What next for Plaid Cymru?
Bubble — By Carwyn Tywyn on May 23, 2010 7:00 am
Plaid in the days when getting three MPs was a good result
THE 2010 UK General Election was the most disappointing election night for Plaid Cymru since the 2003 National Assembly elections. Technically, Plaid made a gain of one seat (Arfon). However, it will actually feel to Plaid activists as if they have effectively lost, rather than gained, one seat. This is the result of an astonishing result in Ceredigion, where the Liberal Democrats increased their majority from 218 to 8,314; it is very likely that Plaid has lost Ceredigion at Westminster level for at least 10 years.
In any electoral analysis, is important to avoid a post-mortem approach, and to give credit where credit’s due. The main optimism for Plaid resides in the significant swings it made in three valleys seats (Cynon Valley, Neath, Rhondda), where it can now hope to make a challenge in the 2011 National Assembly Elections. By my reckoning, Plaid Cymru are definitely “in the game” in 15 of the forty constituency seats next year. And I’ll be brave enough to name them: Aberconwy, Arfon, Caerphilly, Cardiff West, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Clwyd West, Cynon Valley, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Islwyn, Llanelli, Neath, Rhondda, and Ynys Môn.
It would have been refreshing to hear senior Plaid spokespersons call a spade a spade on election night. Instead, they have played down Plaid’s problems, and return to the tired mantra of blaming the TV leadership debates. In Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis has criticised Liberal Democrat “pavement politics”, seemingly forgetting that it was a similarly tenacious style of local engagement which created “fortress” seats for Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Elis-Thomas in Gwynedd during the 1970s and 1980s.
It has been said elsewhere that Plaid Cymru needs to work on managing the expectations of its members, and the wider public. On the eve of the election, I was told categorically by a Plaid organiser, in one of the party’s target seats: “We are on target to win.” Plaid duly failed to win the seat by some margin. For new Plaid activists, the come-down from such high expectations will have been devastating. Two senior Plaid activists have mentioned to me that a review of Plaid’s internal polling methods must be a key part of expectation management in the future.
In the next UK General Election, Plaid’s national resources must be focused on defending its three current seats (Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr). Indeed, the Deputy Editor of Golwg magazine, Ifan Morgan Jones, suggests that there is an argument for Plaid fielding candidates only in these three seats. While this would clearly be a disproportionate step, it is worth discussing the principle of fielding candidates in all 40 Westminster seats. Was it really in Plaid’s interests to come sixth in Newport West, behind UKIP and the BNP, and to deprive Labour’s Paul Flynn of up to 1,122 votes in a tough fight against the Tories?
Expectations must also be lowered so that a successful defence of Plaid’s three seats can be spun in the media as a “good” election for Plaid. Any advance on three seats can then be regarded as a major bonus. There can be no more than two other target seats next time round, namely Ynys Môn and – at a stretch – Llanelli. While the Liberal Democrat vote in Ceredigion is “softer” than their large majority suggests, a Plaid revival in that seat should now be based on local campaigning (yes, “pavement politics”), rather than a major intervention from Ty Gwynfor.
More seriously, the 2010 General Election poses existential questions for Plaid Cymru, which beyond target seats and media tactics. These questions are: “What is the point of voting Plaid in a UK election?”. And, by extension: “What is the point of Plaid Cymru?” These questions have been thrown into sharp relief by the presidential nature of the 2010 UK General Election, and indeed by Plaid’s comparatively disappointing electoral performances since their high watermark National Assembly election of 1999.
Part of the problem may lie in the aims of Plaid Cymru, a rhetorical work of art with talk of full national status, decentralist socialism, national community based on equal citizenship and contribution to the global community. Certainly, these theoretical niceties have served to define the meaning of self-government, and to unify the broad ideological spectrum within Plaid over the years. However, they also typify a party that was strong on rhetoric but light on take-home message in 2010.
In Westminster elections, Plaid needs to present itself as a pressure group and an underdog. As part of this process, it could do worse than to take a look at aim B which appeared on SNP membership cards for 80 years, namely: “The furtherance of all Scottish interests.” This simple, generic clause recognises that the national movement is a pressure group as much as it is a political party.
Adopting a pressure group approach in Westminster elections, Plaid could then free itself to pursue a much more distinctive policy agenda, and set itself apart from the crowded centre-left political space in Wales. For example, Plaid could have run a hard-hitting campaign on their opposition to Trident, both in terms of financial cost and the human consequences of nuclear war. It could have run an equally hard-hitting campaign on its support for veterans policy, highlighting the under-reported fate of injured and maimed soldiers, as a counter-narrative to the solemnised repatriations of the dead soldiers at Wootton Bassett. More generally, Plaid should again frame itself as the underdog, anti-incumbent party.
