A round of opposition party responses:

Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies takes a straightforward view of Mr Gove's letter and the response to it. He has no problem with divergence, with a split, if that's the natural consequence of devolution. His problem is with what he called Labour's "abject failure" in Wales to deliver policies that improve education.

Plaid Cymru's Rhodri Glyn Thomas argues the split could, in fact, raise standards in Wales but a warning from Kirsty Williams and the Liberal Democrats. Last Summer's row over qualifications and Leighton Andrews's part in it, she says, "has put a question mark over the currency of Welsh qualifications - that's what I hear out there amongst my constituents, some of whom have a choice in Powys where to send their children to school. Parents and employers must have confidence in Welsh qualifications".

Mr Andrews would do better to stop warring on Twitter - "unbecoming" she says - "turn the other cheek, and get on with the job".

What's Michael Gove's letter to the Education Ministers of Wales and Northern Ireland all about?

In a sense, you could argue it's about - well, stating the obvious. As differences grow between the exam system and qualifications offered in Wales, Northern Ireland and England, then the argument grows too that you might as well say so out loud - acknowledge that change means things diverge, or as Mr Gove puts it in his letter, it is "a natural and legitimate consequence of devolution". It is time to go our separate ways.

So far, so impeccably logical.

But what about the politics? Ah, now that's where things get less logical, than interesting.

Cast your mind back to Michael Gove's ill-fated "O-level" reforms - the new 'gold standard' Baccalaureate qualification for England only that in the end, ran into some serious difficulties. Mr Gove was accused of executing an embarrassing U-turn. #EBacctrack tweeted Labour. No, just "a tweak" said Mr Gove's office.

In Wales, in the meantime, the Welsh Government's review of qualifications recommended Wales keep GCSEs, again with some tweaks. Mr Andrews sat back and watched the gold standard in England - that unions and parents had feared would leave Welsh pupils second best - unravel.

But cast your mind back too to the ill-tempered spat between the two men over qualifications and how they should be regulated.

Up until last summer, a system of "three country consensus" existed whereby regulators from England, Wales and Northern Ireland met to agree common standards across all three. What did that mean? Well, roughly speaking, that a 60 in English Language would be a C wherever you sat it. Individual papers from individual exam boards are closely moderated to ensure common standards between them.

Come back to Mr Gove's letter and you'll see he says that he now believes that this "three country consensus" model is effectively dead, as a result of the diverging system. If the exams and structures are going to be so different, he reasons, then it's pointless to try and get some sort of consensus between them on standards.

It's pretty important to remember that it was Leighton Andrews, acting as Welsh exams regulator, whose actions put the first breach in the three country consensus model - last summer, following a review by his regulatory officials, he ordered the re-grading of WJEC English exams papers which meant for the first time, a C in Wales was different from a C in England - thousands of pupils in Wales got better results due to this. A legal challenge by unions in England failed.

Mr Andrews and those around him would argue that there were deeper changes going on under the bonnet of the standard-setting process last year that merited his intervention - but Mr Gove was furious. His response now seems to be - ok - if you want to override the consensus when it suits you, we won't bother having a consensus. Incidentally, asked by the Education Select Committee about the future of the consensus arrangements earlier this year, Mr Andrews declared the "jury was out" on it. Hardly a ringing endorsement from the Cardiff end either, to be fair.

But without any consensus on common standards in the future, the slight divergence in standards for one grade threshold for one exam becomes - potentially - a yawning chasm across all grades and subject areas where there could be literally no way of telling whether a pupil has achieved a given standard in comparison with a counterpart in England - or vice versa.

The letter comes in the wake of a meeting between the three education Ministers in London last week which was officially described as "frank but cordial". Judging by where we are a week or so later, it was a lot more of the former than the latter.

And the politics of this are laid bare by the Whitehall source in the Guardian story which attacks the Welsh "dumbing down" of exams. It's in the Department for Education's interest to have a political narrative portraying the English system as far more rigorous than the Welsh one - ending the current consensus arrangements would be (for them) a palpable demonstration of this.

Since the 2010 General Election Carwyn Jones and his ministers have sought to burnish their political credentials by contrasting their policies with those of Westminster - on austerity, on NHS reform, on Europe.

But these days, barely a Prime Minister's Questions goes by without some disparaging reference by David Cameron to Labour's record on health in Wales. It's not just different is his message. It's worse.

And it's spreading. Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has also weighed in with some trenchant criticisms of the Welsh Government's performance in housing.

As the bare-knuckle fight between the Tories and Labour in 2015 approaches, Michael Gove's letter opens up another front on Welsh Labour's record on education. The danger is that pupils on both sides of the border end up the casualties in a new grading free-for-all.

It's still waiting to find out whether the UK government thinks it got that right.

But it is already tackling the next part of the job - asking how Welsh devolution could be improved in the light of experience.

It's vital, says the man leading the debate, Paul Silk, that the views of the Welsh public are heard.

That's why the commission thinks public events, held all over the country, will play a part in making sure Wales, as they put it, has the right powers for the future.

If your answer is Bonnie in Malmö, then I'd probably stop reading now. If it's 'net beneficiary' or 'best out' then you're in the right place. Read on.

The First Minister has used just about every available opportunity this week to repeat his message on Wales in Europe. On Monday, it was his subject of choice at the monthly press briefing. If the UK, and Wales with it, leave the EU, says Mr Jones, it would be an economic disaster. Inward investment would fall, companies would stay away, other would leave, jobs would go. For Mr Jones it is no-brainer territory - Wales benefits hugely from being part of both unions: the UK and the EU.

Anyone who suggests Wales would be better off outside the EU is nuts was the gist of his remarks.

A question about the newly re-opened Fighting Fit Gym in Griffithstown during First Minister's Questions yesterday (from Malmö to Griffithstown in three paragraphs ...) led to more First Ministerial messages on Europe. The gym had profited from EU funding. So had the Colwyn Bay Watersports Centre. In fact without the "largesse showered on that project" by Europe, it wouldn't have happened at all.

In fact £144m floods into the Welsh coffers every year. If we weren't in the EU, we'd lose it and wouldn't get it back from the UK government, said Mr Jones.

Welsh farmers get £350m from Europe every year. That would disappear, "Welsh farming would end".

And he was off, talking to the group of Conservative AMs sitting opposite him, but addressing those Welsh Conservative MPs who will use their vote in parliament later to protest about the absence of a commitment to hold a referendum on EU membership in the Queen's Speech.

