We need reform and renewal before we need another election – or referendum.

This evening Members of the UK Parliament will be asked to vote for a general election to take place on December 12th or if we are to accept the pure opportunism and self-interest of the SNP and Libs Dems maybe a few days earlier on the 9th.

But the sheer pointlessness of this evening’s tomfoolery reveals more than a ruthless gaming of the constitution. It reveals a fundamental weaknesses of a constitution when a Prime Minister and a group of different parties can come together to overturn the statutory parliamentary term to force an election on an unwilling population. And to do so at a time when our politics are broken and our national discourse poisoned by dark money, aggression and threat of violence is nothing short of criminal.

The background to today’s vote is not simply the failure of the UK Government to deliver on its Brexit policy but last week’s shocking, but not unsurprising, poll from Cardiff University which demonstrated that the threat of political violence is now an accepted part of our national life.

I hope that the majority of MPs will vote against Johnson. But I hope that they will also do more than walk around in a particular circle or whatever else counts as voting in the Palace. I hope that they will begin the work of reforming our democracy before we head to the polls either for a final say referendum on our membership of the EU or a general election to end the agony of this parliament.

So let’s start in the beginning. 

There are two reforms needed before we vote. The first is to reform the rules around the conduct of public debate and then secondly, reform to address the weakness of the UK parliament. We need a UK Parliament Reform Act. And in different ways both these issues crystallise the constitutional crisis that is unfolding in front of a deeply frustrated population.

The House of Commons’ Culture and Media Select Committee has done some sterling work over the last two years to uncover and explore the attack on our democratic structures and our democratic culture which is taking place in front of our eyes. So let’s make use of this work. I would like to see the Conservative Chair of that Committee, Damian Collins, be given the time and space and resources to put in place some legislation, with the same all party support he has enjoyed in the committee, to stop the use of social media and dark money from subverting our political discourse. And to do so immediately. Such legislation would need a sunset clause of about two or three years to provide us with the safeguards and the space to consider, and to put in place, a more enduring statutory framework.

The hard truth is that the UK is not a safe place for democracy and democratic debate today.  

And for anyone who does not believe last week’s Cardiff University poll?

Then take a look at this….

This shocking image was posted on the Facebook page of the Brexit Party candidate in Blaenau Gwent five weeks ago in response to some low level abuse aimed at me. But it is not an attack on my words or actions. It is a direct personal threat towards me as an individual.

And over a month later, it’s still there. 

The image is shocking enough but the words “Karma is coming” constitutes a direct threat. The Police have taken no action and the Brexit Party appear to think that it is has a place in our public discourse. 

I do not. 

I’m happy to take part in robust political debate. But in my view this is not simply the acceptance of political violence but the active encourage of political violence and is the same threatening behaviour which is undermining our democracy.

And this is something which should play no part in our politics.  For me it is clear that the Brexit Party and the hard right wing who are responsible for this image are also responsible for the same sort of imagery which attacks ethnic minorities and the thuggish images we all see disfiguring social media which are designed to incite or encourage a violent reaction. Fundamentally my view is that Brexit needs to be sorted before we hold another UK General Election. But I do not believe that we can do that at present. In fact until we address the violence and brutality in our political and public discourse I would not support either a referendum or an election taking place.

And then the second issue is that of a constitution which has collapsed. We witness the spectacle of a government unable and unwilling to govern and a legislature unable to force the government to act. This is a lesson in the frailties of the UK constitution which have been ruthlessly exposed and exploited by the current Prime Minister. 

So whatever comes out of this mess I hope that a UK Parliament Reform Act is one of them. All too often we believe that parliamentary reform starts and ends with the Lords. But the Commons is not fit for purpose either. And this reform needs to be led from outside the institution. All too often reform process are led by MPs for whom the current structure is too comfortable and too easy.

The Palace by the Thames is fond of lecturing the world on its own virtues. But it has become a laughing stock and a model of a dysfunctional parliament. Imagine what those MPs – who happily and breathlessly run out to College Green to explain to a bored nation the ludicrous nature of their decision-making – would be saying if the Welsh Parliament acted in this way? Imagine what those commentators who are happy to enthral themselves in the detail of Westminster gossip would say if in Cardiff, our government, ministers and members behaved in such a way?

All too often over past months Westminster has been exposed not as a sovereign legislature but as a puppy parliament. Compelled to do the government’s bidding. Obeying its masters voice. 

Without the intervention of the Supreme Court and some courageous parliamentarians who put our democracy ahead of their personal interests and their party’s interests we would have already seen the birth of an elective dictatorship.

