A narrow choice that still runs deep
Bubble — By Owen Smith MP on March 26, 2010 7:00 am
I'm a politician...get me into here?
COMING out is a difficult decision. Telling friends and family about your secret desires and private longing can be traumatising for all concerned. “Why do you want to do it?” they ask? “What on earth for?” And of course, in this cynical age, there isn’t an easy answer – at least not one that doesn’t sound trite, or hubristic or falsely noble. So these days I’ve stopped second-guessing how people might respond and give it to them straight: I want to be a Labour politician because I can’t think of any better, more worthwhile thing to do with my life.
Now, if I had the skills to save lives as a physician, or the vision to enrich them as an artist, or even the athleticism to entertain them on the pitch, I might have come to a different conclusion. But I’m not so sure. Because the impulse to play a part in shaping our public life, and a belief in the need for individuals to articulate a collective vision of a better society, first sparked in teenage rejection of the divisive politics of Thatcherism, has grown stronger as I’ve grown older. And now, at 39, and selected to fight my home-town seat of Pontypridd, I have a chance and a platform to articulate that vision myself and, if individually and collectively successful at the election, to help manifest that vision in the Pontypridd constituency and across the UK, as part of a revitalised Labour Government.
Yet the road to this point hasn’t been straightforward. In fact you could say I diverted for almost twenty years, dallying at the margins of politics: as a journalist, a political adviser and, latterly, a businessman. Those stopping-off points, however, now feel formative, like necessary diversions on a journey. Journalism served to sharpen my frustration at the impotence and occasional self-indulgence of the Fourth Estate. While political advising, both in Wales and Northern Ireland where I was privileged to work, confirmed a desire to step inside the tent and to help improve people’s lives, rather than snipe at others efforts to do so. But it was working as a corporate policy adviser, in the cosseted surrounds of big business and London’s leafy suburbs that compelled me most forcefully to come home and to stand for office. Because it was moving to the South East of England, witnessing first hand the gulf in wealth and opportunity that persists between the leafiest of those Surrey suburbs and the terraces of our Valleys, that was the personal, and final prompt.
So, having “come out”, what is it I want to say, what is it I want to do? In its distilled, purest essence, the answer is clear: I want to help create a more equal, collectivist society because I believe that greater equality, mutual dependence and common purpose are both moral imperatives and necessary conditions for social and economic efficiency. And I believe that, whatever mistakes it may have made, or wrong turns it may have taken, it is always and only the Labour movement, that has the desire, the values and the popular base to win power and to pursue those objectives in our country.
That belief was confirmed again this week in a budget that melted down bankers’ bullion and recast it as coin to pay for higher education – the most vital means of social mobility and increased economic equality. Taxation measures, the 50p rate for earnings over £150,000 and the new removal of personal allowances for those over £100k, are other progressive, redistributive, equalising decisions that Labour has taken, and that our opponents would instinctively disdain.
The budget was also revealing of another, fundamental dividing line in our politics: that which separates Labour’s belief in the necessary power of an interventionist state to regulate markets, to protect the provision of public provision, and to assist British industry, from the Tories’ state-slashing instinct of individual greed and plural impotence.
Those dividing lines became disappointingly blurred in recent New Labour vision, as the chimera of inevitable economic growth and the false god of infallible market efficiency dazzled some who should know better. But they were never rubbed out, as Labour’s delivery of the (increasing) minimum wage, the Surestart programme, a tripling of spending on health, and a doubling of university graduates, bear eloquent testament. And in the test of political resolve and conviction that the global recession has imposed, those dividing lines, that choice, has (re-)emerged with crystal clarity.
It is the clarity of that divide that makes this a watershed election for Wales and Britain. Because the choice people face is bigger than that between a Labour government that will curb the budget deficit when the economic recovery is secure and a Tory opposition that would risk renewed recession with immediate and injudicious cuts.
Vital though that choice may be, this election demands a profound, longer-term decision be made: between the Labour Party that believes in supporting the many not the few, and a Tory party that is rooted, in instinct and action, in preserving the wealth and privilege of the few, at the expense of the many.