"At at time when people are concerned about the economy ... want to ensure a roof over their heads, all we get day after day after day is an obsession about Europe, an incredible narrow- minded nationalism that UKIP has and has infected the Conservative party with. That is not in Wales' interest".

Tory AMs refused to rise to the bait. in this afternoon's opposition debate, questioning the Welsh government's delivery unit, Mr Jones goaded them again. They accused his government of failing to meet any number of its targets. He accused them of having "an unhealthy obsession" with the unit he said. It was nearly as bad as their unhealthy obsession with Europe. There we go again.

It was the same story at Welsh Questions in Westminster. Would jobs be "more or less secure" asked Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith, if Wales was not part of the EU. The Welsh Secretary refused to be drawn.

But when I put the same question to the deputy leader of the Conservative group here in the Assembly, there was no side-stepping, no brushing off. No, said Paul Davies, he did not believe Welsh jobs would be put at risk if Wales were no longer part of the EU. Neither did he believe that Carwyn Jones was right to say inward investment would inevitably fall away. The Welsh Government's "appalling track record on inward investment" he said, hardly pointed to EU membership paving the way to success on that front.

His colleague Darren Millar joined in.

The money we pay into the EU budget in the first place could be better used to directly support Welsh businesses. If there was a referendum on EU membership tomorrow, then for the record, both men would vote to get out.

Both were quick to add that they'd rather the Prime Minister negotiated a better deal that allowed the UK, and Wales therefore, to stay in the EU. But an economic disaster if we leave? No. To claim there'd be huge price to pay in jobs - if we left - was a nonsense.

The latest price on Bonnie to win in Malmö? 50-1.

The latest polling on whether Wales should remain in, or leave the EU? A few months ago 49% of you told us we'd better off if we left; 45% said stay in.

Place your bets on where we go from here.

Everyone involved, he said, should be "alarmed". The figures were "unacceptable". Wales was spending more than countries that were outperforming us. How come? We were sliding down the tables at a speed bright Finnish teenagers could probably work out given the details about time and distance. Many Welsh pupils, sadly, could not ... even with a calculator.

The Welsh government, local authorities, teachers, parents were all in this together, said Mr Andrews. Now they had to sort out what was rapidly becoming a national humiliation.

On Sunday, I was there, at the kitchen table, taking a long, hard look at practice papers in numeracy and literacy, both in Welsh and in English. Alongside me, two children, aged eight and nine, who weren't even born when a previous Welsh education minister deemed tests for children their age or thereabouts to be less than helpful, and scrapped them. Sorry, children, bad timing.

This week they'll sit the brand new reading and literacy tests introduced by Leighton Andrews. The government's 'Learning Wales 'website' urged us to help raised standards by having a go at test papers at home. And so, the long road to improved PISA ranking started here. They calculated the speed of a dinosaur, the route of a spy and how many bottles fit into the box. When it came to literacy and diagrams of how to make a bird feeder, my son said (with some feeling) that this paper meant he didn't just have to spell words correctly. He had to understand what they meant! This, his father suggested to him, sounded like rather a good idea really.

They'll be marked by their teachers. That bit isn't new. What is, is the fact that all school children in Wales - from seven to fourteen - will be sitting the same tests. A system of testing that is "clear, consistent and rigorous" says Mr Andrews, is a vital element in the effort to claw our way back up those international league tables.

The problem, of course, is that another set of PISA results, based on tests taken in 2012, are set to be published later this year. The minister might be very 'active' now suggested Plaid's Leanne Wood and the Liberal Democrats' Kirsty Williams in last week's First Minister's Questions - but after fourteen years of unbroken rule by Labour education ministers, was there any chance at all these figures would be any better?

This was Kirsty Williams' question: "Is it still your expectation that, when those results are published later this year, results will have improved? If they do not, what will you do about it?"

The answer from the First Minister, is worth reading, and suggests he's long since learned that when it comes to testing questions, answer the question you want to, not the one asked ...

"We expect to see improvement in the results of any tests that are taking place and taken forward. The reading tests, if I remember rightly, start this week. That shows the commitment of this Government to ensure that our literacy and numeracy levels are there with the best in Europe. Many plans have been taken forward in order to improve literacy and numeracy in Wales, and the Minister for education has, indeed, done that."

Note the tense: "tests that are taking place". Mr Jones carefully avoided any direct reference to what Kirsty Williams was actually talking about - that set of already-taken PISA tests which, like it or not, will be a key barometer about whether the Welsh Government's getting to grips with the problems within the education system.

Talking of tense and testing, Leighton Andrews had a rare meeting with his Westminster counterpart today, Michael Gove. The two have not, it's fair to say, seen eye to eye on a number of issues since 2010. According to the Welsh Government, "Ministers enjoyed a frank but cordial discussion" on the issue of three-country agreement on qualification standards. In the league table of governmental euphemisms, "frank" is surely near the top in the "oh to have been a fly on the wall" stakes...

What exactly, came the question first thing this morning, is the status of the draft Wales bill? What's likely to be in it?

Think of it as a bucket, came the answer - a bucket into which the government in Westminster can put as much, or as little, legislation relevant only to Wales as it likes.

In it for now, what it says on the tin, or bucket, as described in the speech: "Draft legislation will be published concerning the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales".

It's a plan to move away from four to five year fixed term elections for the National Assembly, a move to prevent AMs from also sitting as MPs and a reversal of the ban on dual candidacy - the lucky loser's bill, or made-in-Ukraine bill, depending on your viewpoint. (The link takes you to a lively session of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee some years ago, where Ukraine gets quite a few mentions.)

But should the coalition choose to, they could throw something else in the bucket - something along the lines of legislation resulting from their response to the Silk commission, when it comes.

That point hasn't passed the First Minister by, who made a visit to the Assembly's tea room this afternoon and was overheard making sure AMs had 'got it' - that this bucket could carry some tax-varying powers to Wales.

Or to put it another way, there could be a whole lot in this bucket - or a hole in it. We'll see.

"Will they stick together and refuse to sink out of sight this time?" was my question yesterday of Anglesey's independent councillors. The answer, by the looks of things at least, is yes. Talks are now well underway to form a council, led by independents, with support from the three Labour members.

The irony isn't lost on some of those in Welsh government circles who had hoped this election would put the council in party political hands. Labour support now looks as though it's about to put the independent group - which includes a former Conservative AM - back in power.

