Time to update the politics menu
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on July 21, 2010 7:00 am
Smoking in enclosed public places is illegal but our politicians still favour smoke-filled rooms
HOW swiftly one campaign follows another. Last week Plaid leader Ieuan Wyn Jones blew the whistle on the 2011 Assembly elections with the first in a billed series of speeches. His uncomplicated message was that Plaid has proven itself in government and now deserves the chance to lead rather than just prop up an administration. Similar scene-setting will likely follow from the others. The basic pitches will differ – Labour will present itself as the bulwark to ConDem savagery, Tories and LibDems will play on discontent about the WAG’s performance – but all will duck the big question of who will team up with whom to govern.
Here we can expect only dead-pan deflection. We’re fighting this election to win. Our message is to vote twice for us. I’m not going to speculate on the outcome. The voters will decide. And, because each wants to avoid the subject, a cartel of denial will emerge. Yet is is a question the voters deserve proper answers as they assess their options. With the possible exception of Labour, none of the parties stands a chance of governing alone after next May. Even a major movement in the 40 constituency seats will, by design, be traded away by the top-up mechanism. We don’t know the precise shares, but we can be all but assured that coalition discussions will be part of next May’s news cycle.
The irony of politicians who praise transparency while practicing opacity will be lost amid media collusion. Political journalists will go through the motions of pressing spokespeople for their preferred partner, while saving their real investigative energies for the intrigues of post-election negotiations. Coalitions are still sufficiently novel for the practice of their formation (as opposed to the content) to avoid serious scrutiny. The spectacle of once-mighty Labour pleading for office still induces an objectivity-overwhelming schadenfreude. And it all feels so continental that we can also tell ourselves that this is how proper, grown-up countries conduct such matters. But we need to get past such tingles of novelty, for this secretive, undemocratic and personality-driven bartering is a threat to the nascent Welsh civic culture and a challenge to any hope of a new politics.
By way of illustration, consider that just one in five votes in 2007 went to a party pledged to hold a referendum on full law-making powers for the Assembly, and yet it has become the dominant preoccupation of the current administration. Arguably, the issue of a referendum goes deeper than mere manifesto commitments, but it highlights that the nature of post-election coalition building allows for “hinge” parties with a single overriding policy objective to dominate the agenda.
More broadly, the nature of this process inevitably leads to a new and often different programme of government emerging only after the votes have been cast and counted. The most generous interpretation is that such documents are a synthesis of the contributing parties’ platforms, yet they often require a reversal of positions for which one or more of the partners are well known. This is depicted as a virtue: a need to compromise in the national interest, but the poor old voter is quite deliberately left in the dark about what positions will be negotiated away until it is too late. Voter A could very well opt for Party B on this basis of its commitment to policy C. That party could win office and immediately dump that commitment. Rather than be criticised as having gone back on its word, it will likely be commended for its pragmatism. In Westminster the Lib Dems campaigned against a VAT rise yet now support it. The Tories warned of chaos under a different voting system, yet now legislate to permit one. To some, these are more than just pragmatic compromises, they are repudiations of key policy planks. If coalitions are to be a permanent feature of devolved Welsh politics, we risk legitimising such behaviour, and institutionalising the use of elections as a diversionary tactic to the real job of government formation.
How, then, could it be done differently? The most obvious and fundamental change would be the emergence of pre-election pacts, something that does take place on the fabled continent. A ConDem outline agreement for Wales would clearly make sense (although would not be a sufficient block to govern) as would such a document for Labour and Plaid, or Labour and the Lib Dems, or indeed a rainbow coalition of non-Labour parties. Nor does it need to be as binding as a pact; the status could be that of preferred partner, something that allows for alternatives outcomes should the results not break as hoped for, but which still gives greater clarity to the voter. Yet another alternative is the negative pact – a declaration by any of the parties that they will not work with one or more of their opponents (e.g Labour and the Conservatives).