I am confident that people in Wales and across the UK will see that choice clearly and will see past the empty rhetoric of change and the confected anger of David Cameron. Because for all the dilutions and dead-ends of the Third Way, the basic Labour recipe, that shared by the overwhelming majority of the movement – New Labour, Old Labour, Welsh Labour, Westminster Labour – is still the right one for this age of economic, environmental and social uncertainty, just as it was for the uncertainty of 1945.
We should know this because, when we look around, for all the disinterest in party platforms and all the distrust of politicians themselves, politics itself – activist, passionate, engaged and enraged – is alive and well. It’s just moved house, from Parties and Parliament to protest and the blogosphere. And the ideas and issues that most energise and inspire in this non-official realm stem from our traditions and our values: collective action to reduce poverty, to improve our environment, and to deliver social and economic justice. These will never truly be the remit of the Right, which makes Cameron’s cringing attempts to connect with it all the more risible.
And that is why I remain wholly optimistic: because the spirit of this age – scornful of unregulated capitalism, angry at unjust economic outcomes, and hungry for individual lives and a common purpose based on more than capitalist consumption and material advancement – is the same spirit that gave birth to the Labour movement and which found its purest expression in the formation of the Welfare State. It is in tune with our values and at stark counterpoint to those of the state-shrinking right.
The trick, therefore, is to be true. True to our core values, true to our roots. In our language and in our policy we need to remind voters that politics is a choice and that though that choice may sometimes narrow, it will always run deep. Across the dividing line of British politics, now as for a hundred years, only one side truly believes in the possibility and righteousness of greater equality and the need for collective action to achieve it, only one side believes in society and solidarity, and only one side believes in the positive power of an interventionist state to improve individual lives and, in so doing, enrich us all. If we join with people to celebrate that and keep alive the vision of a good society, then Labour will win in Pontypridd and across the country. And the victory will be from the people, for whom Labour exists, and out of whom Labour sprang.
Tags: 2010 General Election, Welsh Labour
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
37 Comments
Please be an Old-Labour politician. The last thing Pontypridd, Wales, The UK or Labour needs now is more new-Labour puppets (no offence).
From your mention of a “collectivist society” and “positive power of an interventionist state”, it would appear that you are advocating the equality of outcome for each person.
Thus if you are elected as MP for Pontypridd, do you promise to resign your directorship and any other sources of remeuneration outside that of the MP’s salary. Also do you promise not to accept as your MP’s salary any more than the average salary for Wales?
I’d rather admit to cross-dressing than having a secret desire to be an MP.
Tagged as: 1997 General Election, Welsh Labour
We know that at this election Labour’s strategy is to put on the Old Labour face and conjure up dividing lines between them and the Tories, most notably with this new budget and with the ‘early cuts vs delayed cuts’ argument. But to what extent is this really true? Over the course of New Labour’s record it is palpably untrue and that would lead anyone to believe this is purely electoral positioning. Inequality is now greater than it was under Thatcher. Darling, the Chancellor delivering the allegedly ‘socialist’ budget has said the cuts will be worse than under Thatcher. It makes this article’s reference to Thatcherite politics look very wishy washy, especially as Labour under both Blair and Brown has slavishly followed the PFI model, completely undermining public services (luckily not in Wales though). That’s without mentioning the assault on civil liberties, ID cards, detention, allegations of torture, two dubious (if not downright illegal) conflicts, an almost criminal lack of regulation for the banking sector and the threatened privatisation of welfare services.
Owen Smith may well be genuine about his collectivist principles and commitment to equality of outcome. If he is, then his first action if he becomes an MP should be to demand legislative and fiscal powers for the National Assembly. Because only the existence of the National Assembly has allowed anything resembling a collectivist vision to become the reality in Wales.
It’s taking the biscuit for him to be even mentioning the welfare state at a time when Labour and the Tories have identical positions on ‘welfare to work’ and a corrupt system of paying workfare companies by results- a system that has already been questioned by the auditors but will go through because of New Labour’s centre-right ideology.
