Jonathan Bishop

I read an interesting account of an experienced councillor on Mail Online ahead of this year’s elections on May 2 or hopefully in my case May 30. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Robin Page is saying.

Idealist notions of democracy cannot be found on councils, whether town and community council’s where I have experience, or county councils,  where in the case of Rhonda Cynon Taf County Council I’m not sure whether I want to seek election to any more – even though I have done so for 2 elections – 2004 and 2008. I didn’t stand in 2012 for very much the same reason that disillusioned Robin Page – the party members vote in block by deciding before the meeting. When Labour have a majority – which they nearly always do – if you are not Labour you will never get anything passed. This is what Robin Page said in his article:

At the same time, councils have become depressingly politicised. Gradually, the party machines have edged out Independent councillors. Today, there are only seven of us left out of 57. 

The Tories are in power and they vote as a block. They join the Lib Dems for ‘pre-meeting meetings’ to decide the agenda. 

The result is a shamocracy in which the public rarely hears the real issues. Free speech becomes stifled. For example, I once dared to scold another councillor for risking accusations of impropriety by attending a ‘soirée’ hosted by a property developer.

 The election I am hoping to stand in – in the Rhondda ward of Pontypridd Town council – was a by-election called following the death of Labour stalwart Pam Harper. Some things I remember Pam Harper saying was “We don’t support opposition” – The ideals expressed in the Labour Party rules about “co-operation” were clearly lost on her. For a scientist like me the council was far from what I wanted. 

When I was in the Labour Group they would meet one or two days before the council meeting to decide how to vote. In essence it didn’t matter how good the arguments were during the meeting, as Labour had the majority the vote would go their way – so long as they had the numbers on the night. One could argue that they were there to represent the Labour Party and not the public.

There was this joke that the Conservative Party conducted voter identification in Pontypridd asking people who they intended to vote for – they said: “I’m Labour butt!” – The Tory reported back: “They are Labour, but with reservations”!

I was a member of the Pontypridd Labour Party over 14 years – when New Labour was taking off with Tony Blair and when it ended with Ed Miliband – with a short gap being when I lived in the Ogmore constituency.

As former Pontypridd Assembly Member Jane Davidson told me, “The Labour Party is like a tribe, you don’t talk about us to people outside of it and you stand by them no matter what.” This was not appealing to me as someone who is principled and tries to be objective.

Keir Hardie might have been one of the founders of the Labour Party, but the one we have today is certainly no stones throw a way – more like ten mountains! The Labour Party as now exists can be seen to be a party of parties, or more so a tribe of cliques. Most people in the Labour Party want Labour candidates elected at all costs. As I found to my expense, they care more about selecting people who will toe the line and gull the public into voting for them than someone who actually believes in the labour movement, but needs to develop their skills a bit more first – like I needed to and live I have done.

The Labour Party that exists today seemed to care not about the values of its founders, such as equality for all people, they put getting into officer above any of his values. I was gulled by Tony Blair that the Labour Party had changed from hating businesses and the rich to wanting to create a national where all can achieve their potential as most others were. As one Labour insider told me, “Changing Clause IV was more about making Tony Blair electable, rather than changing the Labour Party.” As I have said previously, I believed whole heartedly in this move to have Keir Hardie’s values reflected in a modern context, but few others did, and I was basically banging my head against the wall for 14 years trying to convince the ‘Pontypridd Tafias‘ and ‘Welsh Labour‘ to reform, and they never planned to.

To understand why, one needs to understand the Pontypridd Tafias that exist, which work like the many cliques that exist elsewhere in the reminisces of Keir Hardie’s Labour Party.