In his Golwg article, Ifan Morgan Jones correctly identified that a UK Election falling on May 7, 2015 (the same day as the scheduled National Assembly election) could be a disaster for Plaid Cymru, as Welsh issues would inevitably be swamped by the UK agenda. While the BBC’s Vaughan Roderick seems confident that this situation will not come to pass, Plaid could do worse than to assume the doomsday scenario of 2015 as a worst-case strategy, and to adapt its aims accordingly.
Tags: 2010 General Election, 2011 Assembly elections, Plaid, Plaid Cymru
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
41 Comments
Well written, Carwyn! I can’t disagree with you, that this election was immensely disappointing for Plaid Cymru, and you’re quite right in saying that for the party’s activists, such as myself, the result was devastating.
Regarding the media blackout business of the presidential-esque Prime Ministerial Debates, I wish we as a party didn’t have to use the argument. I wish we could focus on our policies, focus on why we’re against the cuts that the UK government will enforce, against Trident, against the war, but with barely any media attention, we’d just look silly ranting on about those things while no one is listening. This was an extremely difficult election for Plaid Cymru to fight, not only because of the style of the election this time around, but because of the issues on the table. Plaid is a Welsh nationalist party, and while people may support the concept of Welsh independence, or only further devolution/autonomy, they still want to know what’s going to happen on a UK level to protect jobs and to better the economy, and as such, they see Plaid as irrelevant. In fact, I think that had Plaid have won more seats than it did, we’d have been able to have more influence. The media however, construed Plaid as irrelevant by its attitude towards us, so people automatically though that Plaid wasn’t an option for them. Had Plaid have won more seats, we may well have been able to broker some sort of a deal with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, be that in an official rainbow coalition, or through a supply and confidence agreement.
This idea of Plaid presenting itself as more of a pressure group in Westminster than a political party is interesting. I think there may well be two sides to that idea: the first being that we highlight the failings of the Westminster government, state quite clearly where they’re wrong and why we were right. The second side, however, would be people seeing us a not a ‘real party’, and the effect on us in Cardiff Bay could be awful. If we’re seen as a party that doesn’t actually want to govern, doesn’t actually have any policies and just wants to pick the problems in other parties, we won’t get elected. People are all too often led to believe that UK issues are the same as Welsh issues, and with a general election on the same day as the Welsh general election, that will be clearer than ever in 2015. The idea, however, definitely deserves some though.
One can argue and argue, but at the end of the day, Plaid as a party has to realise that it didn’t too half as well as it’d hoped in this election. However as you rightly point out, there is optimism for us in that we did gain promising swings which could lead the way to success in May next year. We really must learn from this election though – change what we didn’t do well, and do more of what we did do well.
Dros Gymru, CRJ.
“This was an extremely difficult election for Plaid Cymru to fight, not only because of the style of the election this time around, but because of the issues on the table… In fact, I think that had Plaid have won more seats than it did, we’d have been able to have more influence. ”
I disagree Cerith. The backdrop this time was of a likely hung Parliament and Plaid’s entire manifesto had been constructed around this scenario, which was the right thing to do. The style of the election was therefore more helpful than at any time since the mid 1970s. On this occasion there was a real opportunity to vote Plaid and get influence at Westminster.
That’s what makes the election result and subsequent failure to impact post election all the more puzzling.
And this is written from a genuine sense of bewilderment rather than some perverse desire to appear an attack dog.
” More generally, Plaid should again frame itself as the underdog, anti-incumbent party.”
Spot on. Although despite this excellent analysis it is worth considering why this never really happened in 2010.
Honestly, I think that Plaid as a party were in a quandry in terms of positioning. It is a party of government, a party who wants to be the ‘Only we can beat the incumbent…’ in seats, a party struggling in some parts of Wales, a party who wont form the government, a party who could have been a slight player in a hung parliament, a party called a ‘non-entity’ by others, a party blamed by Welsh Tories and Lib Dems as being to blame for the Welsh economic problems.
Now to decipher all that into a more coherent set of campaign principles (which I think you have done excellently around anti-incumbency) perhaps needed this wake up call.