To party managers, these are anathema; formulae for signalling to their committed supporters that a vote for another party is permissible, and thus a dangerous indulgence in marginal seats. But the era of the committed supporter is, if not over, then coming to a close, and it is surely counter-intuitive to suggest that the voter only wants to vote for the party of his or her choice, rather than to choose an administration. Nevertheless, pre-election agreements do, it must be said, risk diluting the distinctive brand of the parties involved, and it is an approach that can be taken too far. But for the penalty they would pay in the top-up list, parties that are capable of agreeing a pre-election programme might as well stand on a single ticket and avoid the threat of splitting their vote.
An alternative and more subtle variation might therefore be to develop manifestos with clearer areas of potential negotiation (and, conversely, non-negotiation). Plaid went into the post-election scrum with a red line over a powers referendum, but with much else on the table. It should be possible for parties to delineate those objectives over which it will not compromise and those for which it can be more flexible. The objection is, of course that such an approach risks weakening a given party’s perceived post-election bargaining position. Yet, aside from the fact that there is something wrong with deliberately withholding their intentions from the voters, it is also questionable how much this secrecy is really worth.
The final area to be considered is the secrecy of the negotiations themselves. For any such agreement to stand any chance of being put together the discussions themselves must be held behind closed doors. But, in this era of wikis and blogs it ought to be possible to publish the agreement as it emerges, for all to see. The objection here, other than that a partial agreement could enrage the activists of one prospective partner before they got to see their side of the deal, is the value of such an exercise; it may be more transparent but it is still a process being conducted only after the voter has spoken.
The real answer may not therefore lie in formal, mechanistic courtship and negotiation processes, but in more subtle cultural change. The media needs to be fearless in demanding meaningful answers about the intention of parties with little or no chance of governing alone, and parties themselves must cease the charade of acting like falling short of a majority is something they have not even contemplated, let alone planned for. If coalitions are an inevitable feature of Welsh politics then the process of elections should become less of a tribal battle between opposing armies and more an opportunity for the voter to signal the policies and approaches they prefer across party lines – and an opportunity for parties to learn whom the electorate would have them ally.
Table d’hôte politics is over, but voters are not yet being given the opportunity to go à la carte
Tags: 2011 Assembly elections, coalition
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
24 Comments
Interesting argument, but a bit naive surely?
I used to think that parties must be far more forthcoming about potential coalitions prior to the election, not only for the interest of transparency, but because I believe that parties would benefit from voters using their regional vote tactically – including Labour, who got 300k of regional votes for two AMs in 2007.
But picture the scene if one of the parties actually did do what this article is arguing for. So say for instance, Plaid or the Lib Dems or the Tories announce that a rainbow alliance is their preferred option. How would Wayne David or Peter Hain react? With humility? Referencing the noble aims of this article? No, it would be ‘Plaid are allowing Tory baby drowners into power’. You already had the ‘Voting Plaid will let the Tories in through the back door’ from Labour in the general election.
And in the interest of fairness, say Labour said the Lib Dems were their preferred partners. You would get the Tories arguing that this give credence to the ConDem programme in Westminster, and Plaid would probably attack Labour for working with the ConDems in the Senedd.
I actually accept that the largest party has a duty and a principle to try to form a Government first. But frankly lecturing off someone like Peter Hain (who remember was quite happy to have deal with the Lib Dems in Westminster and freeze out the largest party there) would stick in my craw. What would Welsh Labour’s response be to the Rainbow Alliance? You would imagine it would focus on the fact of how little votes each party got, how Labour ‘won’ the election etc…indeed, you forwarded that argument re: the referendum.
Great idea, but it is not going to happen Adam. On paper I think being more open and up front would benefit our democracy, but does any of the parties really trust each other to sign up to this new agenda?
