This obviously skirts around the fact that this leadership race is also to lead a country, a country whose politics are alot wider (more so than ever) than just the Labour party, a point Rhodri Glyn Thomas made on this site.

So although nationalists shouldn’t actively ‘get involved’, as John Dixon says, they should still take an interest. Indeed, as John points out, nationalists can afford to stay calm because it won’t really matter for Plaid Cymru who wins the race, they will be able to adapt to a pro-devolutionary, pro-coalition figure, or someone more polarising or lukewarm, with ease.

On a separate note, it is surely contradictory to be advocating a radical socialist agenda (especially a decentralised one) yet not desiring more distance from Westminster, an institution which has firmly embedded non-socialist politics regardless of what party is in power (ironically partly thanks to people like Neil Kinnock). It is true that a radical progressive party is not electable in the Westminster system, which is why Kinnock reshaped the Labour party, but in the Welsh political system it is a different story.

A progressive agenda which doesn’t aspire to reach out beyond the considerably limited devolution settlement we have is a very limited one in my opinion.

Neil Kinnock is held in real affection by many Labour party members. Some of us remember the dark days of 1983 and the fight against Militant. Without the courage and leadership of Neil Kinnock, there would have been no Labour government in 1997.

The trouble with too many in Plaid is that they believe that history is on their side and that the coalition and the SNP government in Scotland shows that it is only a matter of time before nationalism triumphs. Yesterday’s by election was clear evidence that many in Scotland don’t want what Salmond and the SNP has to offer. In fact, recent opinion polls show that Labour could regain control of the Scottish Parliament. Like Marxists who just sat back after the Russian Revolution and believed that the march of communism was unstoppable, too many in Plaid are just sitting back and not making the arguments for more lawmaking powers let alone independence.

It isn’t any use in blaming the Labour Party if there is no referendum before 2011. There is nothing to stop Plaid AMs starting the process themselves after the publication of the Jones-Parry report. Whenever the referendum is held, I fully expect Labour Party members, as in 1979 and 1997, to be on both sides of the argument. At the end, of the day as in the two previous referendums, it will be the voters not the politicians who will decide the result. A result I’ve always believed will be very close and could be decided by those who did not take part in either the 1997 referendum or subsequent Assembly elections.

Instead of throwing insults at the Kinnocks, Plaid bloggers should be setting out which laws are not being passed by the Westminster Parliament but which would be passed by a law making body in Cardiff. Unfortunately, stopping the sale of council houses is just the sort of student union gesture politics which doesn’t even scratch the surface of the problem. Meanwhile, in England, the UK government has just given local authorities in deprived areas £40 million extra to tackle unemployment.

To answer Anthony’s point, about nationalist bloggers making Lewis a straw man, he isn’t quite right. What baffles many outside Labour (and maybe inside) is that Lewis talks a lot about a ‘a clear, positive vision’ as you say but seems to be hostile / cold / noncommunicative about a vehicle (further powers) which could actually deliver a lot of his ‘a clear, positive vision’.

Lewis seems to create ‘nationalism’ (what ever that is – aren’t we all nationalists of some hue of another) as a bogey. Yes, even a ’straw man’. He’s against ‘nationalism’ but it is ‘nationalism’ of some sort, the creation of a devolved assembly which is built on the concept of their being a Welsh nation (the devolved assembly for the non-nation, non-nationalist, North East of England, failed of course) which is now delivering many of the types of policies I would assume Lewis likes.

Moreover, with Plaid Cymru in power with Labour even more ’socialist’ ‘radical’ a clear, positive vision have been implemented and more would have (cancelling sales of council houses to help build up a stock of houses for the poorer in society) had Labour in London (read Kinnock tendency) not blocked.

So, when ‘nationalists’ (of the Welsh sort) discuss Lewis they’re not creating a Straw Man, they’re just baffled shall I say by a man who claims to want to create a radical agenda but who seems against (or at least brings on board those who are against) further power for Wales – the very vehicle which could deliver much of this a clear, positive vision he claims to have. It doesn’t make sense, especially as it’s expected that the Tories will run Westminster.

That’s why I come to the conclusion that beyond the core value that Britain should trump Wales when push comes to shove (anherence to the ‘Britiish’ imaged community as opposed to the ‘Welsh’ one i.e. British nationalism) I’m not sure what Lewis believes in.

As I said, it’s something for Labour. If it’s of any interest, I’d guess that many in Plaid Cymru would be quietly happy in the long run and in a tribal way if Lewis was chosen as leader as the inconsistency and contradiction in his position re Devolution and the referendum just make Labour look disingenious and lacking in clarity. And, like Kinnock before him, he’ll have gone against devolution in a way of cutting his (and Wales’s nose) to spite is face.

This is an excellent site with quality standards but that sentence threw me a bit. I don’t think Lord Kinnock himself would claim any intellectualism – “agggressive” or not. Now Noah Ablett….

As for the ‘Lewis and powers’ conspiracy theories, methinks some nationalist bloggers are desperately trying to build an idealised imaginary enemy to have a row with, since Huw’s statements during the contest have shown that he’s not the straw man they want to fight, but instead someone with a clear, positive vision for changing his party and country for the better.

My point is that Kinnock is identified much more strongly within Labour with certain Labour traditions and for his achievements as leader than he is for his attitudes to devolution. By describing him as a polarising figure you’ve fallen into the same trap as the two bloggers I’ve referred to in the piece.

Neil Kinnock does not carry the sway he once did with many Labour voters. Just look at how impactful his intervention was back in 2007 when he, along with Huw, was a key opponent of the One Wales agreement.

There will be those who are swayed. But there will also be a downside. To others, it will reinforce the view that Huw’s agenda is anti-Assembly. This seems to be what has got so many bloggers so exercised and irate today. It is clear that Neil Kinnock is still a polarising figure both within and without Labour. His endorsement will be read in that context.

Huw Lewis’s approach to more powers is an area that should be probed more fully, and I suspect it will be next week. My point was that it would be a mistake to imagine that many Labour members are influenced either way by Neil Kinnock’s view on devolution. They know him for other reasons.

Best.

Adam