´óÏó´«Ã½

I'm heading out but take a look at .

Headlined "Boris Johnson to get 'superpowers' if Tories win election" it's a piece about what the paper says could be "the biggest devolution of power to the capital since the Greater London Authority was created a decade ago".

So if the London Mayor were to be the benficiary of more powers under a Tory administration, do we assume that as part of the Tories' "Big Society" agenda, there'd be more powers devolved to Wales too?

Apparently so.

"The policy paper proposals could be in David Cameron's first Queen's Speech as part of a devolution Bill, which might also hand more power to Scotland and Wales.

Tory policy chief Oliver Letwin and Mr Johnson's head of policy Anthony Browne have spent months thrashing out the details, which have now been signed off by the
party leader".

As I say, I'm heading out but feel free to speculate/get into the big tent and wonder out loud what exactly the Conservatives might be proposing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A quick sideways glance for you that reveals just how close this contest has been and may yet be.

It's rare that you can guarantee a dead cert winner at the bookies but it looks as though anyone betting on the party that'll receive the least number of votes on May 6th can start counting the winnings.

That's because two national betting company have - liked any number of political commentators - failed to agree on which of the three largest parties will poll the least amount of votes.

Paddy Power place them like this:

4-5 LABOUR 11-10 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 12-1 CONSERVATIVE

While William Hill go for:

8-13 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 11-8 LABOUR 14-1 CONSERVATIVE

Now I'm no expert on betting and as a non-conformist minister's daughter I would never, ever advocate that you take it up either but I'm told this allows punters to back both Labour and the Liberal Democrats and line their pockets.

No matter which party receives the least amount of votes, you still win.

As I say, a sideways glance - nothing more than a fascinating indication that with just six days until voting day, this General Election has still got all the pundits and the bookies guessing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Ever had a deja-vu moment? A friend who waved goodbye to Wales recently and moved to the Middle East experienced one yesterday.

A headline reading rang a bell. Wasn't there a similar "aspiration" in Wales once, he asked?

There was. It was a pledge in Plaid's manifesto for the Assembly election in 2007.

It led to young men on housing estates spotting Adam Price MP campaigning and calling out: "'Oy, where's my free laptop then mate?"

It was,

For those who missed it - including my friend in the MIddle East -

Not quite a laptop for every child in Wales yet. But one thing's for sure. If the Plaid pledge attracted derision for being over-profligate back in the good old days of plenty in 2007 ... how threadbare are the manifestos going to be for 2011 given the public spending squeeze coming rapidly down the track towards us.

Planet Prudence anyone?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Before you settle down to watch the final Prime Ministerial Debate and - I hope - keep sitting comfortably to watch the Newsnight Special on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 2 Wales that follows at 11, a chance for a quick update.

IeuanAir - grounded since March - is about to take to the air again.

From a week Monday Manx2 have been appointed to take over the Cardiff to Anglesey service for the next seven months.

The company have said that "as a Celtic neighbour, Manx2.com is delighted to have been chosen to reconnect Cardiff and Anglesey. With our home base just 50 miles away across the Irish Sea, we're excited about the prospect of bringing our award-winning service and our record of reliability and punctuality to this essential community route".

The man whose name will forever be linked to the service, regular customer and Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones, was determined to get "a vital service which helps to secure economic, social and political cohesion in Wales, as well as supporting economic development in north-west Wales" going again and now he has.

At least one air war is over. Join me for the continuation of the other in a Newsnight Special on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 2 Wales at 11.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The election stops at the big glass doors of the National Assembly. As the Presiding Officer forcefully reminded AMs in the chamber as business got going again after Easter, there is no election here. The business of legislating, though, never sleeps.

Legislation committee number 2 is currently considering the Welsh Language Measure and today they'll take evidence from the Welsh Language Board, the Royal Mail, and Scottish Power - and it should be a very interesting session. ().

The whispers coming out the Board when the Measure was first unveiled weren't exactly positive and in their written evidence ahead of today's meeting, there's plenty to back that up.

The underlying tension which underpins the debate on the Measure is between the predominantly voluntary system established by the 1993 Act and developed by the Welsh Language Board since and the more regulatory, compulsive approach proposed by the Measure.

The carrot versus the stick, in short.

The government has decided that the way to deliver services in Welsh to those of us who'd choose to have our bills delivered in Welsh, to speak Welsh at the counter in the bank, who choose to use Welsh in work is by ensuring there is a statutory onus on larger private companies - gas, electricity, telecoms and so on - to provide services in Welsh and opportunties to use Welsh. There will be delivery standards they must reach. Rather than give Welsh speakers the right in law to conduct their business in Welsh, as plenty of campaginers argue forcefully they should have done, they've gone for putting a legal onus on companies to provide the services.

The Welsh Language Board and its supporters are fighting a rearguard action here of course. Whatever happens, they're probably on the verge of being consigned to history and replaced with a Commissioner but there are strong indications they're not going to see their cherished voluntary and promotional approach cast aside without a fight.

Consider this quote from their evidence: "Will tensions arise between the compulsory functions (which are much more stringent than the Board's current regulatory functions) and the Commissioner's promotional functions? Would it not be preferable to consider a model in which the Commissioner acts as an advocate for the speakers of Welsh, and engages in regulation only when there is non-compliance in the context of Welsh Language Schemes?"

Or, put more simply, the system ain't broke - so why are you fixing it?

They continue, "We do not believe that the culture of Central Government is apposite to engage in language promotion. We have already referred to the risks of conflict if both the promotional and compulsory functions are given to the Commissioner. A further option, therefore, would be to bestow the promotional functions on a separate body."

Some sort of ... Welsh Language Board, perhaps? They're certainly not going down without a fight.

All of this is, of course, philosophical, and somewhat inside the Beltway. What about the real world? Enter stage right, Scottish Power.

The Measure as proposed, is very, very coy about costs to business. In the Regulatory Impact Assessment published alongside it, the Assembly Government says that it will be impossible to predict costs until after the measure is published and implemented.

This is because only once the Measure is passed will powers be given to a new Commissioner to set those Welsh language delivery standards for organisations that fall under the scope of the new legislation. Only then, the Government argues, can the costs be properly evaluated.

What Scottish Power will tell the committee today is going to put that into some very sharp focus indeed. Scottish Power set out very clearly what they're currently doing under a voluntary system, which includes bilingual billing and customer relations. But, they say, a significant - and statutory - extension of their Welsh language provision could have set up costs of around £1.5m plus ongoing costs of more than half a million a year. These costs, they say, would inevitably need to be reflected in tariffs.

Should the standards be "reasonable", the company argues, then they could be mitigated for a modest cost, and wouldn't adversely affect their ability to provide an efficient and good value service in Wales.

However, they say, "there are some scenarios which could lead to many hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs associated with administrative changes, particularly within our Energy Retail business, due to the complexity of the systems that manage customer contact.

"It is possible that requirements for some of these services could be set at a level which would make the cost of provision disproportionate. Such requirements could constitute a significant undertaking, affecting all business systems, and potentially our ability to provide our customers with a consistent level of service."

Although Scottish Power's approach is much more nuts and bolts than the Welsh Language Board, the feeling from their evidence in today's session is very similar - we don't think anything is broken, and we don't quite understand why you're trying to fix it.

And that's the hurdle this Measure is going to have to get over as it makes its way through the scrutiny process. While plenty are willing it on its way, afraid it's already been weakened by too many compromises, others will come to Cardiff Bay and ask what is the philosophical justification for moving from a voluntary system to a statutory one.

For those giving evidence to the committee today, it's fairly clear that this case is far from being made.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Moments" that mark campaigns.

Back in May 2001 John Prescott can't have expected his visit to Rhyl to create much of a stir. Coverage in the Daily Post and the Western Mail perhaps and a slot on that evening's news bulletins. .