There is no evidence from their record in government that Labour is a centre-left or social democratic party, as even the modest reforms they have implemented are lesser than those already implemented by conservatives and Christian Democrats on mainland Europe. And one budget and a good narrative wont’ change that fact.
The budget was also revealing of another, fundamental dividing line in our politics: that which separates Labour’s belief in the necessary power of an interventionist state to regulate markets, to protect the provision of public provision, and to assist British industry, from the Tories’ state-slashing instinct of individual greed and plural impotence.
Not much of a dividing line at all. Both parties support a monetary system which keeps the world in perpetual (and fake) debt through interest and inflation, which puts profit before humanity, which is inherently corrupt and allows no real place for ethics whatsoever. It is no accident that the world is in the state it is, rather it is an inevitable consequence of the monetary system, which places 40% of the world’s wealth in the hands of 1% of the population, which has 50% of the world’s population living on less than $2 a day, which sees 34,000 children die of hunger every day. Politicians of all parties support this status quo, whether they know it or not, which is why a loss of trust in politics is a positive thing. Politics offers no answers to what are essentially technical questions relating not to money or cost but to resources. Politics is obsolete and politicians are irrelevant to our needs and to our well being.
“And I believe that, whatever mistakes it may have made, or wrong turns it may have taken, it is always and only the Labour movement, that has the desire, the values and the popular base to win power and to pursue those objectives in our country.”
ALWAYS? ONLY?
It is these kinds of sectarian, blinkered, arrogant and patently nonsensical comments that mean that I, a progressive centre-left type, will find it impossible to ‘lend Labour my vote’ in the UK general election even if I live in a Lab/Tory marginal. And of course would never even think of voting for them when it comes to the election of members for the National Assembly of ‘our country’…
Owen Smith is meant to be Welsh Labour’s bright hope for the future. On this evidence he just doesn’t get it…
Indeed. You can tell a real progressive by seeing what they say when the times are good, not when the times are hard. When the economy was going well there was no sign of these dividing lines. It has taken an economic crisis for them to even contemplate returning to Labour politics, when they should’ve fortified the working class before the financial crash took place. They didn’t, and deliberately chose to leave everyone exposed to huge consumer debt and a credit crunch. They deserve to be punished at the ballot box, and that’s without the fact that if you vote for Labour you are sanctioning an unjustified UK presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Funny isn’t it? When Plaid Cymru make a claim like “ONLY Plaid will stand up for Wales” it’s applauded as courageous.
When Labour says “ONLY Labour will deliver…” it’s condemned as sectarian.
You lot don’t even bother to hide your double standards any more. Plaid are the most tribalist party in Wales.
You make me laugh.
funny Dai, no-one has mentioned Plaid, aside from you who did three times. Labour voter, I presume?
Well written article.
Do not think politicians are that unpopular. MPs and AMs have been unpopular over many misdemeanours over throwing money around willy nilly. But people are still pleased to see them on the street and politicians do not do this enough. Too many are happy to sit in insular conferences hoping the press will turn up.
Politician are nowhere near are unpopular to average people as what local council heads are. Since the politicians are of course elected while council chiefs, managers, health chiefs, quango bosses and other drainpipes are not elected and people think ‘who are they’?
Politicians and budding pollytizuns would realise this if they spoke to average dudettes more!
I understand why politically, Labour will not fathom to mention Plaid Cymru or in the case of Pontypridd, the Liberal Democrats, but it is disingenous of Mr Smith to not mention other parties aside from the Tories when he knows full well that the Tories are a non-entity in the Valleys and in his own constituency. This election is not being fought on a national list system, it is being fought seat by individual seat. In the valleys and in his constituency the fight is not between Labour and the Tories and he knows it. It has become the basic page one tactic of Labour now. When your heading toward disaster just shut your eyes and start screaming Tories, that should scare the old supporters to vote for us, even if they don’t want to (which many do not) but if we scare them enough and not mention the actual situation then we’ll pull through. I remember when Labour were the party of ideas…
Council Heads are elected in the same way Prime Ministers and Chancellors are elected: by the party. You don’t vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for a Party*. You don’t vote for a Council Leader, you vote for a party. Same thing.
