Plaid still playing fantasy politics
Bubble — By Daran Hill on May 12, 2010 4:09 pm
No need for a caption
Today they have alleged that it was Labour that stopped discussions with the Liberal Democrats and not the other way around. Peter Hain’s rebuttal is clear:
“I was involved in the discussions between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to see if a deal was possible. I had an approach from Plaid Cymru on behalf of their three MPs, and I said I would be happy to talk to them, if the Liberal Democrats were prepared to do a deal. In the end the Lib Dems chose a coalition with the Tories and that was an end to the matter.”
This follows a claim at the weekend from Elfyn Llwyd MP that Plaid was in discussion with Labour when it wasn’t. You can see that version of reality here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/the_politics_show_wales
The offending article comes 47 minutes in.
One of the stories of the last few days has been the desire of Plaid to be included in the narrative, even though circumstances dictate otherwise. The party was keen to write itself into the script so that it could now say that it tried to stop a Conservative government happening. All of which fits with its objectives, but not necessarily the facts.
But Plaid has hardly been on the money with its predictions and interpretations over the past month has it? Sometimes time can polish a little gem. Check out the pearl buried about 6.15 in to this now infamous interview…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FpfRDRBeVg
Look, Plaid, what you say has real political validity and the message you put out last night makes sense, even if you should have spellchecked it:
Mr Llwyd criticised the Labour party for throwing away the opportunity to create an alternative Government based on co-operation and consensus, and for allowin (sic) the Tories to threaten Welsh communities with savage cuts. Mr Llwyd added that Plaid had made every effort to offer Labour the opportunity to engage in constructive talks that could have ensured that Wales would be treated more fairly during this period of economic and fiscal instability.
Just stop the fantasy politics at the same time and you’d be a lot more credible this week.
Tags: 2010 General Election, Plaid, Plaid Cymru
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
39 Comments
Not taking issue with what you say about Plaid but all the sounds from the Lib Dems, Kirsty is on the record I believe saying it as are some of the Lib Dem negotiation team, was that Labour was not sincere in their approach.
People within the Lib Dem group, including influential figures such as Paddy Ashdown, were supportive of a Lib-Lab pact but it could hardly happen when so many Labour MPs publicly called for opposition.
Your digs at Elfyn, like many of your Plaid digs on here recently, are possibly not wrong, just irrelevant. Your point here is to have a go at Plaid because they have stated their unhappiness that Labour didn’t do their best to stop a Tory government. That seems from reports by Lib Dem negotiators among others to be a fair point. I don’t see how you dispute that by simply deciding to take pot shots at Elfyn Llwyd. As I said not that those digs are not fair, just not balanced with what you’re angry about Plaid saying. Personally, after voting Labour following weeks of Peter Hain saying it is only Labour that can keep the Tories out I am pretty annoyed that they didn’t have the stomach to do more to keep that pledge.
Yawn….Another in a string of Daran Hill attack dog posts attacking Plaid. The impartiality of this blog is no more. Maybe the LabourHome tag was right after all.
It is no good Lib Dems like Kirsty Blaming Labour.
If they do not want to be in coalition with the Tories, no one is making them. Walk away, don’t help the Tories attack our communities. If you stay don’t blame anyone but yourselves for the results.
A fair point Michael and I am not that concerned about assigning blame really but what I will say is in fairness to the Lib Dems in much the same way that no one could realistically go into coalition with them 2007 because the way they behaved they in turn could not go in with Labour when clearly Labour MPs did not want that coalition to take place. Apparently senior negotiators were not sincere in their approach and god knows how many publicly made their views opposing it known. Ultimately the Lib Dems made their choice to go in with the Tories but certainly Labour did very little to tempt them the other way.
Gav wrote: “Your digs at Elfyn, like many of your Plaid digs on here recently, are possibly not wrong, just irrelevant.”
Possibly
And then wrote: “Your point here is to have a go at Plaid because they have stated their unhappiness that Labour didn’t do their best to stop a Tory government.”
No it isn’t. That’s a perfectly acceptable point. My point is the fantasy embellishments are ridiculous.
Steve wrote: “Yawn….Another in a string of Daran Hill attack dog posts attacking Plaid.”
Attack dog? I’m a miniature poodle. I set out some criteria before poll night as to how the parties might be judged. http://waleshome.org/2010/05/good-night-bad-night/
And then I judged them accordingly
http://waleshome.org/2010/05/thoughts-on-four-parties-in-wales/
“The impartiality of this blog is no more. Maybe the LabourHome tag was right after all.”