• The Llantwit Fardre Tafia is the most powerful in Pontypridd. Headed by Graham Stacey and the second in command John David they control this mid territory in the ward (called Pontypridd Central BLP).
• The Beddau and Ty Nat Tafia is the second most powerful in Pontypridd. Led by Clayton Lewis with Ricky Yeo as second in command, they control the Northern tribe of the ‘Pontypridd South West BLP’.
• The Pontyclun Tafia controls much of the Southern territories of ‘Pontypridd South West BLP’ including Pontyclun, Talbot Green and Llantrisant. They do not get on with the Beddau and Ty Nant Tafia, other than that they want to control their own territories in Pontypridd South West BLP instead of being a single Branch. It is led by Paul Griffiths with Geoff Woodington being second in command.
• The Taff Vale Tafia is one of the most complex in the constituency. The tribal nature is always shifting. Unlike many of the BLPs they can co-operate within that BLP (i.e. Pontypridd South East) whilst maintaining their cliques. The Southern tribe in Taffs Well is led by Jill Bonnetto, but the Northern tribe is more complex. The Treforest ward in the North is always in conflict with the mid-territories of Hawthorn and Rhydyfelin. The Treforest ward was once occupied by Avril Reid who was separate to the other wards. Once she was disposed in the second half of 2008 she joined forces with Maureen Webber from Rhydyfelin and Thereasa Bates from Hawthorn. This clique still exists to the day and Treforest remains marginalised, being controlled by local businessman Steve Powderhill.
• The Greater Pontypridd Tafia is one of the most confused in the constituency. It’s head for many years has been Christine Raybould, who tries to hold together the former tribes of Trallwn, Pontypridd Town and the Rhondda Ward. Following the revolution of the Great Nick Wall, the Pontypridd Town clique’s solidarity was challenged by the creation of the ‘Pontypridd North East BLP’ and their nights of champagne socialism in the Manor House of Geoff Lloyd became more symbolic as they slowly lost their power to the BLP. There appears to be no clear leader among this Tafia, with Steve Carter trying to claim Trallwn as his own as the Pontypridd Town contender due to the failure of Rhydyfelin-based Allan Bevan to capture it from their opponent Mike Powell. Allan Bevan has tried to take back this seat since losing it to Powell by supporting calls for parking in the Park which falls within Trallwn, but which Steve Carter tries to claim ownership of.

The Pontypridd Tafia are representative of much of the Labour Party today. The BLPs that exist (Branch Labour Parties) only ever have three people at them. No matter how small or big the BLPs are, Morton’s Law, named after Treforest’s treasurer John Morton, says there is no branch so small that it can’t split itself into opposing factions.

If you want to get on in the Labour Party you need to appeal to all the factions within a particular locality, which in the case of Pontypridd is the Tafia’s. Former council leader Russell Roberts did this – having leaders from all the Tafia’s in his cabinet (including opposing members like John David and Clayton Lewis). Former MP Kim Howells was able to appeal to all as well – convincing the Llantwit Fardre Tafia he could be guided by them. Jane Davidson on the other hand was detested by the Lantwit Fardre Tafia, who only supported her because she “was Labour Butt.” Davidson refused to speak again the building of a new private school in the Pontypridd Central BLP area, citing ‘conflict of interest’ and she promised a Church Village Bypass, which wasn’t delivered until after she quit.

These Tafia’s exist on a knife edge. There are only a handful of people who turn up at the Annual General Meetings. These are just enough to keep the Tafia in power, but as I and my friends showed in Treforest, if a few people who believe in the cause can get their friends to join and take over the BLPs, the power enjoyed by the Tafias to appoint their own boys (or girls if lucky)  into the positions where they keep their power could be destroyed. That in my view is the only democracy left in the Labour Party – for new members to join and kick out the old guard.

A made up conversation between Jonathan Bishop (Jon) and Dustin Hoffman (Rainman) about who is the leader of the Labour Party. The scenario is the the first place man, Huw Irranca Davies, or Huw, which with a North Wales accent sounds like ‘Who’. Second place in the leadership contest is Tom Watson, whose surname sounds like, “What’s on?”. Third is Euan Blair, with his first name sounding a bit like, “You’re on.” And also featuring is Ed Balls, whose last name, is “Balls.” It is based on the Abbott and Costello sketch, “Who’s on first base?” (YouTube).

1st Place: Huw Irranca Davies, Leader (Huw/Who)	2nd Place: Tom Watson, Chief Whip (Watson/What’s on)
3rd Place: Euan Blair, Leader of the House (Euan/You’re on)	Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor (Balls)

Huw/Who is the Leader of the Labour Party?

