Those were the days...

Tweet

The Labour Party’s annual conference is reported to be under threat as a result of a dispute over which company should provide the security.  They appear to have got themselves into a bit of a mess over the whole issue, but the thing that struck me was the claim that the conference cannot go ahead without security. 

I must have missed something somewhere, but who decided, and when, that a political party cannot hold an annual conference without employing a security company?  Is it some sort of job creation scheme for ex-policemen?

I can remember when ‘security’ wasn’t a consideration at all.  Indeed, I can remember a time when the security services were more interested in conducting surveillance on delegates of some parties than in protecting them.

How times change.

Electoral longevity

Tweet In his speech to the Conservatives’ Welsh conference, the party leader Andrew RT Davies criticised the longevity in office of Labour ministers in the assembly.  He went so far as to compare them with ministers in the Eastern bloc during the Soviet period.

It earned him a headline or two, and I’m sure it went down well with the party faithful.  I’m not sure that it has much validity however.  If ministers are good at their job and if the people continue to elect them, what’s wrong with them remaining in office for a lengthy period?  Indeed, it has often seemed to me that the UK habit of reshuffling ministers every year or two is a convenient way of ensuring that real power remains in the hands of the Prime Minister (or First Minister in Wales) and the civil service, and that real change is obstructed.  Ministers are moved on before they get too knowledgeable about their brief.

It’s also true of course that with a limited number of members in the assembly, the extent to which the First Minister has a choice when it comes to appointing ministers is itself limited.  With a bare majority of half of the 60 members, the First Minister has 30 members from whom to choose.  It’s an entirely different situation from that in the House of Commons, where the prime minister typically will have 300 people from amongst whom to choose his or her ministers.  One way of overcoming that part of the problem would be to increase the number of members in the assembly – but that does not seem to be on the agenda for Mr Davies or his party.

The more significant question than the length of time for which they have been in office is the question of the competence of those ministers.  If they’re good at their job then leaving them in place is not a terribly bad idea; better than handing the jobs over to someone who might not be as good, just because they’ve been in post for a particular length of time.  And if they’re bad at their job then they shouldn’t be there in the first place; longevity does not enter the equation.  But competence is a question on which we will all have our own opinion.

It’s true, of course, that Labour has been in power continuously since the assembly was elected.  It’s equally true as a result of that that the Labour Party – including those long-serving Ministers - must take the predominant share of the blame for any failings over that period.

However we cannot escape the truth that the people of Wales actually elected the Labour Party to that position.  Andrew Davies may wish that were not true – I might wish it were not true – but it’s an inescapable fact.  In that sense any comparison with Eastern Europe is completely invalid.  Longevity in office is simply the result of the people’s verdict, whether we like it or not.

Differing opinions

Tweet Plaid had a really good two days at our Spring Conference in Cardiff yesterday and Friday. Last year was the first time that we extended the event to two days and ran a whole series of debates outside the main hall. It worked well last year, and even better this year.

The biggest problem for many of us was deciding which debates to attend - with two or even three running in parallel, as well as training events for candidates and activists, it was impossible for anyone to be everywhere.

The biggest clash, for me, was between a session on creating wealth in Wales with Ieuan Wyn and Eurfyl and a parallel session on fair funding where Gerry Holtham gave some pretty forthright views on taxation policy. Sadly, the result was that I missed the comments by Gerry Holtham which Tom Bodden reported on his blog.

Glyn Davies seems to think that we will all be regretting inviting Gerry and / or Tom as a result. On the contrary - the only thing I regret is missing the session. I think it's a good thing to have some alternative voices at this type of debate (perhaps we'll even invite Glyn one day!). It's a good thing to have our views and policies robustly challenged; I've never been afraid of a debate, and nor should Plaid be.

We've seen in recent weeks that different economists, or groups of economists, have very different views as to how far and how fast the budget deficit needs to be cut. Similarly, there are a range of different views, even amongst the experts, on taxation policy. Clearly, Gerry Holtham doesn't agree with Plaid's position on that issue! It doesn't mean that his views are 'right', any more than those of any other experts in the field. But they deserve a hearing - and they got one.

It's actually a sign of Plaid's growing confdence and maturity that we are willing to invite outsiders into our conference to present alternative views, and that we're prepared to listen to them and debate with them. It's certainly better than having the whole thing so carefully choreographed that it becomes boring.

Onward and upward

Tweet Another year and another highly successful conference. I suppose it's natural for any party member attending his or her own party's conference to feel positive about both the experience and the outcome - and having chaired most of the formal sessions as well as taken part in one of the less formal sessions on Thursday, I'm hardly the most objective judge.

I've been going to them for long enough, though, to understand the difference between the marginal feel-good factor of being among friends during a difficult political period - probably 1979 was about the lowest point for me – and the buzz of a successful well organised conference when things are generally going well. 2009 was definitely a 'buzz' year. I can't imagine that many members of the Labour Party will be looking ahead to their conference this year in the same way that I was before ours. And I doubt even more that they'll come away with the same upbeat feel.

We may or may not fit in our Spring Conference before the next Westminster elections; but this will certainly be our last annual conference before those elections. All the polls are still saying that there will be a change of government in London before then. And the polls also suggest that we'll see a growth in support for both Plaid and our colleagues in the SNP, with both parties likely to return a record number of MPs. How much of an increase depends not simply on how well we or the other opposition parties perform, but, as much as anything, on exactly how badly the Labour party collapses.