The idea of not putting up candidates is a non-starter as far as I am concerned, and the Plaid candidate in Newport West was a good friend of mine. Ten months before the Assembly election, we couldn’t just not campaign, not get the media coverage or not try to win votes in the nearest national election to it.
Given my locality, I actually think what was most dissapointing was lost deposits. In some seats we were literally down the bare bones ‘always will vote Plaid’ vote.
Ultimately I think our three seats plus one medium range target is the right strategy from here on in.
“The backdrop this time was of a likely hung Parliament and Plaid’s entire manifesto had been constructed around this scenario, which was the right thing to do. The style of the election was therefore more helpful than at any time since the mid 1970s. On this occasion there was a real opportunity to vote Plaid and get influence at Westminster. ”
No Daran. This election was about who was in charge of the economy, who you trusted to steer the economy into recovery, who could bring down the deficit. Look at the way the tories and Labour played it – Gordon can be trusted, Gordon cannot be trusted, Dave will cut the deficit, Dave will cut the deficit too soon, Vince Cable got it all right, The Lib Dems wont run the economy etc.
Although the hung parliament played its part, it’s a bit rich to argue that stewardship of the UK economy (which Plaid would never have) was not the biggest game in town.
Marcus wrote: “Although the hung parliament played its part, it’s a bit rich to argue that stewardship of the UK economy (which Plaid would never have) was not the biggest game in town.”
Sorry, wasn’t clear enough. Yes, the economy was the biggest single issue – or more particularly the cuts/no cuts agenda. Plaid was as clear on this as Labour, but the electorate didn’t respond.
But what I’m getting is political circumstances and political relevance, and on both of those fronts this election was more suited to Plaid than UK General Elections usually are.
Fair cop daran. I thought the hung parliament was more of an albatross than a boom for plaid though.
I should note that by the style of the election, I mean the way in which it was conducted. The debates had a huge effect on people’s opinions, and every party except Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories were shut out of those. By “the issues on the table”, what I mean is the economy – an issue which people are very worried about at the moment, naturally, and an issue which makes them dubious of voting for a nationalist party which will never win the British general election.
I share with you a sense of bewilderment at why Plaid didn’t do well. Of course we did end up with the Tories having the largest number of seats, but I think had Labour have been in the Conservatives’ position, and Plaid having won more votes, we’d have been okay. I guess in Wales, a lot of people really didn’t want David Cameron to be the next British Prime Minister, so they chose to vote for either Labour or the Lib Dems to try and keep him out – because Plaid wasn’t in their minds after the debates, we didn’t seem like an option. It turns out that Mr Clegg was happy to sell his soul to the devil (thanks, Nick), and Labour weren’t in the right position to form a government. I would have been happier to see Labour and the Lib Dems forming a government – and no, it wouldn’t have been a government of losers because they’re all losers after this election. In a hung parliament situation, that’s what happens: people do deals, but it would have been nice for Nick Clegg to think of the country in making his choice. I’m no huge fan of Labour or the Lib Dems, but I’d far rather see them in Downing Street than Mr Cameron and his cronies.
I asked a simple question, what would you Plaid do about welfar reforms, to be told come back when we win the election. Which was a great reply to a real question, I sat at home knowing I’d not be voting Labour Tory or anyone else, and yes in the end I voted plaid, but after this mess I think my voting days are over, long over….
I was also bewildered at the loss of the two independents from Parliament. Even the Lib Dems failed to make the impact expected. A lot of people were hoping for shake up after the expenses scandals, but I think the continued recession put a stop to that.
When the huge number of “Don’t knows” walked into the voting booth, worring about their jobs/taxes/benefits, it came down to Cameron or Brown as PM, and they made their choice accordingly. Perhaps those who had previously switched to “others” gritted their teeth and reverted to type, the fear factor pushing all other opinions and feelings aside.
I do think that putting the house on “hung parliament” was a spurious tactic in the end. Plaid would never, ever have gone a different way to the SNP, and hence a deal with the Tories was never viable.
What about a deal with Labour? Possible for Plaid, likely even. The aftermath of the election, however, showed that Labour would never countenance a deal with the SNP, and by association , Plaid.
Labour in Wales could probably cope with it, the Labour party in Scotland never. I think that Plaid’s strategy advisers got the whole tone and personnel wrong in the campaign (why feature Ron Davies? surely a big-time loser and liability like him should be kept at arm’s length)
Josgin wrote: “What about a deal with Labour? Possible for Plaid, likely even. The aftermath of the election, however, showed that Labour would never countenance a deal with the SNP, and by association , Plaid. Labour in Wales could probably cope with it, the Labour party in Scotland never.”