Gordon Brown's "moment" in Rochdale, or so a lifelong and high profile Labour supporter has just admitted on Radio Cymru, is so much worse. Just when Labour's campaign needed to step up a gear Gordon Brown has had to take a huge step back. Now, said Sir Deian Hopkin, "this rather dark man" as Mr Brown has been described, has to spend the rest of the campaign clawing back all those votes he flung away today.

Why is it so much worse?

Because John Prescott was the deputy. Gordon Brown is the boss.

Because the punch thrown in Rhyl confirmed the view of Mr Prescott as a bit of a bruiser who felt things passionately. The comments made in Rochdale confirm the view of Gordon Brown as a man who is not kind if he's challenged, who loses it when we're not watching.

Because when the story has blown over, the gut feeling will remain: the Prime Minister really is one man in public and another behind closed doors.

And because after months of headlines about expenses and revelations that have eroded faith in politicians and after months of politicians doing their best to regain that trust, Mr Brown will have just confirmed for many that they were right to be cynical.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will wait until he sees tomorrow morning's headlines before deciding whether he was spot on when he described today's moment as a disaster.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Elfyn Llwyd put it very bluntly a few weeks ago. Plaid Cymru are already closer to power and to government than Nick Clegg is - or ever will be - was the gist of what he had to say.

Then came the first Prime Ministerial Debate and the subsequent opinion polls that suggested he might want to reconsider.

That was a few weeks ago.

Rumours tonight that the front page of tomorrow's Financial Times says Mr Llwyd might yet be proved right. It suggests that when Plaid showed a bit of ankle at the start of the campaign - quite a bit of ankle you might say - and said that in a close run election their small group might hold the balance of power, those "big London parties" were indeed listening.

The FT, it's been suggested, will claim tomorrow that the Conservatives heard the message loud and clear. Whether the paper will say that they have already come knocking at Plaid's door and the SNP's door, or will say that the Tories would rather strike a deal with the two parties in Wales and Scotland than with the Lib Dems isn't clear. It will be soon when the article appears online.

Clearly the significance of 'have already' is considerably greater than 'would rather'. They would, wouldn't they? A vote by vote deal with a few MPs from Wales and Scotland would be considerably less expensive and "inedible" as Rhodri Morgan once put it, than coalition with Nick Clegg. But let's spell it out once again: that would depend on the maths falling very precisely in Plaid's favour and in Mr Cameron's. He'd have to be just a handful of seats short of a majority.

To be clear Plaid dispute point blank that any talks have happened or that the idea of talks has been broached with them. The Conservatives, they say, have not been in touch. Plaid have said in the past - and Ieuan Wyn Jones says so again in an interview with Huw Edwards to be broadcast tomorrow night - that what Plaid want is the best deal for Wales. If the Conservatives are the largest party, then that deal could be struck with them.

While we wait to see the story and find out just how significant it is, one other thought. To whose ears will this story be beautiful music?

Labour's. If I were them I'd be at the front of the queue to buy the FT tomorrow morning.

UPDATE

The FT's article is now online. It's very much in "would rather talk to" than "talking to" territory. As I wrote earlier: well they would, wouldn't they.

Plaid have responded:

"There has been no discussion whatsoever with the Tories and we would not entertain the idea of holding talks with any party until the people have made their decision and we know the outcome of the election. Given the scale of the cuts the Tories are planning for Wales, we would find it extremely difficult to negotiate with a party that wants to further jeopardise jobs and public services".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Senior Plaid Cymru figures and actual figures regarding expenditure and cuts haven't always mixed well at this election.

Plaid's parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd took a pasting on Dragon's Eye a few weeks ago. Perhaps the dog had eaten his homework, or perhaps he'd left it on the battle bus. He certainly didn't have the answers at the ready.

By how much and where would Plaid cut in order to save the money needed to pay back the deficit? He talked about Trident and Eurofighter and ID cards saving billions but his line on cuts was vague: "Yes there will have to be some form of cuts at some point" but not now.

Which figures had persuaded Plaid that introducing a maximum wage was a good idea? Could he name a single successful economy where they have a maximum wage? He couldn't. He was quite sure that there was one but as to where ... "in Europe" was as close as it got. No blueprint then asked Felicity Evans? No, said a man willing the interview to come to an end "but why shouldn't we have ambitious plans."

There are those who don't believe that Plaid's figures add up, no matter how you present them.

There are those who have faith in the maths but wish they were presented with more conviction and accuracy.

They will have enjoyed Dr Eurfyl ap Gwilym, Plaid's economic adviser talking to Jeremy Paxman on last night's Newsnight.

You can watch the interview here - it's some 36 minutes in - and you can check the table over which they grappled

Chapter 9, table 9.2 is the one you want. If you're interested it'll tell you many things but one thing it tells you for sure: when he was in school Eurfyl ap Gwilym never left his homework on the bus.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Anyone planning "individual voter contact" in the Tenby area between now and May 6th? Fair warning for you.

So much for the Mumsnet election ...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It may be called "The Blue Cafe" but the early-risers in the cafe just off Guildhall Square in Carmarthen were still undecided where their vote will go, still as confused as the rest of us who are paid to try and work out what will happen on May 6th.

Yes Nick Clegg, they thought, had definitely come out of the tv debates best but just because he'd been better than they'd thought he'd be on telly didn't mean he'd be picking up their votes. But boy it was time for a change, though if big cuts were on the way - and a quick read of today's - then maybe Gordon Brown was the one who'd be the safest pair of hands. Then again, they weren't sure it would matter how they voted. It would be fairer if there were a system where every vote counted.

What about Plaid? Oh yes, possibly ... but truth be told? They liked things about each party, disliked things about each party. There wasn't one who got it right so there wasn't one they could plump for. You got the impression that in the past at least, there'd been an obvious choice. Not any more; the cut and paste generation couldn't see why there couldn't be a system that allowed them to cut and paste politics in a way that works for them.

Will the political map of Wales look like a cut and paste job after May 6th? It might well.

Between the coffee and toast Professor Richard Wyn Jones of the Governance Centre in Cardiff University sunk his teeth into .

Their share of the vote yielded only a handful of seats but it handed the Conservatives their highest ever number of seats in Wales. If that chapter in history is repeated - if Labour are truly running third as polls now seem to suggest - then not only will the map be multi-coloured and parliament hung. The whole future direction of the Labour party will be hanging in the balance too.

But if Mr Cameron's plans to hit the next tier of target seats backfires and if he finds that he really hadn't sealed the deal in the first lot yet - and there's plenty of evidence to suggest he might want to pause and consider that thought - then Labour will come through far, far less scathed than you might think.

What way do they think it's going? "I'm perplexed" said one Welsh Labour figure who was fighting elections when I was learning about them in school. He doesn't know. He genuinely doesn't know. His party doesn't know. Their number one hope? That you don't know either and that sometime before a week Thursday it'll strike you that if you were truly ready for change, you ought surely to know exactly what you wanted by now.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Oh dear.

. She was, said the Lib Dems, "illustrative". She was "misleading" his constituents said Conservative AM Jonathan Morgan.

. He too was what the other parties called "fake" and the Lib Dems called, once again, "illustrative."

He must have been good at it because here he is again. Not enough coppers on the beat to go round?

Again: does it matter?

Every comment you do make will be taken down and may be used in evidence ...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

During election time, the slew of press releases and diary markers dropping into the inbox becomes even more fevered than usual. Like old Sisyphus, if he'd had access to Outlook Express that is, no sooner have you opened/closed/forwarded/deleted than another one pops up.

That can make it hard to see the wood from the trees but two things landed yesterday that deserve more thought than usual.

The Political Unit's number one anorak and I put our heads together and thought, talked, then thought some more. This blog entry is the result, one that might even appeal to Scottish friends who've taken to dropping by this blog during the election campaign. Croeso i chi.