Prediction is a difficult game, but it looks to me as though the electoral pattern in a number of constituencies is changing. We've already seen that in Aberconwy, for instance. Not so long ago, the constituency moved from being seen as a Labour-Tory fight at Westminster level to a three-way Labour-Tory-Plaid fight. Increasingly it is looking like the real fight is between Plaid and the Tories, with Labour now out of the running.

I see similar signs locally as well. Prior to the Assembly election in 2007, most people saw this constituency as a Plaid-Labour struggle. The Assembly elections saw three parties – Plaid, Labour and Tories, all finishing within 1% of each other. Until recently, most people were regarding the Westminster election as a straight fight between Labour and the Tories – but things are changing on the ground – I really think it could yet turn out that the real fight is between ourselves and the Tories.

In a very hard-hitting speech at Conference, Adam rehearsed extremely well the reasons why people faced with that sort of choice should choose Plaid. Now, how to put that message across locally...

PS - If I really deprived Ordovicius of his place in the food queue, it was both entirely unintentional, and almost entirely unrewarded in terms of the nourishment obtained. By wholly inadequate way of reparation, many thanks to Ordo for the job he did at conference as resident blogger!

Shoes, not sandals

Tweet Plaid had a very good conference at the weekend. There were a number of things which we tried for the first time, and the response was overwhelmingly positive – the conference was a great deal more interactive than it has been in the past.

I took part in a session on blogging, along with Bethan, Heledd, Dyfrig, Huw and Iain, most of whom have already referred to the event. I'm just a bit slower than them. It was interesting to get someone like Iain along who brought a different perspective.

Overall, the mood was very upbeat – very different from the image of the party given by some recent newspaper reports, which seemed to be talking about a different party at times.

Oh, and whatever Betsan might have said, I was definitely NOT wearing sandals. It's the other John Dixon, from Cardiff, who's a member of the Lib Dems, not me. She was correct in her assessment of the conversation, however - it was entirely amicable.

Promoting the local economy?

Tweet Now, as a general rule, I'm all for promoting the local economy. And I can understand how any political party would seek to use its conference to "maximise the economic benefit for local businesses".

The Tories have always claimed to be the party of business of course, so when they hold their conference in Birmingham later this month, they will naturally be encouraging their delegates to make use of a range of local companies. They've had a PR firm help them by putting together a booklet full of useful information about the range of 'services' available to delegates locally.

According to this report from the BBC, the booklet, which has been distributed with the official conference literature in advance of the conference, even includes some helpful discount vouchers - for a £10 reduction on the entry charge to a lap dancing club in the city centre.

The club modestly describes itself as "an exclusive gentlemen's entertainment venue". In deciding to advertise in a booklet targeted at Tory delegates, I can only assume that the club is making a skilled and experienced judgement on the potential take-up for its services. But in this case, 'exclusive' presumably means that female conference delegates will be encouraged to seek their entertainment elsewhere.

Another year, another conference

Tweet Our conference went very well in Aberystwyth. The mood was positive and confident, and we're looking forward to the future. I think the media were a little disappointed - although unsurprised - at the lack of controversy and debate. Vaughan Roderick made precisely that point in giving his reasons for not joining us in Aber. There's nothing like a good row to give them something to report.

Actually, I think they're (almost) right. Our conferences have become pretty bland compared to the days when I first started attending them, back in the early 1970's. We used to have some really good rows and debates then, and in one or two of them, I seem to remember being one of the chief stirrers.

Some seem to assume that the lack of argument is somehow due to the party's hierarchy suppressing dissent. I rather like the idea that we could have that much control of course; but the truth is that there simply aren't a vast number of things about which we disagree at present, and we are not getting controversial proposals submitted for debate. I think, though, that the NEC need to work harder to find some controversy for each conference – it would liven things up a bit.

In the absence of any open appearance of dispute, sometimes people go looking for dissent. I was quite surprised at Betsan Powys' suggestion that a straw poll of 15 members suggested that a majority of party members were not confident that a referendum would be held on or before the Assembly elections in 2011. I am entirely convinced that there will be a referendum on the full implementation of the 2006 Act in the agreed timetable.

Although the detail of the promise does include a caveat, the spirit of the commitment given was completely clear, and I am confident that both parties recognise the importance of that pledge to the very existence of the One Wales coalition. If I believed for one moment that the leadership of Plaid Cymru were not intent on delivering that pledge, I would find it impossible to occupy my current role, given the clear statements of confidence which I have given on a number of occasions.

I am sceptical of the commitment of some in the Labour Party, and have expressed reservations about that from the outset. However, I am absolutely certain that they understand that any deliberate failure to abide by the spirit of the agreement to which they, like us, committed would be damaging to 'One Wales' and probably fatal to any prospect of a 'One Wales Mark 2' in the future.

Some of the initial coverage of our conference concentrated on the I-word. Given the nature of the questioning at the opening press conference, I can't say that I was surprised at this. As I have said before, the fact that we have a long term vision for the sort of Wales we want to see sometimes creates difficulties for us. People don't always understand the difference between short term programmes for a single term of office and longer term aspirations.

Those parties (basically, all the rest) who never look beyond the next election and are not at all troubled by any grander vision have no such difficulty, of course. It would be easy to forget, or shelve, the long term vision in order to concentrate on the here and now, and some people urge that we should do so. For me, that misses the point. If my only interest at any point was in what can be achieved in the next four years, I would have joined one of the other parties, not Plaid. It is the vision and the aspirations which set the context for the short term; without that context, what would be the point of Plaid?