One senior government source smiled and threw up their hands, before muttering something that sounded a lot like 'you couldn't make it up.'

They may be cheered by this comment left on the blog last night by Hywel Meredydd Davies:

As Deputy Chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, ensuring responsible and fair democracy was the only motive for the Commission, which introduced the principle of a new multi-member wards to Anglesey. Today I am delighted to see so many new successful and responsible Councillors who are keen to tackle the profound current challenges facing the community on Anglesey.

Keep an eye out here for the latest.

************

There are, a colleague and old hand once told me, just two areas of Welsh politics I've never been able to crack - the politics of Welsh choirs and the politics of Anglesey. Both complex, both bloody-minded - both pretty impenetrable.

Now as an alto who turns up to choir practice most Thursdays, don't get me started on the former. The latter? He has a point.

You'll know by now that in Thursday's local election, the people of Anglesey were encouraged/pretty much guided (delete as applicable) not to put independent candidates back in charge and to vote instead for a party political leadership. They looked at the script, looked at their ballot papers and decided to do things their own way.

The independents did lose ground. Some jumped before the new broom came for them. Some had had enough. All the same they remain the largest group - except of course, they haven't operated as a single group in the past. They've operated as two or three groups. That's the point and the issue that's led to any number of the island's political woes. So let's rephrase. There are still more independent councillors than there are councillors from any one political party. That wasn't the plan. Will they stick together and refuse to sink out of sight this time?

The only party to emerge smiling was Plaid Cymru with 12 seats. They put the work in and got the vote out. If they were - and I think we can bet they were - putting to work the campaigning tactics recently picked up from the SNP in Scotland, then 12 seats says some of them worked. What didn't work was the bit that said they would then join forces with the Labour group to give them a clear majority. Labour fell short. With only three councillors elected (too few to form an official 'group') on an island they represent in Westminster and just at a time the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are on the ropes, they must have emerged scowling and with rather a lot of questions that need answering.

The sole Liberal Democrat is talking to the independents, keen - or so we're told in Cardiff - to ensure some of the policies he supported are adopted.

Plaid are in talks - pre-preliminary talks - with Labour and the independents to form a ruling coalition.

The Conservatives? No councillors, and considerably worse if you're the leader in Wales, trailing Ukip in terms of support. There were no excuses from Andrew R T Davies this morning. What, I asked him, had gone wrong? Putting up five times as many candidates as at the last election was all well and good, he said but that doesn't win you elections. You need a campaign, you need to communicate with the voters. His party had failed on both counts - and he didn't stop there. The failure of the Tory campaign in this election "will be ruthlessly - and I mean ruthlessly - sorted out!" He wouldn't elaborate.

Perhaps they'll think twice before coming out with 'Loony Leanne' jibes in future, said a Plaid source. After all, they've already realised that calling Ukip names was a bad idea.

Nigel Farage's party didn't make huge strides on Anglesey. All the same, they did better than Mr Davies' and Mr Cameron's party and if colleagues who were there on the night are right, many of those who did vote for Ukip didn't choose - having made their protest - to give their second, or even third vote, to the Conservatives.

If so, it seems it wasn't just a bit of a kick in Mr Cameron's direction. It was a decisive shift in support - and evidence of something rather more fundamental for the Conservative party both in Wales and in England to "ruthlessly - and I mean ruthlessly" - sort out.

Then again, maybe you have cracked Anglesey politics. If you have, go for it - spell out what lessons you reckon the parties should learn from Thursday's vote, Friday's count and those pre-pre-preliminary talks.

But the standards committee in Cardiff Bay has decided that while some rules around contact between AMs and lobbyists need tightening, there is no need for a register.

The system, they say, is robust enough and so far, there's hasn't been a single complaint about assembly members' dealing with lobbyists. Others argue that no-one is complaining because they may not know whether there is anything to complain about and a register would make things more transparent.

Presiding Officer Rosemary Butler welcomed the report, and says no matter what is decided in Westminster, the National Assembly should be left to make its own decisions on dealing with lobbying.

Please can you stop banging on in this blog about the Silk Commission, about who's saying what to whom about constitutional reform and devolving tax and borrowing powers. Can't you go back to writing about missed targets in the health service and pressures on public services and shenanigans about smacking and organ donation, the things we really care about?

I will. I promise. But let me just do this first.

Yesterday it emerged that the First Minister had written to the Chancellor calling for "full implementation" of the Silk Commission's recommendations on how to reform the way Wales is funded. "Full implementation" struck many people, some of whom had been very close to the whole process, some who've just watched it all unfold, as pretty significant. It didn't matter why he'd done it, what the motive was. To them those two words stood out - full implementation.

To remind you, the Commission recommended that so-called minor taxes, things like stamp duty, aggregates levy, air passenger duty, should be devolved, that powers to borrow should be devolved too and - the big one in any one's money - that the Welsh Government should share responsibility for income tax with the UK Government. Given this would mean a fundamental shift in powers, the devolution of income tax should be subject to a referendum.

Where the First Minister stood on this last point was a bit muddy. He was clear that devolving tax varying powers to Wales without first re-visiting the formula that dictates how much money Wales gets from the Treasury, wasn't on. He wasn't about to do anything that left Wales worse off.

But yesterday, he was equally clear that he wanted to see the Silk Commission's recommendations implemented "in full".

No ambiguity there, said Kirsty Williams. If there ever had been, there isn't now.

Andrew RT Davies agreed. So much so, he'd have been happy to add his signature to it.

Come off it, said Plaid MP Jonathan Edwards. Labour is the most anti devolution party left standing. If Carwyn Jones is really backing the Silk recommendations in full, Mr Edwards suggested, he hasn't told his colleagues in Westminster.

Today, Mr Jones agreed to an interview and by the end of my interview, this is where we stood:

When he wrote the words "full implementation" in the letter to George Osborne he wasn't suggesting he supports in full the recommendations made in the Silk Commission report. Yes to borrowing, yes to minor taxes, but, as things stand, no to tax varying powers.

So "full implementation" actually means part implementation? No, he did mean full implementation but as far as tax-varying powers are concerned, he'd only consider those IF the Barnett formula is reformed first. And that isn't going to happen, said Mr Jones. So that part of the Silk recommendation are effectively off the table.

