When Plaid’s
leader, Leanne Wood, announced last week that she would stand down as leader if
she did not become First Minister after the next Assembly election, two obvious
interpretations struck me. The first,
and presumably the intended one, was that it was a bold and confident statement
of intent that she intends to ensure that Plaid win sufficient votes and support
to turn the idea of a Plaid government, or a Plaid-led government, into reality.
There are only
two ways in which it could become reality, however. The most obvious is for Plaid to win
sufficient seats to become – at the very least – the largest party in the
Assembly and then claim the ‘right’ to be given a shot at forming a government. It’s not entirely impossible, of course; we’ve
seen dramatic swings in electoral support elsewhere, not least in
Scotland. But any hard-headed analysis
of the polling data would have to conclude that it looks more than a little
unlikely as things stand. The Tories
have a long-standing and apparently unshakeable core level of support amongst
the electorate of around 20%, and this seems unlikely to change. UKIP will almost certainly disappear at the
next Assembly election, and the Lib Dems seem certain to remain marginalised. That means that any increase in votes and
seats for Plaid can only come at the expense of Labour. There are no obvious indications that such a
shift is on the horizon.
The other way of
realising the aim is for a minority Plaid government to enjoy at least the
tacit support of another party – and in this case, the only realistic option is
the Tories. It nearly happened after the
last Assembly election – a united non-Labour opposition could have replaced
Labour but for the solitary Lib Dem choosing the other option. What sort of government that would have been
remains a mystery to me, but Plaid depending on votes of Tory and UKIP AMs for
its survival on a daily basis suggests that any programme for government would
have had to be very bland and play always to the lowest common denominator. Such a government does not need to be a
formal coalition, of course, but there is no escaping the fact that any
alternative government whose daily survival depends entirely on being ‘not-Labour’
looks more likely to turn out as a sleepy camel than a thoroughbred stallion.
And if the
prospect of Plaid’s leader becoming First Minister looks diminishingly small as
things stand, then we are faced with the other interpretation of Leanne’s
statement, which is that she has effectively given three years’ notice of her intention
to quit, and potentially become, as some
would argue, a lame-duck leader as a result.
Clearly there are and have been for some time internal rumblings, and it
seems probable
that there are members preparing for a leadership challenge. Politics is full of egos and ambition, and
there are always those who think that they can do better than the incumbent – a
point which is true for any post in any party.
The question,
though, is what changes as a result of a change of leader? Clearly some leaders are better than others
at motivating members; clearly some have a better media persona than others,
but how much difference does the leader really make? Looking specifically at Plaid, the party’s
electoral performance under the current leader has not been notably different
from its performance under the previous leader despite the obvious huge difference
between the two individuals; the party’s proportion of votes and seats in the
Assembly has lain within a narrow range at every election barring the very
first. Where is the evidence that a
change of leader would be transformational?
I can’t help
wondering whether those who believe that the answer is a change of leader are
actually very clear about what the question is.
Posts
1 comment:
Your points are well made.
Can I again compare the world of golf to politics?
There is well known saying in golf that all professional tour players stay too long, except for Bobby Jones in the 1930`s who left at twenty-eight with a lot more wins in him, but he had to set up his law firm to make a living.
Week in and week out in Britain professional golfers take part in competitions, but these people you will never hear of as they never make it to the big time. They cannot make a living by just playing and take another job or teach. They are the same as the local councillors in politics.
Golfers that do break through their earnings increase to the power of 100 and living is good, they win big competitions, but as time goes on age and fresh competitor`s takes its toll, but they keep going as the job market for washed out golfers is near zero, so each year they earn contributes to the pension pot and although the lights have gone out, it still makes sense to go on as their alternative income is x 100 less than what they still are earning.
Miss Wood must be making the same calculation along with many other “hang around” politicians and although she might be thinking of the Lords; £300 a day is very little when paying London expenses. This would all be avoided in the political word, if a two-year term was introduced and the embarrassment watching played out politicians would be at an end.
Post a Comment