched a back-room deal with independent MPs.

Remind me again – what’s ‘fair’ about AV?

A bill introducing a referendum on changing the voting system, changes to constituency boundaries and fewer MPs, has tonight been backed in the House of Commons by 328 votes to 269.

I am no fan of the proposed changes to the voting system, and have commented elsewhere on the dangers of adopting the Alternative Vote.

I want to address my comments in this post on the particular threat which this Bill poses to Welsh representation at Westminster and to the health of Welsh democracy.

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill proposes to equalize the size of constituencies across the United Kingdom, in so doing cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

Here in Wales we face a 25% cut in the number of Welsh MPs – from 40 to 30 (possibly even as low as 29) – as opposed to an average UK reduction of just 7.7%.

The coalition government argues that Wales is over-represented at Westminster, which I fully acknowledge. Yet there are important and perfectly legitimate reasons for this historic over-representation.

We are, after all, a small nation. Wales has its own unique history, culture and tongue. Moreover, we have our own unique social-economic profile.

Mindful of the ‘Leviathan’ which is England, Wales has historically been granted a disproprortionate number of MPs so that we may be protected against the worst excesses of an ‘England-dominated’ executive and legislature, which all too readily neglected Welsh interests.

During the passage of the Boundary Commissions Bill in 1992, the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, rejected the argument that the over-representation of Scotland and Wales should be tackled, acknowledging that it was long-standing constitutional practice for the Celtic-nations to enjoy privileged status in the House of Commons.

In tearing up this constitutional convention, the proposed changes outlined today by the Deputy Prime Minister have shown a complete disregard for Wales’ unique cultural, geographical, and social profile.

The proposed boundary changes will not take into consideration local or cultural identities, or the unique physical geography of Wales’ towns and valleys.

Under proposals drawn up by the Electoral Reform Society, historic constituencies such as Caernarfon, Meirionydd, Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire will all be abolished. They will be replaced by such unnatural concoctions as ‘Bangor & Holyhead,’ ‘Halesworth and Blaenau Ffestiniog’ and ‘Newtown and Ystradgynlais.’

My own constituency of Cardiff Central is to be replcaed by a newly created constituency called ‘Penarth!’ Since when was Penarth a part of Cardiff?

The biggest losers (as ever) will be rural mid-and-west Wales, with the historic counties of Dyfed, Powys and Gwynedd each losing a constituency apiece.

The move from natural to artificial constituency boundaries, and the imposition of rigidly fixed constituency sizes, will have profound and far-reaching ill effects on our democracy.

These changes will largely destroy the effective link between local constituencies and individual members of parliament. These changes will do little to restore faith in our politics, but merely encourage greater disillusionment and disengagement from the political process.

These proposed changes will also have important ramifications for the governance of Wales.

The cull of Welsh MPs will belittle Wales’ voice at Westminster, further marginalising Welsh interests within the UK Parliament.

Even if next year’s referendum on devolving primary law-making powers to the Assembly were to be successful, important subject fields such as Macro-economic policy, Home Affairs,  Welfare, and Criminal Justice will remain the jurisdiction of the Westminster Parliament. Who will stand up for Wales in these crucial subject-areas?

On a purely practical level, this Bill will leave Wales with different constituency boundaries and electorates for UK, Welsh Assembly and local authority elections – a confused and unsatisfactory state of affairs, which will only encourage greater disengagement and apathy with the political process.

In today’s Western Mail the Welsh Secretary, Cheryl Gillan attempted to justify the equalization of constituencies on financial grounds, arguing that cutting the House of Commons to 600 members will save an estimated £12million a year on pay, pensions and allowances. How can we possibly put a price on our democracy?

To cut to the case, the equalisation of constituency sizes, and the abolishment of long-standing, historical constituencies is nothing short of constitutional vandalism.

Whilst we gear towards a successful vote in next year’s referendum on devolving further powers to the Welsh Assembly, we should remain mindful of the dangers posed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and fight them tooth and nail.

Cymdeithas yr Iaith have today threatened to start a “direct action” campaign against the UK Government over proposed cuts to S4C’s annual budget.

In an open letter to Jeremy Hunt, the UK Culture Secretary, Menna Machreth, chair of Cymdeithas yr Iaith, says the organisation plans to follow similar non-violent tactics to those adopted in the fight to establish the channel during the 1970s and 1980s.

In her letter, Ms Machreth writes:

“Your intention to make savage cuts to S4C’s budget is a clear threat to the Welsh language.

“We in Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg will not accept cuts to S4C, and note that the broadcaster’s budget is protected in law. No MP who votes for changing the law to cut S4C’s budget, which is an investment in the language and our communities, deserves the support of friends of the Welsh language either.