Rainman	I want to know who those three people are on the podium for the Labour Party Leadership Race.
Jon	Huw’s first. Watson second. And Euan third.
Rainman	I want to know who those three people are on the podium for the Labour Party Leadership Race.
Jon	Huw’s first. Watson second. And Euan third.
Rainman	I’m not I third. I want you to tell me the names of the three final candidates.
Jon	I’m telling you. Huw’s first. Watson second. And Euan third.
Rainman	I want to know who those three people are on the podium for the Labour Party Leadership Race.
Jon	Huw’s first. Watson second. And Euan third.
Rainman	I’m not third. Do you know the candidates names and orders or don’t you?
Jon	Yes.
Rainman	Then who won?
Jon	Huw.
Rainman	The guy who came first?
Jon	Huw is first!
Rainman	Well what are you asking me for?
Jon	I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. Huw is first.
Rainman	I’m asking you who’s first!
Jon	That’s the man’s name!
Rainman	That’s who’s name?
Jon	Yes.
Rainman	Well go ahead and tell me.
Jon	Huw!
Rainman	I want you to tell me who is the leader of the Labour Party.
Jon	Huw is!
Rainman	Who is the guy who chooses what’s on the voting slip?
Jon	The Chief Whip. Watson’s second.
Rainman	I’m not interested in what’s second on the voting sheet, I want to know who’s the leader!
Jon	Huw is the leader!
Rainman	So who gets to choose the debates?
Jon	No, that’s the leader of the house. Euan.
Rainman	I’m not on, I haven’t even be elected. So who’s third?
Jon	No, Huw’s first.
Rainman	I’m not asking you who’s first.
Jon	Then what do you want to know?
Rainman	Who’s the guy speaking tomorrow?
Jon	Euan, tomorrow
Rainman	I’m not speaking until Friday. Who’s on tomorrow?
Jon	Huw’s not on until Thursday!
Rainman	I’m not asking you who’s on Thursday. Who’s on tomorrow?
Jon	It’s Euan tomorrow!
Rainman	Who’s the first guy speaking?
Jon	Euan
Rainman	I’m not on until Friday. Who’s speaking first?
Jon	Euan’s first.
Rainman	For crying out loud. Ok, what’s on Wednesday?
Jon	That’s right, Watson’s Wednesday.
Rainman	I’m asking you. Who’s on Wednesday?
Jon	No, Huw’s on Thursday.
Rainman	I’m not asking who’s on Thursday. What’s on this Wednesday?
Jon	Yes. Watson was second.
Rainman	I can see that, but who was third?
Jon	No, Huw’s first. Euan, third.
Rainman	I’m not on until Friday.
Jon	So what is it you want to know?
Rainman	Who’s the guy speaking on Wednesday?
Jon	Huw’s speaking on Thursday. Watson’s Wednesday.
Rainman	I’m asking you!
Jon	I’m telling you. Watson’s Wednesday.
Rainman	I’m asking you. Which of those guy’s standing up there is speaking on Wednesday?
Jon	Wats-on, the second guy.
Rainman	He’s wearing glasses.
Jon	Who is?
Rainman	Huw doesn’t have glasses.
Jon	Who doesn’t?
Rainman	No he doesn’t. So for the final time; who’s third?
Jon	Huw’s first.
Rainman	I’m not asking you who’s first. What’s the name of the guy in third place?
Jon	Euan.
Rainman	I didn’t even stand! Would I be standing here speaking to you if I was third up there?
Jon	No, so what are you asking?
Rainman	Ok. Who is the shadow chancellor?
Jon	Huw is the leader.
Rainman	I’m not asking you who’s the leader. I want to know who the shadow chancellor is.
Jon	The shadow chancellor is Balls.
Rainman	I’m not asking you how good they are at their job. Who’s the shadow chancellor.
Jon	No, Huw’s the leader.
Rainman	I know who the leader is. Tell me the name of the shadow chancellor.
Jon	Balls!
Rainman	I’m had quite enough of your attitude.
Jon	That’s fine. At least I know who’s friends with me.
Rainman	Huw is friends with you?
Jon	Many are friends with me.
Rainman	So why isn’t he friend with me?
Jon	Who?
Rainman	Yes, Huw.
Jon	How can I tell you who’s friends with me if you won’t even let me know who you are on about?
Rainman	You already know Huw!
Jon	Who does?
Rainman	Yes, Huw knows you.
Jon	Many people know me, what are you asking?
Rainman	I was asking the name of the third place guy.
Jon	What? Eu-an?
Rainman	I’m not on anything! Just tell me who’s third!
Jon	I’m telling you. Huw’s first!