So what were these two things?

The first was from the think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, with details of a study by Professor David Bell entitled "Devolution in a Downturn".

He warns of a potential public opinion backlash in England, since, according to his reasoning, devolved budgets will be better protected from the public sector cuts to come.
Firstly, he says, devolved administrations' budgets will be relatively well sheltered from the worst cuts that fall on England, since the bulk of the block grant going to them is based on health and education spending which the Conservative and Labour parties have promised to protect. Health and education funding make up more than half of the 'comparable' spending programmes in England upon which the value of the grant is based.

Secondly, the so-called 'Barnett squeeze' (which means that over time the Barnett formula is supposed to bring about equal spending per head in the four nations) goes into reverse if spending cuts are being made. This means -according to him - that the proportionate fall in spending in the devolved administrations will be lower than that experienced in England.

The second was some copy sent through from my ´óÏó´«Ã½ colleagues in Scotland, from First Minister's Questions in Holyrood yesterday.

Discussing the a study he'd commissioned into the impending cuts, here's what Alex Salmond had to say:

"Based on the chancellor's most recent budget statement, in broad terms, the analysis shows potential real-term reductions in Scottish Government expenditure of 3 per cent per annum between 2011-12 and 2014-15. Projecting further forward, the analysis forecasts a period of up to 12 to 15 years before 2009-10 levels of expenditure are reached again. That represents a cumulative loss of between £22 billion to £35 billion of public spending over that period, depending on what assumptions are made in the forecast."

He agreed with an intervention with a fellow MSP that this was "chilling".

Ouch. While the range of areas covered by the formula is wider in Scotland than it is in Wales, the rough rule of thumb is usually - follow the money - for Holyrood, see Cardiff Bay.

The sharper eyed among you will have noticed that Mr Salmond and Professor Bell are somewhat at odds on this. As the Scottish First Minister warns of agonies to come, the Professor warns that in his his view "public opinion may not tolerate a situation whereby the devolved administrations, and Scotland in particular, is perceived to be suffering less pain than England."

He cites previous IPPR research showing that the number of people in England who think that Scotland gets 'more than its fair share of funding' has almost doubled in recent years (from 22% in 2003 to 40% in 2009) which, suggests the IPPR, shows growing public unease about the distribution of money. This, the professor warns, is only likely to grow if spending disparities widen during an era of cuts.

Well that's the theory. So how can that English backlash be avoided? Reform the formula, is the simple answer. There's cross party consensus on that, to the extent that all think it needs to be overhauled, but much less in the way of consensus as to exactly how that should happen.

Mr Salmond's analysis, of course, is based on the Barnett formula as it currently exists. It's pretty much widely acknowleged that any substantial reform of the way the system operates - most obviously, introducing a needs-based element - would mean a reduction in the money coming to Scotland. Assuming that's in the region of a couple of billion a year, then the prediction coming from the Scottish Executive analysts gets a whole lot more chilling.

The joint press conference between Plaid Cymru and the SNP just before the election starting gun was fired received most attention for the statement that they would offer their support for a minority administration on a case-by-case basis, a sort of cash in hand deal. But it's worth looking a bit more closely at the agreement itself - '4 Wales, 4 Scotland'

Point one is as follows - Fair funding for Wales and Scotland.

But what does that actually mean?

Mr Salmond explains, "As it currently stands, the UK Government can and does slash the Scottish and Welsh budgets with impunity. The Barnett formula has let Scotland and Wales down. That's why in Scotland we need fiscal autonomy and Wales requires a fairer funding deal."

Putting aside for a moment the substantial increase in devolved budgets over the past decade, which most fair-minded people would put in exactly the opposite category to "slash", I spoke to a senior Plaid Cymru figure a couple of days after that announcement and voiced surprise that agreement on a joint Plaid-SNP fair funding had been so easy to reach, given the potential impact on the Scottish budget. "Fair funding is a banner we can both work with" came the response. A colleague had a similar chat. "Yes, we were pretty surprised too," was the answer he got. "But they really want fiscal autonomy, and if that means, y'know, losing a couple of billion, maybe, well there you go..."

Y'know, losing a couple of billion. Hmm.

Our parliamentary correspondent David Cornock, interviewing the Tory Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Phillip Hammond on a visit to Wales earlier this week, got chatting about precisely this. Mr Hammond told him that in private preparatory talks in the event that the Tories take office in Westminster, Mr Salmond had used words to the effect that "the Barnett formula must stay."

So where does this leave Wales? Well, it doesn't have the generous over-funding that Scotland has historically enjoyed but it will probably see similar levels of budget cuts (or to use a current much-used euphemism, "disinvestment"). So we're starting from a low base and getting lower.

Point one of 4 Wales 4 Scotland sounds simple, but the Treasury, on past form, won't be shy about driving a wedge between the two competing demands of more money for Wales and maintaining the Scottish budget. If the IPPR's English backlash - if it materialises - is to be headed off, that will, if anything, mean equalising the spend per head between England and the devolved nations.

It has to be said that, to echo politicians in Scotland, things are looking pretty chilly.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Liberal Democrats "completely and utterly condemn" any attempts at "hoodwinking the people" during elections. I know that because today, they told us so when we pointed out to them that

I'm sure John Dixon, the Liberal Democrat candidate in Cardiff North agrees. I wonder if it's news to him that the nurse with whom he's chatting in the large photograph on the front of his campaign leaflet is, in fact, a "nurse". Unlikely.

She's a Liberal Democrat researcher for Assembly Member Mick Bates who, we must presume, had been rummaging in the dressing up box before the photo shoot. There's even an authentic looking ready-for-action biro in her top pocket.

Does it matter?

No, say the Lib Dems. The photo was "designed to be illustrative" and was there to help highlight the party's commitment to improving the NHS.

Oh yes it does say the Conservatives.

Local AM Jonathan Morgan thinks it's "appalling that the Lib Dems in Cardiff North would seek to deliberately mislead my constituents by using a picture of their candidate talking to a nurse, when I know she is not a nurse and has never been a nurse."

Oh yes it does say Labour.

"It's one thing pretending your leader could be Prime Minister" says a spokesman with an eye for an opportunity, "quite another having your staff pretend to work for the NHS".

Plaid's verdict? We're waiting for it.

You can see the names of all of those standing in Cardiff North .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

.

If you are voters in Clwyd West then you need to know what is true and what is not. The sort of leaflet Mr Brown denied last night that he had authorised has been distributed on your patch. I'm guessing then that the accusations of "lies" and "smears" on the one hand and the claims that the Tories are drawing attention "to the dark underbelly of their slick PR machine" on the other, will not be new to you.

The Labour leaflet in Clwyd West claims, for instance, that the Conservatives would cut free bus passes.

The Conservatives say the opposite - that they are committed to free pensioner bus travel and won't scrap it.

Labour say the Conservatives would cut free prescriptions.

The Conservatives say that under their plans, most would continue to get free prescriptions but that "those who can afford to will be required to pay a small charge".

They also point out that both policies are devolved anyway and therefore, not affected by the outcome of this election.

By the way the SNP in Scotland have pointed to similar claims about "cuts to concessionary travel" made in Mr Brown's own leaflet in Fife.

Welsh Labour have come out fighting. Wayne David, their Campaign Co-ordinator, accused the Tories of being "clearly rattled" and that "Labour can stand up every single one of the points raised in these leaflets".

For instance: the justification for claiming that the Conservatives would cut free bus passes is that .

For "cut" read "cut back"?

For Tory complaints read a party that is "clearly rattled to be reacting like this to one of our leaflets" according to Welsh Labour.

One of our leaflets?