“We consider your proposal a discriminatory act against the Welsh language.

“Your plans are also a clear economic threat: people will lose their jobs in many parts of Wales and it will be a massive blow to the economy in areas where S4C’s investment is critical. Creative industries, of which S4C is a major part, represent between 22,000 and 30,000 jobs in Wales and contribute up to £500m to our economic output.

“As a result, we want to notify you that we will be campaigning against the budget cuts to S4C. Perhaps you are not aware that the channel was established following national pressure from all directions, including non- violent direct action: a number of people were imprisoned to ensure that the Government at the time kept its promise to establish a Welsh-language channel for Wales.

“The people of Wales will not give in to the Government’s cuts lightly – we will campaign in the same way against your Government if you continue with these unjust plans.”

The pressure group’s letter to Jeremy Hunt further states that it:

“rejects entirely your decision to drastically cut public services following an economic crisis caused by banks and the financial markets, not ordinary people”.

The campaigners also state that they “reject entirely your decision to drastically cut public services following an economic crisis caused by banks and the financial markets, not ordinary people”.

I share Cymdeithas’ concerns over the future of Welsh language broadcasting. The widely rumored cuts of 24% to the channel’s annual budget may well have an adverse effect on the channel’s ability to commission original and innovative programming.

Yet, I am also a realist. In this present economic climate, there isn’t a single family or business across the length and breadth of Wales which has not had to tighten its belt or cut its costs as a result of the global financial crisis.

We should expect no less from the public sector in Wales and from our national broadcaster.

Regrettably, it seems that Cymdeithas yr Iaith are singing from the same deficit-denying hymn-sheet as Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party. They must surely realise they are grossly out-of-touch with public opinion.

As I have previously blogged, the channel’s current problems stem from a failure of leadership, principally from its lackluster Chairman.

I would suggest that resolving this failure of leadership should be the number one priority of Cymdeithas yr Iaith and to those of us who care about the Welsh language.

Instead, it seems that Cymdeithas is preoccupied with defending the indefensible.

That’s one way to keep the Hague and Coulson stories off tomorrow’s front pages!

Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan says she is minded to accept recommendations on the proposed referendum question on devolving further powers to the Welsh Assembly.

This follows a report from the Electoral Commission which said the current suggested wording lacked any real clarity.

The Electoral Commission, which has a legal duty to scrutinise any potential referendum question, said the original wording put forward by Gillan and the Wales Office contained ambiguous and confusing definitions of what was to be voted on.

The Welsh Office had proposed the following referendum question:

“At present, the National Assembly for Wales (the assembly) has powers to make laws for Wales on some subjects within devolved areas. Devolved areas include health, education, social services, local government and environment. The assembly can gain further powers to make laws in devolved areas with the agreement of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Parliament) on a subject by subject basis.

“If most people vote Yes in this referendum, the assembly will gain powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas.
“If most people vote No, then the present arrangements, which transfer that law-making power bit by bit, with the agreement of Parliament each time, will continue.

“Do you agree that the assembly should now have powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas without needing the agreement of Parliament first?”

The Electoral Commission has proposed the following ‘simpler’ alternative:

The National Assembly for Wales – what happens at the moment
The Assembly has powers to make laws on 20 subject areas, such as:
· agriculture
· education
· the environment
· health
· housing
· local government

In each subject area, the Assembly can make laws on some matters, but not others. To make laws on any of these other matters, the Assembly must ask the UK Parliament for its agreement. The UK Parliament then decides each time whether or not the Assembly can make these laws.

The Assembly cannot make laws on subject areas such as defence, tax or welfare benefits, whatever the result of this vote.

If most voters vote ‘yes’
The Assembly will be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for, without needing the UK Parliament’s agreement.

If most voters vote ‘no’
What happens at the moment will continue.

Question
Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?

I’m not convinced that either question is particularly intelligible or transparent.

What question would you submit to the Welsh electorate?

If Hague thought that his extraordinary statement last night would quash further speculation about his private life, it seems he was wrong. The story, which was no more than internet gossip 48 hours ago, has today dominated the front pages of no fewer than seven national newspapers, and has featured prominently on both TV and Radio.

Aside from a tiny minority of online bloggers, I suspect that these unfounded slurs against Hague were unknown to the vast majority of the great British public.