(* and people should bear that in mind during the upcoming debates.)
You are so right chad, if only the electorate were all as clever as you and could see through Labour.
Really enjoyed the article but in response to Illtyd Luke’s second critique and to Chad’s observation, I’d like to make a few quick points: you attack Labour for not being progressive (suggesting you know what it takes to be ‘a real progressive’) yet as I see it there is inherent conflict in being simultaneously nationalist and progressive – indeed, this is what I have never really understood about the Plaid ‘agenda’.
Nationalism is by nature discriminatory; by seeking to advance the interests of only ‘those that have chosen to make Wales their home’ you are immediately placing less value on those that haven’t. In contrast, progressives tend to put aside such false dividing lines in favour of aims such as fairness and equality.
After all, this is a UK election and, purely from a personal view, I would rather my taxes fund the working class single mother living in a poor part of England than I would a rich Welsh aristocrat. But, with the uncertain preference-ordering of a nationalist progressive, what would you prefer? I suppose that this is the acid test for quite how nationalist you are – either way it strikes me as a far cry from being a ‘real’ progressive.
It seems to me that the inconsistency of the nationalist argument has not yet come to light simply because Wales and Scotland are relatively poor parts of the UK. If a nationalist, or parochial, agenda was being pursued with prominence by a richer part of the country then the party would no doubt attract less support. Of course, if the separatists in Wales and Scotland had their way, then this issue would never arise.
So I think that this might also allude to Chad’s cunning observation. Sure, Labour has been on the attack against the Tories. But it is not difficult to see why. The reason is not that they are ‘disingenuous’ as you suggest – It has more to do with the difficulty of understanding the other oppositions’ arguments.
As deplorable as the regressive and elitist policies of the Tories are, they are, at the very least, logical. They have preferences and they stick with them – the fact that the preferences only suit the 3,000 richest homes in the UK is beside this particular point – whereas the preferences of Plaid and also of the Lib Dems, who by the nature of being the third-party must be opportunistic in their intentions, are far from clear.
Thereby making their arguments amorphous, and as a result, very difficult to attack.
“…Than fund a rich Welsh aristocrat”
Quite right. Don Touhig and Baron Bedwellty have had enough money off the tax-payer as it is :p
Rowan34, I’m surprised nobody else among the Tîm Cymru commentators has challenged your point about ‘parochial’ Welsh ‘nationalism’ here yet; that by your own logic, your own arguments are ‘parochial’ and ‘nationalist’ unless you’d wish to be taxed to the point of funding (alongside those “working class single mother[s] living in poor part[s] of England”) Czech single mothers living in poor parts of the Czech Republic or Ugandan single mothers living in poor parts of the Republic of Uganda &… &…
The fact is that states have boundaries – and so long as the British Union has such boundaries, any status quo support for the Union is rife with, and supported by its own ilk of ‘British Nationalism’. (Which despite being an oxymoron to many Welsh nationalists, who might refute that the British state is capable of offering up anything as ‘national’ at its centralised union-state level, which remains sub-divisible into three nations and one province; the fact remains that the propaganda of the British Union has persuaded many that the U.K. is not only a ‘natio’ but ‘the natio’ – and so, in their imaginings at least, will come with its own particular sense of nationalism.)
Critics of Welsh civic-nationalism, stateless-nationalism, sovereigntism, nation-statism (call it what you must) continue to reveal they harbour some fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, including that there are few defining characteristics of nationalism which each nation cannot devise uniquely for itself; that there is nothing inherently left nor right wing about nationalism as a result (such would be contingent on whether any such nation was left or right wing), and that all states can be seen as operating ‘parochially’ compared to some other, real or theoretical, grander level. Other enduring myths purported by critics of Welsh nationalism are that Welsh nationalists would pursue it even if it Wales couldn’t afford it (while Welsh nationalists are actually the only group of people who have any ulterior motive to wish to develop Wales’ economy to the point of fiscal autonomy), or that it it’s something Welsh nationalists would aim for immediately, while the real timescale of the independence project (dependent upon the rate of Wales’ economic development) would be decades away.