As my colleague David Cornock points out in his blog, the claims are in the Welsh Labour manifesto, which has been authorised by Carwyn Jones and Peter Hain, even if Mr Brown can say ... not by him.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Talk about playing with a straight bat? Well that's what I'm doing here when I report that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust has announced it has not upheld a joint appeal from the SNP and Plaid Cymru on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Prime Ministerial debate scheduled to be broadcast on 29 April.

An ad hoc committee of five Trustees met yesterday to consider the appeal.

You can read their findings in full here but here's an outline of the decision the committee has taken:

"It concluded that the Director-General had not erred in his approach as to which parties to include in the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Prime Ministerial debate. Noting the level of past electoral support and the number of candidates standing for the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Committee concluded that the Director-General's approach to achieving impartiality was appropriate. That is that SNP and Plaid Cymru have not been included in the Prime Ministerial debate programme but in associated and clearly signposted coverage previously agreed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

"It considered that, on the basis that it was within the Director-General's discretion not to include the SNP and Plaid Cymru in the Prime Ministerial debate, it would not have been appropriate to involve the SNP and Plaid Cymru in negotiations surrounding that debate or the agreement of the format. The Committee considered that it was appropriate for the Executive to form the view that it was not in a position to engage with the SNP and Plaid Cymru on their coverage until the detail of the debate itself had been finalised.

"It concluded that the Director-General had not erred in his approval of the Executive's approach to coverage of the SNP and Plaid Cymru surrounding the debate, that the Committee was satisfied with the process adopted and that the approach to coverage of the SNP and Plaid Cymru was reasonable and adequate to maximise the achievement of due impartiality, and within the discretion afforded to the DG to approve as editor-in-chief of the ´óÏó´«Ã½".

With that news delivered, I'll make my way back to the pavilion.

UPDATE

Plaid's Director of Elections, Helen Mary Jones has issued a response on behalf of the party:

"It is astonishing that the ´óÏó´«Ã½, an organisation funded by the people of Wales, will not even allow this matter to be presented in an open hearing. For a body which claims that its values are based on being "independent, impartial and honest" we are surprised that this entire process has been held behind closed doors. Having shown complete disregard for Plaid and the democratic process of our nation the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can no longer claim to be a national broadcaster for Wales".

She goes on to say:

"The ´óÏó´«Ã½ claims to continuously assess and monitor its election coverage in order to achieve political balance. Therefore it is simply not credible for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust to claim that it is not in a position to consider whether the corporation's coverage of Plaid and the SNP has so far been appropriate and proportionate.

In Wales there are 4 parties contesting every seat - and yet 1 of them has been excluded from the network's main election event and most of the surrounding coverage. As a result it's inevitable that Plaid will not be given a fair and proportionate broadcast opportunity in this election.

"We believe that the Trust is now in a position to assess the impact of the first televised debate which was broadcast on ITV and covered by all networks. It is clearly the case that neither the event itself nor the surrounding coverage has resulted in a proportionate opportunity for all 4 parties in Wales or Scotland and yet this fact has been totally disregarded by the Trust."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Respect the players. Respect the officials. Respect the playing area. Respect the ground rules."

As the signs around Glamorgan's Cricket Ground spell out, it really wouldn't be cricket to do anything else. Yesterday, upstairs in one of the hospitality suites, the Prime Minister's audience of Red Dragon radio station listeners were adhering to the rules.

Hands up before you ask a question. Hands up if you want to follow up. Please do not move during overs.

Mr Brown smiled, used the questioner's name deliberately, intently. "How are you Les ... You know what Steve ..." He tried to keep it simple and straightforward as he dealt with questions about volcanic ash, first time house buyers, cheap alcohol and why he'd given it a fortnight before coming to Wales. Not fair, was the answer to that one. Hadn't he brought the cabinet for a historic meeting in the Millennium Stadium a few months ago? Actually he hadn't. It wasn't the Millennium Stadium. It was the same cricket stadium as Mr Brown was visiting yesterday but as faux pas go, hardly a corker.

Sally Roberts told the PM that she was setting up a health and beauty business in Barry. How would Mr Brown make it easier for her to borrow the money she needs from the bank? "It's a great thing you're doing" said the PM, which I can't help hoping Sally will put on her promotional leaflets when opening day comes.

On the day the number of those out of work in Wales rose by another 10,000, the theme was jobs. Labour will protect them. Labour is the party of prospects, of apprenticeships, of job experience. "Just wait for the 110,000 jobs line" whispered a colleague. "There are 110,000 more jobs in Wales than there were in 1997" said Mr Brown.

But the number of those unemployed in Wales have gone up, up and are up again came a follow-up. Mr Brown turned on those parties offering change. Any party that is pledging to make savings of £6bn is going to cost Wales jobs. And Liberal Democrat sums? They don't add up. Tax plans? Don't get him started.

"Behind the froth" of soundbites, it was substance that would matter come polling day said Mr Brown as he set off to meet the faithful in the furthest he made it from Cardiff Central - Cardiff North. To be fair, he was staying in Cardiff South, but still not a huge Welsh geographical spread.

The questions to Labour MPs milling around outside felt more revealing. How were things going on the ground? They were genuinely perplexed. Some had felt the full force of the surge in support for the Liberal Democrats. Others sensed Clegg-mania but no great appetite for his party or his policies. Other simply sense that their chances of hanging on to power have risen from the dead; an election they had lost a month ago is not dead and buried after all. "Put it like this. If you've offered me these opinion polls three weeks ago, I'd have taken them" said one Labour voice.

Unpredictable is pretty good they decided, when the predicted outcome was defeat.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A scene set in the Assembly building this morning.

Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams and her trusted press officer were in the lift when they were joined by Conservative AM David Melding.

He looked down at their feet, then up again and smiled.

"Still on the ground then" he said, as he headed off to the debating chamber.

UPDATE

Nick Bourne has his own culinary take on Clegg-mania.

"I'm no chef" he was heard saying "but there are two debates to go and I'm told a souffle doesn't rise twice".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So Mr Brown, Mr Cameron, tell us - how do you deal with the big pants dilemma?

Hang on, you know you've got a big problem to solve here in the shape of a Mr Clegg but you've never heard it described in those terms?

Before I explain, a thought that will do nothing to cheer the three of you up. As posted yesterday and is suddenly - but glaringly - obvious to anyone watching this campaign, time is fast running out for you to combat the surge in Lib Dem popularity. Yes, election day is a fortnight and a bit away but as James Macintyre points out on the New Statesman blog, time's running out rather faster than that.

If some three million people vote by post and if, as has become the norm, around half return their voting forms early, then they could be in the post very soon. How many of those will reflect the current can't-get-enough-of-Clegg mood?

But back to those big pants. Bridget Jones fans will know what I'm getting at but to all others, stick with me here.

The dilemma, as spelled out in her diary, is this: to get a date with the man of your dreams, your chances are much enhanced if you wear big pants - big, ugly, unforgiving pants. However once you've got where you wanted to be - in his arms - then you wish you hadn't gone down the big, ugly, unforgiving route at all. By then though, it's too late and in your heart you know that if you hadn't gone the big pants route, you wouldn't be where you wanted to be at all.

See now? Big pants can be a necessary evil but make life a whole lot more difficult further down the line.

So Mr Cameron, Mr Brown - do you go down the big, ugly, unforgiving route now? Do you go on the attack against Mr Clegg, try to tear his every utterance and his policy statements apart in the hope that that gets you to where you want to be - winning more seats than the other one? And then, of course, it looks like your date will be Mr Clegg, whose party might not be so keen to talk to the leader who went down route of ugly, grim necessity?

