Splits stories are a sign of Welsh immitation, not innovation
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on March 23, 2010 1:59 pmIN a post yesterday, I suggested that both Labour and Tory divisions over devolution were not so surprising, given that both the electorate at large and those voters inclined to either party exhibited clear divisions of their own. The purpose of the post was not to defend or condemn specific devolution splits, but to ask whether differences of opinions within parties are bad per se, or something to which voters even pay much attention.
Parties can, of course, exhibit disastrous divisions. One only need think of the Conservatives’ behaviour during the approval of the Maastricht Treaty, or the ideological war within Labour of the early 1980s. But what damaged each was not the existence of disagreement so much as the manner in which these were conducted. The issues themselves hardly damaged the parties, but the rancour they generated did.
So internal disagreement over policy need not necessarily be a liability, provided the protagonists comport themselves well and display a degree of respect toward their opponents. I’d go even further and suggest a party capable of conducting a dignified and open debate – even an inconclusive one – about a given policy would win, not lose, approval among the electorate.
Party figures are wont to blame “the media” in amplifying and dramatising splits, but that’s a charge that lacks credibility when, like yesterday’s dossier, the parties themselves play up to it with such enthusiasm. Too often, discussion of party splits is a process story in the way of an actual issue. Sometimes it can be informative, predicting how a key decision-point will pan out. Often, it’s just so much dreary inter-party raspberry blowing.
And if this sounds a tad naive, there may be a serious point in it about the course of Welsh democracy. In making a virtue of very strong party discipline (isn’t, after all, the charge of a split merely an accusation of weak leadership?) the Welsh polity is merely replicating the Westminster model, with all its supposed faults and ya-boo behaviour. Parties and electoral affiliation do not work this way, as the figures I quoted yesterday indicate.
Instead of acting like Westminster’s mini-me (a colonial mindset if ever there was one) wouldn’t it be invigorating if the Welsh parties didn’t pretend or presume to have an iron grip on the very thought processes of their members? To flourish – especially in a chamber of just 60 members – the Welsh polity surely needs weaker rather than stronger parties. It needs more independently-minded representatives, less whipping, more permissive internal debates. Splits stories are nearly always lobby fodder. We can surely choose something more flavoursome.
Tags: devolution, referendum, Welsh Conservatives, Welsh Labour
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
10 Comments
Hi Adam,
The issue I took with the original dossier and your article to a lesser extent, is that it glossed over Labour’s pretty woeful record on having a united front on devolution. The dossier was rubbish because it attacked the Tories for being split in exactly the same way Labour have been split. In fairness to the Tories, they have offered a free vote to members. Labour have True Wales members who actively attack Welsh Labour policy.
I speak from experience, who was once inside the party and was an ardent pro devolutionist….sat in front of Rachel Banner of all people in local party meetings.
To me it was you trying to deviate from a pretty vapid attempt by Welsh labour to say something ‘welsh’ to the Western Mail. If Welsh Labour want to publicly accept that they have a number of different views on devolution, and have a fair debate, then it should do so – the fact it hasn’t to me made your article more about softening the blow of another failed and rather shrill media relations stunt by Welsh Labour.
Your article today makes a better point, but I would be very interested to know of the legendary party control freakery New Labour adopted, which you must have been aware of. I mean, they wore it as a badge of honour at times, selling out both enemies and Labour colleagues. The problem is that environment, which fermented so much over the last decade, has made your scenario very difficult.
New Labour’s rapid rebuttal and continued attempts to jump on ‘split’ stories has been adopted politics wide. Even a subs paying member deviating ‘off message’ makes the Western Mail.
Parties must be broad churches, the most healthy ones are energised by debates within them as well as outside of them. But given the numbers, New labour is probably an example of how NOT to do it. That is not a party political point per se, but it would certainly add to the debate if you were gracious enough to accept that New Labour massacred that notion.
Hi Marcus
Don’t over-interpret what I wrote yesterday. What you see as me attempting to give cover to my ex-colleagues in Transport House they probably saw as a mildly unhelpful intervention that explicitly noted the splits in both Labour and the Conservatives.
I’m interested in two things that arise out of Labour’s dossier and the discussion it prompted. The first is this rather daft idea that we either have, or need, absolute unity in the parties (and especially in Labour because of the neuralgia over what happened in ’79). Why? The same proportion of people who support the proposed move to law-making powers only (one in six voters) want the Assembly done away with. One in five want it kept as it is. One in ten want independence while a bit more than one in three want law-making and tax-raising powers. When you have an electorate as divided as this, why on earth would we imagine or insist upon some enforced unity among the parties? That was the point I was trying to make.
The second is the thing I wrote about today. Of course splits are sometimes significant. They can even be momentous. And they can, if handled poorly, fester away and damage a political movement over the long term. But the culture of finding and highlighting splits in parties is a function of a political system where parties are excessively strong. New Labour is the product of that, not the cause. This is a problem at Westminster, but it’s fairly entrenched there and will take several years to reform. In Wales, we’ve just imported that culture lock, stock and barrel. But we don’t have to live with it. We have 60 AMs, not 650 MPs. We have a partly proportional system, not first-past-the-post. We have the makings of a political culture where the parties’ influence is weaker and accountability at the constituency level is stronger. You know that the public would embrace change – why not start with reforms that could give effect to this? Even better, why not start with not taking quite so seriously the sort of knockabout we saw yesterday? That was the point I was trying to make today.