The relationships between Labour in Wales and Labour in Scotland with the respective nationalist parties is very different. Scottish Labour, which took rather than conceding ground after the election, sees the SNP as an enemy as big as the Conservatives. After all, the SNP evicted Labour from government and the Conservatives are little more than a peripheral pressure group north of the English border. Here in Wales Plaid are partners in government and the Conservatives are on the march.
You may be right: the more I think about it, the more I think the peripheralisation of Plaid post election had much to do with their SNP alliance which made them far less palatable as partners to all 3 big UK parties.
Wheeling out Ron Davies was a rather obvious election gaff (Ron Davies triggers an unconscious association with Clapham Common in many peoples minds), but was not the elephant in the room in Ceredigion.
Among non-Welsh speaking voters and I personally believe the main reason for the swing in my home constituency of Ceredigion was that the Plaid message on who the party represents is far from clear. Those where Wales is their home, but may not (yet) speak Welsh are uncertain as to how Plaid as a party views them and may represent their interests.
Is Plaid
a) The Party of the people of Wales
b) The Party of the people born in Wales
c) The Party of the Welsh Speaking
From discussions with a spectrum of party members I am convinced they see Plaid very clearly as an “a”, the Party of the people of Wales. This message just did not get out to the majority and the other parties were able to clinically exploit that omission.
These questions are: “What is the point of voting Plaid in a UK election?” And, by extension: “What is the point of Plaid Cymru?”
Ouch!! That hurt.
Personally, I don’t think framing the Party as an ‘underdog’ or ‘anti-incumbent’ organisation is the right approach. It is too negative and too easy to combat politically. Regretably, people are inclined to kick underdogs when they are down (especially if they have a toothless bite).
I would prefer to see championship of a more overt ‘nationalist’ agenda (like the SNP) and focus on becoming expert proponents of solutions to improve the (business) economy of Wales by fixing the financial infrastructure. This can be done by joining the ‘Move your Money’ movement that is sweeping the USA at the moment.
Josgin is certainly right, Daran. I think the London corporate parties are very scared indeed of the SNP.
Not only were Scottish Labour petrified of bestowing them with the credability of functioning as a (rising) party of the progressive Left in Scotland by considering a rainbow coalition with them, but Scotland’s funding settlements for some time also represents a consititutional bribe to the Scottish electorate to quieten their anti-unionist sentiments. (Why else does Scotland get so much more than regions of the union which aren’t poised to tear away?)
Now we hear that not only is the Barnett Formula (which leaves Wales £300m out of pocket compared with the English funding allocation formulae) not even going to be reviewed, but Scotland gets an extra £200m via a North Sea Oil levy.
Neither Wales nor Scotland are heartlands of either party in the new Con-Dem coalition (and it’s a fair estimation that involvement with the Tories will slash the Lib Dem vote in Wales – the coming Welsh Assembly/Scottish Parliament elections will be a potent indicator of the Lib Dem’s new, post-coalition approval ratings) so neither nation is due any rewards for Tory support, but which nation is being bribed to stop considering independence? It’s not Wales, while Plaid’s credibility and stated case for further sovereignty lags considerably behind that of the SNP.
The Welsh electorate need to know that it’s our dumb, lapdog unionism which leaves us out of pocket now – because we’re hardly going to be rewarded for our near non-existent Torydom, nor bribed with titbits to increase our affection for our current masters in the British union. Because they know they don’t need to – they can smack us as hard as they like – they’ve done it before and it didn’t decrease our dumb, doe-eyed love and loyalty to the union then either.
” More generally, Plaid should again frame itself as the underdog, anti-incumbent party.””
Isn’t that exactly how Plaid did frame themselves in the campaign? Maybe I misread things, but the SNP certainly framed themselves as the underdog with their (slightly nauseating) ‘more nats less cuts’ phrase and Salmond’s plea for MPs that would ‘rage against the machine’.
The ‘more nats less cuts’ phrase is effectively true in the sense that the SNP’s stronger position compared to the absence of a national threat from Plaid means that Scotland receives a greater share of public expenditure than Wales. The fossil fuels cash announcement this week, compared to the stall on Barnett, is perhaps the greatest advertisement of all for voting for nationalist parties at elections.