In practice, in reality, then, "full implementation" means devolution of minor taxes and borrowing powers. (I suggested earlier that the "Barnett caveat" was the Welsh Government's, not the Silk Commission's - but Recommendation 18 proves me wrong as you'll see here. )

"Full implementation" of Silk itself sounded as though you meant rather more, I suggested.

Not the case, was Carwyn Jones' response - not unless certain things change, and they're not going to, was the gist. Devolving stamp duty, air passenger duty, powers to borrow mean his ministers could get on now with making people's lives better, was his take. Devolving tax varying powers would, as things stand, make their lives worse.

Got it.

I wondered therefore, if what the First Minister was actually demanding were minor taxes and some borrowing powers, how he'd imagined the outcome would have any impact whatsoever on wavering voters in Scotland.

His answer was this: it's the principle. If the people of Scotland see that the Treasury is actively working with us to build a fair funding system, from within a United Kingdom, it'll show them there's an alternative to independence.

I did suggest that the Scotland Act 2012 - "the largest transfer of fiscal powers from central Government since the creation of the United Kingdom" - was more likely to prove that point of principle to wavering voters in Scotland than sorting out the aggregates levy in Wales, but he was having none of it.

What is really going on here?

What was Danny Alexander's speech at the Welsh Liberal Democrats' conference really about?

What was Carwyn Jones' letter really about?

Have we been watching - in footballing terms - a "one-two", two players advancing over their own hostile territory, helping each other out, in the hope that in the end they can drive the ball into the net?

The response from some quarters? 'You gave Carwyn Jones a free hit yesterday'. If Barnett reform is not going to happen any time soon, and if he knows it's not going to happen, then in reality we're talking about a handful of minor taxes and some borrowing powers. He lacks ambition.

Mr Jones' response was clear: without Barnett reform, he will not contemplate the devolution of income tax-varying powers.

And: "If ambitious means taking the people of Wales over a precipice, then no, I'm not that sort of ambitious."

Discuss - then we'll all move on.

The common purpose? To help scupper the pro-independence campaign in Scotland.

The method? Well Carwyn has come up with this suggestion: implementing the Silk Commission's recommendations on limited tax raising and borrowing powers for the Welsh Government - sooner rather than later. Bringing them into force, in full, would show Scottish voters that 'separatism is not the UK's only alternative to the status quo.'

Devolved funding can be reformed within the UK - that'll be the message seen and heard in Scotland, oh and Wales and its government would get what they want too.

The implied warning? That if the Chancellor drags his heels, doesn't play ball, despite the clear consensus among all four political parties in Wales that this is the way to go, then he'll hand ammunition to pro-independence campaigners in Scotland, and make a Yes vote in next Autumn's referendum more likely.

To those who didn't read this entry last week, there is, perhaps, another element worth considering here. By sending a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to press ahead in full with the Silk Commission recommendations, any ambiguity - if there was any - about how far the Welsh government wants to go with devolving tax and borrowing powers is removed.

As Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams put it this morning, it is now quite clear to the Chancellor where all four leaders stand in Wales: we want to see those recommendations implemented - in full.

From Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies came the suggestion that the First Minister had missed a trick. Surely all four leaders ought to have signed the letter before sending it to George?

Plaid's Jonathan Edwards MP tweeted his response: It would help if Labour weren't cherry picking the Silk recommendations and calling for full implementation of the package.

That's exactly what he's done, we're told.

Back comes Mr Edwards: In that case he needs to tell his MPs who are vehemently opposed to income tax powers.

The letter points to one other area of collaboration, by the way. It seems Carwyn and George are on the same side in the political battle over the currency of a future independent Scotland. Any suggestion of a euro-style common currency would, warns the First Minister, raise "very real risks".

On Saturday I asked David Cameron whether - given his dismissal of the Welsh Government as the Muppet Show - he would trust them with any tax varying powers? His test, said Mr Cameron, remained the same as ever: would devolving any powers over tax be good for Wales and those who live and work there.

All four party leaders in Wales are now entirely clear that the answer is yes, and that implementing the Silk recommendations is the way to achieve it.

Over to David and George.

The Welsh Conservative conference was less short and sweet than brief and brutal.

This was a one day conference packed with ministerial speeches that left the faithful in little doubt as to what they must now do: get out there and beat Labour at the General Election.

"That vote" urged Francis Maude "is just a year and week away!" He must have seen the look of panic on his audience's faces (including mine) before adjusting it to two years and a week. But next year or the year after, his message was the same : it's tough, it's bracing on the doorsteps but boy, you've got to persuade people that letting Labour sort this out would be a disaster.

So what's the plan?

It's almost as though the penny's dropped in Number Ten. Imagine the moment:

"There IS an alternative - it's Ed 'n Ed."

"Can you IMAGINE it?"

"Well can voters imagine it, that's the point!"

"What WOULD health and education and business development look like in Labour hands? Hang on a minute ..."

Suddenly, markedly, the Welsh Government is in the firing line, or "Labour in Cardiff Bay" as the Prime Minister labelled them. We've heard the attacks during PMQs before now. Take Wednesday's PMQs as the most recent example. But on Saturday, the boot went in again, and again, and again.

Before breakfast, Carwyn Jones' government had been called Stalinists. By elevenses, David Cameron had added to the list:

"The thing is: their whole government reads like a soap opera. They've got an Education Minister who admits they've taken 'their eye off the ball'. A Business Minister who admits she's a fan of Karl Marx. Wales needed the A-Team, instead they got The Muppet Show. But while they're messing it up, we're sorting it out. Backing the hardworking people of Wales."

By tea time they were Muppets who "sit on their lazy arses" - or so the Welsh party leader Andrew RT Davies colourfully put it. And when I describe him as Welsh party leader rather than leader of the Conservative group in the National Assembly, I do so with Mr Cameron's blessing, I think. Tory kremlinologists - read into that what you will.

Ministers had been briefed with a list of what Central Office would headline 'Labour failures' in Wales. Statistics on health specifically - ambulance urgent call-out targets, urgent cancer treatment targets, A+E targets - all missed and all regarded as fertile ground for attack by the Conservatives.

Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats at their conference seemed to have decided against letting Nick Clegg loose on Labour's record in Wales. He took on Cameron and Miliband. Carwyn Jones was left to Kirsty Williams.

So how will Labour respond?

If you're the Welsh Government you blame the UK Government for slashing your budget in the first place. If you're the Shadow Welsh Secretary, you point out forcefully that Labour used to put over the odds into health in Wales, until George Osborne's cuts forced them to make tough choices.