A strong and effective legislature has space and time for a government to govern and rules which allow a government to get its business done. But that legislature must also have rules which provide for proper scrutiny and for that legislature to determine its own business, when it will sit and how it is able to control its own order papers. Virtually none of the chaos of the past few months would have been allowed in modern parliaments such as those in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

But parliamentary reform must follow political and democratic reform and renewal.

In Government civil servants always advised me never to waste a good crisis. And there is as deep a crisis facing us today as we have experienced in our lifetimes. So I hope that in this crisis lies an opportunity. An opportunity for change and an opportunity for reform. An opportunity to renew our politics and to cleanse our public discourse. 

But I will finish with a warning. Unless that change happens then someone else will be hurt and that will not be either an accident or an unforeseeable tragedy. It will be the direct consequence of inaction. 

It’s time for Labour to rediscover its radical roots on Europe

Standing amid the wreckage of her government and her authority Theresa May has got one thing right. The UK Parliament is clear on what it does not want but doesn’t have a clue what it does want. But unhappily that also seems to be the position of the UK Government. Openness and flexibility do not make a policy. And neither are these laudable ambitions a substitute for a policy. 

Somehow in a little over two years we’ve moved from a debate on Brexit which is rooted in more cash for the NHS to martial law, food shortages, empty shelves and drugs running out. From the sunlit uplands of new and open trade but closed borders to a situation where the UK Government is hiring every ferry – and even ferry companies with no ferries – simply to keep our people from starving. And whilst they are hiring these ferries every day brings another announcement of another business leaving the country. Even the Brexiteers are on the move. And the Government that has presided over this catastrophic failure of policy is not even crashing in polls. 

And being a member of the Labour Party, simply pointing out the chaos caused by Theresa May’s incompetence is not a policy either. I have worried for some time that the UK Party Leadership doesn’t have a clue what to do or where to go on Brexit. And unhappily over the last few weeks they’ve proved it. And on the biggest issue of our time. That’s really something. 

It’s all too easy to fall into a state of utter despair with politics today. The collective failure of the political class to lead over the last few years is an indictment of not simply individuals but the system as well. And on the left we have to bear a significant part of this guilt. Our collective failure to provide a coherent and convincing response to austerity has led to Labour voters voting for Brexit. Forget what the pollsters tell you. Brexit is happening because working class communities voted for it. 

And that means we in Labour have a special responsibility to lead. And leading is more than running scared from difficult issues or buying into a right-wing agenda born of a rotten media and fuelled by despair with politics as usual. 

The confusion from Labour’s Westminster front bench has made me wince in pain. I have seen no senior UK Labour leadership figure provide reasoned intelligent leadership over these frenetic weeks. Not on principle or based upon our values. Every interview a different policy. Every statement a new approach. I have seen equivocation, excuses and hand-wringing. And after all of that do we still claim that we want a general election? Wow. 

And all of this drift came home to roost on Monday evening where the UK Labour leadership didn’t appear to know where it stood on the UK Immigration Bill. Diane Abbott stood at the despatch box making a poor speech where the policy had changed by the time she sat down. The compromise was a typically cynical attempt to have and eat cakes. Even Boris would have blushed. Voting against the Bill but doing so on a one-line whip is the worst of all worlds. No courage. No conviction. No leadership. This is not simply abandoning our values. It is trampling them underfoot in an unseemly and desperate attempt to appease a nasty hard-right agenda. And all this from a leadership that constantly lectures us on their socialist purity. 

So there needs to be a fundamental change in Labour’s approach.

And allow me make an unusual and novel suggest. Why not do the right thing?

Labour cannot continue to treat Brexit as a rather tiresome management issue. It is the defining issue of our age and that means rooting our approach in our principles and values. The Welsh Labour Government was right to set out last week the measures they are taking to protect Wales in the event of a catestrophic no-deal failure. But you can’t take the politics out of politics.

And no longer can we continue with the fiction that whatever happens with Brexit we will continue with our spending plans and with our UK programme for government. Any sort of Brexit will hit the poorest communities hardest. It will reduce economic activity and with that the tax income available to spend on key services. In short if we continue our current path then we will not be in a position to deliver our manifesto. And that’s even if there is a general election. And if we win that election. And I’m not convinced that the people of Britain will vote for a party that does not know it stands on this crucial issue. Thatcher was never liked and never popular. But she was respected because she stood up for what she believed to be right. There’s a lesson there for Labour. It may not be popular everywhere – and I represent Blaenau Gwent – but I believe that the people have more respect for politicians who believe in enduring values more than courting passing popularity.