The onus of this article is aimed at the Tories/Lib Dems/Plaid (quelle surprise), but the fact is at the biggest party, it would take Labour to push this agenda forward – and it is comical to believe something as beneficial to Welsh democracy would be by them. In terms of my own party, I think keeping all options open, including choosing opposition to take the time to renew and reconsider long term aspirations, is a fair and well thought out strategy. I am sure all parties would like to keep all their options open accordingly.
Adam, I have thought through all of the options you outline above for some time. Personally, for me to consider anything other than for us to go in to the next election saying ‘we will consider all options’, all parties have to sign up to an alternative a suggested above – outlining red lines, negative coalition deals, positive pre pact discussions etc.
Because if some parties declare and others hide behind closed doors, it simply will not work. Peter Hain has misled the public in previous elections about Plaid Cymru working with the Tories, while the media has failed to scrutinise him on how he can justify this, or on what Labour’s plans are post election.
The SNP has a policy of not working with the Tories, as do Labour. So, to a certain extent, they already have negative pre-pacts. But that merely leaves other parties as the main media targets.
Yes, coalitions are here to stay, but perhaps it’s the media obsession with the post election make up DURING the election campaign that makes things all the more difficult for political parties.
At the end of the day, what is so wrong with parties having individual aspirations? What I don’t want to see is for coalitions and deals to water down manifestos in any way, or force us to become so pragmatic that we only think of policy development in light of what another party would agree to implement alongside us. This is not good for democracy.
However, I do have some sympathy for voters in all of this, and for those seeking to bear influence upon party manifestos. We have to be clear to third sector organisations and charities now, that while many of their policies may appear in individual party manifesto’s, that when it comes to post election coalition deals, they may have to re-start their lobbying, or accept that their ideas will just not appear in the final coalition document…
There is no ultimate answer to this, but thanks for kick-starting the debate, and for firing my urge to contribute to comments sections of blogs!
Adam – you are absolutely right. Sadly there is not a hope in hell.
In Caerphilly we have a particular problem with Ron Davies, having turned his coat to Plaid, he will collect the PC vote of the 2007 election plus a percentage of his personal following, I am going to assume a worst case 100%. This would mean Jeff Cuthbert’s 9,026 votes at the 2007 election would be 3500 short of Davies potential vote, even if the UKIP and Independents of the 2003 election voted for Labour poor old Jeff would be 800 votes short, assuming everything was equal in terms of turnout.
Lindsay Whittle the previous candidate and long standing PC supporter, must be feeling pretty miffed at the moment, being replaced by Davies tripping from party to party, could the usurper be the weak link in Plaid strategy.
So how do we keep the separatists out of Caerphilly and the Assembly, well this Conservative and his family will be lending J.C. our vote, I will try to convince other Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to do likewise, but what will Labour be doing in Caerphilly to prevent PC becoming leaders at the Assembly …..
With regard to forming coalitions or agreements, there is the option of minority government, it does work, it is quite amazing how much common ground exists amongst the Group of Three in Welsh politics.
“Lindsay Whittle the previous candidate and long standing PC supporter, must be feeling pretty miffed at the moment, being replaced by Davies tripping from party to party, could the usurper be the weak link in Plaid strategy.”
I do wonder whether you are a Viz character or a plant sent to us Plaidees to keep us in funny inaccurate comments? This comically inaccurate comment is another to add to the list.
I don’t accept that Ron + Plaid’s vote is some simple equation. And Ron has not secured the nomination yet.
“So how do we keep the separatists out of Caerphilly and the Assembly, well this Conservative and his family will be lending J.C. our vote, I will try to convince other Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to do likewise”
Well, given you are part of that brilliantly successful True Wales group, I will delay judgement on your powers of persuasion.
Mr Whittle is fully onboard with Ron Davies getting a Plaid seat (if he is nominated, and if he wins). He is a pragmatist, and unfortunately knows that, even though Caerffili is a Plaid council (only just!) it will take someone like Ron to make major inroads against Labour in Caerphilly/Islwyn. Unlike Labour, Tory or Libdems, Plaidies tend to want what’s best for the Party/Country. Which means personal ambition taking a backseat sometimes – how revolutionary in this day and age!