Meanwhile Mr Jones is taking the fight to Ofcom. Having seen last night's YouGov/ITV Wales poll result Plaid Cymru have written to the broadcasting regulator to complain that their exclusion from last Thursday's Prime Ministerial debate on ITV was in breach of the Broadcasting Code. I quote:

"Whilst until now, we relied upon anecdotal evidence to confirm the view that this debate would influence the outcome of the election, we now have hard facts in the form of an opinion poll which shows a spectacular rise for the Liberal Democrats".

Plaid and the SNP are expected to meet with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust in the next week to argue their case for involvement in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ debate scheduled for April 29.

Meanwhile: Mr Brown, Mr Hain, Mr Cameron, Mrs Gillan - your move.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The last post referred to the Liberal Democrat "spike" in support in the UK-wide opinion polls over the weekend after Nick Clegg's debate performance. Well, tonight we have the clearest indication of how sharp that spike is in Wales - and it's enough to make the other party leaders' eyes water.

The ITV/YouGov poll of voting intentions, which carried out its fieldwork in Wales between April 14-17 (the debate took place on the 15th, before you ask) has come up with these results, with difference from March figures in brackets:

Labour 33 (down 4)
Conservative 23 (down 6)
Plaid Cymru 9 (down 5)
Liberal Democrats 29 (up 17)

Now that's what you call a spike. Month on month, it's frankly jaw dropping.

These ups and downs are easy to judge, what's harder, of course, is to translate them into real gains in terms of seats on May 6. Certainly, Swansea West, Newport East and Wrexham would all come squarely into play if the spike is maintained, as well as keeping a firm grip on the existing seats. But as the Liberal Democrats know more painfully than almost any party, there's not necessarily as large a spike in seat numbers as there is a spike in overall support.

You can hear the reactions from the candidates for the four main parties in Montgomeryshire on Wales Debates tonight at 10.45 on ´óÏó´«Ã½1 Wales. Don't expect anyone to get too carried away here, but something would certainly seem to be shifting, and the sands of time are running out fast.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Nick Clegg steps off the Lib Dem battlebus. He looks around, and says, "Where am I? "Third" shouts a voice from the crowd. A joke that is on the current issue of Private Eye, and one that's starting to feel like the very definition of old hat, if some of the weekend opinion polls are to be believed.

This morning, the same Nick Clegg stepped off the same battle bus in Swansea. Before he'd had much of a chance to look around, a man wielding a loudhailer and a copy of the Socialist Worker tried to shout Mr Clegg down, or engage, as the papers put it over the weekend, in an anti-Lib Dem offensive.

The man with the loudhailer had already had a brush with South Wales Police who tried to confiscate the bullhorn before Mr Clegg's arrival, but, it seems, gave it back to him before the battle bus turned up, and the Lib Dem leader got the chance to show off his newly-needed prowess at dealing with hecklers.

"I know you're getting very angry but you have had 13 years to deliver for Wales and you haven't. Just pipe down, give someone else a go." Applause from the crowd, albeit one already pretty well disposed to Mr Clegg given the number of Liberal Democrat placards.

How long will the spike in Lib Dem popularity last? You tell me. But if the answer is more than a fortnight and a bit, then there'll be joyous candidates in constituencies like Montgomeryshire, where I'm spending the day. There'll be frustrated Conservative hopefuls who must have scented blood, furious Plaid Cymru ones, and nervous Labour candidates in seats like Swansea West and Newport East.

The truth is, no one can really tell what the effect of the Liberal surge is in individual constituencies, but at the moment, the other party leaders must be frantically wondering how the spike - if that's what it is - can be blunted.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For the past few days I've been starting my day in Good Morning Wales' Manifesto Corner - a snug hideaway downstairs in the canteen where the coffee is, sadly, rather weak. Too early for the proper, strong stuff we're told.

Still, it hasn't held back the two who've been sharing their impressions of the parties' Welsh manifestoes: Jonathan Deacon, a senior lecturer in marketing and entrepreneurship at Newport Business School and Emma Taylor, head of Christ College Brecon, the first female head in its 400-odd year history.

Let's put it like this - they're no push-overs. Broad brushes are for wimps. These two have an eye for detail.

The head, who a few days ago winced at the grammar of 'Think different, think Plaid' was on form again this morning. She'd been through Labour's 100 promises for Wales like a dose of salts and spotted a bit of a doubler.

21. Roll out our new plans for a 'People's Bank' using the Post Office network to rural areas.

37. Create a People's Bank at the Post Office and a Universal Service Obligation on banks to serve every community.

More like 99.5 promises we decided.

Emma Taylor: 1

Welsh Labour: 0

At a guess the pupils of Christ College Brecon get away with very little.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Another debate that I, for one, will be glued to.

Another location that I, for one, don't recognise. A case of vowel exchange hitting the coal exchange.

Sky News has announced that it is hosting a debate between representatives of the major political parties in Wales, taking place at the Cole Exchange in Cardiff on Sunday 18th April. The debate, chaired by Sky News' Political Editor Adam Boulton, will be the first of three debates to be screened on Sky News during the election campaign.

It'll be broadcast live on Sky News on Sunday 18th April, at 10.30am.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Now we know why the Lib Dems changed their plans at the last moment and published their manifesto yesterday, instead of today. They knew something might be round the corner - something set in train on a night out back in January - and here it is.

The statement from Jo Foster, Chief Executive of the Welsh Liberal Democrats speaks for itself:

"This afternoon, Mick Bates was told by South Wales Police that he will be summonsed at a future date for various offences following an incident in Cardiff on 20th January.

"The Welsh Liberal Democrats regard this matter with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, Mr Bates' membership of the Welsh Liberal Democrats has been suspended, pending the outcome of the case."

South Wales Police have confirmed that the charges relate to common assault and public order offences.

The Lib Dems are having a day of taking the smooth ... with the rough.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I walked up the street last night, peering through windows, listening to the debate in Manchester on the pocket radio.

What did I hear?

"I agree with Nick". "Nick agrees with me". I couldn't see Mr Clegg's face at that moment and couldn't tell how he was taking such love-bombing. I needn't have worried. Back home in 5 minutes in front of the telly and the phrase was used again, again and again.

Which enterprising company will be the first to produce the T-shirt? On the front: I agree with Nick. On the back? And Nick agrees with me. All sizes, two colours: red and blue.

The viewing figures in Wales? The average audience was 450,000 viewers with the audience peaking at 468,000. One word: wow - not quite the tv equivalent of weighing the votes but more than Eastenders and Emmerdale got and the same as that other Manchester hit, Coronation Street. It is the most watched programme this week though - and just maybe Plaid can take some comfort from this one statistic - proportionately fewer people watched in Wales than in England. The same goes for Scotland. 38% of the televsion audience in England were watching; the figure in Wales and in Scotland was 34%. Out of interest it was lowest of all in Northern Ireland where 26% watched.

A ComRes poll just out for ITV has support for the Lib Dems going up by 14% to 35%. It could be a short-lived spike of course. If it's not it could mean bad news for Plaid in Ceredigion where the bookies had them as 8-11 favourites; bad news for the Conservatives in Mid Wales, bad news for Labour in Swansea West and Newport East. The odds on the mother of all hung parliaments must be stacking up nicely.

This morning it's the Welsh Tories' turn to launch their manifesto in the Nova in Prestatyn. Mr Cameron will probably give the Bodyz Gym and Neptune Pool a miss after last night's work-out and stick to the stage in the Starlight Suite.

Roger Williams, Welsh Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Wales - who's made an appearance in a press release if not at his own party's own manifesto launch -
has gone on the attack already.

"They talk about offering change, but everyone knows that the red-blue stitch-up will continue if the Conservatives get in.

UPDATE

Ah - polls.

It's now been made clear that the ComRes poll for ITV on voting intentions was carried out amongst people who watched last night's debate, NOT the electorate as a whole.

Still a good story but clearly, not the same story.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Plaid's response to tonight's Prime Ministerial Debate?

