Monday 16 August 2010

Left, Right, and Centre

I enjoyed the debate piece by Daran Hill and Adam Higgitt over at WalesHome, but found myself turned off a little by a lot of what happened in the comment thread afterwards. Both Daran and Adam offered us their perspectives 'from the outside looking in' as it were, and such perspectives are always useful.

Not having the hang-ups and baggage that so many of us within the party carry is both a plus and a minus; it enables them to think more outside the box than we can, but they don't necessarily have the same close understanding of the internal dynamic and some of the limitations which it can pose.

Returning to the comment thread, though, there is a danger that we get too caught up in debating what label we want to apply to ourselves, and what labels we want to apply to our opponents. It's a bit of an Endian argument to me; words like left, right, and centre don't have a lot of resonance outside the world of politicians; people are more likely to want to know what's inside the shell than which end we're going to crack it. And we'd be better off trying to explain that than to argue about whether we're more left or right or centre.

It's also the case that the UK mainstream political spectrum has become increasingly narrow over the years; the differences between Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem are often more superficial than real in large areas of policy. A comment made - by Duncan, I think - was that Plaid could adopt elements of policy from any of those parties if it needed to. Up to a point, I agree with him; it's a reflection of how narrow the spectrum has become.

Despite Plaid's formal adoption of the word 'socialist' in the 1980s – and I plead guilty to having been involved with that change - the reality is that Plaid has always been a loose coalition of disparate people with different ideas about what sort of Wales we want, agreeing (well, most of the time, anyway) on one main objective, namely independence. (Although we've had a fair few arguments about what to call it!)

A party of government, however, needs to have a coherent set of policies which are implementable. That need for coherence poses rather more of a challenge to a party of government than it does to a party of opposition. And a party of government inevitably has to deal with the short term as well as the long term – again, a constraint which a party of perennial opposition does not have to face up to.

The danger, for Plaid, is that we end up becoming a fourth party competing in the same narrow spectrum of politics, fighting on largely short term questions rather than long-term ones. In that situation, what is our USP?

One consequence of trying to play the game of politics in a crowded field within a very narrow spectrum is that parties have become afraid to put forward a real alternative viewpoint. For instance, in an attempt to appeal to aspirational floating voters, there has been an increasing trend for parties to put forward policies which are seen to advance the interests of, and appeal to the instincts of, that particular group.

And one result of that is that mainstream parties in the UK have largely abandoned any real attempt to provide a shared vision of a more co-operative and egalitarian society in which people work collectively to build a better world for all. With no-one putting that case, it can surely be no surprise that advancing personal rather than collective interests has become the norm; and has then developed into a self-reinforcing vicious circle.

If any party is well-placed to rediscover and present that sort of alternative vision of society, it is surely a party whose raison d'etre is to build a different sort of Wales and which has consistently argued for a participatory approach to management of companies and institutions, and for the empowerment of communities.

21 comments:

Peter D Cox said...

The danger, for Plaid, is that we end up becoming a fourth party competing in the same narrow spectrum of politics, fighting on largely short term questions rather than long-term ones. In that situation, what is our USP?
And that is precisely what I'd hoped you'd answer.

John Dixon said...

Peter,

My point is that, in that situation, we no longer have a USP. That is precisely the danger of trying to compete in that spectrum.

Peter D Cox said...

John, just to be very clear: are you saying that Plaid doesn't have a political USP (in the four party arena), that its short-term policies aren't differentiated by a USP/values/philosophy/whatever? I'm confused of Cardiff.

Plaid Panteg said...

John,

But therein lies the rub - are we a party of Government then?

I think that the strategy of being radical and imagining a society based on another type of politics is core to Plaid. But, and I am playing devil's advocate, how does that square with being in One Wales? Or indeed any coalition government? STV will deliver more, not less coalitions, how do we square that with that strategy?

I am not against the idea of Plaid agitating for change outside of Government, indeed I firmly believe deciding on opposition in 2011 should be part of the 'consider all options' strategy. All that said, your argument here was a key point I was making - that falling into the trap of being 'left, right, purple, blue' is not helpful to progress.