I personally share Daran’s sense of bewilderment, but clearly all of these things mattered little in the media context. There is a tendency to say the TV debates excuse is just that, an excuse, but when you take that as a symptom of the entire London-centric nature of the media campaign it’s clear that anything Plaid stood for was lost to voters who were getting an information overload about the UK-wide issues and the key presidential concern of who would become Prime Minister.
I don’t think you can discount opinion polls, the few ones that were produced in Wales seemed to accurately reflect the result. Looking at how they panned out between November 09 and the week before the election would be telling. You’d see Plaid holding about 13/14% and actually being ahead of the Lib Dems in Wales from November 09 to March 2010, then a sudden drop to about 8 or 9% before the election, with the Libs going up to about 20.
Clive King’s existential point about Plaid is extremely important, and although it doesn’t alone explain this result, it is a significant long-term obstacle to breaking the 20-25% barrier at any level.
One thing that might not make this a ‘huge come-down’ for Plaid activists as the author suggests is that . This won’t spread to the wider people of Wales who are not well-informed of events in their own country, but will be important for morale. The impression i’m getting is that Plaid activists are raring to go. They are probably more likely to thrive on being marginalised and ‘done down’ than any other party’s activists, because that behaviour fits the traditional Plaid message.
“The impression i’m getting is that Plaid activists are raring to go. They are probably more likely to thrive on being marginalised and ‘done down’ than any other party’s activists, because that behaviour fits the traditional Plaid message.”
I concur as a said Plaid activist. The fact is that after bad results, you either sit there sulking, or you come out swinging. Given the elections are fast approaching, I think Plaid need to do the latter, with the ‘post-mortem’ still being conducted behind the scenes.
The fact is that we are in danger of losing the ‘anti-Tory’ vote to Labour in 2011 unless we get back on the horse pretty quickly, given the 1984 style revisionism people like Peter Hain are now conducting.
Perhaps the real problem for Plaid is that in so many of the 40 Welsh constituencies the majority of voters react in exactly the same way as in constituencies in England with a similar socio economic make up. There simple isn’t a Welsh dimension to the political view of many voters and for them in political terms Wales is still very much a ‘geographical expression.’ If there is more than one Wales in political terms this poses a major obstacle for a party which basis its whole existence on the premise that Wales somehow is distinct and different from England.
Plaid will never achieve its ultimate aim of winning independence unless it gets a majority of the seats both in Assembly elections and in UK elections in Wales. Irish Independence was brought about in the early 1920s not just because of the use of violence by the nationalists but also because the success of the nationalists at the ballot box convinced the then UK government that it wasn’t worth hanging on to Southern Ireland provided it did not compromise the security of the UK. Plaid like all political parties is a coalition. In Plaid’s case between those whose primary aim is to protect and promote the Welsh language and those who see Plaid as a better vehicle for their view of socialism than the Labour Party. For the language nationalists history suggests that there is nothing to fear from a Tory government in London. For those,however, who believe in socialism in a Welsh setting there is a problem. Election results particularly in the old industrial areas on May 6th including my own constituency suggests that Plaid cannot compete for the old Labour core vote. Many of these voters realise that the key to their aspirations lies in who controls the economic destiny of the UK at Westminster. Unless Plaid can convince these voters that they will be economically better off because of independence they will have no interest in voting for Plaid except perhaps as a protest vote. Even if the results on a lower turn out next year in the Assembly election are better it still leaves unanswered the question of how does Plaid achieve its ultimate goal of independence when in fact many of those who live in the geographical area called Wales have the same feelings about it as Geordies for Newcastle and Brummies for Birmingham.
“The London corporate parties” (Ceri Y). Oh, dear *sighs*.
Didn’t Adam Higgitt pretty devastatingly dispense with the shopworn term “the London parties” elsewhere on Wales Home? Augmenting it with ‘corporate’ doesn’t improve the term: after all, you can’t polish a … dropping.
Well written article and interesting comments. Where I would take issue is trying to guess now what the political landscape will look like in 2015. The new coalition will change politics but no one can say in what direction. There were aspects of the campaign that were very poor for Plaid and these need to be addressed before next year.
Gez Kirby: “The London corporate parties” (Ceri Y). Oh, dear *sighs*.
Didn’t Adam Higgitt pretty devastatingly dispense with the shopworn term “the London parties” elsewhere on Wales Home? Augmenting it with ‘corporate’ doesn’t improve the term: after all, you can’t polish a … dropping.
Well, perhaps he did to your satisfaction, but I didn’t think anything in that article by Jez Caudle, or the nodding unionist commentary which followed stood up, save for displaying a rather patronising ignorance as to the essential points of the Welsh sovereigntist polemic, (or dialectics in general – including that in debate, you can hardly presume to choose the words of your opponents for them, provided they retain a civilised tone).