But when the PM has used Wales as a weapon against Labour in PMQs, Ed Miliband has not directly defended it. He's preferred to turn the spotlight back onto the UK Government's record. If the attacks continue next week, next month and the month after that - will Mr Miliband find he starts to come under pressure to start sticking up for Carwyn Jones and his cabinet rather than turning the other cheek?

What else did we learn? That the Welsh leadership still feels it has to tell the party that devolution is here to stay. It must, as a colleague suggested, now almost be part of the housekeeping list at Welsh conference. Fire exits are here, here and here, and oh, please don't re-ignite the battles of 1997.

Those who voted for Andrew RT Davies in the hope he'd turn back the Tory clock will have listened with a sinking feeling.

"Devolution cannot be simply put back into the bottle. I believe we have reached our "Clause IV" moment. We cannot and should not go back to 1997 ... If we want to win in 2016, we need to roll up our sleeves, taking tough decisions and fighting the battles the people of Wales want us to fight, not the fights of 1997".

Got it? He must surely be hoping they have now.

The metaphor is strangely apt, but the story that's got AMs hot under the collar is quite different. And yes, you'll argue the GDP figures are much more significant - but you'll read about those elsewhere. You won't read about this.

Changes in the composition of Assembly committees rarely merit much of a mention on this blog or anywhere else - but not so what's just taken place on the Children and Young People Committee. The Chief Whip Janice Gregory has summarily removed three Labour members, including its chair Christine Chapman, from the committee at extremely short notice.

A motion in plenary yesterday afternoon replaced Christine Chapman, Julie Morgan and Jenny Rathbone with Ann Jones, David Rees and Keith Davies as members of the committee, including Ann Jones as the new chair, moved over from the chair of the Communities Committee, which, in a swift swap, is now chaired by Christine Chapman.

The changes took place with immediate effect. This morning, the committee is starting a day of evidence taking on the long and complex Social Services Bill, including evidence from the Children's Commissioner.

The committee started in a hastily scheduled private session. When the microphones were switched on, Ms Jones asked committee members to "bear with her" as she'd only found out late yesterday afternoon she was chairing the meeting at all.

Opposition sources say the whole operation is a pig's ear - emphasising that there are now three new members of the committee coming to the scrutiny of this troubled Bill cold.

Why then?

The pressure group Children Are Unbeatable are among several groups who are pushing for the Social Services Bill to be amended in order to make it a legislative vehicle for a ban on smacking children.

Last week, during the Health committee's scrutiny of the Bill, Plaid Cymru's Lindsay Whittle said he would move amendments to write a ban on to the face of the Bill. He was urged against his by the Deputy Minister Gwenda Thomas during her evidence. (I've corrected this paragraph, by the way, to get my committees straight.)

In 2011 Julie Morgan and Christine Chapman co-sponsored a motion in the Assembly calling for a smacking ban. Another sponsor was Lindsay Whittle.

Were the Government worried that the three Labour members would side with Mr Whittle rather than Mrs.Thomas when their committee comes to lay amendments? That's what the opposition parties think and its difficult to think of another explanation for a wholesale change of personnel at such short notice. We've had a quick chat in this office and reckon it's the first time we've seen it happen.

With the three Labour votes, the smacking ban amendment would have been carried by the committee, which would have left the Welsh Government being forced to re-amend it at stage three in full plenary to remove it.

The question is this: if the Government gives a Bill to an Assembly committee to scrutinise and amend, and they decide they want to amend it in a way that the Government doesn't like, is it really democratic simply to change the members of the committee instead?

Over the weekend, though, the Lib Dems gathering in Cardiff certainly sparked more interest than usual in the new open plan offices of Cathays Park - in particular, the speech from chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander.

In it, Mr Alexander went further than ever before in suggesting that the UK Government will implement the recommendations of the Silk Commission on tax and borrowing powers for Wales in full. In fact his line was so strong he managed to overshadow the Welsh party leader's speech on the same day - though somehow, you doubt she'll be complaining.

Here's the key passage from his speech to the conference:

"We need a new model of devolution for Wales - a model in which additional responsibility for raising revenues strengthens responsibility too.

"A model in which significant income tax powers unlock commensurate borrowing powers for Wales too.

"We are still working through our response to the Silk Commission with the Welsh government but I will not allow a response to Silk that doesn't meet those aspirations."

Those around Mr Alexander at the conference fringes said the speech had been carefully drafted and re-drafted before being delivered, which makes the nuances of that passage even more intriguing, in particular the use of the word "allow". Mr Alexander is a senior Treasury minister, who is directly in charge of the UK Government response to Silk. What, one wonders, is not "allowing" him to deliver what he wants, since he clearly feels so strongly on the issue?

Questioned afterwards, he emphasised the "complexity" of devolving tax powers and wouldn't be pushed any further. But if so, why not just say that in the speech? And his aides emphasised that the message was carefully written and aimed at a number of different people involved in the process.

So what's going on here?

First up, Whitehall sources say there's some surprise at the content of the speech, which, it's claimed by some, didn't go through the normal "pre-clearance" procedures. Sources close to Danny Alexander insist it went through exactly the same process as all other political speeches.

They use the word "premature" stressing that discussions are still on-going about how and what will be offered to Wales in terms of tax and borrowing. The Department for Transport, for example, has to be consulted over the devolution of Air Passenger Duty, likewise Environment over the Aggregates Levy. Senior figures within the Wales Office are adamant that there's no blockage from Gwydyr House and point to the frequency of their meetings with Mr Alexander over the issue.

If that's the case, was Danny Alexander looking towards Cathays Park as the source of the logjam, or the possible brakes on his aspirations?

Opposition parties are increasingly sensing what they see as a fracture developing between Welsh Labour AMs and MPs over a number of issues - the spat over the devolution (or not) of policing being the most recent and obvious. One senior opposition figure said they saw a "mega-split" over both Silk I and II developing between the Assembly and Westminster groups within Labour.

At his party's conference in Llandudno, Ed Miliband saw it as a debate that must be and will be had - rather than a more headline-grabbing split. Welsh Labour MPs accept there are differences, big ones on some issues but say they will quite simply have to be thrashed out. That's grown up politics they say, and will lead in the end to an agreed manifesto ahead of the General Election in 2015.

