I have decided to bring this blog to an end. There are three reasons for this, which I now share with you.
I blog about Welsh politics to write about issues I find interesting and important. I also started with a notion that regular output might stimulate an original idea for a more substantial piece of work, possibly academic in nature. I have alighted on such an idea. It may never bear fruit in other than vanity form (and I’m not above that, as the existence of this site attests) but I think it will meet those creative urges that are currently met here. In any case, to give it a serious try I have to devote to it the time that I currently spend blogging.
The second reason is indirectly connected to yet another round of innuendo regarding my true identity (which also echoes comments sent to me directly in various form). Contrary to such innuendo I am not in breach of any guidelines relating to my employment, nor am I a civil servant. In fact, I have explicitly gained written approval from my employer to maintain both this blog and my Golwg column. What is clear, however, is that it is no longer tenable for me to continue to blog without the question of who I am persistently clouding what I say. I take that to be very largely my fault, for not setting out arguments that people feel are worth responding to on their merits alone.
Finally, I have found that I have occasional direct contact with people connected to this blog's subject in a way that I did not anticipate when I started. Although I have never abused my position in those dealings I nevertheless find myself questioning the ethics of this double existence.
I have toyed with stopping blogging for some time, but the decision to bring things to a close is fairly sudden. I have therefore yet to discuss the future of my Golwg column with my editor, and leave the question of its continuation open. For this blog, however, this post is the final one. Despite the above difficulties, my experience in the Welsh blogosphere has been overwhelmingly positive. It is a vibrant, open forum with a plurality of voices worth listening to, many of whom also choose to speak pseudonymously. I very much hope that they will be permitted to continue to do so.
I thank all those who have stopped by to either read or comment on my thoughts in the spirit of spirited debate. You very nearly made it all worthwhile.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
They get the pressure they don't deserve
This appears in this week's Golwg:
One would have to have a cold heart to be unmoved by the plight of Tom Bullough, declared winner of the Wales book prize, only to be told en route to the platform that he was in fact just runner-up.
My fellow-feeling, however, goes to Culture Minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas, whose embarrassment at wrongly naming Bullough stemmed not from his discomfit at being seen to mess up, but from his knowledge that his mistake had caused another person such anguish.
It is ironic that we only glimpse the humanity of our politicians when the script goes awry. Most of the time the treadmill to which they are subjected prevents any revelation of the person beneath. Senior politicians often appear more a grim hybrid dancing bear-pit pony than those entrusted with society's biggest decisions.
Ministers get a particularly tough time. Handed prepared speeches minutes before delivering them, they are then whisked away to the next engagement, a briefing delivered in a bumpy 10 minute car ride, before being thrust into a new crowd of expectant people. Lunch gets forgotten and at the end of the - typically very long day – a pile of briefings are handed over, to be processed overnight. Few people appreciate the relentlessness of this lifestyle, nor what is needed to sustain oneself in it. I recall watching Tony Blair literally swaying with exhaustion in 1998, minutes before marching onstage and delivering a cracking speech. His reward was to be hustled off stage into a car and to the airport.
Politicians receive no recognition or sympathy for this grind. The rewards for holding office - in job satisfaction if not in remuneration - are immense, so there is no shortage of volunteers waiting to fill the shoes of those who buckle or err. This basic supply-demand mismatch means a buyers' market in which we voters can demand the superhuman.
Since politicians not actually superhumans, we punish remorselessly their inevitable human failings. Alun Cairns is presently finding this out, although one hopes the Tories will regain their sanity and readopt him as their Vale of Glamorgan candidate. Given this febrile backdrop it is perhaps no surprise that Labour’s favoured son for the Glasgow East by-election decided it wasn’t worth it.
Most people remain indifferent to these casualties of political pressure, while at the same time complaining that their elected representatives are insincere, self-serving automatons. This cynical self-fulfilling complicity affirms the old cliché that we get the politicians we deserve.
One would have to have a cold heart to be unmoved by the plight of Tom Bullough, declared winner of the Wales book prize, only to be told en route to the platform that he was in fact just runner-up.
My fellow-feeling, however, goes to Culture Minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas, whose embarrassment at wrongly naming Bullough stemmed not from his discomfit at being seen to mess up, but from his knowledge that his mistake had caused another person such anguish.
It is ironic that we only glimpse the humanity of our politicians when the script goes awry. Most of the time the treadmill to which they are subjected prevents any revelation of the person beneath. Senior politicians often appear more a grim hybrid dancing bear-pit pony than those entrusted with society's biggest decisions.
Ministers get a particularly tough time. Handed prepared speeches minutes before delivering them, they are then whisked away to the next engagement, a briefing delivered in a bumpy 10 minute car ride, before being thrust into a new crowd of expectant people. Lunch gets forgotten and at the end of the - typically very long day – a pile of briefings are handed over, to be processed overnight. Few people appreciate the relentlessness of this lifestyle, nor what is needed to sustain oneself in it. I recall watching Tony Blair literally swaying with exhaustion in 1998, minutes before marching onstage and delivering a cracking speech. His reward was to be hustled off stage into a car and to the airport.