And that’s a tenner he owes me
Mr Warner
Former Welsh Secretary Ron Davies is expected to stand for Plaid Cymru in next year’s assembly election, BBC Wales understands.
While the ex-Labour MP has yet to be formally selected, the BBC understands that he is the only candidate seeking nomination for Plaid in the Caerphilly seat.
… found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10563779
Does this make the BBC viz itself.
“Because if some parties declare and others hide behind closed doors, it simply will not work. Peter Hain has misled the public in previous elections about Plaid Cymru working with the Tories, while the media has failed to scrutinise him on how he can justify this, or on what Labour’s plans are post election.”
That’s the key point- unless everyone does it, unanimously, it won’t work.
We could also remember Hain “ruling out” any possibility of a Labour-Plaid coalition. He was proven wrong, but people could have based their vote on trusting what he said at the time (more fool them I suppose).
There would have to be an unprecedented level of honesty and maturity in political debate for Adam’s call to be realised.
I believe the tainting of our Welsh democracy with Westminster partisan dynamics prevents such a maturity from being attained, because Westminster politicians such as Hain (who really, is just doing his job) will inevitably still be involved at Assembly elections, and the Assembly narrative (for Labour at least) will be shaped by Westminster proceedings.
Only a distinct break from Westminster politics could allow Adam’s mature, pluralistic democracy to come into being.
Adam, this is a master work. Unfortunately it is one of fiction.
Illtyd wrote: “Only a distinct break from Westminster politics could allow Adam’s mature, pluralistic democracy to come into being.”
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with Westminster culture alone and everything to do with the way political parties in Wales and the UK behave at every level.
Bethan wrote: “Yes, coalitions are here to stay, but perhaps it’s the media obsession with the post election make up DURING the election campaign that makes things all the more difficult for political parties.”
Am inclined to agree. It also saves the media having to spend time scrutinising policy and platforms properly.
She also wrote: “However, I do have some sympathy for voters in all of this, and for those seeking to bear influence upon party manifestos. We have to be clear to third sector organisations and charities now, that while many of their policies may appear in individual party manifesto’s, that when it comes to post election coalition deals, they may have to re-start their lobbying, or accept that their ideas will just not appear in the final coalition document…”
A fair point, but one which behoves a point to anyone seeking to get ideas into manifestos – and it’s not just third sector organisations which do this – that their best chance is to try and get the same idea into several or a range of ideas into different ones.
Having said that, you can sometimes end up with a government policy that doesn’t come from any manifesto of a party that forms that government. The AV referendum is the classic case in point – it was a Labour policy, not a Plaid or Conservative one. All of which makes Adam’s approach even more difficult to navigate if some of the dishes that end up being served have been stolen from the restaurant next door.
Adam,
A fascinating concept that is worthy of further development, but one I fear that from which all the four parties will retreat – after all mudslinging is much easier and require less thought than sound policy development.
Looking at our European neighbours where coalitions have been a way of life for many years, I believe that all parties campaign of their own policies but the electorate do have previous experience of what various combinations of coalitions may achieve. This can lead to government instability when a party withdraws from a coalition, and a proliferation of parties – Italy and Holland have at least 10 each with elected members.
To elaborate on your theme, it would be good if the parties could focus on say their top five main policies and expound them in detail for 2011 and 2015, as four years may be too short a time to enact and see to fruition the long-lasting changes required in our current situation.. Wales main priorities must be economy and jobs, education, health, infrastructure and housing. All others are peripheral.This would of course require a full economic case for each policy and for eight years.
However, do the parties have people who are both capable and competent and with the radical vision to plot and set out the new courses needed to bring a certainty of hope to the electorate?