Blah Blah Blah.

Their advice? Don't bother watching.

All you'll see, they argue, are 76 contractual rules at work, 76 gagging clauses, "76 reasons to be sure that the three London leaders - Tweedle-dee, Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-who have nothing new to offer".

A change of tact here from Plaid?

Then again, if it is as much of a turn-off as Plaid Cymru clearly think it will be, who's to say that Tweedle-Ieu won't gain ground simply by not being there.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In Manchester there are three of them, probably sweating, certainly rehearsing, hoping they're word perfect. I'm talking leaders, of course.

In Wales we seem either to be overrun with them or on the hunt for them - not sure which. Elfyn Llwyd, the party's parliamentary leader has been at Plaid Cymru's official launches, usually sitting just behind party leader Ieuan Wyn Jones or standing at a podium ... just off centre.

There was no sign at all of the man described by the Liberal Democrats as the party's Shadow Secretary of State for Wales at their manifesto launch this morning. Where was Roger Williams? Not there this morning, not a single photograph of him in the manifesto despite it being longer than anyone else's.

"I can't help it if I'm more photogenic than poor old Roger" said the other Williams, Kirsty the boss, who you'll spot in there six times.

Down the road, at Welsh Labour's launch, standing side by side, Peter Hain and Carwyn Jones. Same size lectern, equal positions, a double act that either managed to niftily weave devolved with non-devolved issues or muddied the waters so much you'll never work out which of their promises a UK government could ever deliver.

Peter Hain goes by this principle: say it often enough and some of the people are bound to believe you. Vote Tory and they'll get rid of free breakfasts and free bus passes.

We cry foul.

It's up to the Assembly Government to protect - or 'savagely cut - breakfasts and free bus travel. If electing a Conservative Prime Minister leads inevitably to a Labour First Minister cutting them, they must be pretty high on Carwyn Jones' hit list.

Not at all. They're amongst his top priorities, apparently. Even so vote for David Cameron's party and wave goodbye to them. Work that one out.

I turned to the other leader. Would losing some six seats on the night of May 6th be quite a good night for Labour in Wales, or quite a bad one?

Peter Hain liked the question so much he very kindly took quite a long time not to answer it.

What about that other leader though, Gordon Brown? Any chance we'll see him in Wales? The answer is yes, just not yet.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Fancy a tea towel?

Try this one from the Conservatives for size.

It's 480mm x 780mm, 100% cotton and can be washed at 50 degrees. Invest £8.50 in it and every time you're stuck doing the dishes you'll be reminded of the new Conservative approach. We're all in this together ... unless you happen to live on Anglesey.

You're not.

The Welsh Conservative line on tea-towel-gate? It's a graphic. It was never intended as a definitive map. Politely? Get a life ... and how about a tea towel while you're at it.

UPDATE

There might be rather more significant reasons to put Anglesey - or Ynys Mon - on this election campaign map ... more soon.

UPDATE

Here's the promised 'more' from Ynys Môn.

One of the parliamentary candidates is being investigated by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales - the independent candidate, Peter Rogers. The investigation is as a result of a complaint by North Wales Police. Mr Rogers is also a local councillor and represents Anglesey council on North Wales Police Authority. He's told ´óÏó´«Ã½ Wales he's disappointed that this information has been leaked to the media and that the ombudsman must be allowed to conduct his investigation without being hampered by what he calls politically motivated leaks.

Is he still standing, our reporter asked? Yes, he is.

The other candidates standing in the constituency are Elaine Gill - UK Independence Party, Albert Owen - Labour, Dylan Rees - Plaid Cymru, Anthony Ridge-Newman - Conservative and Matt Wood - Liberal Democrat.

Constituency details can be found .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Rejoice.

You know how it is. When it comes to leagues - of wealth, productivity, employment, the health of the nation - Wales is usually languishing towards the bottom, if not at the very bottom of statistical leagues.

There is one, however, where we're out in the lead.

We might represent just 5% of the UK wide population but 6.2% of all MPs represent Welsh constituencies.

8.6% of the population live in Scotland; they have 9.1% of all MPs.

In Northern Ireland the comparable figures are 2.5% and 2.8%.

But in England? 83.9% of the electorate are represented by 81.9% of all MPs.

When David Cameron first came to the National Assembly some time ago, he'd got on to the subject of cutting the number of MPs in Wales even before we sat down to conduct his interview. With only the slightest prompting from me he made clear that this was one cut he's not only happy to talk about but is intent on following through. Cut the cost of politics, cut down the menu in the House of Commons offering "lean salad of lemon and lime marinated roasted tofu with baby spinach and rocket" for under a couple of quid and more significantly, cut back on the number of those politicians you're so enamoured with. Reduce the number of MPs in Westminster and save some £15million while you're at it.

Next question?

How deep does this particular cut go? How many MPs will face the axe? What Mr Cameron has said in the past is that he'd ask the Boundary Commission to consider how to cut the number of MPs by 10%.

650 MPs become 586. By my maths 40 Welsh MPs become 36. Simple? No.

A few points.

If we in Wales currently had the same number of MPs per head as England, we'd wake up to find we had 32 MPs, not 40. That would be before any further, more general cut in the number of Westminster politicians.

If a10% cut were then to be made to that level political playing field the Conservatives want, that takes you to some 29/30 Welsh MPs.

Point number two.

Woudl there be a knock-on effect on the National Assembly? Yes, there would be. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 two thirds of AMs are elected to represent constituencies that follow the same boundaries as Westminster constituencies. The Government of Wales Act would have to be amended then, or there would be a cut in the number of AMs too. The boundaries of Assembly and Westminster constituencies would in future differ, just as they do in Scotland where the number of MPs has already been reduced from 72 to 59.

The reduction there came after the referendum that granted substantial primary law-making powers to the Scottish Parliament. Is that regarded as a precedent by the Conservatives? It's not clear.

Throw in what is know as the "Stormont Discount" - I won't go into it here but applying it would mean Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs would very rarely vote on issues that only directly affect England - and academics who've long focussed on this issue can foresee a future where Wales has just 21 MPs. (One of those academics spells out the implications of the Stormont Discount as he sees it . The article is in Welsh.)

Likely? Come off it but on paper, if not politically, not impossible they argue.

So 36 MPs, 32 MPs, 29 MPs, 21 MPs ... take your pick. Which way are we headed?

Take a look at the Conservative manifesto launched yesterday and what does it actually say? Turn to p.67.

"A Conservative government will ensure every vote will have equal value by introducing 'fair vote' reforms to equalise the size of constituency electorates, and conduct a boundary review to implement these changes within five years."

'Fair vote' reforms. What will that mean?

If you follow the logic of 'fair votes' doesn't that sound like a cut of 10% in the number of English MPs (down to 36 in Wales) then equalise the number of MPs per head in England and Wales to make it 'fair' and that brings you down to some 29/30 MPs.

Is that where we're headed if Mr Cameron makes it to Number Ten?

The Conservatives aren't saying any more. They've never set a figure on the number of Welsh constituencies that will survive the cuts; they'll hold a boundary review. That, for now, is all they'll say.

With their Welsh manifesto launch imminent, what are the chances they'll say some more?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Go on - who does he remind you of?

Last week, as Elfyn Llwyd stood on College Green in Westminster waiting to talk to the Newyddion team, a passer-by asked me what we were interviewing Bob Ainsworth about.

Not quite, I said. That's the Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader. Granted they both have a moustache but that's about it.

Just for a moment . Why, he asks in his blog, has Elfyn Llwyd been sent to Coventry? Was he thinking ?

He wasn't. Mr Jones was wondering why Elfyn Llwyd hasn't been in evidence at Plaid's campaign and manifesto launches?