Where did anybody disprove the London-centricity of the Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative parties? Nowhere to my satisfaction. Personally, I couldn’t see where a mere point of view on a rather petty issue of semantics made for a worthwhile article – least of all when it oozed with metropolitan indifference to the polemic of Welsh Sovereigntism it was criticising.
I’ll happily augment that adjectival noun ‘London’ in relation to the unionist parties with ‘corporate’ ‘establishmentarian’ ‘centrist’ ‘Neo-Liberal consensus’ etc. – whatever I like so long as the cap reasonably fits.
I suspect the unionist parties take umbrage because they manifestly ARE London-centric in their power base and aspirations, and nothing is so painful as the truth, except the truth uttered clearly, loudly, and often.
BTW, I submitted a second post today which simply vanished (this would be my third). Could I ask the editors what happened to that, please?
Gez Kirby: ““The London corporate parties” (Ceri Y). Oh, dear *sighs*.
Didn’t Adam Higgitt pretty devastatingly dispense with the shopworn term “the London parties” elsewhere on Wales Home? Augmenting it with ‘corporate’ doesn’t improve the term: after all, you can’t polish a … dropping.
Hmm… Not that I noticed. It seemed to be just a load of metropolitan quibbling about Welsh sovereigntist dialectics. Fortunately unionists don’t choose our words for us, nor do they get to. – There may be a vast number of draconian powers hogged centrally in London, but last time I looked London had fairly limited control over my personal use of language.
What would you prefer the unionist parties be referred to as? The British Neo-Liberal consensus parties? The British Centrist consensus parties? The British imperial establishment parties? Whatever your preference, funnily enough, you still don’t get to choose it.
Where did any part of the Jez Caudle article (dripping in insular metrocentrism as it was), or any of those unionist commentors successfully refute the London-centrism of the unionist parties? These objections are telling indeed. Nothing’s quite as painful as the truth, eh?
I have to agree with Jeff Jones in that Plaid MUST promote the benefits of independence.
We saw the launch of the “Wales Can” website from Plaid – which I have to say was a pretty well designed and professional website – but what became of it? The SNP aren’t scared of talking about independence and Plaid shouldn’t be either.
We’ve had “Think different. Think Plaid”. We’ve had “Make a Difference”. We’ve had “Making a Difference”…
I’m pretty bored of the straplines now. Get Eurfyl ap Gwilym to “do the math” and let’s go for it!
Dr Carwyn Tywyn, Great article! I enjoyed the analysis! In the main, I am tracking with you. A few comments though. From my point of view, pressure groups are great for motivating your base and maybe getting media attention, but usually pressure groups fail in elections. Pressure groups may (or may not) frame the debate on a certain issue or platform, and political parties may (or may not) adopt some aspect of the pressure group’s issues. Nevertheless, I just do not see this as the place Plaid Cymru needs to be in at present. Plaid has grown beyond “pressure group” status and into a governing party-albeit in a coalition. Plaid needs to build on this, rather then retreat from it.
I think what Plaid needs to do is develop a solid and clear economic critique which answers everyday kitchen table issues for households across Wales. Plaid has its foot in the door, and there is no shortage of talent from which to draw from. I firmly believe that if the party can express their economic critique well, then they will be rewarded with a greater vote share in forthcoming. Part of developing that economic critique is expressing the benefits of greater home rule, and yes, independence. A Welsh government with increased powers would have greater lines of authority with the ability to offer incentives for companies to locate and remain in Wales.
I also do believe that Plaid was shortchanged by the UK / London media. The presidential debates were just the tip of the iceberg really.
I do take your point about not spreading the party too thin campaigning in constituencies, which are unlikely to be swayed. However, the pendulum swings both ways, and more conservative Plaid members may campaign against Tory candidates and siphon off their vote share. Additionally, it is important for newer Plaid candidates to cut their teeth in campaigns to sharpen their skills.
In my area of Wales carmarthenshire Plaid has the same old problem, it’s seen as the party of the Welsh speaker, and Plaid will not do anything to stop that. Which is fine if Welsh speakers were the majority
I think while the popular perception that Plaid Cymru is in fact Plaid Cymraeg then it will remain a party that’s strongest support exists in that ghetto. Spare me the examples of the Valleys – even that is limited to the Rhondda and Caerfili.