Politicians receive no recognition or sympathy for this grind. The rewards for holding office - in job satisfaction if not in remuneration - are immense, so there is no shortage of volunteers waiting to fill the shoes of those who buckle or err. This basic supply-demand mismatch means a buyers' market in which we voters can demand the superhuman.
Since politicians not actually superhumans, we punish remorselessly their inevitable human failings. Alun Cairns is presently finding this out, although one hopes the Tories will regain their sanity and readopt him as their Vale of Glamorgan candidate. Given this febrile backdrop it is perhaps no surprise that Labour’s favoured son for the Glasgow East by-election decided it wasn’t worth it.
Most people remain indifferent to these casualties of political pressure, while at the same time complaining that their elected representatives are insincere, self-serving automatons. This cynical self-fulfilling complicity affirms the old cliché that we get the politicians we deserve.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The one about the bigger picture
A commenter to my previous post asks why I describe Richard Wyn Jones's recent comments as poorly contextualised. I'm happy to expand on that point.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest that Labour should be content with the hollowing out of its membership. I've posited some thoughts before about why card-carrying party membership lacks attraction for many people. It is not an outcome I condone. Mass political movements need a mass.
But it is wrong to describe this as Labour's crisis, for I would be surprised if party membership is not falling right across the board. This is certainly the case for the Tories, who have responded by welcoming supporters as mere “friends”, committing them to nothing more than a one-off £1 donation. Other parties have their own initiatives, particularly via social networking sites. This drift toward loose affiliation rather than regimented membership will surely render obsolete already recherche arguments about which party unit should be the primary point of contact.
Secondly, RWJ's assessment ignores the historically low levels of Labour Party membership in parts of Wales. In 1951, when Labour secured over 81% of the vote in Rhondda East, for example, it did so with fewer than 400 members. I suspect that the ratio of votes to members in that part of the world is probably as high today as it was then. This wasn't a picture repeated in all parts of Wales (Newport had over 3,000 members at that time), but it was common enough in the heartlands Labour seats. Moreover, as the party's grip strengthened in the 1950s and 60s membership actually fell in much of the country.
Although I agree with RWJ that the absence of class rhetoric has changed Welsh Labour's character this element of its historic appeal can be overstated. Labour was at its best when offering the sort of practical policies that RWJ derides. Labour gained when it took control locally and used this power to feed colliers' children, improve housing stock, boost antental health, build bypasses and stimulate inward investment. Its base was nourished less by a recognition that it possessed a coherent ideology and more by the fact that Labour councils were seen to make a better fist of administering the hated poor law than non-Labour ones, or that Labour governments legislated to compensate industrial injuries.
Labour's problems are serious, and it is right that these should attract comment and coverage. Serious commentators like Richard Wyn Jones supply the broader context to these problems. By failing to point out that low and declining membership is both system-wide and not new for Labour, and by belittling the party's practical ideas he didn't do so.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest that Labour should be content with the hollowing out of its membership. I've posited some thoughts before about why card-carrying party membership lacks attraction for many people. It is not an outcome I condone. Mass political movements need a mass.
But it is wrong to describe this as Labour's crisis, for I would be surprised if party membership is not falling right across the board. This is certainly the case for the Tories, who have responded by welcoming supporters as mere “friends”, committing them to nothing more than a one-off £1 donation. Other parties have their own initiatives, particularly via social networking sites. This drift toward loose affiliation rather than regimented membership will surely render obsolete already recherche arguments about which party unit should be the primary point of contact.
Secondly, RWJ's assessment ignores the historically low levels of Labour Party membership in parts of Wales. In 1951, when Labour secured over 81% of the vote in Rhondda East, for example, it did so with fewer than 400 members. I suspect that the ratio of votes to members in that part of the world is probably as high today as it was then. This wasn't a picture repeated in all parts of Wales (Newport had over 3,000 members at that time), but it was common enough in the heartlands Labour seats. Moreover, as the party's grip strengthened in the 1950s and 60s membership actually fell in much of the country.
Although I agree with RWJ that the absence of class rhetoric has changed Welsh Labour's character this element of its historic appeal can be overstated. Labour was at its best when offering the sort of practical policies that RWJ derides. Labour gained when it took control locally and used this power to feed colliers' children, improve housing stock, boost antental health, build bypasses and stimulate inward investment. Its base was nourished less by a recognition that it possessed a coherent ideology and more by the fact that Labour councils were seen to make a better fist of administering the hated poor law than non-Labour ones, or that Labour governments legislated to compensate industrial injuries.
Labour's problems are serious, and it is right that these should attract comment and coverage. Serious commentators like Richard Wyn Jones supply the broader context to these problems. By failing to point out that low and declining membership is both system-wide and not new for Labour, and by belittling the party's practical ideas he didn't do so.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Labour's fate is in Labour's hands
In my previous post I left open the question of which party is setting the agenda in the Welsh Assembly Government. It's worth exploring, not least because much of the evidence presented in support of the "Plaid domination" thesis is about presentation. Examples include: the fact that the administration is called the One Wales Government* to statistics showing Plaid Ministers appear on TV more often(!) Even Don Touhig's caustic commentary centres on this process question: which party is selling itself better?
