openDemocracyUK

A shock to the system; Wales feels our collars!

The Welsh Assembly's criminalisation of electric dog collars should be welcomed
Tony Curzon Price
Tony Curzon Price
24 March 2010

The Welsh Assembly's criminalisation of electric dog collars should be welcomed. And not for the benefit of our pets – the collars might be just fine for all I know. Nor for the nannyism, which is always unwelcome. But for the example of what devolution has done to the political process. In case you didn't catch the item, anyone using an electric-shock collar on a dog or cat in Wales can face up to 6 months in prison. (But not if used on humans, we presume: Humphreys, Hitchens-like, was about to try the collar on himself, egged on by Sarah Montague. Even if he had been broadcasting from Cardiff, that would have been OK.)

The woman from the kennel club said something like: "We are very pleased that the Welsh assembly went further than we had been lobbying them to ..." She went on to say that Westminster was now also researching the question for possible national legislation.

Why do I like this so much? Here is a pressure group making change happen in one locality, making national headlines with that decision and getting the issue on the agenda nationally. This is one of the undisputable benefits of decentralisation: we feel real affinity for what happens in Cardiff. If it works or does not work there, it could work here. We pay attention to it in a way we don't pay attention to legislation in France.

The electric dog-collar case lets us imagine what a properly devolved politics might look like. Take the other bit of nannyism from this morning's news: the recommendation that smoking be banned in cars, car parks and even open parks "where children play", because of the risk to children's health. It feels both absurd and intrusive. How will it be policed, by special children's smoke wardens paid by results? By in-car CCTV and smoke alarms? The Welsh decision bans something from being used outright and like it or not seems clear and straightforward.

But the devolution point also comes in. The proposal to ban smaking where children might be found would feel a lot less threatening if it applied only in some locality that was unusually tolerant of nannyism. Then we could watch and possibly learn from it in terms of costs and consequences. And as we discover today how Chancellor Darling plans to make a start on plugging the holes in the public finances, we can meditiate on what a pity it is that we can't try out 10 different ways of rebalancing the tax system.

Hang the parliament for a hope of real devolution, I'd say.

Is it time to pay reparations?

The Black Lives Matter movement has renewed demands from activists in the US and around the world seeking compensation for the legacies of slavery and colonialism. But what would a reparative economic agenda practically entail and what models exist around the world?

Join us for this free live discussion at 5pm UK time (12pm EDT), Thursday 17 June.

Hear from:

  • Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor: Author of Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership
  • Esther Stanford-Xosei: Jurisconsult, Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE).
  • Ronnie Galvin: Managing Director for Community Investment, Greater Washington Community Foundation and Senior Fellow, The Democracy Collaborative.
  • Chair, Aaron White: North American economics editor, openDemocracy
Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData