Caught on the horns of a nationalist dilemma
Bubble — By Duncan Higgitt on January 25, 2012 11:00 am
Land of our fathers, flags of our fathers
THE consequences of the constitutional earthquake that Alex Salmond has set loose and which will climax today (at least for the time being) has provided a couple of grab-popcorn weeks for those in the nationalist community here in Wales.
Rather than turn their fire on Plaid and demand: “Is this what you want?” (although, as ever, they already know the answer), events north of the Scottish border – and in London, it must be added – have been used as a platform for unionist parties here in Wales to stand upon while spluttering their gravest indignation at the SNP’s fiendish plotting.
This is all to be expected from the Conservatives. While they may have campaigned against the Assembly in 1997 but for primary powers in 2011, they at least appear consistent in setting out what they believe should be the relationship between Wales and the rest of the UK.
Labour have been much more fun to watch. Excuse the schadenfreude, but the Welsh branch have spent the past two weeks acting for all the world like a man suddenly come to his senses after leaving his wife for a racy mistress that proved too hot to handle, and who now understands the need to repent as if his life depended upon it.
Discontent over Carwyn’s nationalist-lite approach, which ran under the headline “Standing up for Wales”, has rumbled on for some time now. We know questions over cosying up with Plaid, of going native, existed for the duration of the One-Wales Government. Then there was the former Welsh Secretary blown hot and cold at the start of the Welsh General Election campaign, leading to at least one severely embarrassing press conference for the First Minister and the observation from an old journalist friend that Peter Hain was “the gift that keeps on giving – for you and for me”.
Mr Hain relishes his role as nationalist bogeyman, but he has remained relatively muted in recent weeks, leaving the running to AMs such as Mick Antoniw, who took several leaps forward in suggesting on this site what dire consequences might befall this country were the Scots to head to the UK’s departure lounge. It all seemed a little OTT, a view reflected in the comments below the piece, including those from Labour stalwarts. But then Mr Antoniw is merely echoing the same kind of wild-eyed warnings his colleagues have been making in the Siambr recently. As such, one could be forgiven for concluding that there is a feeling abroad among the party faithful that things have gotten out of hand.
But therein lies the rub. Labour had a good election on it. Sure, even with a fair anti-austerity wind behind them, they limped over the finish line. But it was enough to form a government. At the back of the ministers’ minds must be the question of what the electorate really wants. It’s easy for politicians to say: “The people have spoken.” But what the voter says is restricted to a yes or a no. It would be so much handier for party strategists if there was a “because” option.
On the face of it, Labour is looking at three possibilities. Firstly, there is the folk memory theory. Broadly, that Labour has always spoken for Wales and no one who can recall the 1980s could possibly vote Tory (although, fact fans, Labour governments closed more pits in Wales).
Secondly, there is the argument of the sophisticated electorate, which likes the balance between a Conservative administration in London and a Welsh Government headed by Labour in Cardiff.
Lastly, there is the possibility of the evolving voter, whose presumed scepticism regarding governance of Wales from Wales has dissipated, and who truly signs up to a Welsh solution to Welsh problems.
This clearly represents the biggest headache for Labour because, after all, how far is too far? What would be risked internally, in terms of unity, by being seen to appease an apparent devolution hungry? Labour tells us, fairly regularly, that somewhere between just 10 and 14% of people in Wales support full independence. But as this SNP debate has shown – indeed, as this Plaid leadership has also demonstrated – independence, full sovereign status (call it what you want to call it) is an area in which there are many, many shades of grey.
Heaping pressure upon this third scenario is a divorce in outlook from the London-based leadership. Little was made of Carwyn’s refuting of the Miliband-Balls support for austerity measures, but this really is a fix for a Welsh Government that has to attribute its electoral popularity to standing against the cuts. The First Minister really was left with little choice.
Labour has borrowed a good many ideas from Plaid. So far, this prospect of a more avowedly Welsh Labour has been painted as an issue that is only vexatious to Plaid. But fortunes turn on a pinhead in politics, particularly as its currency is ideas. Electorates grow ever more fickle. Traditional relationships come second place to what a party can do for the voter.
Lastly, it’s perhaps worth pointing out that if none of this is an issue, if Labour is not bothered by a shifting floor – or the potential for one – then why has the Welsh Government rolled out a list of achievements so early into its term?
Something is troubling Labour. It now falls to the opposition parties to find out what.
Tags: Assembly, independence, Labour, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Welsh Government
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
20 Comments
I don’t think any of the parties made it clear what we were voting for last May. Sure there were headling-grabbing policies like Plaid’s Build for Wales, the Welsh Tory’s desire for a million Welsh speakers by 20XX etc. Westminster issues were dragged into that campaign – “sending the baby-eating, mine-closing Tories a message” – so it’s logical that when Labour won they would continue it. Near the top of the list in Westminster is Scottish independence, so Carwyn needs to be seen to have his say on it. He needs to link himself and Welsh Labour in with the UK mainstream and not appear to be a government that can only function when Labour are in power at both ends of the M4.
As a “First Minister” – a figurehead for Wales on the UK and global stage – I actually think Carwyn’s done a fairly decent job so far this term. It’s when you look at all the areas he and his ministers are *actually responsible for* that things break down. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Labour “haven’t done anything”, that’s silly even, but this “Delivering for Wales” thing reeks of a Miliband-esque “relaunch”.
The UK is heading into uncharted constitutional waters. And because there are no charts, there is no telling where we’ll land.
History throws up countless examples of unpredicted developments resulting in leaders and peoples finding themselves in positions they would have thought impossible just a few years earlier. And telling us to be careful what we wish for.
When the States of the Deep South started seceding in 1861 Robert E Lee was offered command of the Union armies. In the late 1950s the French in Algeria clamoured for de Gaulle, believing he would keep Algeria French. More recently, Slobodan Milosevic was never a Serbian nationalist, he was just playing the only role left him.
All summed up by SuperMac: “Events, Dear boy”.
Well written piece Duncan. One thing is for sure, whatever the Scots decide it will have a massive effect on the rest of the UK and that fact is beginning to resonate not only in Wales and Northern Ireland but increasingly England. The right wing press in England and various unionists in Wales have played the “Benefit Junkie Celtic fringe” so many times that they have provoked a reaction in England.
I have often felt that defenders of the union have relied far too much on the fear factor in relation to the potential Independence of Wales and Scotland. In highlighting the supposed dependency on England in trying to influence the Welsh and Scots to vote in favour of the union, they have provoked an opposite reaction in at least some English voters.
In so doing, they may well have released a far more potent force in the debate about the future of the UK. If as seems the case a majority of English people want their own parliament it is only a matter of time before the Union disintegrates. In the future we may well toast the likes of True Wales and other Unionists as at the involuntary advocates of the break up of the Union.
“If as seems the case the majority of English people want their own parliament”. The problem is that they don’t as anyone who reads the short IPPR report can see from the tables. Fewer people want an English parliament now than in 2009. What they don’t like is the idea of MPs from Scotland and Wales voting on laws which do not have any effect on their own constituents. The problem with the IPPR report is that it tries to produce an ‘English ‘ response when it is clear given the attitude from respondents in the North and the Midlands towards London and the South East that attitudes in England are probably a little more complex than reducing politics down to basically the old Home Nations Soccer series. As I’ve said in an earlier post to a very OTT article some people are getting a little over excited because the UK government has decided to call Salmond’s bluff. Most people in the UK have more important issues to worry about at the moment than whether or not the Scots will vote yes to independence.
The problem for the Labour Party is that devolution in Scotland,and to lesser extent Wales was to “dish ” the NATS,and unfortunately the reverse has happened,as often does in the political world. There can be no doubt that the “wiring” of England/Scotland and Wales is very different,however the UK has survived because of pragmatism and an electoral system that gave power to centre right and centre left parties,who operated in a very similar manner,like spending 40% of gdp on welfare. If the enlish are seperated by scots,then the way they view the world will result in massive changes to a much more individualist sort of society/sound money etc and they could reconquer the world in economic terms. We in wales would be faced with old labour/nationalist suporemacy in government,without the income or cpacity to grow.The “tensions” between the really affluent and poor would exacerbate as who really votes for more taxes,or diverting public money to the poor at their own expense. We are currently absolved of these problems because of funding over over the income we generate,and in particular the private sector.I have come to the conclusion that “devolution” is a Treasury inspired device so create the seperation of UK,and then the prosperous and innovative part can be allowed to develop without the dead hand of the celtic minority.
Are we going to see bands of Labour AMs travelling up to Scotland to add their support to the main Unionist force. A force many Scots already see as the Blue Tories and the Red Tories (Labour).
Who knows by 2014 Milliband’s Labour might appear to be rather strange compatriots for Welsh Labour never mind Cameron’s Bullingdon gang.
CapM – Miliband’s Labour? Don’t you mean Ed Ball’s Labour?
Most polls I’ve seen show that English people want a Parliament. Don’t think it’s likely that they will get one though.
“Most polls I’ve seen show that English people want a Parliament.” True, but the percentage is falling I think; 68% in 2010 52% in 2012.( The problem is that each separate poll asks a slightly different question or gives a different set of potential answers.)
I’m interested in how people view the “Fear Factor” (Cai above). I think that he is right in saying that depicting Wales (particularly)as dependent on England has resonated with the predominently Tory English. But what effect does this have on Welsh voters? Some certainly concentrate on Wales alleged inability to be financially independent but these are the same people who complain about the Assembly’s inability to govern effectively and the same people who voted against further devolution and I suspect are mostly Tory voters themselves. I have said before that the desire for independence is not a nicely balanced financial consideration; it is an emotional position based on identification with place and culture and which seeks out differences with other nations. So the question has to be “How do people who vote Labour see themselves?” and how does the population of Wales as a whole see itself?
Duncan disingenuously asks “if Labour is not bothered by a shifting floor – or the potential for one – then why has the Welsh Government rolled out a list of achievements so early into its term?”.
Since Plaid and other opposition parties have been whingeing for months that the Labour Welsh Government was failing to deliver, it’s a bit rich that when the First Minister highlights his Government’s achievements so far, he gets criticised for that too.
I know the Scottish issue is very exciting for some, particularly Plaid, people. But as Jeff suggests, for most of us, it’s the economy, stupid.
And it might be that Carwyn’s press conference has more to do with real politics in the here and now (what with local elections on the horizon), than with excitable speculation about future constitutional scenarios.
Wales Labour politicians just want OBE’s and knighthoods. They’re are in power for themselves not for the best deal for the people of Wales
Go on, Steve, I’ll bite.
How many Welsh Labour politicians have OBEs or knighthoods? What proportion of Welsh Labour politicians have these honours? If (as we know it is) this proportion is very low, why would Welsh Labour politicians want these awards when they know the likelihood of receiving them is so slim?
In what way are Welsh Labour politicians “in power for themselves”. In what ways do Welsh Labour politicians benefit themselves by being in power?
Could it be that your dismissal of Welsh Labour politicians is informed by their definition of what is “the best deal for the people od Wales”, which differs from your own?
The low likeleyhood of getting something doesn’t necessarily diminish the desire to have it. It’s a bit lazy however to paint all New Labour MPs in that way
I was compiling a list of Welsh life peers, and was to expand into Welsh honours, but somewhat lost interest after 2006. I did not differentiate between Labour or Conservative in the list, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_peers#Welsh_life_peers
“It’s a bit lazy however to paint all New Labour MPs in that way”.
How many Welsh Labour MPs would describe themselves as ‘New Labour’? I know some opponents of Welsh Labour like to tar all of the party’s politicians with the ‘New Labour’ brush. But that’s more to shore up their own sense of moral superiority than to describe accurately the Welsh Labour person’s affiliation.
Let me point out that at no point does this piece address any issues concerning the personal ambitions or motivations of Labour politicians. Instead (and slightly mischieviously, as Gez discerns) it examines a potential strategic headache for the party in Wales. I’d prefer we stayed on that subject rather than get personal, particularly as it is an area of speculation which no one can really comment upon with proper authority.
Regarding Gez’s points. This piece came out of something Mick Antoniw wrote for WalesHome and as a consequence of comments regarding the union made by Labour AMs in the Siambr. So it isn’t just Plaid people that find this important.
Regarding the economy, two things are worth mentioning. Firstly, it is possible not only to have concern for a number of policy areas at one time, from a nationalist point of view we often see these two issues as linked. In short, we believe there is a solution to our economic woes through independence.
Secondly, I have seen with my own eyes how Labour-supporting unions have used opposition to the cuts to further their own political ends, most commonly in denying a platform to Plaid politicians at rallies while allowing their opposite numbers the opportunity to address protesters. That is straightforward, cynical politicking and, given the gravity of the issue, nigh-on unforgiveable. Evidence available upon request.
Lastly, regarding the Welsh Government’s achievements, we’ll have to agree to disagree on what we consider an achievement, I’m afraid.
“How many Welsh Labour MPs would describe themselves as ‘New Labour’? I know some opponents of Welsh Labour like to tar all of the party’s politicians with the ‘New Labour’ brush. But that’s more to shore up their own sense of moral superiority than to describe accurately the Welsh Labour person’s affiliation.”
I didn’t know there were different affiliations. What are they all?
Duncan makes some valid points (apart from his very last one, obvs).
He further says “I have seen with my own eyes how Labour-supporting unions have used opposition to the cuts to further their own political ends, most commonly in denying a platform to Plaid politicians at rallies while allowing their opposite numbers the opportunity to address protesters. That is straightforward, cynical politicking”.
I don’t dispute this (except to split hairs and suggest it may have been individual officers of those unions, rather than unions as such). But what have “Labour-supporting unions” to do with my points?
I’ll happily concede the point about officers. What this has to do is that Gez says it’s about the economy, stupid. Clearly it isn’t for those officers – certainly not as a first priority.
Well, Duncan, I’d say -
1) though I can’t speak for those trade union officers you believe were antagonistic towards Plaid speakers – that antagonism doesn’t necessarily mean that for them, the economy wasn’t the first priority. It *might* mean that they saw representing their members’ economic interests as better articulated by Plaid speakers’ “opposite numbers”. (Not an approach I necessarily endorse here, btw).
2) More generally, I think it’s clouding the issue of Welsh Labour’s policies, approach – or personnel – to cite certain officers of Labour-affiliated trade unions and their apparent anti-Plaid bias, in a discussion about “a potential strategic headache for the party in Wales”. I can quite understand why Duncan feels strongly about it: just don’t think it’s necessarily useful.