While most of the membership truly believe that they are a party of all Wales, it will not matter. It’s the popular perception that counts. Until Plaid recruits and works in areas that they have lost their deposits in then they will not be trusted. Independence is a minority interest – however, sovereignty might not be. Their success in Cardiff West was down to a good organization and hard working individuals. But Fairwater and Riverside will not deliver them the constituency on its own. It took years for the Liberals to capture Cardiff Central.
However, both the Tories and Liberals have the same trouble. All the Tories took back was theirs to begin with, while the Liberals cannot break out from the student vote, and lost Montgomeryshire which was Liberal for years.
Labour, warts and all, seemed the only party that could conquer outside of its “tribal areas” with Cardiff North, the Vales and Ynys Mon. They are still perceived as the national party.
“because we’re hardly going to be rewarded for our near non-existent Torydom”
Someone here need to look at the election results a little more closely… and if that is not plain enough, then try the European election results. Denial of the fact that people have turned to the Conservatives here in Wales is not the answer, I’m afraid.
Thing is it’s less valid in numerical terms to say ‘the people of Wales have turned to the Conservatives’ than it is to say ‘the people of Wales have stuck with Labour’. The problem is not enough people are voting Plaid, and that’s what needs to be examined.
“Thing is it’s less valid in numerical terms to say ‘the people of Wales have turned to the Conservatives’ than it is to say ‘the people of Wales have stuck with Labour’. The problem is not enough people are voting Plaid, and that’s what needs to be examined.”
Yes, and why is that? I note that Plaid’s performances in Welsh cities including Wrexham is quite poor. Also my previous comment was not meant to be either anti-Plaid or Welsh language but an observation (also made by Robert) that needs to be adressed, or maybe not! The SNP has broad support in all parts of Scotland.
I think Plaid has to adopt a new narrative in the context of Westminster elections. With Plaid currently in government in Cardiff Bay, the party should have focused on its achievements there and focused on the divisions between Westminster and Cardiff Bay, stressing the need for Plaid MPs in the Commons in order to facilitate and further the agenda of the party and its ministers in the Senedd. In other words, to approach the Westminster election as if it were the election of a Second Chamber to the Senedd, which in many ways it is, thereby circumnavigating the obvious fact that Plaid will never form a Westminster Government, and dispensing with the promotion of a hung parliament as being the only positive outcome for Wales (hardly an incentive for floating voters).
”Was it really in Plaid’s interests to come sixth in Newport West, behind UKIP and the BNP, and to deprive Labour’s Paul Flynn of up to 1,122 votes in a tough fight against the Tories?”
Excuse me! Plaid is a broad church of Socialists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens & Conservatives who support Welsh Nationalism/Independence – HAD Plaid NOT stood in Newport then the 1,122 votes may not have gone to Labour – in fact Plaid Inclined voters may just have not bothered..
I’m a Cardiffian and I would be horrified if Plaid were not to stand in my Home constituency of Cardiff Central – I’ll admit that our southern cities (Cardiff,Newport,Swansea) are not Plaid Territory per se, in fact Plaid has NEVER kept its deposit once in my Constituency.- But Every Local,Assembly,UK and European Election I vote Plaid with pride!
There is a lot of work which needs to be done in our cities to increase Plaid’s vote, the answer isn’t to wave the white flag and ignore it.
There was 1,246 proud Plaid voters in Cardiff Central. I and my family were among them!
As for the disappointing election – I feel the campaign was rather too wishy-washy. Many people who I was trying to convert didn’t know what Plaid stood for, even having read the manifesto.
Does Plaid stand for independence? The manifesto ignored it completely apart from one paragraph on the last page.
So if Plaid DOESN’T stand for independence (like the SNP), what exactly is the point of Plaid?
“BTW, I submitted a second post today which simply vanished (this would be my third). Could I ask the editors what happened to that, please?”
I don’t know. For some reason, your comments appear to be treated as spam by WordPress. I’ve restored them both now.
“Hmm… Not that I noticed. It seemed to be just a load of metropolitan quibbling about Welsh sovereigntist dialectics. Fortunately unionists don’t choose our words for us, nor do they get to. – There may be a vast number of draconian powers hogged centrally in London, but last time I looked London had fairly limited control over my personal use of language.”
Difficult to know quite where to start with this codswallop, really. I suppose I’ll try a a polite suggestion: merely putting “metropolitan” or “metro” in front of something neither makes it automatically insightful nor interesting. You have to actually say something worth hearing. In that vein, attempting to elevate a phrase used for party political bun-fighting to the status of “soverigntist dialectic” is beyond risible.