So where does this leave Labour’s policy on Brexit?

It means that we stand up for internationalism and against the thinly-veiled chauvinism that we’ve seen take root in our politics over recent years. We stand up for open-borders and an inclusive politics. An economy rooted in fair work and a fair distribution of wealth. In short we argue for a different economic model and one shared with our friends in the EU. We argue for the EU as the future for nations to share sovereignty in the common interest of our citizens. We celebrate our common European heritage, history and civilisation. And we seek to play a leading role in shaping the EU of the future and not shrink away from difficult challenges. So we argue our case based upon our values. We stop the Brexit bandwagon today. Certainly we stop a no-deal Brexit but we must also vote to suspend Article 50 as well. We do not facilitate Brexit either by accident or design.

And then we campaign for a second referendum. Our party’s democracy is not served á la carte. It is a fixed-price menu and conference was clear. The UK leadership cannot argue for greater internal democracy and then ignore it when it does not suit their prejudices. And a second referendum will be the crucial first step in rebuilding trust in our broken politics. It should be no surprise to anyone that people do not believe or trust politicians after the last few miserable weeks. 

That means we need Labour to state clearly that Brexit simply cannot take place in March and neither can it happen without a clear democratic mandate based upon the facts and not the easy, lazy and fake assumptions of two years ago. And then in that campaign Labour will speak up for those people who have borne the brunt of austerity and who have faced the reality of welfare reforms and public service cuts. But we will not blame others from elsewhere for the problems caused by the policies of our own government. We will not stand by whilst people are labeled by their accents, the colour of their or where they happen to worship. And we will not vote for legislation that places those prejudices on the statute book.

It’s a time for leadership. And leadership based on principle rather than expediency. I do not believe that future generations will thank those politicians or parties who ducked these fundamental issues.

The case for radical change

To me leadership is plural and not singular. It is a verb and not a noun.

This short note seeks to explain some the reasons why I decided to seek support for the leadership of Welsh Labour. This is A personal manifesto which goes into more detail on these issues. Please click on it, download it and see what you think.

Over the past few months many of us have been speaking about the future we want to see for our party and our country. I am anxious that we are all able to contribute to an open and wide-ranging conversation about how we make the radical changes that I believe we need to make in both the party, reinventing our socialism, changing the way in which we govern and how we meet the new challenges of the future if we are to continue to enjoy the trust of the people of Wales.

I launched this campaign above Tredegar at the Nye Bevan memorial. It is where I started my own personal journey and it is where our own socialist values have driven radical change which has transformed the Labour party and our country.

My leadership will be about this radical vision for change. To me leadership is plural and not singular. It is a verb and not a noun.

I believe that we need to rediscover the spirit of Nye Bevan and reinvent a new Bevanism for the 21st century. We all feel and share the anger that Nye felt over poverty and how it destroys lives and communities. But Bevan also brought those values and principles to life and used that anger to fashion a political and not simply a rhetorical response. And that is our challenge. My manifesto describes my own vision for a new democracy and a new politics which is rooted in an optimism and belief that together we can renew and reinvent Welsh Labour.

Fundamentally I believe that we need radical change because our politics is broken and that our democracy is facing a real existential crisis. Too many people believe that devolution and the National Assembly are immune from the international crises facing democratic politics across the West. I believe that democratic government in Wales is facing a real crisis of confidence and one which may even lead to a crisis of legitimacy unless it is urgently addressed.

Since I launched this debate we have seen how Gareth Bennett’s words of hatred and venom have generated enormous coverage over his attack on the Muslim community. This is a xenophobia and a chauvinism that should have no place in either our National Assembly or our wider public discourse. But at the same time in our own party the stain of antisemitism has also disfigured our own debate and has undermined our ability to hold the right wing to account. That is why Labour needs to address these issues and then on the basis of a moral authority confront the alt right populism which is one of the biggest threats we face as a party and as a community. And to defeat it we need to win hearts and minds and not just elections.

And in launching this campaign for change I am not proposing incremental or gradual change or a difference in emphasis. It is about asking hard and sometimes uncomfortable questions. I do not seek easy slogans or lazy populism – telling people what I think they want to hear – this is a radical campaign about challenging ourselves so that we are better able to serve and to reinvent ourselves for new challenges in the future.

We have succeeded in defending Wales from the worst of Tory austerity and we have created a Welsh politics unthinkable two generations ago. But to sit back and point at our record is the worst possible response to the political, social and economic change that we are witnessing today.