This is a made up conversation between Jonathan Bishop (Jon) and Huw Lewis (Huw, Who). With a North Wales accent, ‘Huw’ and ‘Who’ sound very similar.

Huw: Knock, Knock

Jon: Who’s there?

Huw: Huw

Jon: Who Who?

Huw: Huw

Jon: That’s what I’m asking; Who?

Huw: It’s Huw

Jon: It’s Who?

Huw: Yes, Huw

Jon: Who?

Huw: I’m telling you, it’s Huw!

Jon: I’m the one asking! Who?!

And so on, and so on.

Labour MPs, Rachel Reeves and Chuka Umunna, launched a scathing attack on self-employment, when at the moment this is proving to be the only way many can get work following Brown’s Crass Keynesianism and Cameron’s Crass Cuts.

I am a former Incapacity Benefit claimant. Self-employment, supported by Working Tax Credit has given me the freedom that Marxists blab about as romanticists, but do little to achieve in reality. The Labour Party has existed for over 100 years, but they just want more of the same. Forcing the working class to sell out to the unions and corporations, rather than control their own means of production, distribution and exchange.

If every working class person became self-employed and became dependent on their own self-initiative rather than the state, so they could make as much money as they have time to make, then who would need to vote Labour?

In 2007 I worked in the construction industry, and Labour forced small firms like the one I worked at to bring many sub-contractors onto PAYE. It meant that during the tough times they were being paid to do nothing, when if they were self-employed they could be working for whoever they wanted. They were made redundant, and whilst before they could walk into work as a sub-contractor, it was nearly impossible for them to find long-term work.

I am a member of a professional body, which gives me the same benefits as a trade union. If every working class person did the same as me, then that would mean no money for the trade unions and thus no money for the Labour Party.

Today’s Labour politicians cannot compare to the greats like Keir Hardie. He wanted a better society where every working person was free and in control of their lives. Rather than deny people the chance to control their own means of production, distribution and exchange, Labour politicians should be calling for all employment benefits to me administered by the state and given to people regardless of whether they are employed or self-employed. It is not fair that women are forced to choose between getting SMP as an employee or being an entrepreneur with no SMP, for instance!

The Chair of the conference opened the debate, describing the Better Governance for Wales document as a “blueprint for
taking devolution forward” and said that whether it is the correct solution can be tested by whether it will improve the lives of people in Wales and whether it will deliver better public services.

Rhodri Morgan thanked delegates for taking part in the consultation that led to the document, citing Oscar Wilde, “the trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings”. He said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the
document is that the legislative powers of the Assembly should be enhanced, indicating that there should be greater capacity to make legislation in devolved areas.

Rhodri said that the status quo is not strong enough to deliver for the people of Wales, pointing out that under the current “legislative log jam in Westminster” only two out of three Bills get through Parliament because of the lack of time,suggesting  that devolving primary legislative powers to the Assembly would remove a burden on Westminster. I think this is a strong and convincing argument for devolving primary legislative powers.

Rhodri also said that the Assembly is “delivering on democratising the quango state”, something which the TGWU delegate said was a “truly socialist step”. Ken Hopkins pointed out that democratising the quangos meant that the budget that the Assembly would be responsible for would be greater and therefore more Assembly Members would be needed.

There seemed to be a lot of support for an eighty member Assembly, particularly one that is made up of forty men and forty women, a proposal put by Ken Hopkins in his submission to the Richard Commission.

The other issue that seemed to receive a lot of support from delegates was that it should not be possible for candidates to lose in the first past the post election and win on the list system. Pat Brunker said that “it is an abuse of democracy to offer people two bites of the cherry” and as another delegate put it, “losers should not become winners”.

There seemed to be a strong support for retaining the first-past-the-post method as opposed to proportional representation (PR). There did not seem to be an appetite for the Single Transferable Votes system, which I got the impression many thought was PR method, when it is in fact a fairer form of first-past-the-post that still ties elected representatives to constituencies. This method of election is used within the National Union of Students and students young and old seem to understand how it works.