But it's something that the Welsh Labour leader isn't exactly playing down. Speaking during First Minister's Questions last week, Carwyn Jones made rather an odd off the cuff remark.

In the context of Labour's decisions on the top rate of taxation during their 13 years in Government, he was asked by Plaid Cymru's Llyr Huws Gruffudd: "How can the people of Wales trust a Labour Party that says one thing here and does a very different thing at Westminster?"

To which Mr Jones responded: "We are a different party; this is the Welsh Labour Party. We have different views on devolution to our UK colleagues. That much is that."

Cue raised eyebrows. Why should the Welsh party leader go out of his way to point up splits within his own party? Let alone do it in response to a question from a Plaid AM, in the chamber, with his every word noted for posterity?

So on Silk implementation, are Carwyn Jones and his Cabinet colleagues being held back by their MPs at Westminster? Well, apparently not. There were more raised eyebrows last night at the Welsh Government's unusual decision to rush out a statement responding to Danny Alexander's conference speech:

"The First Minister has made clear that we want to see full implementation of the Silk Commission's recommendations, with legislation in this Parliament.

"This is a position supported unanimously by all parties in the Assembly. So it is good to hear the Chief Secretary setting out the UK Government's intention to implement Silk and we look forward to a formal announcement on the way forward as soon as possible.

"Silk recommends that there would need to be a referendum before powers to vary income tax rates were devolved to Wales. The First Minister agrees. The people of Wales should have the final say."

Not much room for doubt there - the message from Labour, at least in Cardiff Bay is "bring it on". So no blockage there either.

Which makes the Chief Secretary's apparent frustration even more baffling, where everyone involved in the process appears to be one hundred per cent in favour of what he wants - at least in public.

Who said it? The then Local Government Minister Carl Sargeant.

About what? Local government reorganisation.

When? Back in 2010, when everyone else was talking about the Ryder Cup, Mr Sargeant was heading off on a summer tour meet local public sector workers, taking with him a statement he'd called "Your Services, Your Say" but that back then, some re-christened "My Money, My Way".

Why? This is how I put it back then:

"For what he announced was nothing less that a complete re-evaluation of how local services are delivered in Wales: an independent inquiry, to report before Christmas, which will look at all functions carried out by councils in Wales and decide whether they could be better carried out at a regional or even national level.

We're not talking about back office here - HR, payroll and so on. It appears that the Minister is now prepared to wrest control of whole areas from local government and put them on a wholly different footing - waste, social services, trading standards for example, run regionally or even as a single national service. Mr Sargeant put it more simply - "I'm not precious about who does what".

Is he serious? A government source tells us he's deadly serious: "He is determined to take them on. He holds a lot of cards and he will play them."

The thinking was that with finances tight and getting tighter, even the most isolationist elements in local government accepted they had to do things differently, that they had to collaborate. Refusing to do so 22 times over was simply unsustainable. If they thought so, and if he thought so, and if the First Minister thought so, surely there were big changes on the way. But wholesale reorganisation?

As I say, that was not where he wanted to be. It's expensive at a time when there's no money to spare, it's complex at a time when politicians need to keep an eye on other things, it can be got very wrong at a time you really can't afford to make mistakes.

But if the government didn't want to talk reorganisation, others did, including some of the biggest beasts in Welsh local government.

So what now? As expected for some months now, the announcement of a Commission on Public Service and Delivery, involving all parties and that "provides an opportunity for those who are involved in delivering services, those who are politically accountable for them and users of them to examine how public services are governed: that is, held accountable for their performance and delivered most effectively to the public".

Or as another big beast in local government put it, they might be casting it as a public services commission but here's "the starting gun for Local Government Reform at last!"

The chair, Sir Paul Williams, as former chief executive of the NHS in Wales, is no stranger to reform nor to how the Welsh government likes it to happen. I'm told he's also "very tough".

All four leaders will be there. All four will speak- one in praise of the former Prime Minister, three choosing to concentrate on the impact she had in Wales.

Unlike his counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Carwyn Jones has said nothing publicly so far. The First Minister released a carefully worded statement on the day of Mrs Thatcher's death and has since only confirmed that he will attend her funeral.

Was he, Plaid leader Leanne Wood was asked this morning, hypocritical? She supposed, rightly you suspect, that had he not gone, "there would be strong criticism. I guess he's had to balance that with his strong feelings". There spoke a woman who understood his dilemma and who in the past has come to different conclusions. Today she stressed repeatedly that it was "her duty as leader to participate".

Kirsty Williams understands her group will all be present for what she called "the most controversial tribute we've ever had to pay". The Presiding Officer had, she felt, been put in an impossible situation but the decision was rightly hers. It was, again, "right" that the decision to offer tributes had been left to the judgement of the PO.

Andrew R T Davies will be at tomorrow's funeral in St Paul's, and today the Conservative leader in the Assembly had little respect for those who will stay away from the chamber. Plaid's Simon Thomas may have spelled out on You Tube why he won't be there for the session but Mr Thomas was a democrat, he said. So is Mr Davies and they both lived in a democracy because of what Margaret Thatcher had done to bolster and protect it.

One Labour AM told me a "half empty chamber would be good". Another, Mick Antoniw, is staying away precisely because he will not be allowed to speak. Had he had that opportunity the former lawyer who represented striking miners would have read a strongly worded and damning letter to Mrs Thatcher. He is clear that the Presiding Officer has got it wrong:

"I don't believe we should be having this debate and certainly not a state funeral coasting around £10 million of public money. This state funeral is an establishment charade".

Those who think she's right will shortly be on their way to the chamber.

Let me take you on a journey. One in particular - my morning drive to the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Why would I want to tell you about my commute? Because I think it's trying to tell me something about the direction politics is moving in - at a local level at least.

Recently, Cardiff council decided to redraw the lines in the road at a junction on my way to work. Keep reading. This gets better - I promise.

For those who know the Grangetown area well, it's the big junction going southbound between Clare Road, the left fork of Corporation Road towards the Bay and Penarth Road leading sharp left back into town towards the station and Brains' Brewery, or right towards Penarth. See here for map.

On the first morning back in work after Easter, I was in the left hand lane as usual to bear left down towards the Senedd, when the car in the right hand lane comprehensively cut me up. I raised a hand in protest (but no fingers, I hasten to add). Unusual, I thought. After all, most of us are commuters who use the route every morning. And went back to thinking about the day ahead.