I do not believe for one moment that I possess all the answers but I do believe that by asking these hard questions and by making radical and challenging proposals for change that we begin the process of political change and political renewal.

The vote to leave the EU in constituencies such as mine in Blaenau Gwent was driven by many factors but I believe fundamentally the referendum was a referendum on our politics and how we do politics as much as it was a referendum on the EU. It may have been a vote against Brussels but it was certainly a vote of no confidence in Welsh and UK politics. And this is the emergency that we need to address – restoring trust and confidence in politics as a means of making and creating change. And politics as a means of ending austerity. We will not be taken seriously on social justice unless we address these fundamental issues.

How we fashion a political movement across the UK and in government in Wales that can invest in our people wherever in Wales they live. And how can we use the powers that we hold in Wales to follow a different political and financial strategy to a Tory UK Government – we cannot simply point and blame the Tories when we hold power in Wales. We have gone some of this way but we need to go much further.

I believe that so far our debate over the leadership and the future direction of the party has been too managerial rather than tackling the major issues that face us as a nation and as a party. I believe that we need to be more radical.

So my priority in this campaign is to make the case for that change to our politics and change to the way in which we govern our country. And this change will be rooted in my values of democracy and equality. I believe in the power of democracy as a force to empower our citizens and drive changes throughout government, the way in which we deliver public services and the way in which we manage our economy. And equality is how we achieve real social justice for all our citizens. It is my belief that equality will provide the test for all our politics.

And these values of democracy and equality will drive a policy agenda to address the three key and fundamental issues facing us as a country – how we eradicate poverty and its impact on generations of people in Wales; combatting climate change which is the crisis of our age, and thirdly, Europe. I believe that Brexit is the greatest disaster facing Wales today and is the biggest economic risk facing our most deprived communities. Brexit is not a technical issue which requires technical solutions. It is a matter of who we are as a people and our principles as a party.

These values and principles represent my strong and compelling beliefs which will be the key driving principles for any government that I lead. Too often in Welsh Labour we spend too much time explaining why things cannot happen. We can be imprisoned by process and held hostage by our past. Bevan was a creative, imaginative and far-sighted political leader. We need the same energetic, dynamic and vibrant leadership today.

I look forward to that debate and conversation across Wales over the coming months. I hope that this manifesto – A personal manifesto – will be a positive contribution to that debate.

Winning the argument for Europe

It’s perhaps not surprising that the Institute of Welsh Affairs is giving the impression of being very pleased with itself. By securing a debate between the First Minister and the UKIP Leader on the future of the European Union they have certainly got the new year off to a bright start. There aren’t many political events in Wales that are sold out immediately. It’s little wonder that Plaid are spitting mad. But Plaid would be well advised to focus on the day-job rather than to exercise an unearned hubris and an undeserved sense of entitlement on the airwaves.

In many ways tonight’s debate will help to frame May’s Assembly elections in the wider context of the EU referendum which it now appears will be held a month later. Whilst not entirely helpful for those purists who want us to discuss nothing except domestic issues from now until polls close on May 5th, it does recognise the hard reality of the real world and many in Welsh Labour will also welcome this wider context for different reasons.

I am told that it was Carwyn who actively sought out this opportunity to take on Farage in this debate. Many of us will be pleased by this determination. Carwyn is not a natural or emotional European in the same way as Rhodri who lived and breathed the European project. Rhodri could not wait to get on the Eurostar whilst Carwyn does so only when necessary. In this way he is a pragmatic European, recognising the strength of the EU and the advantages that it brings to Wales but not signed up to a political project. And perhaps ironically this ruthlessly pragmatism may well be Carwyn’s big advantage in a debate against an ideologue who is wrapped up in a number of different contradictions and who has a fundamentally hard right wing libertarian approach to politics, much of which is not to Welsh tastes.

So how do we take on UKIP and win this debate?

First and foremost we need to make and win the arguments for Europe anew. Carwyn will need to be at the top of his game and will need to be very well-briefed and informed. Farage has been fighting this battle for years. And whilst his grasp of reality and the facts can sometimes but a little less than secure, his performances are always assured and confident. But we need to do more than simply win an argument between two accountants over a balance sheet.

I believe that as a nation we do tend to be more pro-European than our friends across Offa’s Dyke but we share a media that is overwhelming anti-European and that will continue to have a defining impact on the campaign to come. To sit back and expect a strong pro-EU vote to fall into our laps because of the supposed impact of structural funds or farm subsidies would a mistake of historic proportions.

In this way the referendum campaign will be about who we are as a nation as much as it will be about a retail offer (as they say in political circles) or simply seeing our relationship with the European Union as a a transactional one whereby we stay if its profitable for us to do so with the inevitable consequence that we leave if the equation changes at some point in the future.

For me Europe helps to make sense of our place in the world. As a minister speaking for Wales in European Councils and elsewhere I made the point that it was my purpose to not only address the issues on the desk in front of me but to strengthen, broaden and deepen Wales’ wider relationship with the institutions and peoples of the European Union as well. As a part of the UK we can have our cake and eat it. As a constituent government of one of the major players in the Union we have access to influence and resources and with a powerful Welsh Government presence and programme we can make those UK resources work for Welsh interests. It’s not perfect and there are many in the UK Government who still have a lot to learn about the reality of being a federal state in terms of representing a whole-UK perspective but it could be a lot worse as well.

And we need to be far more street-wise in how we articulate this message. The politics of UKIP are not simply the politics of anti-Europe and anti-immigration they are also the anti-politics political party. Some very rich, right-wing and privileged public school boys have managed to persuade too many people that they are the anti-establishment party. And it is this anti-politics that is driving their vote in many constituencies, including my own. In winning the argument this evening Carwyn will need to both recognise and expose this confidence trick as well. We need to make the case for not only a wider inclusive and tolerant Europeanism but also the case for politics itself. And a politics which isn’t based upon an easy lazy cynicism whilst promoting distrust and suspicion. We need to win the argument for Europe whilst also winning the argument for a politics which can represent peoples’ values, effect change and restore trust and confidence.

So this evening I will be not only be supporting Carwyn Jones in taking on Nigel Farage in this single debate but in arguing for a fundamentally different vision of the future of our country. And for me it is emotional and not simply a matter of dry economics. As a father of young children the vision of Wales as a part of a nineteenth century Ruritanian vision of an isolationist English state is the stuff of nightmares. I want us to create a different place and a different future for all our children. A place of tolerance and a place that looks out on a world with confidence and optimism and not with suspicion and sometimes a xenophobic contempt for different cultures and different people. And that means not only winning a political debate and winning votes in May or June but it means winning hearts and minds as well.

A question of leadership

I understand that the Prime Minister has now written to the President of the European Council with the list of his demands. He has apparently told an unhappy Donald Tusk that unless these demands are met by the Council representing the other 27 Member States of the European Union then he will recommend that the UK leaves the EU.

This is not a debate that will benefit Wales and neither will it help address the challenges facing us as a nation. We need to be building a consensus for change across the EU which will help invest in a green economy and sustainable growth and can bring peace and stability to a region that all too often seems to be in turmoil. Never before have I felt so strongly that a UK Prime Minister is not speaking on my behalf and neither is he speaking on behalf of Wales or acting in the best interests of Wales. He is entirely careless of the needs and interests of Wales. He sounds like like an English Prime Minister and acts like a nineteenth century potentate.

David Cameron has a reputation in Brussels of being a poor diplomat. He attempts to create unnecessary arguments with our closest friends and allies in order to placate a Conservative Party that is riven by an unpleasant and sometimes chauvinistic nationalism. Most people in Brussels regard this as tiresome and many wish that he had the strength and courage to take on and defeat those loud strident voices at home. Almost all are now accustomed to, and resigned to, this sort of megaphone diplomacy where the UK position on any given issue is determined by the prejudices of newspaper editors and dependent on domestic political positioning rather than a principled and far-sighted approach to the issues facing the continent and the Union.

I remember being in Strasbourg and Brussels during the week following Cameron’s late night and apparently almost accidental use of the UK veto in December 2011. Council of Ministers is always a more measured environment than the intensity of Strasbourg but even there I was told in graphic language how Cameron had isolated the UK, not simply by his actions, but by his approach and attitude to an issue which was critical to the management of the Eurozone crisis – “ he kicked us when we were down and needed help”. UK diplomats shook their heads and wrung their hands shrinking back into a role of apologetic observers rather than their preferred role of princes in a modern concert of Europe.

In conversation with people in Brussels I am struck by their patience, calmness and their stoicism in the face of the increasingly bellicose tone of these speeches and statements. Cameron has been asked time and again for a clear statement of the UK position with the Commission taking the not unreasonable position that it is difficult to negotiate anything without knowing and understanding what the UK wants to achieve. Only so much can be gleaned from reading the Sunday papers.