Here I fear that most current Welsh politicians at Assembly and local levels and their civil servants would struggle to be selected for Division 2, let alone the Premier League. But I have noticed a few radical young bright sparks who appear to have the enthusiasm and freedom of thought required. Let’s hope that they are not crushed by the slumbering dinosaurs at the heart of their parties.
Marcus
“a bit naive surely”
Maybe. It’s certainly idealistic. No apologies for that.
The charge of naivety is a very easy response to any challenge to the status quo. And the trouble is that the status quo will erode trust in Welsh politics.
Of course other parties would try and make hay over pre-election dalliances. That should be part of the process of voters making their mind up – the parties in question would be scrutinised about their intentions and could defend them publicly. If the parties think a rainbow alliance, for example, is good for Wales why shouldn’t they account for that to the voters?
The alternative is what we have at present: each of the parties carrying on like the others are “baby drowners” only to promptly decide, post-election, that some of them are actually jolly fine chaps after all.
“The onus of this article is aimed at the Tories/Lib Dems/Plaid”
No it’s not. It’s aimed at the collective pretence among all the parties (and, to a lesser extent, the media) that there will be a single winner and that anything short of that is some massive surprise for which nobody planned. Voters deserve a more honest and open appraisal.
Adam,
I have written a bit more on my own blog, highlighting the passion and indeed the need for people to put such arguments. This is an excellent article.
My comment about which party it is aimed at was based on that fact your were at pains to make clear which three parties will definitely NOT get a majority – those parties are Lib Dem/Plaid/Tories.
Can I ask, when you were a party manager, did you put forward this argument and how was it received?
My own example was that when I was a Labour member I put forward the idea of a pre election pact taken to it’s logical conclusion at the ballot box – that in South East Wales, Labour’s voters would be better served using their regional vote tactically for it’s preferred coalition partners…
It went down like a lead balloon frankly.
“Here I fear that most current Welsh politicians at Assembly and local levels and their civil servants would struggle to be selected for Division 2, let alone the Premier League. ”
I always hear that remark, but struggle to see how it is true. What scale are we rating AMs on? What constitutes Premier League? MPs perhaps? Don’t make me laugh!
Because there is never any justification for it, I often believe it’s more of an anti-devolution slur or a suggestion that distinctively Welsh politicians can’t possibly be “good” because they’re Welsh.
Yes there are “poor” or invisible AMs but there are also very talented ones.
2011 is the first post coalition election which once again means that we are in uncharted waters. The existence of the Westminster coalition also limits what could happen after the election. Given the effect of the comprehensive spending review on the Assembly’s budget the idea of a Rainbow coalition or even a Labour/ Liberal Democrat agreement are probably non starters.
This leaves only three possible outcomes. A Labour majority government, a Labour minority government and a continuation of the One Wales mark 2. Labour will probably want to go for the majority option given the opinion polls. There will be policy intiatives but the main thrust will be the anti Tory and now anti Liberal Democrat strategy which was very successful in the 1980s and worked on May 6th in many parts of Wales. The name of the game in an election with traditionally a low turnout is to galvanise the workers and get the core vote out. Look at Huw Irranca-Davies’s letter in today’s Western Mail as an opening shot in this stratgey There will be some policy intiatives but these will only really interest the anoraks not the voters. The name of the game for the Labour Party everywhere in the UK on May 5 th ( there are elections in 84% of English local authorities as well as Scotland and Wales) is to turn super Thursday into the people’s verdict on the slash and burn policies of the Westminster coalition. The problem of course for Labour is that the electoral system makes it very difficult but not impossible to win a majority on just the FPTP seats. I say difficult but not impossible because we have never had an Assembly election when there hasn’t been a Labour government in Westminster. What Labour hopes is that voters return to the voting patterns of Welsh politics between 1987 and 1997. If that happens we could have some very interesting results. How will voters in the Vale, for example, react to the Tory council’s intention to cut £9.2 million off its 2011/ 12 budget? Could Labour make a comeback both in West Wales and in seats such as Cardiff North and even Monmouthshire? On a good day and with the right organisation and a new invigorated national Labour Party under a new Leader anything is possible.