The next morning, I happened to be the first car to the junction after the lights had gone red. Looking ahead, a newly painted set of lines in the road cut off the left hand lane to the sharp left turn only, so cars heading left down Corporation Road to the Bay - completely counter-intuitively - now have to take the right hand lane to go left. I dutifully did, whereby another motorist promptly cut me up - from the left this time. In my rear view mirror I could see similar chaos unfolding behind me.

Let me reassure you at this point that this isn't some sort of extended traffic bulletin or Clarkson-esque moan - but the context is important.

As soon as I got to work, I wrote a fairly irate but detailed email, as a private citizen rather than a journalist, to the Connect to Cardiff (C2C) online service, pointing out the mayhem the changes were causing and asking for warning signs to be put up straightaway as a minimum until the lines could be re-painted. I got an acknowledgement straight away, followed a day later by a personal email with the following explanation:

"Thanks for your e-mail regarding this issue and apologise for the inconvenience and confusion which has arisen. Unfortunately a scheme was supposed to be carried out to put in an advanced stop line for cyclists at this junction and many others throughout the city, however contractors on behalf of the Highways Department have marked it out wrong.

"Once the cycling box had been put in the remaining centreline was supposed to remain as is and therefore allow left lane users to choose as previous to either turn left or carry straight on down Corporation Road. Naturally I have had many complaints from drivers and I am at present spending many hours replying to them about this matter.

"Once this issue was identified I immediately spoke to the Highways Department to rectify the matter, and I know he has spoken to the contractors, as yet I have not had a date from him of when it is going to be corrected but will speak to him again to emphasise the urgency of the matter."

Mystery solved. But as a citizen, I think this little episode has more to tell us about how we interact with public services and about how they respond than first meets the eye.

First of all, it didn't even occur to me to raise the problem with my local councillor, who is after all my democratically elected representative on the council, and who might well have been the first port of call in the past. Which is not to denigrate councillors at all. It was just far simpler just to log on straightaway and fire off an email raising the issue with the council directly.

No cumbersome exchange of letters - within 24 hours or so I had my reply, explanation and apology - see above - by dealing with the council itself rather than through an intermediary. Job done, satisfied citizen.

But - and it's a big but - as I drove into work this morning it still hadn't been fixed, there are no warning signs, and the near misses are continuing, believe me.

So actually, job not done, not such a satisfied citizen, and neither I suspect, are all the others who got those swift replies to their emails.

Let say the errant line painter - Bob - was directly employed by the Highways department of Cardiff Council, as he would presumably have been in the past. When his mistake emerged, Bob would have had a metaphorical clip round the ear from the gaffer and would be sent out at first light the next day with brush and paint to correct his mistake. Job, as they say, done.

It's been a number of weeks now since the mistake was made, and as you can see from the response above, there seems to be some sort of wrangling going on about how and when the lines on the road should be returned to how they were before - meanwhile the motorists of Grangetown are still swerving out of each others' way every time the lights turn green.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that efficiency and innovation in public services has to run from top to bottom to really work. Allowing citizens to raise problems at the click of a mouse is all very well, but if the capacity or structure isn't in place to solve the problem quickly, it really doesn't take any of us that much further forward.

I'm talking about the former Welsh Secretary, about his unofficial title as 'the architect of devolution' and a suggestion that it could be bestowed on another - on Margaret Thatcher.

She wasn't, as Dr Martin Johnes points out, always unpopular, nor was she by any means universally unpopular in Wales. Yet by the end of her days as Prime Minister, he argues there was such "antipathy towards Thatcher was strong enough that some started questioning the whole political system".

"They began to wonder why Wales had to endure a prime minister that only a minority of its people had voted for. Enough people were perplexed by this that the resounding No vote in the 1979 referendum on devolution was turned into a narrow Yes in 1997. That makes Thatcher one of the architects of devolution".

Ron Davies doesn't buy it. Yes, he remembers driving through the village of Nelson on the morning after the 1987 election and spotting graffiti scrawled on the bridge, large letters that said "We voted Labour, we got Thatcher." Yes, he remembers being struck that a sense of unease in Wales about being governed from Westminster was growing and there to be harnessed by those who believed in devolution.

But he'll go so far and no further. What really delivered that narrow yes vote in 1997, he argues, wasn't Margaret Thatcher. It was the strong history in Wales of people wanting to reflect their own cultural identity. It would have happened with or without her. Margaret Thatcher may have helped the process along - helped with what he called 'a little light canvassing' - but certainly wasn't the cause of it.

Light canvassing? Gerroff, is the response of one key Yes for Wales campaigner. He and his team went all out to "chime with the time" says Daran Hill and that meant using the antipathy towards Mrs Thatcher and the most Thatcherite minister campaigners could (metaphorically) lay their hands on - John Redwood - for all it was worth to squeeze that narrowest of victories.

"Who did they least like in politics? Margaret Thatcher. Who did they most like? Tony Blair. So we put an aeroplane in the sky pulling a banner saying "Vote Yes"! Vote Blair!"

It worked - just. You can then, says Mr Hill, argue Margaret Thatcher contributed significantly to the shape of devolution.

Simples.

Or simplistic says Conservative AM David Melding, the party's former policy director and a man who was, over the years, instrumental in turning much of his party in Wales from the anti-Assembly camp to supporters of it. Invoking her legacy may have been a (legitimate) campaigning tool - "an idea sold effectively by the likes of Peter Hain and Ron Davies" - but

"... positive factors have to explain big political moves in my view. Negative ones are present but I don't think they are the key to motivation ... You can't go from four to one against to a yes, albeit a narrow one, unless that happens".

Incidentally he argues that had she been around in politics now, Mrs Thatcher would have "accommodated devolution". The woman who set out to change the system, he imagines, would have recognised the change from what we knew, a centralised unitary state to a devolved, increasingly federal way of governing, as a means of maintaining her belief in Britain.

Would she recognise her role in delivering devolution - whether potent player or campaigning tool? i'm not sure.

Would she recognise the irony that those who most vilified her policies had something to thank her for come the referendum? Almost certainly.

Unlike most politicians she had an agenda, and she managed to achieve it, he said.

Chris Bryant, the Rhondda's Labour MP, said she was a towering figure who was never afraid of controversy.

Liberal Democrat AM Bill Powell said their views differed radically but Welsh, British, European and world history will never forget her or ignore her.