I regret to say but on Monday and again yesterday he has spoken with a vulgarity and pomposity, making demands on our friends rather than engaging in an intelligent conversation about the issues we face as Europeans. He would have achieved far greater reform and a different approach to many issues from immigration to the operation of the internal market had he approached the matter with a different tone and less vivid language.

The Balance of Competences launched with a grand fanfare by William Hague was supposed to provide the basis for this renegotiation. Hague forecast that it would set the context for the last general election and that all parties would look to it when writing their manifestoes. The great minds of the Foreign Office were set to work to examine the relationship between the UK and the EU and to report on where competences should properly lie. Unhappily for Cameron the resulting document found that, broadly, the balance of competences was in the right place. It found that the EU did those things best done at a European level and the UK did those things best done by a member state. With those findings the document was buried so deeply that it’s difficult to find on Google.

The impression is given that this is an operation that is driven from Downing Street and that their fixer, Tom Scholar, has at least tried to learn some lessons from the previous disastrous interventions. But he may have learnt the wrong lessons. In Cameron’s odyssey around EU capitals the whole enterprise has been framed in aggressive language and attitude calibrated to appeal more to Tory backbenchers than the more sensitive European diplomats for whom only an occasional nod or nuance is required. Again he is not the team player and does not know how to be a team leader.

At the same time there has been little, if any, engagement with the devolved administrations. The UK Government is quick to assert its right to speak on behalf of the UK in these things pointing out that foreign affairs are reserved matters. However it is more than a little clear that this whole process has a significant impact on all of the devolved administrations. For instance, if Cameron wishes to give “national parliaments’ the right to become more involved in the process of legislation (or more accurately to object to legislation) then will this also apply to those subjects such as agriculture or environment which are devolved and where the UK Parliament acts essentially like an English Parliament?

The four baskets of demands vary from the straightforward to the bizarre. The UK Government makes much of its demands over ever-closer union but does not appear to have read the end of that famous sentence which appears in the preamble to the current founding Treaty of the EU.

RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity

Many of us wish that the UK Government had not only read but had understood the meaning of that statement before they started work on the draft Wales Bill. What on earth is wrong with a union of people (not governments) where decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen? Perhaps it’s time for a UK Balance of Competences?

But perhaps the worst aspect of all of this is that it has entirely abrogated any sense of British leadership in Europe. Losing Helmut Schmidt yesterday reinforces the sense of a continent lacking in leadership. These are difficult times, a fractured Middle East is at the heart of conflicts on our doorstep from the Ukraine to northern Africa. We face enormous global challenges. This week’s UN report on climate change has been drowned out of the news and the cost of the financial crisis is still being counted not only in capitals and financial centres across the world but in the homes of millions of people who face increasing uncertainty. All of this screams out for leadership and a vision of the future. Whatever we may make of Cameron’s baskets, one thing is clear and unarguable. They are not a vision of a different EU and not a vision of active European leadership in an uncertain world.

The tragedy of Aylan

I hope that both The Sun and Katie Hopkins are deeply ashamed of themselves. Those words and the decision to publish them were both not only wrong but immoral. And this week those words have become haunting. Does Katie look at Aylan’s body and still not care? And what of The Sun’s editor? Does The Sun feel any responsibility for any of this?

The image of Aylan Kurdi has dominated the front pages of newspapers this week, including with some extraordinary hypocrisy, The Sun itself. The heartbreaking picture of his small body lying lifeless on a beach in Turkey is powerful and made all the more powerful when it first appeared on social media alongside hundreds of photos of smiling children on their first day at school.

It is one of the most distressing and painful images that we’ve seen for years. He could have been my son or anyone’s son. And subsequent photos of him with his older brother and an interview with his dad paints a picture of a happy little boy which helps make this tragedy all the more real for all of us.

His death is a direct challenge to the position taken by the UK Government and by governments across Europe. It is a test for Cameron and it is a test for Europe. And it speaks volumes of the crisis of leadership across our continent that Germany appears to be the only state that recognises the scale of the response needed. It is a crisis of morality in our society, in our media and in our politics.

In Aylan’s death I hope that we will all face, and try to answer, the question as to why are we so resistant to the idea of taking people to our homes and protecting them from extreme violence? Surely this is at the heart of our humanity and who we believe ourselves to be as a nation and as a country?

Our history is one where we have welcomed people to our shores and offered them the protection and support that they need and that we can share. Such headlines attacking the kinder transport in the thirties would have been inconceivable so why is escaping from Kobane so different today? Clearly the scale and the numbers are huge, but we are richer today, we have the experience of the past and we have the structures of European governance that we didn’t have 80 years ago.

This summer has been one where our screens and papers have been filled with the human impact of the wars in the Middle East and Africa. As we’d expect parts of the press have been most guilty of creating a an image of desperate people trying to escape war, slaughter and genocide as a threat to our holiday plans. But I can think of no part of the media that has emerged from this summer with much integrity.

Where was the public outcry when the article described above was published in The Sun? At what point did describing human beings as “cockroaches” become an acceptable part of our public discourse? At one level it’s possible to dismiss Katie Hopkins and The Sun as examples of the worst parts of the gutter press, but what of David Cameron describing people in Calais as a “swarm”? In terms of creating a national mood are they really so different? What is certainly different is that David Cameron should know better than to play to this particular gallery.

But why are we surprised? The events and coverage of this summer are not new. For too long we have allowed a debate on immigration which has been largely driven by anti-Europeans and the rest of the right wing all fuelled by their cheerleaders in The Sun, Daily Mail and the rest. And their hypocrisy when confronted with the reality of the atmosphere that they themselves have helped create is simply sickening. Rather than confront and challenge this debate, all too often we have run away from the difficult choices involved in taking on these arguments and winning a public debate based on principle, doing the right thing and our basic humanitarian instincts.

It’s nearly 70 years since Orwell published his essay Politics and the English Language and it is striking how his invective against weasel words and opaque phraseology would be true today and never so true as now. We have used terms like “migrant” or “Asylum-seeker” as pejorative terms to disguise the real human impact of policies that have been pursued by the government in our name and on our behalf. The media have, either through idleness or intent, also made use of the same language to perpetuate a story that poor people who are risking everything to survive the horrors of Syria and escape the genocidal Islamic State are a threat to our lives and our communities. Again language is defining not only the terms of the debate but helping to create a nasty intolerant culture which has dehumanised both them and us.

And Alylan’s death is the direct consequence of this culture and this political failure.

And the political failure is profound. For far too long we have run away from challenging the rhetoric of UKIP and their friends on the far-right. We have become accustomed to the language of chauvinism and the fear and intolerance of those people who are not from around here or who are different to us. We blamed Eastern European nurses and African cleaners for the depth of the economic crisis because its easier than asking the really tough questions. It’s no wonder that we haven’t heard from Farage over the last few days.

The language and tone of the UK Government and particularly Cameron over the last 24 hours has been appalling. Ironically the UK’s approach to securing safety and security for people close to their homes is not intrinsically wrong or bad. But their failure to recognise that approach is a wholly inadequate response is criminal. My fear is that the reality of this policy is that it is driven by fear of the press and the right wing than it is driven by the desire to do the right thing

It is telling that it is Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon as First Ministers in Wales and Scotland who are making clear that both countries are ready and willing to play our part. The optimist inside me believes that is a further example of how the politics of Wales and Scotland are becoming increasingly different and more tolerant than that of the hot-house of Westminster. I hope that since some Conservatives, all the candidates for the Labour leadership and other backbenchers are also demanding urgent action that the culture of that place may change as well.

Given the scale of the media coverage of Aylan’s death it appears that in death he will be accorded more respect than in life. But it is a real tragedy that it has taken this little boy’s terrible death to galvanise European leaders to take action and to shame the UK press into silence. Why is it always this way? I remember witnessing at first hand the human impact of genocide in Rwanda and again in the Balkans. In both cases it took a public outcry over the deaths of thousands of people before politicians took action. As politicians we really must live up to the post-Rwanda slogan of “Never Again” and to make it real.

But let us be clear. Doing the right thing today means going beyond refugee quotas and protection of the aid budget. It means a determined challenge to those chauvinists who have stigmatised and demonised other people because of where they were born, their language or their customs.

Leaving the EU – the nightmare facing Welsh agriculture

The new EU Agriculture Commissioner visited the Royal Welsh Show on Monday. Later in the week the UK Prime Minister will visit the Showground. It’s a shame that they didn’t meet.

The Commissioner, Phil Hogan, is a former Irish Environment Minister who found the reform of local government there every bit as difficult as our own Leighton Andrews is finding here. He is the first Irish Agriculture Commissioner since Ray MacSharry whose name is still quoted in certain circles as the man who finally managed to set CAP on the road to reform. It was his 1992 agreement which, although a compromise, is widely seen as the beginning of a process that saw a move away from guaranteed high prices to a system of direct income support which is more easily managed by governments. A double-edged sword maybe, but without that fundamental change it is difficult to see how the CAP could have survived in any form at all.