Secondly, and as much as you would clearly love someone to attempt to control what language you are allowed to use, no-one actually is. But in liberal democracy, most of us rather value the freedom to challenge views with which we disagree. I suggest you try it without all the synthetic bleating.
Finally – and as I did in the thread in question – I did challenge to notion of London-centricity. I suggest you re-read it.
Adam: “Finally – and as I did in the thread in question – I did challenge to notion of London-centricity. I suggest you re-read it.”
With respect Adam, the only question of London-centricity that you addressed in the other thread was your agreement with the author and insistence that “London parties” was a pejorative term of abuse, a position that is not universally shared or accepted.
Other aspects of London-centricity that was not addressed, but equally valid as the political aspect discussed, include London (based) media and London (based) corporate entities, both of which have far more control and influence over Welsh affairs then they do over Scottish affairs (as Scotland has a stronger media and corporate establishment then does Wales). In the past, one could have spoken of London based religious orthodoxy until the Church of England was disestablished in Wales.
In any case, I do not think views on London parties were swayed one way or another.
Hi David
I confined myself to whether the parties were best described as “London” or “British”, concluded the latter was most accurate and said why.
Nobody has yet been able to say why the term “British parties” is not more appropriate than “London parties”.
“Nobody has yet been able to say why the term “British parties” is not more appropriate than “London parties”
You say potato…
Maybe ‘London parties’ isn’t quite fair, although any economic policies belonging to a ‘British party’ will inevitably be either London or South East England centric – they’d be mad not to.
Rhys said “Maybe ‘London parties’ isn’t quite fair, although any economic policies belonging to a ‘British party’ will inevitably be either London or South East England centric – they’d be mad not to”. I can’t for the life of me see why this might be so.
By definition, a British party seeks to represent the interests of the British people as a whole. Its leadership, and membership, will be drawn from people across the whole of Britain (for instance, Labour’s leadership until the recent general election included a Scots PM & Chancellor, Blackburn MP J Straw, Neath MP P Hain, etc, etc). So why would a party’s leadership and membership, drawn from people across the whole of Britain, tolerate “economic policies [that were] …inevitably … either London- or South East England-centric”? Surely the party’s leadership and membership would work to ensure that all parts of Britain (particularly their own) benefited from their economic policies?
This isn’t to say that successive British governments haven’t pandered to the City and to big business. But ‘the City’ is increasingly more a concept than a geographical space. And this distinction wasn’t drawn by Rhys in his sweeping claim.
Come on Gez just look at UK economic policy for the past 30 years! Look at the regional inequality gap within the UK, amongst the largest of any EU member-state. Look at manufacturing compared to financial services.
“Surely the party’s leadership and membership would work to ensure that all parts of Britain (particularly their own) benefited from their economic policies?”
You’d think so, but we know that under Labour the UK has attained economic inequality greater than Thatcher managed. Looking at facts rather than assumptions that ‘party members wouldn’t tolerate it’ shows the real picture.
I don’t think mine was an assumption, Illtyd, but a reasonable inference.
Yes, there are regional economic inequalities. Yes, there’s economic inequality, and Labour didn’t do enough to reduce relative – or absolute – poverty.
But my point wasn’t necessarily to defend Labour (and I’m happy to proclaim my Labour Party membership and support). It was to demonstrate explicitly that the point Rhys made wasn’t supported by reason, or by the facts (which I hope I did, and which you certainly haven’t rebutted); but also implicitly, that Rhys was really just trying to sustain the ideologically-loaded yet decisively debunked “London parties” tag in different garb.
I think Rhys failed in that attempt; I think I showed that: and I think your response does nothing to refute my point, but simply seeks to bolster Rhys’s ropey recasting of the “London parties” propaganda.
Gez, I think the regional inequality gap counts as fact. I would post up some links but you would still disagree with it and it wouldn’t affect your opinion.
In relation to regional inequality in the UK (which would also mean the north of England). I would just point out the obvious you dont simply have the constitutional check and balance, ie a second chamber which has equal representation for the nations and regions the UK, plus stronger assemblies. The trouble with using the term “London based’ is that most people in Wales read London based newspapers (with all the deficits that go with that) People will vote for “London based parties” with the perception that they will at least form a government that will affect their well being. That is why both Plaid and the SNP will always so badly at UK and European elections. However as ridiculous as this may sound it could be time for English partner?