Oooh, profound. Very on message Labour, me. That’s why I tweeted a couple of hours ago: “Still absolutely overjoyed that Gordon Brown is no longer Prime Minister. I hope history judges him as harshly as he so richly deserves”
Another attempt to create a narrative out of next to nothing?
Well I’m a Plaid supporter & I can’t find much wrong with what Daran writes. The party needs to up its game, & accepting valid criticism is an important part of that process. Perhaps it’s finding being a party of government is absorbing more of its energy than it anticipated.
Daran- Dominic Hannigan says the following in his latest article for Wales home-
‘Whoever walked away, it is clear that Labour were not really serious, preferring the comfort of opposition rather than the responsibility of government.’
So it seems that people are not clear that it was Labour who walked away from the deal. Yes, they may not have been all that serious, but this suggests that the situation is unclear.
CA where do you see plaid not accept criticism? Hardly think anyone is spinning thursday as a positive. I’m just taking issue with Daran’s bid to attack Plaid in order to defend Labour on the fact they would rather go into opposition than be sincere about a deal with the Lib dems that would have kept the Tories out.
In an unprecedented move a politician bigs up their party.
Hold the press
Steve wrote: “Daran’s bid to attack Plaid in order to defend Labour on the fact they would rather go into opposition than be sincere about a deal with the Lib dems that would have kept the Tories out.”
I’m attacking Plaid, not defending Labour. Brown’s Labour party lost the election badly last week, though their vote held up relatively well in Wales, all things considered.
Labour deserve to be out of government. Brown deserves to be out of Downing St.
David Cameron deserves to be Prime Minister. And I am intensely relaxed about that prospect.
Is that clear enough?
Bethan wrote: “So it seems that people are not clear that it was Labour who walked away from the deal. Yes, they may not have been all that serious, but this suggests that the situation is unclear.”
Fair point and thanks for actually engaging with the substance of what was written. Unlike some of your colleagues
Can I just congratulate my fellow editors on another day 24 hours of advancing this site’s pro-Labour agenda by publishing…err…a piece from a leading Lib Dem activist and another by Nick Bourne?
That’s what you call subterfuge.
Adam.
In fairness, it’s you and daran’s piece that have come in for stick, rightly or wrongly. The ‘we haz others writing’ is not taking those critics complaints square on.
Daran is not biased, but I reckon he is clearly within earshot of a certain someone close to some washed old minister.
Marcus wrote: “Daran is not biased, but I reckon he is clearly within earshot of a certain someone close to some washed old minister.”
I think “Daran is not biased” needs to be added to our masthead.
I am in earshot of many people, and they are in earshot of me. Though I have been shouting a lot today for no apparent reason…
As much as attack dog was harsh no one I’m sure is buying the poodle analogy.
Feels like there are still some very raw nerves, and perhaps rightly so. I find it really positive that DH has put this piece up and stayed around to take the inevitable sticks and stones aimed at him. A reaction I’m sure wearyingly expected. Wales and Plaid need this sort of discussion and a blog with a liberal (small L) comments policy.
I am looking forward to Plaid and Welsh Labour’s period of reflection and lead in to the Assembly elections.
At this point in time a centre right coalition has just claimed “progressive” as its own. this really should be a challenge for Plaid and Welsh Labour to pick up. First reaction of “he said she said” doesn’t bode well though.
“I am in earshot of many people, and they are in earshot of me. Though I have been shouting a lot today for no apparent reason…”
I was simply saying I would bet you a pint you have had extensive conversations with a certain someone, and that has meant their line has pretty much been swallowed in the last two pieces attacking Plaid.
That is your call, you might well have arrived at those views organically, but you have definitely been briefed with that stuff from someone.
If you have had no conversations with anyone close to the head of the ‘Progressive Policy Forum’ during the writing of those pieces, you will have a cold one on me
“In fairness, it’s you and daran’s piece that have come in for stick, rightly or wrongly. The ‘we haz others writing’ is not taking those critics complaints square on.”
Marcus, you’ve totally missed the point. The accusation was that this *site* is biased towards Labour. Obviously, that’s a load of rubbish, as the two articles I cited attest.
Adam.
Fair play mate.
Perhaps Adam a fairer view would be that the site has contributors from a range of political backgrounds but its editors are biased. lol
(Sigh) From my biography:
“Duncan Higgitt … is press and political officer for Bethan Jenkins AM.”
Last time I looked, Bethan was a Plaid AM. I think she’s been quite clear about that.
If it doesn’t fit the argument, Cerys, just ignore it, eh?
Marcus wrote: “That is your call, you might well have arrived at those views organically, but you have definitely been briefed with that stuff from someone.”