Peter Hain concluded the debate, saying that his position had to changed on whether there needs to be a referendum, indicating that he now believes it is necessary to have one. I think after listening to the arguments for primary legislative powers, my position has now changed in support of them in principle, but I think a lot needs to be addressed for it to work in practice.

Speaking to people after the debate raised several questions:

• What should happen to ensure that a Bill is properly scrutinised?
• Should the Assembly be able to repeal legislation?
• What can be done to ensure that the Conservatives do not get rid of the Assembly?
• Why is it that local councils have tax-varying powers but the Assembly does not?

I went to two interviews to become a candidate for the Labour Party in the Westminster elections. On both occasions I wasn’t given the chance, these are the things I said:

• I joined the Labour Party because Tony Blair convinced me it had changed to become more pragmatic and willing to do what was right and necessarily and not philosophically most ‘left-wing’ and ‘anti-Tory’. I went into public life to make fairer decisions.

Asked about what I thought the issues I thought would be challenging for Labour at the next election (2010), I said:

• Labour’s rhetoric on immigration is not as strong as the Conservatives
• Not tackling consumer debt would mean Labour would lose the initiative on the economy

Asked what I thought about some issue loosely related to expenses where Labour was implicated in the press I said:

• I’m sure the Tories will be found to be hypocrites, as if one is doing it they all must be

At the end of the different interviews, I asked whether they had any reservations about me and they said:

• “We have never met anyone with as much honesty and integrity as you”, and I didn’t get on the list. I was then told in a letter I lacked “communication” and “team-working” skills.
• “You wouldn’t be very good on Question Time”
• “You can’t prioritise as you have too many ideas”

The thing is, I was only in my 20s then, and all I wanted to do was stand in an unwinnable seat for Labour – Torbay – which was where I went to private school for my secondary education. I thought telling them how I identified with Tony Blair’s New Labour project would be helpful, as the people in Torbay shall we say are not exactly ‘lefties’, but more business minded, like myself. And also, however ‘poorly’ communicated, the things I said about the economy, immigration and expenses turned out to be true!

The Labour Party should have invested in me, because all the criticisms they had of me then, only two years from when I would have stood at the 2010 general election, I have addressed them all, in a huge part thanks to my university education, supported by the Disabled Students Allowance, which in fact was increased by the Labour-led Welsh Assembly during my studies, and which I wouldn’t have even had the chance to do without Tony Blair introducing tuition fees to allow my first degree to run, which I didn’t pay much of because I was from a low income family. These are the things I have achieved since my application to the Labour Party to be on its list of potential candidates for parliamentary elections:

• I set up Glamorgan Blended Learning Ltd, and its Emotivate Project allowed me to demonstrate communication and team-working skills.
• I have received speaking and presentations coaching, and can now give speeches to conferences and live interviews with the media on TV and radio, without notes.
• I have received life skills coaching, and can now manage multiple projects at the same time and prioritise and plan effectively.

I think I would be one of the people Kier Hardie would have wanted in his Labour Party; driven to work beyond the situation I’m born into, ambitious and wanting to make the world and my community a better place, willing to work with others to achieve mutual goals, whatever our abilities, differences or weaknesses. I also think if Kier Hardie was in my shoes today, seeing the Labour Party as it is, he would do what he did in his day and what I’ve done now – found our own party.

A couple of months ago casually said on a Labour Party politician’s page on Facebook that I think it would be a good idea to invite people to tweet during one’s speech at a conference to get live interactive feedback from the audience.

An A2P ensued (Analysis to Paralysis) where the merits of this were debated to its death. One of the things said were “not everyone can afford Internet phones” and “some people may not know how to tweet”.

I tried it at a conference of mainly middle class people the other day, and no one tweeted, but at events open to all, like shows at the former Cardiff International Arena, it is quite common and popular – it would be nice to know the demographics of these Twitter users.