The naïve criticisms of Welsh nationalism could easily be listed and challenged on a point-by-point basis, if I might be permitted to suggest such a piece might potentially pose an excellent subject for a WalesHome.org article submission, if someone could be persuaded to write and post it.
Ceri
That is a good idea for an article. Any takers (that’s an invitation open to you as well)?
Thank you Adam. I’d love to, although I don’t come from any authoritative position in Welsh nationalist politics whatsoever, and having re-read my last post; I’d have to learn to spell & write first, I suspect!
That said, I should hope any Welsh nationalist politician (or aspirant politician) reading this sees the case for an article which might offer a definitive clarification on the cause of Welsh nationalism, sovereigntism & independence, which systematically lists & busts (or attempts to bust) the recurring myths raised in unionist arguments that make the task of defending the nationalist position, in the face of such pervasive misperceptions, so laborious.
I say this as someone who has been fundamentally converted from from a unionist to the Welsh nationalist position through a process of seeing these myths cleared up in enlightened, internet debate. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see any such immediate repository of these points uploaded to the net. Sadly, not even Plaid Cymru’s own website seems to have attempted to forward any comprehensive, philosophical justification of their own ideological polemic, although the Walescan.com site has made an attempt at this, it hasn’t so far expressed any of the points which I would personally regard as decisive in converting me as an Anglo-Welshman to the long-term cause of Welsh independence. Such would seem to be the case because Plaid Cymru prioritises its time justifying itself and its ambitions as a political party too much to prioritise the propagation of the philosophical ideals which once established it firstly as more of a pressure group for Welsh sovereigntism. Somewhere in its conversion from pressure group to political party, Plaid has woefully abandoned this rather vital role of propagating the ideal of an independent Wales. (Perhaps in light of this, it might be better that someone independent to Plaid Cymru did write up such an article, as too many electioneers within Plaid find even uttering the word ‘independence’ as contentious to their electoral interests.)
None-the-less, I believe that such an article, if sufficiently illuminating, should help raise the quality of the debate on WalesHome for the long-term.
For someone who commenced their comment by saying they weren’t qualified to write the piece you’ve suggested you’ve done a pretty good job of convincing me to the contrary! I think the thesis you’ve just outlined would make for a really good piece, and if you feel like having a go, we’d be delighted to publish it.
If you want to chat it through I’m on adam@waleshome.org.
I don’t have time to refute the entirety of rowan34′s comment except for when he writes:
“If a nationalist, or parochial, agenda was being pursued with prominence by a richer part of the country then the party would no doubt attract less support.”
Catalan and Basque nationalism both come from the richest parts of ‘Spain’. There are centre-right Basque and Catalan nationalist parties who want separate states based on conservatism/Christian Democracy, and there are social democratic nationalists who want redistributive states, and there are Communist and far-left nationalists who want socialist republics. No contradiction, just diversity.
“Nationalism is by nature discriminatory”
Wrong. Raymond Williams- who I’m sure even you would agree was ‘progressive’ by any definition, and indeed a marxist- argued that it can be emancipatory. He said that those who refute nationalism most confidently are those like you who don’t need to be nationalists, because you’ve already got your state. Your analysis would probably be that nation is irrelevant, which completely masks the fact that by denying Welsh nationalism you are upholding not internationalism but British nationalism. And indeed, the other mainstream socialist party in Wales the Labour party has during its current term in office utilised British nationalism through Gordon Brown probably to the same extent that Plaid has utilised Welshness. “Winning the fight for Britain’s future” is just as if not more nationalist than “Gwahaniaeth i Gymru”. Yet you don’t seem to be able to see that?