Our USP has to be independence. Imagining what values that society has is of course vital, but there is no dispute that independence is our USP.

Anonymous said...

john why when refering to plaid's incorporation of the word 'socialism' into its core aims in the early 1980s do you use the words "and I plead guilty to having been involved with that change"? A philosophy based upon the laudible principle of addressing social inequalities, of protecting working people against the excesses of the market and which aims to redistribute wealth and power is surely nothing to be apologetic for?

Given Wales longstanding egalitarian and radical traditions im grateful that there remains one major political party in wales at least that is not in thrall to the free market and not been seduced by the corrosive and destructive power of finance capital - that party of course being plaid cymru.

Further there's no question that plaid's overiding committemnt to social justice has had a resonance with many people in wales and im sure has been a major contributory factor to plaid cymru being the second largest party at every welsh general election since 1999 - and will be so again in 2011 im sure.

In my view you should be proud of the fact you were party to plaid cymru including the word socialism amongst its core aims.

I posed thos question to others on the waleshome blog and i wonder what your opinion is on the matter of the possible future continuation of one wales? Yes marcus of course is right in that plaid should 'keep all its options open' but my view is that one wales has been good for wales and good for plaid cymru and that if no party has an overall majority next may plaid should seek to continue the coalition with welshlabour....assuming that welshlabour wishes to continue in coalition with plaid of course!

Independence - and yes there have been many arguments about what it means lol - has of course always been a long term aim of plaid cymru but i think even the most fervent advocate of independence for wales would have to accept that support for it remains low amongst the welsh people at present. Certainly i cannot see the longterm aim of 'independence' playing a role in plaid's campaign in next years welsh general election.

i would have thought the best approach plaid should take in next years election campaign would be to continue to position itself to the left of the other parties in wales and base its campaign on a strong committment to protecting Wales public services and to protecting the vulnerable and disadvantaged in wales as much as we are able against the onslaught of the right wing condem government in westminister.

A condem government that is using the issue of the UK's national debt to embark on the long held thatcherite dream of dismantling the welfare state and the public sector. Plaid cymru should be at the forefront of the defence of the welfare state in wales and yes not be afraid to promote a "vision of a more co-operative and egalitarian society in which people work collectively to build a better world for all".

Leigh Richards
swansea.

Anonymous said...

john why when refering to plaid's incorporation of the word 'socialism' into its core aims in the early 1980s do you use the words "and I plead guilty to having been involved with that change"? A philosophy based upon the laudible principle of addressing social inequalities, of protecting working people against the excesses of the market and which aims to redistribute wealth and power is surely nothing to be apologetic for?

Given Wales longstanding egalitarian and radical traditions im grateful that there remains one major political party in wales at least that is not in thrall to the free market and not been seduced by the corrosive and destructive power of finance capital - that party of course being plaid cymru.

Further there's no question that plaid's overiding committemnt to social justice has had a resonance with many people in wales and im sure has been a major contributory factor to plaid cymru being the second largest party at every welsh general election since 1999 - and will be so again in 2011 im sure.

In my view you should be proud of the fact you were party to plaid cymru including the word socialism amongst its core aims.

I posed thos question to others on the waleshome blog and i wonder what your opinion is on the matter of the possible future continuation of one wales? Yes marcus of course is right in that plaid should 'keep all its options open' but my view is that one wales has been good for wales and good for plaid cymru and that if no party has an overall majority next may plaid should seek to continue the coalition with welshlabour....assuming that welshlabour wishes to continue in coalition with plaid of course!

Independence - and yes there have been many arguments about what it means lol - has of course always been a long term aim of plaid cymru but i think even the most fervent advocate of independence for wales would have to accept that support for it remains low amongst the welsh people at present. Certainly i cannot see the longterm aim of 'independence' playing a role in plaid's campaign in next years welsh general election.

i would have thought the best approach plaid should take in next years election campaign would be to continue to position itself to the left of the other parties in wales and base its campaign on a strong committment to protecting Wales public services and to protecting the vulnerable and disadvantaged in wales as much as we are able against the onslaught of the right wing condem government in westminister.