Who are these people who can’t afford Internet phones? They are not the people on low incomes like myself, nor are they the people on benefits who aspire to be rich and imitate the rich at every opportunity (called ‘chavs’). My backronym for chavs might become ‘Cashless, Hopeful and Always Visually Successful’ to describe anyone who to others looks like they have more money than they actually do. I might fit such a definition – for now! It could even apply to middle class families whose children have the latest gadgets, but who do not have enough surplus income to do everything they want to do.

Merthyr Tydfil is known as the ‘Chav capital of Wales’, and is it these people who are keeping Pontypridd which is a couple of train stops away from dying a death, as it provides the goods these chavs want at an affordable price.

These people are most likely to benefit from innovations like I suggested, and it is only snobbish champagne socialists like members of the Fabiens who are holding them back. These typically middle class people think people on benefits can’t afford things like mobile phones, when in fact they are more likely to own them than more conservative techno-phobic middle classes who don’t need them as much.

The digital divide has therefore changed. It is no longer than ‘the poor’ can’t afford the latest technology, as thanks to New Labour’s anti-poverty policies they at present have more surplus cash. They are in fact being held back by an snobbish intellectual elite who rely on maintain the working class to maintain their collective memory of superiority and philanthropy.

The Fabien members of the Labour Party are one such group, who hold meetings to pity the working class while at the same time talking up their important role and wanting to maintain them for their own sense of importance.

The digital divide is no longer between the haves and have-nots, it is between the know-hows and the don’t-know-hows. And it is the working class that are more willing to take risk to know-how than the more conservative classes who don’t need to. So for every new use of technology a champagne socialist denies being created because it might disadvantage the poor, they are actually advantaging the more well off, who wouldn’t know how to use it – people like them perhaps?

Do people actually blame David Cameron for getting annoyed at Big Ed (Ed Balls), and not taking Red Ed (Ed Miliband) seriously? Both of these are at the heart of an infantile group of people I will call ‘Ed Labour’.

All Ed Labour care about is winning the next election. They are like the Conservatives under William Hague who united behind an anti-Europe Campaign, which many Tories didn’t agree with, because they thought it would get them elected.

I compare Ed Labour to some adolescents who have just discovered they can climax. They are so excited and proud of what they’ve discovered like it is going to be the making of them and fulfil all of their dreams and desires. These are the most prominent examples:

• The euro is in trouble, and Ed Balls and his former boss Gordon Brown didn’t want to UK to join. This gave Big Ed some undue confidence that he saved the country from the euro which has failed. But the euro must survive, and I’m confident Big Ed will come crashing down and realise how silly he looks eventually.
• Red Ed declared the end of New Labour, which disenfranchised moderates like myself. Realising this he needed something to try and get our support back. So a term came about called ‘responsible capitalism’ which is pretty much what Tony Blair’s PPP/PFI was about. It reflected many of the same policies Tory advocates of the Big Society wanted, and when they started to use the term, Red Ed like a school boy claimed they were copying him and because many of the public liked the concept, like they once did New Labour, it suddenly became the thing Ed Labour were going to be known for.

Ed Labour is not principled like New Labour was, as there is no over-arching philosophy or idealised utopian society, the only thing that matters to Ed Labour is that the next government in Westminster is a Labour one.

Stephen Brooks, a Labour Party Member who I have known since my university days, defriended and blocked me on Facebook, just because, it seems, I said that Karen Wikie, Secretary of the Co-operative Party, did not to anything about the discrimination (i.e. breaches of the Equality Act) by the Pontypridd Town Labour Group against me when I was a town councillor. I said she wouldn’t have my support in the forthcoming bye-election selections.

By doing this Steve Brooks has probably broken the law, Section 27(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 to be precise. This says that it is victimization to subject me to a detriment just because I raised an allegation that is covered by that Act.

Stephen Brooks should be ashamed to call himself a democrat if he ceases associating with people just because they have a different opinion to him and because they feel discriminated against!

I think if Kier Hardie was alive today, he would probably have a nervous breakdown seeing what his party has become. Does Steve Brooks feel what he did is what he would have wanted him to do?

I think Kier Hardie would respect me more for leaving the Labour Party to form my own in the same manner as him, as he was a principled man like myself, and not like Stephen Brooks and most other influential in the Labour Party, who in my view use the Party to get access to public life for their own interests and not to realise Kier Hardie’s dreams and aspirations.