I can understand Hague’s desire to respond to these rumours, and to quash any further speculation which may cause distress to his family. But by addressing Guido’s allegations so frankly and so publically, in what was undoubtedly a moving and deeply personal statement, Hague has now give oxygen to these rumours. Moreover, the Foreign Secretary, much akin to Jonathan Aitken’s infamous ‘sword of truth’ speech, has invited the full scrutiny of Fleet Street. In that regard, Hague was naive, if not foolish, as well as poorly advised. Then again, he is short of a SPAD!

Hague is, and always has been a class act. He took to the Welsh Office like a duck to water. He led the Tory party at a particularly low ebb in its electoral history, but did so with conviction and gusto. He is a first-rate parliamentarian, and arguably one of the most talented orators of his generation. Along with Kenneth Clarke, he is one of the few Tories in the coalition cabinet to have served in government. Like his former leadership rival, he is undoubtedly one of the Tory party’s big-beasts. Talk tonight that Hague is contemplating walking away from politics is alarming to say the very least.

As the silly season draws to an official close and politics returns to some level of normality, I hope these silly internet slurs about Hague’s personal life can be laid to rest, once and for all.

Hague is a first-class politician and a real asset to the coalition government. Our politics would be much the poorer without him.

Fortunately I will be spared from both tonight’s Labour leadership hustings on Channel 4, and the BBC’s much-hyped interview with Tony Blair.

Nevertheless, I have managed to get my hands on a copy of Blair’s memoirs, intriguingly entitled ‘A Journey’ – presumably in reference to his Damascus conversion from card-carrying CND member to Thatcher’s heir.

I thought long and hard about purchasing a copy of his memoir, but since the proceeds are for a good cause (Blair recently announced that all proceeds from his memoir will be donated to the British Legion), I reluctantly purchased a copy.

Instinctively I turned to the index pages, where I discovered a measly 3 references to Wales (in contrast, there are 72 references to Saddam Hussein, in case you were wondering!).

Astonishingly I’ve learnt that Tony Blair thought devolving power to Wales and Scotland was “a dangerous game.”

Blair writes in ‘A Journey’:

“I was never a passionate devolutionist. It is a dangerous game to play. You can never be sure where nationalist sentiment ends and separatist sentiment begins.”

“I supported the UK, distrusted nationalism as a concept, and looked at the history books and worried whether we could get it through.”

“However, though not passionate about it, I thought it inevitable. Just as the nation state was having to combine with others in pushing power upwards in multinational organizations to meet global challenges, so there would be inexorable pressure to devolve power downwards to where people felt greater connection.”

Nothing new learnt, I hear you cry! It has long been known that Blair was never much of a believer in devolution. He was begrudgingly converted to the cause of Scottish and Welsh devolution by both Donald Dewar and Ron Davies (himself a late converter to the national cause).

Blairite memoirs seem to be all the rage right now, what with Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson’s diaries having hit our shelves in recent weeks.

Since so many key Blairite figures are so willing to divulge such intimate details about their tenure in office, it remains a mystery why the cabinet devolution minutes remain under lock and key.

Back in December of last year, the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked the release of minutes of a 1997 cabinet committee meeting on devolution. Straw believed disclosure would put the convention of collective cabinet responsibility for decisions “at serious risk of harm”.

Astonishingly, the only other time he has used it was to block the release of cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq War!

That decision in February – relating to discussions about the legality of the war – was again to protect the convention of collective responsibility. The principle is that once a decision is made by the cabinet, all ministers are bound by it and must support it publicly.

Since so many key Blairite figures are so willing to speak (or in this case, write) so frankly and honestly about their period in office, isn’t it high-time the cabinet devolution minutes were released too?

It is most regrettable that William Hague and his wife Ffion should be forced to respond to such lurid allegations and compelled to share such intimate details about their private life, namely details of multiple miscarriages and the state of their marriage.

Here is William Hague’ statement in full:

I feel it is necessary to issue this personal statement in response to press and internet speculation over the last ten days. Earlier this year a Sunday newspaper began questioning whether my marriage to Ffion was in trouble, and last week another media outlet asked whether there was a statement about our supposed separation. This seemed to be linked to equally untrue speculation surrounding the appointment of Christopher Myers as a Special Adviser. Christopher Myers has demonstrated commitment and political talent over the last eighteen months. He is easily qualified for the job he holds. Any suggestion that his appointment was due to an improper relationship between us is utterly false, as is any suggestion that I have ever been involved in a relationship with any man.

This speculation seems to stem from the fact that whilst campaigning before the election we occasionally shared twin hotel rooms. Neither of us would have done so if we had thought that it in any way meant or implied something else. In hindsight I should have given greater consideration to what might have been made of that, but this is in itself no justification for allegations of this kind, which are untrue and deeply distressing to me, to Ffion and to Christopher.