We've also heard people like First Minister Carwyn Jones point to how she changed the 'landscape' - politically and literally.

Communities had changed - the way they looked, the way they worked, changed fundamentally under Mrs Thatcher. Change was hard but inevitable and overdue, say her admirers. Its impact was devastating and felt to this day, say her critics.

You can argue that the parties, not just her own party but the Labour Party, have changed fundamentally, and that had an awful lot to do with her.

But there is general agreement on this: whether you thought that what she did was right or very wrong, above all, she changed things. That's what she set out to do - and she did it.

Today they can all read the letter, seen by BBC Wales and sent by nearly half of the Wales' A&E consultants jointly to the new Health Minister Mark Drakeford.

They'll see that these consultants share their concerns. They'll see they've taken a very significant step in coming together to warn the Welsh Government - eloquently and publicly - that "emergency departments are at the point of meltdown" and that patients are being put at risk.

On Monday, before the letter had hit his desk, we asked Mr Drakeford why he thought there was such unprecedented pressure on emergency care in Welsh hospitals. Why did it appear that the pressure was getting worse? What could be done before the warnings, already loud, got even louder? I've just listened back to the interview and this was his answer:

"There are a number of different reasons - partly because we still don't have clear enough messages out there about how to access health services outside main hours, the whole issue of the ambulance service which is currently under review is part of that mix. One of the things I see as a priority for me over the next 12 months is to tackle the whole issue of what they call 'unscheduled care' and I want a Wales wide approach to this ... so that people get a common set of messages, so that they get a better understanding - a better understanding than we've been able to get so far - of the best way you can get the care you need when ordinary working day services aren't available to you. Taking it in the round, that is the way to try and take some of that very significant heat out of the system".

Very significant heat. Meltdown.

So what's the solution?

The health minister says he wants a new "national approach" to emergency care - but this seems to be principally on the demand side - making sure people up and down the country know where to go for their care.

On the supply side, those who work on the front line say the way it's currently organised isn't really working for anyone. Looking for solutions, they divide treatment for patients into three main categories.

First of all, the very sick patients needing immediate and extensive care, people with severe strokes, heart attacks, major trauma and so on. The way things work at present, they're taken to their local District General Hospital accident and emergency department, where they're sometimes met at the door by a junior doctor with little experience of their condition. This and staffing, or resources pressures can lead to delays with triage in a situation where every second counts.

The way to improve care for this group, it's said, is to move to a system of fewer but much more specialist emergency departments.

Yes, they may be further away than the current network of A+E departments, but the difference would be that you would be met at the door by a senior consultant who would know exactly what's best for you straight away. It wouldn't be at the end of your metaphorical street but in reality your chances of survival are far higher if you're seen by a specialist straight away. The proposed but long-delayed Specialist and Critical Care Centre for Gwent would be a model for the new system, but the price tag has so far been a major impediment to its introduction.

This is a illustration of why a new specialist system wouldn't save any money, of course, but it could have a big impact on patient outcomes.

The second group is people attending A+E with relatively much more minor injuries, bumps, cuts and scrapes. This is where it's possible for big financial savings to be made, by treating them more quickly without resources being tied up with critical cases, alongside the Minister's new push on trying to cut down on the number of unnecessary attendances to hospital. Of course, this would see many of what are currently fully fledged A+E departments look much more like Minor Injuries Units - another tough sell to the public.

Thirdly, there's the long standing issue of older people stuck in hospital because there isn't a suitable onwards care solution available for them. This is where at least some of the current pressures are coming from, with people spending 24-36 hours - and in some cases up to three days - stuck in emergency wards because they can't be transferred elsewhere in a hospital. The problem of bed blocking has been around for so long that it's astonishing that solution still hasn't been found - but it remains.

Why does it still remain?

As long as the NHS and local authorities social care budgets remain separate and guarded jealously by their respective managers then it seems hopeless to expect things to changed. Again, pooled budgets between the two have been under discussion for many years but have yet to come to any large-scale fruition.

Add to that a fall of nearly a fifth in the number of NHS beds in Wales over the past decade and the pressures illustrated today should come as little surprise. But the hugely controversial reorganisation in North Wales didn't even scratch the surface of these changes for their area. Hywel Dda Local Health Board did - and cue vociferous protests outside Prince Philip Hospital in Llanelli, as well as elsewhere.

The South Wales boards - Aneurin Bevan, Cardiff and Vale, Cwm Taf and Abertawe Bro Morgannwg are preparing to lay out their plans and I'm preparing to read a full inbox, when I'm back after a break over Easter.

Pasg hapus i chi bois.

I'm unashamedly using the blog to say thank you to Mr Annwyl, Roy and the man in the red 4 x 4 for digging, having a rope handy and towing us out of a hole. We will stick to the politics, Mr Annwyl.

Perhaps we should have flown. In future the Welsh Government would rather we did - bringing in business, any business to the airport they've bought for £52m. They've bought. Their airport.

The number of passengers must increase, says Carwyn Jones and for that he needs to attract back, or attract in operators who will want to fly them to where they want to go, at a price they're prepared to pay.

That's all well and good says Robert Sinclair, who as Chief Executive Officer of Bristol Airport has been watching events in Wales closely and landing a few choice comments along the way.

It's a bit pricey in his view - "the purchase price of £52 million paid by the Welsh Government - which is well above market value when compared to recent transactions involving UK airports - gives us concern that ongoing Government involvement and support is highly likely" - and less ok if Air Passenger Duty for direct long haul flights from Wales is devolved, and then scrapped:

"If it comes into force this proposal would give the Welsh Government the power to set the tax regime for a business of which it is the sole owner and beneficiary".

In Llandudno Carwyn Jones was asked about his wish to buy the airport. Why? It was totemic, he said. When people abroad ask him whether Wales has an international airport, their response - and presumably, in his view, desire to consider future investment - was coloured by the answer he gave.

In future he will be able to answer with confidence - yes, it does. It's just that now it's up to him to make it fly.

We're all waiting for lift off.

The prime minister has told the leaders of the devolved nations that he has limited the cut in their European regional aid to 5%, providing them with the money they need to deliver strong, sustainable growth.

It means Wales loses out on £60m, not the £400m the Welsh government had feared - a sign that David Cameron has listened to Welsh government arguments says Carwyn Jones but still disappointing.

Plaid Cymru says the cut is devastating, while in Scotland the SNP have welcomed the announcement as victory for common sense.