I certainly spoke to several people on Sunday just to make absolutely sure Labour weren’t speaking to Plaid before I wrote the piece. I didn’t at that time share my views on Brown needing to resign.
So, yes, Scooby Doo, I did talk to several Labour people because I didn’t want to look like a dickhead by making up spurious nonsense. As to yesterday’s piece, I spoke to absolutely no-one before writing it and I resent the allegation that I’m a mouthpiece for anyone or any party. And the smiley doesn’t detract from the accusation you make that I am.
Daran, no need to get uppity. Resent all you want, but I don’t think you are biased.
I never once said you were a mouthpiece for a party, merely that your line in your article was very similar to certain other people’s line that was being spun. I offered all the necessary qualifications, which you have responded to – fair enough. My point still stood though, you received soundings from a certain someone and very similar lines were taken in your two articles.
There is no conspiracy in that, I am sure you take soundings off many people from many parties, but you have taken my initial point and then moved the goalposts as to what I am saying – that is your call.
Like I said, we can chat over a pint, the internet is a forum that often does not do nuance.
If Labour were serious and genuine about forming a coalition with the Lib Dems surely they should have had a dialogue of sorts with the SNP/Plaid Cymru.
If they didn’t then it looks like another example of Labour doing what’s best for Labour .
In this case constructing a fantasy for their supporters portraying their negotiations with the LibDems as an attempt to keep the Tory wolf from getting through the door.
The reality being that all the time they were making their way out through the back door.
Anyone who heard the interviews with Meacher, Blunkett, Bell et al on the final day would have recognised the sound of a herd of bellicose dinosaurs – but a significant sound that would have been recognised in 10 Downing St. With their absolute and vehement opposition to voting reform, visceral distrust (if not worse) for the Lib Dems as a party and talk about the joys of re-grouping to unite the masses, comrades, then no x-ray 3D specs. were be needed for either party in the negotiations to foresee how short lived and unstable the Labour end of the proposed pact would be. Interestingly, the Guardian’s excellent photo study of the final hours inside No 10, published today, cites Nick Clegg as ringing Brown to ask for a further extension just before he resigned.
My point Duncan was in jest in reply to Adam.
However the fact that you work for Bethan Jenkins wouldn’t detract from what I said if I was being serious.
“Perhaps Adam a fairer view would be that the site has contributors from a range of political backgrounds but its editors are biased. lol”
I did not say who was biased and for whom. You could simply say that two of the sites editors are pro-Labour bias and one pro-Plaid. Incidentally I am not serious although possibly the three of you are just being touchy due to those that are.
What is apparent from the comments here is question Daran and expect a mouthful of bitterness in response.
Cerys wrote: “What is apparent from the comments here is question Daran and expect a mouthful of bitterness in response.”
What is apparent is that if people attack me and my motives, then I bite back. That’s when I really become an attack dog.
It was Labour who backed down from toughening up the Dangerous dogs Act wasn’t it.
Thanks for clarifying that, Cerys, and please accept my apologies if you thought I was out of order.
I think it stems from the oft-heard claim that this site is some sort of Labour tool. I wouldn’t be associated with it if it were. Only one of us is a member of the Labour party (my brother, in case anyone didn’t know). My application to Plaid has just gone in (which is more to do with me being totally disorganised than anything else), and this is the first time, in all of my near-42 years, that I have ever been involved in a political party, if you discount a mild flirtation with the doomed Revolutionary Communist Party in the mid-1980s.
So far, around half the Plaid AMs have written for this site or have featured in some way, along with Jonathan Edwards, the new MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (twice). We have had a range of Plaid people write for us, particularly Heledd Fychan, widely held to be one of the rising stars of the party, and, of course, Bethan, who has written close to half a dozen pieces for us. It is a record that I am immensely proud of.
We don’t make any claims to be anything other than a forum for ideas. That was the founding motivation of this site and it remains the same. I find I can stay in the room with Tories and Labour and, if I don’t agree with them, it’s up to me to argue down their points. This idea that something can be done surreptitiously with a site such as our’s, that we can sway people without their realising, doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny and – worse, in my opinion – is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
Yes, we have done rather better than we have expected. It’s down to a lot of long hours and patient spouses, and we’re very pleased with how the site has been received. And yes, we do have some big political ding-dongs, which occasionally find their way onto this site. Now the question for political parties – any party – is if and how they want to engage with us. If they don’t, then that is their absolute right. But we will keep on asking them, even if we think they’ve got us wrong.
You didn’t need to justify yourself. That said I am pleased you finally admitted it. You’re biased in favour of the Revolutionary Communist Party. lol.