In terms of class contradictions, I don’t see how social justice can be achieved in Wales without self-determination or national advancement, seeing as the UK state is historically a bulwark of conservatism. ‘Red Flag and Dragon’ and all that.
Thanks Ceri, but I think you’ve missed my point. You said that ‘by my own argument…’ but you seem unclear what my argument is.
(To be clear, my point was made to refute the contradictory claim from a supporter of a nationalist party that Labour had not been ‘real’ progressives).
You extend my logic on an imagined premise that need is the only criteria for allocating funding, which is a conclusion that you’ve drawn yourself.
In addition to need, I would emphasise the importance of effective provision and delivery of services, or, in other words, governance at the correct level. And, of course, this is where I disagree with Plaid.
Many factors contribute to whether or not governance is effective and one of these is culture, or to put it coldly, the homogeneity of preferences.
Plaid want an independent Wales because they believe that Wales is culturally homogenous and culturally unique.
In my eyes, this is not the case – I feel culturally closer to the single working class mother from England than I do the Welsh aristocrat – I therefore see it as an unnecessary barrier to pursuing progressive policies.
If the EU had more effective governance, then I would be happy to see an even greater redistribution between countries but I am probably in the minority on that one.
So, whilst I wouldn’t be so bold as to claim to be a ‘real’ progressive, I stand by my point that being nationalist within the UK is an unnecesarry barrier, one that is certianly not akin to someone that does claim to be a ‘real’ progressive, as the writer suggested he was.
In response to IL:
In a UK election, in which Plaid candidates will be standing (and want to be considered for UK-wide debates), why should a party that wants to only ‘represent those that choose to make Wales their home’ vote on all of those issues that do affect places other than Wales. In short, as nationalists, Plaid would have a clearer narrative if they did not place candidates in the General Election.
I will never be convinced that nationalism does not incorporate elements of discrimination – it has to!! If your party is only open to those that choose to make Wales their home, that is discrimination!
Whether or not you see it as positive discrimination is another matter. Clearly, I don’t, which is why we belong to different parties and why I don’t feel that close-minded nationalism could ever be an attribute of a ‘real’ progressive.
“I feel culturally closer to the single working class mother from England than I do the Welsh aristocrat”
that is precisely WHY we need nationalism
I will never be convinced that nationalism does not incorporate elements of discrimination – it has to!! If your party is only open to those that choose to make Wales their home, that is discrimination!
On that basis all parties are guilty of discrimination.
Adam, I really don’t have access to the kind of bibliography such an article would deserve, especially if it were to attempt to present a broader picture of the fiscal case for independence. (For an article based purely on Nationalist polemic myth-busting, perhaps even that might be better if it were a collaborative project between a few interested parties (so that a collection of points from a broader spectrum of experiences in this area of debate were brought together).)
(It’s largely the fiscal argument which persuades me, not wholly because I wish for a Wales which is independent, but because I wish for a Wales which can afford that option. It strikes me that many people would love for Wales’ independence to be something it could genuinely afford to ask itself. Many are assured that it’s Wales’ poverty which locks it into the British union. What I would ask that demographic who wish Wales could afford independence is; which of the political parties needs, as a matter of its own priorities to develop Wales’ economy to the point at which it could afford independence? …The only candidate is Plaid Cymru, whether it has a suitable strategy to develop Wales’ economy to that point or not – it needs to have one and needs to implement it, and it would be economically beneficial to Wales if such economic strategies were implemented, whether Wales would ultimately want independence or not. There is a sense that unionist parties don’t need to develop Wales’ economy to the point where any of it is self-sufficient; that it suits their agenda of preserving the union to keep Wales poor and dependent upon the richer parts of the UK. That’s not to succumb to utter paranoia at some grand, cynical, unionist plot to keep Wales locked into the union through poverty, but while we have no idea as to whether it’s grand ineptitude or grand sabotage that keeps Wales poor while being controlled by unionist parties, why continue to vote for them? Neither economic ineptitude nor economic sabotage becomes them in the long-term.)