But he has, Mr Jones. Ieuan Wyn Jones as party leader has been fronting them but on his shoulder in Menai Bridge last week, by his side in the Wales Millennium Centre this morning, Elfyn Llwyd has been there. Very much been there in fact.

Last week it was Mr Llwyd's comment in the past that the Lib Dems are 'political whores' that caused the leader some embarrassment.

This morning, here in Broadcasting House, Mr Jones was busy telling Today listeners that a hung parliament is pretty much a racing certainty while Mr Llwyd, in another studio, was telling Radio Wales listeners that it is not. "Do we know for example if it's going to be a balanced parliament? I rather doubt whether it is" he said.

Perhaps it's known as balanced leadership.

Plaid's manifesto?

The 'i' word is there. Independent, if not independence makes it to p.32. "Plaid Cymru is committed to an independent Wales as a full member of the European Union". Pretty clear. No blurring of the lines there. So why p.32?

You might suggest it's because it's not a vote winner for Plaid. Yes, polls show growing support for taking the next step towards devolving further powers but independence? Absolutely no growth in support.

Then again they might suggest it's because their 2010 General Election manifesto ought to be about what Plaid, if ever called to the bargaining table, would have on their shopping list.

Constitutional change? Plaid's to aim for; not Plaid's to demand.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What goes around, comes around on the election campaign trail.

A candidate was just sharing his robust view on the story of the day which put his campaign centre stage. It was, he said, a pile of ... well, you can guess.

Just then a seagull flew overhead and deposited ... well you can guess what on his shoulder.

Perhaps he'll take comfort from the fact that it's meant to bring good luck.

Campaigning focus of the day? The big hitters are in town. Vince Cable is heading to Swansea, William Hague has got what looks like a very pleasant itinerary around North Wales and Hilary Benn is heading to Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire - on the hunt for votes perhaps?

And for Plaid? This is where winning the air war gets tough. Their former Chief Executive Dafydd Trystan is, to quote the diary marker in the Cynon Valley "riding his bike along the cycle path with a team of activists."

Then again ... no, let's not go there.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"Unleash?"

A strong word and one used by the Welsh Secretary to describe the "wave of thousands and thousands of jobs" Labour are promising to create, or perhaps given the choice of words this morning, let loose in Wales.

That answers the 'what'. What about the 'how?'

We were told to expect no details on Wales in this morning's UK manifesto launch and - some of them policies in areas that are devolved and where delivery is in the hands of the Assembly Government. The details will come on Thursday when Labour's Welsh manifesto is published but the pointers from Peter Hain are around "encouraging business and entrepreneurs," much made of opportunities to "benefit from off-shore energy developments around Wales' coast" without making big spending plans.

"Unleash? What's he got up his sleeve?" a colleague asked this morning? The answer is I don't know but that Thursday's document would seem to have an awful lot to deliver now.

In the meantime I'm off to Flint in the red corner of North East Wales where both Labour and the Conservatives in particular know so much is at stake on May 6th and from where the first of our debate programmes is broadcast tonight.

The question the Conservatives want undecided voters everywhere to answer on polling day? Is it time for a change or do you want another 5 years of Gordon Brown?

The question as framed by Labour? Are you quite sure that untested David Cameron, who got the recession wrong, isn't going to be wrong on the recovery too?

For the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru it's equally direct. Haven't you had a gutsful of both and want things done differently, fairer to all?

The answers? Some of them, at least, I hope to get out of the four parties as Election 2010 Wales Debates is broadcast tonight at 10.45pm on ´óÏó´«Ã½1Wales.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As Nick Clegg flew to Cardiff (Ieuan Air might be grounded ... other leaders are still airborne) to launch the Liberal Democrat campaign in Wales, . The differences between Labour and the Lib Dems, he says, are "dwarfed by our common antipathy" of the Tories.

A little early to start openly canvassing the votes of other parties' supporters say political commentators.

But think back to February.

back then.

"If we ­recognise our common ground, a new progressive era of political reform based on Britain's natural anti-Tory majority can take charge" he wrote.

By the next day, on his way to Labour's conference in Swansea, . He was now appealing to all non dyed in the wool Tory supporters to vote Labour. Plaid, Greens, any voter who doesn't want to see David Cameron in Number Ten should vote Labour.

"I am not asking them to sign up to every dot and comma of Labour's policies and proposals, still less to renounce their principles.

"But the truth is that this coming election will be one where we have to take sides."

Those of you who've been concentrating on talk of tactics for a while longer may remember David Cameron suggesting in his New Year's message that there was barely a "cigarette paper" dividing his party and Mr Clegg's on many issues.

The Lib Dem response? If there is a Labour-Lib Dem "identity of interest" Mr Clegg says he doesn´t see it. People should "vote with their hearts", not as per the direction of the Conservative leader or of two Labour politicians.

Bear in mind that the two Labour politicians offering advice to voters have some experience of switching allegiance themselves - the ex-Social Democrat Lord Adonis and the ex-young Liberal Peter Hain so much so that his fellow Labour MP, Paul Flynn, once compared him to Star Trek's Odo the shape-shifter.

Up in Cardiff North, they're not impressed.

Fenella Bowden, a Lib Dem councillor for the Heath was campaigning in Cardiff North when a colleague asked for her view. Her front garden has a Lib Dem sign - next door and opposite have Tory signs. How about jumping over the metaphorical fence and voting Labour in order to keep her neighbours' preferred candidate out?

"It's a personal vote" she said, "a personal decision. One has to leave it to their own conscience as to how they vote."

But what if she was in a different constituency, say Newport East or Swansea West where the Lib Dems were in with a chance? Would she then be arguing for tactical voting?

Radio silence for no more than a split second.

" Well I'm not in that situtation."

Quite.

The man from Radio 5 Live was impressed by such "remarkable honesty".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was Plaid's parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd (celebrating 18 years as an MP today) who once called the Liberal Democrats 'political whores' for being prepared to strike a deal with anyone.

Given Plaid are touting their availability for deals with .. .well anyone at the moment, what does that, I asked Ieuan Wyn Jones at this morning's al fresco campaign launch in Menai Bridge, make them?

It made ... that a very good question so early in the morning, he said. But the Lib Dems? "I can tell you they're unreliable partners".

The kind soul who'd let slip about Elfyn Llwyd's gem not that long ago blushed as the leader wriggled.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Spelling out what is on your party's shopping list in the event of a hung parliament is one thing.

Convincing voters to buy the argument that you might have a key role to play after a close-run contest is another.

On Railway Terrace in Pontyberem, most people seemed to be out. Either that or they were hiding behind their curtains from Ieuan Wyn Jones and his canvassing team.

If they answered the door, their main concerns seemed to be about plans for an opencast mine on their doorstep, or the lack of support from the council for a young man and his pregnant girlfriend.

What should Plaid ask for in the event of a hung parliament?

Not a doorstep issue. Perhaps not bothered. Just not on the radar.

In Ammanford town centre there were Plaid voters aplenty "because that's what I do. I just do", "they do what's best for Wales don't they?"

Didn't they think their vote would be put to better use by one of the bigger parties? Or did they think Plaid will have a good General Election because a hung parliament seems possible, if not probable, giving a lie to the perennial 'irrelevant' tag?

They hadn't really thought about it. Best if Plaid were honest about what they wanted said one and yes, said others, why not strike a deal if one were on offer? Others voted Plaid because they always vote Plaid. "It's in here" said one lady, putting her fist to her stomach. "Don't ask me about politics. I don't know about that".

A lifelong Labour voter stopped to talk. Let's face it, he said, Plaid won't hold the balance of power or anything like it. It'll be the Libs who'll do that and the big parties will still run the show.

Might Gordon Brown have to consider sharing power after the election? It's a matter for the people to decide, he tells Nick Robinson today. Perhaps the Prime Minister should look up Rhodri Morgan's line about the 'unpalatable and the inedible' just in case it comes in handy.