If you are suggesting this is a culture born of new Labour and for Labour alone to remedy then I’d urge you to look at how all the parties operate. And if you are suggesting that as a Labour staffer during the apogee of new Labour that I am set in the ways of party control freakery…then the only thing I can do is to point out how far you’ve travelled in a short space of time. I’ve seen how the party system works close up and at a distance, and I’ve become convinced that we need a looser, messier system with a much higher premium on local accountability and autonomy. You don’t have to probe me closely on this – it’s in the pages of this website.
(but to get you started read this and this.)
All fair points Adam, but you seem to misrepresent me and manage to throw in my personal travel. But hey ho, I am what I am and so much happier today.
Rather than own travel, let’s focus. Welsh Labour are the strongest opponents of plurality and the most brutal when it comes to dissent. It would be disservice to friends in Labour to list my own personal examples of it, but safe to say a comparison on such matters Welsh Labour is unlikely to embrace the agenda you rightly call for.
It wasn’t my intent to misrepresent you. All I was doing was pointing out that people change their views.
As for focus, I can see why you would want to dwell on Welsh Labour at the exclusion of all other parties, including your own. But the fact remains that all the techniques of strong party management are employed by all the parties in the Assembly.
As for dissent, I wish the critique could be applied with some consistency. Welsh Ramblings wants Labour members banned from having contact with other party members (or at least ones of which s/he disapproves) and complains of Labour not stepping on the True Wales brigade. You say Labour are brutal when it comes to crushing dissent. Which is it?
Adam.
My answer is that True Wales is actually doing some decent work for those that matter in Welsh Labour. The ones, you know, who would not be to sorry if we get a no vote, despite ‘being a supporter of devolution’. A good many Labour members opposed One Wales, so True Wales is carrying the fight for their private beliefs.
I think Ramblings is wrong on that. But in Torfaen there is a deafening silence from Labour members challenging True Wales’ Labour members. To me there is a nod and wink from many in welsh Labour re: true wales. It would be refreshing to have Welsh Labour debate with True Wales on television, although I don’t think we have seen that.
Of course party management exists. But if you want a plural membership and a wider politics, you have to support the changes needed. It certainly isn’t not Plaid or the Lib Dems being a barrier to that…
Sorry Marcus, but this is all a bit too grassy knoll for my liking.
Plaid, because of what happened in ’79, are neuralgic about a section of Labour successfully securing a “no” vote. What this means is that the supposed threat of True Wales has been blown up out all proportion. I can understand this to a certain extent, not least because there’s a good deal of nervous energy from those who want to get cracking on a “yes” campaign but who, for various reasons (most of them to do with party discipline, ironically) can’t. Alas, that energy is also currently being vented via any number of exotic and elaborate conspiracy theories about Labour figures who supposedly harbour deep and sinister anti-devolution views and yet somehow vote for or in other ways support it whenever the opportunity arises. If those are to your taste I suggest you get over to Syniadau – he specialises in them (my own views – on Hain at least – are here).
More practically, it won’t be long until the “yes” campaign is allowed to start. Then the “deafening silence” from Labour members and Plaid members will be broken and we can get this phoney war over with.
Finally, both Plaid and the Lib Dems run very conventional central party operations. It’s how it’s done here. They’re all part of the same system.
Adam, you seem to be suggesting that rather than expose each other’s weaknesses and divisions (and the Tories are clearly the most divided party over devolution), political parties in Wales should throw off the shackles of party policy and develop a free-love, cross-party lovely big debate about all things political and hang all this election nonsense.
That isn’t naive. Its just a bit odd.
Er, no. I’m suggested that the grip of parties is too strong, not that the rivalry between parties is too intense. Plenty of well-functioning democracies have comparatively weak parties. The UK isn’t one of them, Wales could be.
Well, I’m not sure that was clear, but nor does it add up. I couldn’t quote you a single high profile rebellion from the party line in 10 years of votes in the Assembly, and yet it happens with some frequency in Parliament. By your logic, party control is much stronger in Wales than Westminster and therefore split stories should be all the more powerful, no?
“I’m not sure that was clear”
My posts says “the Welsh polity surely needs weaker rather than stronger parties.”
“I couldn’t quote you a single high profile rebellion from the party line in 10 years of votes in the Assembly”
You say it like it’s a good thing. In short, every member of every political group has been in agreement with their leadership on virtually every occasion since the Assembly was created. Makes you wonder why they don’t simply cast their votes in advance on the first day back and take the next four years off.
“…and yet it happens with some frequency in Parliament.”
Not really. 10 times as many members, many more votes, much more power – still very few rebellions. Only by comparison with Cardiff Bay can Westminster be said to exhibit frequent rebellions. Compared to other legislatures, the executive has an iron grip. That said, this Parliament has actually been more disobedient than many.