For Plaid all of the above causes a real problem particularly given that most Welsh voters will be influenced by the UK media which will see May 5th 2011 as the first test for the Westminster Coalition. It will be interesting to see what sort of strategy will Plaid adopt in this environment. They can’t attack the Assembly budget and its effect on services in Wales because they would have agreed to it. Without the support of Plaid AMs it will not have got through the Assembly. In many parts of Wales Plaid’s main opponent and the party holding up the possibility of a Plaid breakthrough will be the Labour Party. Given the vote on May 6 th this year Plaid will probably hope to do quite well in areas such as Cynon Valley, Rhondda and Neath. I suppose they could adopt the tactic of turning the election in these areas which have Labour councils as a referendum on the performance of the Council. The danger of course with this is that it further alienates Labour activists who will a have a say in the continuation of the One Wales coalition after May 5 th. I’m sure that there will be many in Plaid who will argue with the referendum out of the way that the long term aim of the party of replacing Labour as the main party of Wales might be better served in opposition. Although a referendum held in March could also have a negative effect on the morale of Plaid. This is because even if there is a ‘yes’ vote it has to be a convincing one and given the level of interest at present that might be a tall order.
For the Liberal Democrats next May 5 th is very much a damage limitation exercise at this early stage of the Westminster coalition. In areas such as Swansea , Cardiff, Wrexham and Newport where they are involved in running the council the aim will be to blame the One Wales coalition for the effect of the cuts on local services. The real danger is that their vote could collapse in many areas. Cardiff Central with a new candidate who could possibly be the present council leader could be agood indication of whether the Liberal Democrat vote will hold up or not.
For the Tories it is an easy election. The aim is to build on what happened on May 6th this year. Their aim will be to benefit as well from a possible collapse of the LIberal Democrat vote and opinion poll findings which show that many people believe that the cutbacks are unavoidable and necessary. The Left in Wales often underestimate the strength of the core Tory vote. In Ogmore, for example, the 6000 odd Tory vote might not win you the FPTP seat but it does win one of the regional seats. The Tories will be after that second regional seat next year. They also have the advantage of not controlling councils in most of Wales. With Council tax being frozen in England they will use any Labour or Plaid council tax increase as a means of attacking both parties at an Assembly level. Some Labour Councils including Bridgend are already talking of another 5% increase. I can see the Tory core vote holding up next year as politics polarises once again as a result of the Age of Austerity.
I’ve already mentioned above the powers referendum. No one knows what effect this could have on an election which could be held just a few weeks later. A thumping ‘yes’ vote could give a real boost to both Plaid and Labour. But what if voters react against the cross party ‘yes’ campaign either by not bothering to vote or seeing it as a chance to give the Welsh political class a bloody nose?
In 1914 as he looked out of a train on Battersea Churchill turned to the owner of the News of the World and said looking at the houses ‘ I wonder what they really think?’ By ‘they’ he meant ordinary people. For many of the Welsh political class this is the problem because they are in the same position. Hence the lack of confidence in arguing strongly for a ‘yes’ vote and the lukewarm response to the logical argument of Holtham that tax raising powers are essential for accountability. Given the low turnouts in the past and the fact that we have only ever had Assembly elections under Labour governments at Westminster no one can quite certain what will happen on May 5th.
Illtyd Luke
I can only speak as I have found in my dealings with the Assembly, WAG and several LAs and have made similar remarks regarding Westminster -so please do not take this as being anti-Welsh.
Please recognise that I used the word “Most” as I recognise there are some AMs and aspiring AMs that are talented as there are some excellent WAG employees.
It would appear though that due diligence has been lacking at Cardiff Bay as BBC Wales reports, “A scathing attack on the way the Welsh Assembly Government has run its economy and transport department has been made in the wake of an internal audit.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10702611. This follows on from the projected 250-300 redundancies that are to be made in the same WAG department.