Commentators on Nick's blog have been giving the possiblity some thought - the kind of thought that says no thanks to the notion of the SNP or Plaid Cymru having a hand on the levers of power after the election.

VirtualSilverLady puts it bluntly. "Will it be the Irish The Scots and even the Welsh".

Indeed, even the Welsh as Plaid Cymru will continue to remind you, every day between now and May 6th.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So we're about to enter "wash-up" - that strange period where legislation is rushed through parliament in anticipation of everything and everyone in it being thrown onto campaigning ... rushed through as long as both main parties can agree on it.

What if they don't?

Take the Housing LCO as a case in point. It's in jeopardy. No major news there, you might say. In fact I could have started virtually any post over the last three or so with that phrase, simply tweaking "possible/serious/terminal" as appropriate. But this time the warning comes from the Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and it's aimed at the Tories, who are refusing to allow the Order through the wash up cycle.

"They are set to block this in its entirety" thunders Mr Hain. "Wales cannot afford the same old right wing Tories to get into power again with their anti-devolution, anti-Welsh policies."

Mr Hain may have a finely developed grasp of politics in laying the probable failure of this LCO at the Tories door. His grasp of recent history, however, would appear to have gone somewhat awry.

The Housing LCO was first announced by the minority Labour Assembly Government in June 2007. It was passed on to the Labour-run Wales Office and despite being considered by and Assembly committee, essentially disappeared into the Labour-controlled Whitehall machine until May 2008.

It emerged to fierce scrutiny from the Labour-majority Welsh Affairs Select Committee, whose guiding hand - the Labour chairman - issued a report for the committee where it said that the LCO should not be taken forward unless the clause relating to powers over the right to buy was severely limited.

There was then a lengthy period of negotiation between the Labour Secretary of State and the Labour-led Assembly Government, after which a compromise emerged by January 2009 (in which Plaid Cymru had more than a passing involvement, to be fair). That compromise was savaged by Parliament's Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and had to be withdrawn in ignominy but not before a Labour Counsel General (one C. Jones - heard of him?) had assured the Assembly that the JCSI had no idea what they were talking about.

There then followed another prolonged period of negotiation between the two administrations at each end of the M4, one Labour, one Labour-led. After that Mark II emerged and was rushed through the Assembly, just in time to make it into the parliamentary wash-up. Phew.

Throughout this entire period, it should be remembered, Labour has been able to command a healthy majority in both the Assembly and the Commons.

So you can see exactly how Mr Hain can say that the Housing LCO is in jeopardy in April 2010 because "the Tories have not changed and do not care" and they are refusing to rush it through.

The Tories are a bit like the teenager who's arrived late at a house party that's got out of hand. The place has been comprehensively trashed already but the other kids decide they'll all pin it on the late comer and hope for the best.

By the same token they haven't helped themselves. Their decision to vote in favour of full powers over housing in a referendum trigger vote but against the LCO seemed bizarre to many and now looks even more like political cover for their colleagues in Westminster.

But there too, things aren't exactly tickety boo. David Jones says that they will only allow the LCO through if two clauses, relating to the right to buy and gypsy sites are removed. The LCO has already been passed by the Assembly and it could reasonably be expected that a prominent Welsh parliamentarian - and a man renowned for missing very little in the detail - would know that an Order passed in Cardiff Bay can't have so much as a comma's difference from one passed by Parliament, let alone whole clauses missing.

What's also interesting is that the social housing sector in Wales seem to have taken Mr Hain's lead. They've written to Cheryl Gillan, the shadow Welsh Secretary urging the Tories not to block "what we consider to be the most important piece of housing legislation since devolution". (

UPDATE: I'm told the letter from the national housing associations was sent on March 24th so that its authors didn't 'take Mr Hain's lead'. Fair enough.)

Is it me, or are we seeing a rewriting of history in front of our eyes? What you might call a white wash-up?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's "and they're off" that did it.

Karl the bookie can't resist a headline like that. Neither can he resist stirring things up a bit.

The official bookies give 21 of Wales' 40 seats to Labour, 9 to the Conservatives - just short of that 'double figures' target. 5 go to the Liberal Democrats, 4 to Plaid Cymru and 1 - Blaenau Gwent - to stay independent.

The Electoral Reform Society reckon - shoo-ins where your vote won't count. The message? Pack away the rosettes and change the electoral system.

Karl, who is still a bookie at heart if not for real, doesn't go for that sort of attitude. He's studied the going and reckons Wales will be all hung up with Labour and the Conservatives on 15 seats each, Plaid Cymru on 5 with the Lib Dems on 4 and Blaenau Gwent evading Labour again.

Labour shoo-ins are considerably fewer on his list. Cardiff West goes blue, as does Carmarthen West. Bridgend could provide a shock he reckons, as could Gower and Delyn and Newport West where he 'can't make Labour' his favourite. Vale of Clwyd? Blue too along with Brecon and Radnorshire.

He also reckons turnout will be high: 67% - 68% is his favourite. It was 62.6% in 2005, just above UK average.

Care for a bet? If he's offering odds on those sort of results, I wouldn't mind. 15 seats each to Labour and the Conservatives? But he's not and this is, if I need to spell it out, just a bit of fun as Uncle Bryn would put it.

UPDATE

Just spotted Adam Price on College Green claiming that a hung parliament "is a racing certainty" and that he can't wait for the others to come "tap, tap, tapping" at Plaid's door.

Tapping? How very restrained.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So, now you know - really know what you probably knew anyway - that you have until May 6th to decide whether you would be recognised as one of the "decent, mainstream majority" or not.

Why?

Because between now and May 6th you will hear one message from Peter Hain and from Labour voices in Wales. They will be telling you that if you are indeed part of the "decent, mainstream majority" in Wales you must vote Labour at this election.

It's not that decent people don't vote Conservative. Mr Hain and Labour know for a fact, a painful, kick-in-the-teeth fact that they do. They did in the last election to the European parliament. They did in the local elections before that and they did in the Assembly election three years ago. For all sorts of reasons, Labour know that decent people do indeed vote Tory in Wales.

So at this election the man at the Wales Office is coming out with it straight and appealing to decent people not to do it again. Because this time, if they do, they get a Conservative government in Westminster.

It's about time that they did say the Conservatives. They give you until May 6th to decide whether you are one of "the Great Ignored." Who are they?

"They start businesses, operate factories, teach our children, clean the streets, grow our food and keep us healthy - keep us safe. They work hard, pay their taxes, obey the law. They're good, decent people - they're the people of Britain and they just want a reason to believe that anything is still possible in our country".

And? They don't want five more years of Gordon Brown and so will vote Conservative to get him out.

Sure about that, say the Liberal Democrats, say Plaid Cymru, say all those parties that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will refer to over the coming month?

Sure? Because while you may argue that this is a straight Labour Tory fight, the Welsh electorate in 2010 just might not fancy one of those. They just might not accept that in a country where there are forty seats to fight for and more of those seats up for grabs than for many, many years both the "decent, mainstream majority" and "the Great Ignored" just might not buy the choices you're giving them.

Whatever your hopes for the party crossing the finishing line that's now in sight, stick with us for the ride.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

This morning I set off for the trig point on the Blorenge mountain, a peak that's bang in between Conservative and Labour territory, just before the snow closed in and the cameraman's fingers froze. You won't mind the bobble hat, he assured me, given the blizzard conditions we encountered at the top.

Yesterday I was filming in Castell Newydd or Newcastle Castle in Bridgend, apparently the western most point of the Norman invasion into South Wales.

Metaphors are much in demand this week you see, as we prepare for any announcement about mountains to climb and territory to conquer that just might be made next week.

Whatever you're doing this weekend have a good Easter ... and get ready to rumble.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?