That’s a fact. I miss Stalin…
You’ve always got me, Duncan. We’re about the same height and I too tend to lose it in the wee small hours, though usually without such bloody consequences.
The idea that this site is somehow a front for the Labour Party is complete nonsense. The editors are entitled to their opinion and it is often quite clear from some of the articles that there is a deliberate attempt to generate debate and discussion. What is important is the site gives politicians of all persuasions and others the opportunity to express their opinions on a wide variety of issues. Although I’m disappointed at last Thursday’s result I’m quite excited at the thought of politics becoming interesting again.
What I really like about WalesHome is the opportunity it gives to young politicians in particular to think through the arguments and be prepared to be criticised. I’m sure that Welsh politics in years to come will only benefit from the discussions on so many issues on this site. What I loved about the Labour Party I joined over 40 years ago was the heat of the argument in the branch and the GMC. It was tough and sometimes brutal but it taught you to read widely and prepare your argument and also to speak in public. Then along come the Militant and the silence of the graveyard. It’s one of the reasons why Labour lost on Thursday. Disagreement with the party line had to be snuffed out not defeated by reasoned argument. Those who didn’t conform had to be side lined. Thinking outside the box was frowned upon. Nye Bevan and Michael Foot wouldn’t have got passed first base over the past 16 years . Attending party meetings became a very depressing experience as debate virtually ceased and membership fell. Hopefully the reaction to the Coalition will again see a new spirit of debate as the Left of Centre regroups to once again win over the majority of voters. Argument and debate is and should be the life blood of politics.
Wales Home provides the vital online training ground for politicians of all persuasions. Rather than criticise Daran and the two Righteous Brothers(joke) the name of the game is to take part and produce the reasoned argument which represents your point of view on what is an open forum for all democrats.
“the two Righteous Brothers” – satire at its best
Thank you, Jeff. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that WalesHome is enhanced by having your opinions and argument on our site. Long may it continue. And the door is always open to you writing for us?
Daran Hill was perfectly correct in criticizing Plaid Cymru for its atrocious spelling mistake. How can any political party be taken seriously if they can’t even spell a simple world like ‘allowing’? Did you notice they forgot to add the final ‘g’? Incredible!!
I for one will never vote for Plaid Cymru again. Thanks, Daran
re: Steve “Yawn….Another in a string of Daran Hill attack dog posts attacking Plaid. The impartiality of this blog is no more. Maybe the LabourHome tag was right after all.”
re: Jeff Jones “The idea that this site is somehow a front for the Labour Party is complete nonsense. The editors are entitled to their opinion and it is often quite clear from some of the articles that there is a deliberate attempt to generate debate and discussion. ”
I’m trying to keep an open mind here, and I am impressed by the number of non-Labour contributors here. Yet, at the same time I am somewhat aghast that there was not a more critical article on Brown and his gaff. Additionally, there seems to be more comments by some editors on favorable articles then on all articles in general. Now I know personal interests dictate what articles are commented on, but it sometimes seems like there is subtle bias seeping through even when there is not any meant.
I mean my critique in a positive and constructive way.
“I mean my critique in a positive and constructive way.”
David
Taken as such, and I’m grateful for your observations. We cover a lot of politics on this site – more lately because of the election, and it’s inevitable that people will dwell on the coverage (and comments) that they have a problem with more than that with which they agree. The important thing, to me at least, is that we keep publishing articles from a wide range of perspectives. In the last five main columns we have had 1. the campaign reflections of a rising star in Plaid 2. a Liberal turned Conservative’s analysis of the synergies between the two parties 3. a review of a book critiquing capitalism by a leading Welsh-language figure 3. a Conservative manifesto for regeneration in the Valleys 4. a j’accuse to those using the “London parties ” label. I think we’ve fulfilled our mission – over the last few days at least!
All the best.
Adam
David wrote: “Yet, at the same time I am somewhat aghast that there was not a more critical article on Brown and his gaff. ”
A question of time, I’m afraid. All three of us have very demanding day jobs that don’t just span the day. On the day in question I was so busy that I didn’t even see the gaffe until the early evening and then I had to go out for a social engagement. Sometimes things are missed because life gets in the way. Nothing more sinister than that.
And also: “Now I know personal interests dictate what articles are commented on, but it sometimes seems like there is subtle bias seeping through even when there is not any meant.”
Bloody hell, I thought I was getting paranoid before, now I’m going to have to keep a list of where I’ve commented…
the recent TV programme “five days” really puts Daran Hill’s musings as fantasy, and therefore not worth taking notice of…except the title is aimed at attracting attention.
BUT Thank you. We’re all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.