He has now told me that, as a result of the pressure on his family from the untrue and malicious allegations made about him, he does not wish to continue in his position. It is a pity that a talented individual should feel that he needs to leave his job in this way. Ffion and I believe that everyone has a right to a private life.

However, we now feel it necessary to give some background to our marriage because we have had enough of this continued and hurtful speculation about us. I have made no secret of the fact that Ffion and I would love to start a family. For many years this has been our goal. Sadly this has proved more difficult for us than for most couples. We have encountered many difficulties and suffered multiple miscarriages, and indeed are still grieving for the loss of a pregnancy this summer. We are aware that the stress of infertility can often strain a marriage, but in our case, thankfully, it has only brought us closer together.

It has been an immensely traumatic and painful experience but our marriage is strong and we will face whatever the future brings together. Several years ago one Sunday paper reported that Ffion was three months pregnant, without ever checking the story with us. This made even more difficult the fact that we had only just experienced another disappointment. We have never made this information public because of the distress it would cause to our families and would not do so now were it not for the untrue rumours circulating which repeatedly call our marriage into question. We wish everyone to know that we are very happily married.

The blogosphere performs an important role in holding politicians to account, and scrutinizing the work of both legislature and executive.

This time however, the blogosphere has got it wrong.

The threat of a francophone group’s court challenge has forced the Canadian government to blink, but it’s still refusing to bend on its overall plan to scrap the mandatory long-form national census.

In a row reminiscent of the ‘Welsh tick-box’ saga of 2000/20001, Canadian Industry Minister Tony Clement has announced that the government will add three questions on language skills to the obligatory short-form 2011 census.

Until now, these questions had been part of the long-form census, which the Canadian government decided to turn into a voluntary survey, despite widespread criticism that the resulting data will be unreliable and unscientific.

The decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census has been denounced by opposition leaders, provinces, municipalities, business groups, religious groups, charities and social scientists which rely on detailed census data to plan for the future.

But the decision has particularly aggrieved French-speaking communities in Canada. The Federation des communautes francophones et acadiennes du Canada argues that reliable data from a mandatory census is needed to provide constitutionally-guaranteed minority language services.

Clement’s u-turn was aimed at short-circuiting a court challenge by a francophone group which maintains scrapping the mandatory nature of the long-form census will violate the Charter of Rights and the Official Languages Act.

Stephen Harper and his minority conservative government have long endured a difficult relationship with the French-speaking population of Quebec.

Unable to reconstruct Brian Mulroney’s successful winning coalition, Harper’s Conservatives have been shunned from Quebec, managing to hold no more than 10 of the province’s 75 constituencies.

Despite recognizing the province as a ‘distinct nation’ in 2006, Quebecers have never warmed to the stiff Albertan.

In 2008, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives faced the prospect of loosing power to a rag-bag coalition comprising of Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois members. Addressing the nation, Harper’s arguments against a coalition government focused on worries about national unity as much as it did on the economic crisis. “Let me be very clear, Canada’s government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with separatists” de declared. His sharp criticism of the Bloc Quebecois was interpreted by many in Quebec as an attack on the province an its people, proof that federal conservatives do not understand or respect Quebec’s political and cultural grievances.

The latest furore surrounding the govenemnt’s cenesus decision will do nothing to endear the conservatives to francophones.

With an election likely in the Fall, Harper’s quest for a majority government remains as elusive as ever.

In an embarrassing climb-down, interim S4C head Arwel Ellis Owen yesterday amended the wording of the CV on his company’s website, in which he had claimed he was a former editor of flagship BBC news programmes Panorama and Newsnight.

Astonishingly, the S4C Authority does not consider this an issue. A statement released by the channel read as follows:

The S4C Authority does not consider this an issue. The CV does not state that Arwel was ‘the’ editor. It states clearly ‘after periods in Cardiff and London as editor of news and current affairs programmes such as Week In Week Out, Panorama and Newsnight

Perhaps more astonishing was the news this morning of Sir John Shortridge’s appointment to review the corporate governance arrangements of the S4C Authority. Sir John is the former Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Assembly Government. He is also a former Welsh Office colleague of (you guessed it!) John Walter Jones, the S4C Authority Chairman.

Surely his close association with Walter Jones compromises Sir John from day one? Moreover, what qualifies this risk-averse, retired civil servant to undertake a root-and-branch review of the Channel’s corporate governance?

It is blatantly obvious to most commentators that John Walter Jones’ position as Chairman is untenable. But don’t expect his old-chum to come to such a conclusion any time soon.

Sadly, such cozy ‘old-boy network’ appointments risk further undermining the channel’s diminishing credibility.