As your knowledge of the AMs and potential AMs is greater than mine, it would be interesting to know which, in your opinion, have the capability, competence and radical vision to work TOGETHER in a coalition to get Wales out of its current, very serious problems over the next eight years.
All
Thanks for your responses. I’m particularly grateful to Bethan for recognising the problem I was trying to describe. Welcome to the comments section. Also thanks to Marcus for his generous comments on his own site.
The thing that strikes me in many of the objections is the notion that any move towards a more open pre-election discussion of post-election coalitions would require extraordinary self-sacrifice by the parties and/or some binding agreement that everyone shows their hands at the same time. I disagree that this needs to be so.
All it really requires is for the parties to stop treating voters as if they are twp. They would be free to campaign to attempt to secure a majority – the option exists for all parties fielding enough candidates, after all. Bethan is rights that there is nothing wrong with individual aspiration. What is wrong is, essentially, not being straight with the voters by pretending that no other option than outright victory is even being considered.
The real difference I’m advocating is that parties should be prepared to be more candid about how they might respond if they failed in such a task. Would they recuse themselves from government altogether? Would they be prepared to do a deal with Party B? Would they rule out a deal with Party C? What policies would they insist on as part of a potential deal? What might be open for discussion?
This is not a seismic shift, it is merely acknowledging the balance of probabilities. Rather than being penalised for acting like this unilaterally, I suspect there might even be a “first mover’s advantage” whereby the voter responded positively to the party that was most honest about what it would do in the highly likely outcome of a hung Senedd.
Daran says that the AV example complicates my case. In fact, it strengthens it. Neither party offered the electorate a referendum on AV, yet it is now a policy that could possibly bring down the government. How is that in any way reflective of the voters’ intention? Where is the mandate for such a reform? It simply does not exist (with that in mind, one wonders whether the Salisbury convention could apply).
Financier- “As your knowledge of the AMs and potential AMs is greater than mine, it would be interesting to know which, in your opinion, have the capability, competence and radical vision to work TOGETHER in a coalition to get Wales out of its current, very serious problems over the next eight years.”
I am a realist and do not believe any AMs no matter what their ability could get Wales out of the ‘very serious’ problems that face our country. Such actions would have to come from whoever controls the real levers of power, particularly fiscally. Ieuan Wyn Jones for example doesn’t have as much impact on the Welsh economy as George Osborne does.
I think the Welsh Government is restricted to deciding certain policy outcomes in the devolved fields- so I do think alot can be done, but even on alot of what we’d consider to be ‘devolved’ issues (the referendum for example) you’ve got to get permission from Westminster.
That said, I think a number of AMs have “performed well” (though I dislike that term) in the current coalition, steering Wales through very troubled seas, providing services that are generally efficient, and continuing the development of Welsh political sovereignty. I also think there are a number of opposition AMs who do a good job of scrutinising the Welsh Government and attempting to communicate their work to the wider public (a hard task considering the absence of a national Welsh media).
The focus should not be on increasing pre-election love-ins, since that would only serve to water down the whole nature of the election itself, in an age where parties are too alike as it is! Radical thinking would surely be abandoned in a bland search for a middle ground pre-coalition position.
Rather the focus should be on the post-election coalition talks, and how to make these as voter-friendly and democratic as possible. Why couldn’t Wales lead the way here and nullify the “smoke filled backroom deals” argument peddled by those against coalition politics, with a genuinely voter-friendly approach. For example, parties involved in the coalition talks could create specific coalition websites where members could be regularly informed about the coalition talks and allowed to contribute to those talks in a really meaningful and interactive fashion. Or what about establishing democratic forums in different parts of Wales, which could include interactive wall screens to allow individuals to contribute directly to the whole process, Supporters and “interested” individuals could also be encouraged to participate, rather like the “American primaries” that Adam Price , amongst others, has been pushing for the selection of Plaid candidates in future. Such talks could add to the democratic process and involve the Welsh public in the choice of their government a way which has never been seen before.