So now all eyes are on Phil Hogan. And expectations are high. And for those of us who favour further reform he has made a good start.

He was very clear earlier this month that he would not intervene in the dairy sector, telling an unhappy Council of Ministers that the industry will need to recognise market signals and respond to market pressures. His good friend, and former Council President, the popular Irish Minister, Simon Coveney, must have been disappointed. Hogan has shown every intention of pursuing a reformist agenda and one which will reflect the wider political, financial and economic priorities of President Juncker’s Commission.

And this is important. CAP is one area of policy that is quoted by both those people who wish to leave the EU and those of us who wish to remain in the EU as justification for their position. It will be a central part of our political debate over the coming years and the positions adopted by Hogan and the Commission will influence that debate. Many farmers will be disappointed or will disagree with the way that CAP is being implemented in their country and certainly many people disagreed with my decisions as minister but I can think of no farmer who believes that they themselves, or the industry as a whole, would be better off outside the European Union.

The Welsh Minister, Rebecca Evans, is absolutely right to focus on the importance of the EU to Welsh agriculture and to rural Wales during the Commissioner’s visit. The simple fact is that without CAP and without the payment system that it brings with it, Welsh agriculture and the rural economy would collapse tomorrow. Taken together CAP funds provide over £250m to invest in individual farm businesses and the wider agricultural economy every year. But it does far more than that. In terms of welfare and husbandry standards it provides a quality standard that is recognised across the world. It also provides access to a structured and regulated market which underpins consumer confidence and despite current difficulties it is essential to the future success of the industry.

And if we were not in the EU we would still need to maintain these minimum standards and meet these demands. We would still have to fill in the forms – the red tape wouldn’t disappear but the funding that CAP also delivers would disappear. And we would also have to comply without any influence at all over the rules and how they are agreed. In short it would be the worst of all worlds. This is also where the debate on EU membership becomes entirely disingenuous.

The Tory/UKIP argument that either the UK or Welsh Governments would introduce a system of domestic subsidies is fanciful at best. Which party would prioritise direct funding for farmers over the NHS or over schools or over new roads or railways? And if they did so then how would they win an election? I actually believe in the importance of these funding streams. I argued for the maintenance of direct support for farmers whilst listening to UK Tory ministers arguing for the immediate abolition of CAP direct payments. But I’m not sure that I could go to the voters of Blaenau Gwent and argue for those payments rather than funding our local NHS. And I can’t think of many politicians in any party who think differently – whatever they may say in Llanelwedd.

And despite all the criticisms made of CAP, there is one aspect of it that is inescapable. It works.

I well remember the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, happily launching the UK Government’s Balance of Competences exercise which would examine all aspects of the Uk’s relationship with the EU. This, he told a hushed and expectant meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, would dominate the 2015 General Election. It would frame and shape the manifestoes of all the political parties, it would enable us to make judgements based on a hard-headed analysis of the pros and cons of EU membership. He could barely contain his excitement. Unhappily for the Tories and UKIP this hard-headed analysis demonstrated that, on balance, EU competence over agriculture made sense and was beneficial for Welsh farmers. It proposed no change to the status quo.

In fact the whole exercise was a disaster for those who expected it to make the case for a UK exit. A whole new department was created in the Foreign Office where their greatest minds were set to work on this career-defining work. And page after page and chapter after chapter it finds that the current balance of competences between the EU and member states broadly makes sense. It should therefore be a surprise to no-one that Hague’s great bright hopes for the exercise turned to dust. Today, only three years after it was launched, no-one remembers the exercise. And it certainly did not dominate the general election, inform our judgements or influence our manifestoes. It’s been so deeply buried that it’s even difficult to find on Google. A lesson learnt.

Cameron’s policy of seeking a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union is potentially the most destructive threat facing Welsh agriculture today. Many on the Conservative benches in Cardiff Bay criticised me for my decision to transfer 15% of the subsidies paid to farmers to another budget to support not only agriculture but the wider rural economy. But their own Prime Minister doesn’t simply  appear to care little for this 15% but wishes to abandon the other 85% as well.

It is first time that I can remember any UK Government actively pursuing a policy that is so detrimental to Welsh national interests. I know that Rebecca Evans will be making the case for Welsh and UK membership of the EU and I trust that everyone who wishes to see Welsh agriculture grow and flourish will join her in doing so.