I never met Brynle Williams, but from the tributes paid to him, he obviously got along well with political friends and opponents alike. I was struck by two points in particular in the glowing tributes paid to him.
The first was from Dafydd Elis Thomas, who said “he could have probably stood for at least three parties”. He left unstated which one he was less certain about. Some might jump to the conclusion that, as a Conservative and Unionist, the most likely party to be the odd one out in this context would be Plaid, although I rather suspect that Dafydd was actually thinking about the Labour Party.
The second quote was from Brynle’s former researcher, who went further and said “he could have fitted in to any party, and they’d all have been pleased to have him”.
The two quotes set me thinking, and I found myself wondering how many AMs I could think of who really could fit into one and only one party. It wasn’t a very long list. Then I thought about how many could actually slot quite easily into two, three, or even all four parties – and came up with a rather longer list.
The names on the lists are unimportant; no doubt some would agree with me on some, but not on others. The point is that an ability to imagine some of our politicians fitting so easily into a multiplicity of parties tells us something about political positioning.
The degree of consensus in the Bay is far too cosy, it seems to me.
Posts
7 comments:
We could call the list the Oscars....
Penddu
So are you going to publish your list?
As someone who has been a Plaid member since 1974 and never dreamt of voting for anybody else, I do feel that politics in Wales is changing and within the next 10 years, I might be able to vote for a Welsh Labour Party. That is not to do with Plaid changing, but all to do with Plaid success in changing the other parties.
"an ability to imagine some of our politicians fitting so easily into a multiplicity of parties tells us something about political positioning."
No it doesn't. It tells us something about human natue. The notion that we should find something with which to associate in different parties is far more likely than the idea that we should find everything with which we associate in one single party.
List, List, list, list.
Anon,
"The notion that we should find something with which to associate in different parties is far more likely than the idea that we should find everything with which we associate in one single party."
Fair point. But what I had in mind was more that it underlined the fact that the actual ideological differences between parties are considerably smaller than the claimed differences. If they were as large as claimed, it would be much harder to imagine individuals fitting in to multiple parties.
I do not think that “political positioning” is the cause of this problem but merely an outcome.
Punch cartoon on the late-18th century showed two stage coaches racing down a rutted road each splashing mud on the other. One was marked Tory the other Whig, the caption read “both heading for the same destination”.
The machine of State creates this environment, as the State – owing to oath`s and Parliamentary Rules, cannot be challenged, the Opposition have to agree to be the “Loyal Opposition”.
Post a Comment