Aled
You raise a good objection to a pre-election deal or reveal. And I do touch upon some of the post-election engagement you talk about in the article. The problem with your approach, if I may suggest, is that it is all somewhat after the fact. I wonder how “meaningful” this sort of activity can really be if it is at best consultative and at worst cosmetic. The vote, I think, needs to have real input into the final choice and composition of a coalition. A ratificatory or listening exercise, sadly, does not deliver this.
Adam wrote: “Daran says that the AV example complicates my case. In fact, it strengthens it. Neither party offered the electorate a referendum on AV, yet it is now a policy that could possibly bring down the government. How is that in any way reflective of the voters’ intention? Where is the mandate for such a reform? It simply does not exist (with that in mind, one wonders whether the Salisbury convention could apply).”
And much as it pains me to say it, I think he may be right
The diluting of policy is a major hurdle, and parties would be reduced to offering a platform etched in ‘what others would accept’.
The media would just say “Well, Party X, the party you are looking to work with, won’t accept this.”. I would imagine this may well had been the case with Plaid calling for another referendum in 2007. No one in Labour, pre election, would have accepted it.
To me radical ideas can quickly become mainstream ideas when other parties are back against the wall. How many Labour people said ‘well if we don’t accept One Wales, we are out of Government’? But what would have happened if Labour ruled out ANY referendum on further powers as a red line issue prior to the election?
You need a degree of flexibility because of electoral arithmetic – some seats are won on the finest of margins, refuseniks for certain deals could not get elected etc.
“you need a degree of flexibility”
Of course. It’s for parties to be smart about their real red lines, an exercise that will be illuminating to the voter. If Labour did feel very strongly against a referendum don’t the voters deserve to know before voting?
” If Labour did feel very strongly against a referendum don’t the voters deserve to know before voting?”
Yes – but surely voters understand that a range of opinions exist within parties, or indeed that you don’t vote for the verbatim manifesto?
An example would be why more people vote for Plaid than support independence, if the polling is led to be believed. Perhaps a fair staging post would be for parties to publicly accept that coalition is likely, and that no party will get their manifesto through 100%. That would take politics, the media and dare I say it the voter to mature. The problem is that that maturity never happens because there will always be a talking head from another party, or a media outlet to focus on the negative and tame any sense of political maturity.
Consider the Lib Dem Chief Exec who said what was pretty honest – that it was unlikely that they would be in power in 2011. She was lambasted by Plaid and Labour for essentially telling the truth and planning for a likely outcome.
I think so far in UK politics many coalitions have come about through necessity. Labour’s seat numbers dropped too low for a credible minority government in 2007, unless you live in Peter Black’s tie rack the Lib Dems chose opposition, Plaid and Labour realised that One Wales was a necessity – for plaid the referendum, for Labour being in Government.
Now this may mature was we get used to coalitions. Indeed, I think Plaid need to do some serious thinking about what party we are trying to be in terms of being in Government alongside Labour, or outside as the alternative to Labour, or perhaps both or none of them at different times. But I sense for a good while yet, the novelty of coalitions will continue unchecked and unmatured.
How about when it comes to voting as well as a list of candidates on the ballot form, alongside each candidate is a list of five of their party’s priority policies . In addition to voting for their candidate of choice voters choose a maximum of three policies from each party’s list that they either do or could support.
In any coalition negotiations parties take these voter preferences into account and after negotiations are complete we can assess how well the politicians have done to produce a programme of government that reflects the wishes of the electorate.
I’m not suggesting this particular method is the answer it’s just an way for a coalition to 1, identify more accurately what the electorate wants and 2. maybe for the electorate to get an idea of the extent that parties are looking after their own and the electorate’s interests.
I think given coalition politics 1. and 2. are important enough for us to look for ways at getting more information on the electorate’s views than we get through a straight forward ballot now .