Rowan34, you say “Plaid want an independent Wales because they believe that Wales is culturally homogenous and culturally unique.”
This only goes to show how Plaid’s own failure to communicate its ideas and values (and being denied the political coverage which the mainstream parties are readily afforded is a contributary factor to that) leaves the nationalist infantry having to do a lot of very tiresome groundwork in discussions such as these. In the absence of concrete understandings, people feel happy enough to simply presume things about Plaid’s stance in even serious debates, which leaves nationalists having to contend against some very warped conceptions of what they stand for.
Of course, Plaid doesn’t believe that Wales is culturally homogenous, however Wales’ cultural make-up IS unique, and that is sufficient to validate the nationalist cause.
There is a sense that unionist parties don’t need to develop Wales’ economy to the point where any of it is self-sufficient; that it suits their agenda of preserving the union to keep Wales poor and dependent upon the richer parts of the UK.
Essentially this is a misconceived argument. The economy is based on debt (interest and inflation), on a scarcity of resources deliberately fabricated in order to drive the profits of the few, and on the deliberate production of inefficient and low quality (short term) products in order to maintain the cycle of consumerism. This will still be the case whether Wales is independent or a part of the UK. It is a global problem that can ultimately only be addressed on a global level. The only honest debate that can be had regarding the constitutional status of Wales is precisely that: a constitutional one, with decentralism as its main theme.
My only comment on this is an apposite quote from US President Thomas Jefferson.
“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on (political) office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.”
Al… could you elaborate?
“Plaid want an independent Wales because they believe that Wales is culturally homogenous and culturally unique. ”
This is a misapprehension. How could a party that represents the Riverside ward in Cardiff (probably the most multi-cultural ward in the whole of Wales) believe Wales is culturally homogenous?
One thing that is positive from this discussion thread is that the criticisms of nationalism and of Plaid are so misguided and uninformed that they will not stand the test of time. One thing I would criticise Plaid for isn’t anyhting to do with culture or national identity but the fact they don’t yet have a strategy for costing independence based on Wales’ energy resources. Presumably they will develop a case in the coming years.
So if Plaid don’t believe that Wales is sufficiently culturally homogeneous relative to the cultural identity of the UK, what is the driving force for independence? Please enlighten me.
“So if Plaid don’t believe that Wales is sufficiently culturally homogeneous relative to the cultural identity of the UK, what is the driving force for independence? Please enlighten me.”
Gladly.
It might be that their desire for national status for Wales isn’t based on cultural homogeneity? But on a number of broadly defined factors including economic and social considerations, the reality of economic exploitation of Welsh communities and the need to avoid this (or rather to ensure our communities directly benefit from it) in the future?
As far as i’m aware their party constitution has a number of commitments, constitutional- to achieve Welsh membership of the EU and UN, economic- to ensure a fair society and environmental protection based on ‘decentralist socialism’, and cultural- to achieve a bilingual society.
if the driving force is ‘a number of broadly defined factors including economic and social considerations’ wouldn’t their argument be made stronger by looking for communities outside of Wales that have such considerations?
“if the driving force is ‘a number of broadly defined factors including economic and social considerations’ wouldn’t their argument be made stronger by looking for communities outside of Wales that have such considerations?”
I think so, which is why they (mainstream Plaid nationalists) seek membership for Wales in the EU, whereas some fringe nationalists would prefer some kind of state outside of the EU. The concept of ‘internal enlargement’ of the EU (where sections of existing member-states can reframe their membership of their EU on their own terms, like Scotland, Catalunya etc) probably appeals to those kind of mainstream nationalists who would want Wales to become a direct (rather than indirect) part of the EU.
and yet they’ll only represent people that make Wales their home – are they not to the UK what UKIP is to the EU?
Gents, as much as you are entitled to debate this issue, do you not both think that you may have drifted some way from the original remit of this piece?
There are plenty of features on this site that relate specifically to Plaid Cymru’s aims and policies.
maybe a little!! but it goes to show that there are other reasons why Labour are focusing their attack on the Tories.