A condem government that is using the issue of the UK's national debt to embark on the long held thatcherite dream of dismantling the welfare state and the public sector. Plaid cymru should be at the forefront of the defence of the welfare state in wales and yes not be afraid to promote a "vision of a more co-operative and egalitarian society in which people work collectively to build a better world for all".

Leigh Richards
swansea.

Anonymous said...

As someone who doesn't describe himself as socialist and finds himself glad that Labour got kicked out in Westminster but gladder that Plaid was firm on PFI and the Housing eLCO I think we need to look at policies and less on labels.

When it comes to policies (rather than labels) Plaid, by and large, is quite united. Many of the policies called 'socialst' are accepted by other 'non-socialist' because they see that the policy defends or strenghens the Welsh language. So, they get to the same place though starting from a different vantage point.

Where I think Plaid does get lost though is in some of the mood music it sets - and those usually to issues over which Plaid has absolutely no control (or very little) over; Palestine/Israel; 'peace'; Third World. These are things which will not be decided in Cardiff Bay and so, when it comes to actual policy, won't cause problems. But Plaid's perceived allignment with many of these type of political/cultural issues, or rather some members within Plaid, give the impression to some that Plaid is going after the what used to be called, 'treny lefty' vote ... or any 'ishoo' which wasn't Wales. They also tended to be ishoos which had no or very little nationalist critique.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of Plaid's 'problems' could be sorted if Plaid took a Gaullist line that is a strong nation state. The strong 'state' bit appeals to the 'socialist' (and small 'c' conservative) side and the strong 'nation' bit to the so called 'traditionalists'. Were IWJ to say clearely he wanted to see a strong Welsh nation-state, I think we'd all be happy.

After all, as I said, when it comes to actual policy, there isn't too much disagreement even if people come to it from different perspectives.

El Dafydd El

Anonymous said...

I find it odd that you welcome the deflection tactics of Daran and Adam about the Party you claim to care about.

Ask yourself if Daran Hill and Adam Higgitt would be as frequently forthcoming about Labour's legacy in Wales or the many problems it currently faces as they often feel so free to do over Plaid Cymru's supposed problems?

John Dixon said...

Peter,

What I'm saying is that if Plaid chooses to restrict its ambitions to being a party of government within a very narrow political spectrum, then I do not see what there is to differentiate it from the other three parties.

Where parties compete on essentially similar platforms, elections become more like beauty contests than an expression of the people's will; but that is the inevitable result of focussing on a very small group of swing voters.

My perception of politics is that parties should lead (rather than follow) public opinion, in the sense that we should be aiming to persuade people that our vision for the future is the right one, rather then merely parrot back at them what the focus groups have told us they want to hear.

Marcus,

I agree with you that our key USP has to be based on our perception of the right future for Wales. And there's nothing inconsistent about both espousing that and being prepared to enter into short term arrangements which move things in the direction that we want to move them.

But it isn't easy to do the two things at once - both presenting a long term view and dealing with the immediate future. The danger is if we try and avoid that difficulty by focussing exclusively on the short term; at that point, we lose our USP.

Duncan Higgitt said...

A nice, thoughtful follow-on, John. I must admit to being "guilty as charged" for lowering the tone of the subsequent comment thread on WalesHome. I won't do that here.

I agree with your whole broad church assessment of Plaid. Just as there are many socialists in South Wales that were perhaps driven to the party by disillusion with Labour's ability to deliver in the former industrialised areas, there are members from the North that were galvanised to become involved because of concerns peculiar to their area (and not just language matters), and believe having a voice nationally/in Cardiff is vital in answering them.

As such, this 'Plaid crisis' argument (which I most certainly do not subscribe to) is more a case of reconciling demographics. Maybe those differences are more apparent because the Assembly has allowed the party to become more of a force in the South, I don't know, and would be willing to hear other views on this.

The point I was making, and which you have picked up on, is that it is most important to identify Plaid as a nationalist party first and foremost, and that all policy flows from the argument, which must be convincingly made, that Wales will benefit in all ways from independence. I believe, most sincerely, that there is a case to be made, particularly in this day and age, and - for me - Plaid is doing that.

Where perhaps I didn't express myself so well is in arguing that a left wing approach should be held up to scrutinisation as much as any idea from any other part of the political spectrum, and should not just accepted as right, and certainly not justified because bankers have screwed the world's economy up. But I don't see it as straightforward as that.

John Dixon said...

Leigh,

Sorry, the 'pleading guilty' bit was not intended to ba apologetic; it was intended to be more jocular than that. Of course I don't regret it for one moment. But there is a problem. Talking about -ism's is a turn-off; and every -ism that I can think of in the world of politics has at least as many definitions as there are people using the word. So using the word as a short hand to describe a whole ideological approach can end up obfuscating rather than clarifying debate.

Going into next year's elections, the future of One Wales - and the nature of any discussions around future possible coalitions - is inevitably going to be a major topic of debate. At this stage, I support the 'all options open' position basically. I think that some potential agreements look significantly more problematic than others, and I find it difficult to see how we could find enough common ground to justify some of the options. But I do not start from what seems to be the Labour position which is that all members of one particular party have horns and tails and we can never discuss anything with them.

I accept that this is hughly unlikely and utterly hypothetical, but if, for instance, the Tories were to say - 'we'll sign up to your manifesto, lock stock and barrel', would we really want to say, 'well, actually, we'll sign up with someone else who won't, because we just don't like you'?

It's a silly comparison but it underlines my point that at an entirely rational level, it's the content of the government programme that counts, not which parties sign up to it. Of course, things don't work just at an entirely rational level, and there are a whole series of perception issues to take into account as well. But dismissing one party and embracing another on the basis that one is more 'left' than the other is to accept the definition of 'left' put forward by the Labour Party, and to fall into the trap of assuming that politics in Wales can only be fought out on their terms.

John Dixon said...

El Dafydd El,

I take your point about issues being decided elsewhere over which we have little influence, but surely a party which is arguing that Wales needs to take her place in the world needs to be willing to put fowward a view on those issues as well?

Also, many of those of us involved in political activity became involved because of some of the really big issues. Think Global, Act Local was one of the reasons which brought me into Plaid in the first place.

John Dixon said...

Anon 22:45,

Actually, I'm not sure that I welcomed it so much as saying I enjoyed it. Perceptions from outside are always useful becuase they can see things that we can't. I think that Daran and Adam are more than capable of defending themselves, but from what I've seen, they're far from being as tribal as you suggest. And if we're serious about moving Wales forward, we need to debate with those outside our party as well. I think it's only certain elements of the Labour Party who believe that all debate should be internalised to one party.

Peter D Cox said...

What I'm saying is that if Plaid chooses to restrict its ambitions to being a party of government within a very narrow political spectrum, then I do not see what there is to differentiate it from the other three parties.

Where parties compete on essentially similar platforms, elections become more like beauty contests than an expression of the people's will; but that is the inevitable result of focussing on a very small group of swing voters.

My perception of politics is that parties should lead (rather than follow) public opinion, in the sense that we should be aiming to persuade people that our vision for the future is the right one, rather then merely parrot back at them what the focus groups have told us they want to hear.


Ok, that couldn't be clearer, and these are statements that I resonate with, but what is the "leadership vision" expressed presumably with political policies, that Plaid espouses at this time, and that you'd want me - and millions of others - to subscribe to?

Sorry, it's less than clear to be, and I am trying ....

Anonymous said...

Thankyou for your reply john. You pose an interesting hypothetical question on the subject of the welsh conservatives signing up to plaid's manifesto "lock stock and barrel' Yes it certainly would pose problems for people like me....reared on the aneurin bevan view of the tories and with bitter memories of the miners strike and the misery wrought on welsh communities by thatcherism. But if they were willing to sign up to plaid's programme....

Certainly the apparent "welshification" of the conservatives in wales has been encouraging...with no better illustration of this than the fact that most conservative members of the welsh assembly are strong supporters of lawmaking powers for the assembly.....a development which would have seemed unthinkable 13 years ago when welsh conservatives were the backbone of the No campaign!

I also can understand anon's raising questions over the motives of some on the waleshome blog in flagging up this "plaid in crisis" story....but what was it oscar wilde had to say about being "talked about".....

Leigh Richards
swansea

John Dixon said...

Peter,

I agree that it's less clear than it needs to be. That's exactly the nature of the discussion that Plaid needs to have and is having at present - namely how to both respond to the challenges of being an effective party of government and at the same time say, "but actually, just making this work well isn't all that we're about", and then going on to say what it is that we are about.

I and others are likely to be advancing our own views as to how we achieve that over a period and what the content should be; but there is also, obviously, a process of internal discussion and agreement to go through.

Peter D Cox said...

Right: so Plaid's vision/policies is/are less clear than they need to be - clearly since I am harping on about.
So: why isn't the party doing something visible about it in order to persuade people like me that I have a political home there?
And: how can it have been around for so long, yet still give rise to such questions - not just by outsiders like me, but by people so intimately involved in the party for long, like yourself John?
Finally: if I am without a 'vision' to rely on, against which to measure political policies and performance, but instead have to rely on the performance of my local councillors (here in Cardiff exemplified by the council's deputy leader) then there's no way I would want to be there.
And, finally, finally, don't think the argument "join and change from inside" works when I don't know what I'm joining. :)

Anonymous said...

John's hypothetical question is not as 'far out' as it might at first seem.

If we were to study the Tories evolution in Wales over the last decade, we should be able to take a guess as to what their strategy will be post 2011 election.

In the event of coming 3rd (again) they will sign up to most of Plaid's manifesto pledges on Language and Cultural issues, thus forcing an internal debate within Plaid, attempting to split the party between traditional Cultural Nationalists and the Socialist Nationalist wing.

They will hope that Plaid will have to decide where its priorities lie, whether with promoting cultural issues or socio-economic issues.

John Dixon said...

Peter,

Your continued questioning and pressure for clear-cut answers is entirely fair and justified, but I may struggle, whilst debate is continuing, to give you a 'party' answer as opposed to a 'John Dixon' answer.

So, what follows is more about my take on where we are than an exposition of a settled view of where the party is.

Before we had a National Assembly at all, I would have been able to give a very clear-cut answer, based on the party's aims and constitutional objectives. However, the establishment of a National Assembly has changed the picture somewhat. It was Dafydd Elis Thomas who said some years ago that, of all the parties in Wales, Plaid had adapted least well to the coming of devolution.

The problem we face is that the establishment of a body which goes part way towards meeting our constitutional objectives has left us with a quandary about whether we concentrate our efforts on doing what we can within that body, or whether we concentrate our efforts on pushing for that body to move further towards our constitutional aims. We've been trying to do both, and the result is that people both inside and outside the party end up less than entirely certain about where we stand.

To take just one concrete example, let's consider the Barnett formula. The criticism promoted several times by people such as Adam Higgitt at Wales Home is that a party which is seeking full Welsh autonomy shouldn't forever be holding out the begging bowl to London. And I agree with him. However, a party which is seeking first and foremost to do the best it can for Wales within the existing settlement will inevitably ask London for fair funding for Wales. Plaid is trying to do both; and the result is a certain lack of clarity.

The area of debate is about what the way forward should be. What I am saying (and I'm not alone in saying this) is that we will struggle to give people a clear reason to support Plaid unless we are a great deal clearer about what sort of party we are trying, post-devolution, to be.

I think that I've been fairly clear in suggesting that a party which decides to be mostly about governing within current structures has no obvious USP, and is offering no obvious reason to support it as opposed to any of the other three parties trying to do the same thing. It follows that I think we need to be a great deal clearer about putting our short term policies into a long term context than is currenty the case.

Peter D Cox said...

Phew!!! John, thats clear, frank and alarming.

I am retreating to put a cold ice pack on head. And get a curry.

John Dixon said...

Clear and frank were intentional. Alarming wasn't! Have to re-read it...