Don't get me wrong; presentation and communication are an important part of the work of a modern political movement. Plaid is clearly doing a good job convincing the commentariat that they are in the box seat. I credit them for doing so, and I salute the way their Ministerial team is comporting itself. There is also the deeper question of whether Plaid/nationalism are commanding the meta-narrative; if the question is about distinctiveness and identity rather than delivery and performance then Plaid will always best Labour. Richard Wyn Jones observed yesterday (in an otherwise poorly contextualised assessment of Labour's membership woes) that without a class cleavage Labour lack a coherent ideology. I have made a similar observation in the past, and arguably Labour has been adopting the politics of identity ever since the politics of class vanished from its discourse (something that happened long before new Labour, incidentally).
But this still leaves outstanding the more prosaic question of whether the narrow One Wales programme of government is one in whch Labour or Plaid lead. I return to my point of the previous post; with the exception of economic development Labour controls all the briefs at the top of a social democrat's coalition negotiation shopping list. Culture and agriculture are of course important, but you wouldn't trade them for any of health, education, environment, local government and social justice. Mood music and claims of agenda setting don't change the fact that when it comes to hard delivery – higher quality, more responsive public services, a safer, cleaner environment and so on – Labour's fate as a partner of the One Wales Government is in Labour's hands. If it makes these things better in the estimation of normal people it will retain or regain their support. If it doesn't, it won't.
It's no more complicated than that.
*This turns on the fact that Labour once called the administration the "Labour-led Government", and have therefore backed down. That ignores the rather more substantive point that "One Wales" is the title of the agreement between the two parties.
Don't get me wrong; presentation and communication are an important part of the work of a modern political movement. Plaid is clearly doing a good job convincing the commentariat that they are in the box seat. I credit them for doing so, and I salute the way their Ministerial team is comporting itself. There is also the deeper question of whether Plaid/nationalism are commanding the meta-narrative; if the question is about distinctiveness and identity rather than delivery and performance then Plaid will always best Labour. Richard Wyn Jones observed yesterday (in an otherwise poorly contextualised assessment of Labour's membership woes) that without a class cleavage Labour lack a coherent ideology. I have made a similar observation in the past, and arguably Labour has been adopting the politics of identity ever since the politics of class vanished from its discourse (something that happened long before new Labour, incidentally).
But this still leaves outstanding the more prosaic question of whether the narrow One Wales programme of government is one in whch Labour or Plaid lead. I return to my point of the previous post; with the exception of economic development Labour controls all the briefs at the top of a social democrat's coalition negotiation shopping list. Culture and agriculture are of course important, but you wouldn't trade them for any of health, education, environment, local government and social justice. Mood music and claims of agenda setting don't change the fact that when it comes to hard delivery – higher quality, more responsive public services, a safer, cleaner environment and so on – Labour's fate as a partner of the One Wales Government is in Labour's hands. If it makes these things better in the estimation of normal people it will retain or regain their support. If it doesn't, it won't.
It's no more complicated than that.
*This turns on the fact that Labour once called the administration the "Labour-led Government", and have therefore backed down. That ignores the rather more substantive point that "One Wales" is the title of the agreement between the two parties.
From our cold, dead hands
Lenin Cymru, Plaid's online Praetorian, gleefully points out that Don Touhig has confounded my assessment of a Labour Party at ease with nationalist anniversary chest-beating.
Don Touhig is entitled to his opinion, of course. I find his implication that the health and education portfolios are the poisoned chalices of this administration to the most eyebrow-raising part of the remarks. Retention of the biggest spending briefs was surely the absolute bottom line for Labour's negotiating team last summer. I trust any Labour Party worth the name would always do whatever it could to keep control of these, the most important public services.
Bethan, meanwhile, accuses me of "attempt[ing] to brush off Plaid's influence on government". Not quite; My argument was that Plaid are the novel element in this administration and can expect to hog the limelight at this juncture. That does not mean that they are either setting the agenda in an objective sense, or are being recognised as doing so below the media troposphere.
Don Touhig is entitled to his opinion, of course. I find his implication that the health and education portfolios are the poisoned chalices of this administration to the most eyebrow-raising part of the remarks. Retention of the biggest spending briefs was surely the absolute bottom line for Labour's negotiating team last summer. I trust any Labour Party worth the name would always do whatever it could to keep control of these, the most important public services.
Bethan, meanwhile, accuses me of "attempt[ing] to brush off Plaid's influence on government". Not quite; My argument was that Plaid are the novel element in this administration and can expect to hog the limelight at this juncture. That does not mean that they are either setting the agenda in an objective sense, or are being recognised as doing so below the media troposphere.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Political Physics 101
So there goes the anniversary of the One Wales Agreement, with much press coverage of Plaid's first year in government, prompting in turn toe-curling posts from the party's blogospheric cheerleaders.
To the obvious disappointment of some others, Labour did not feel moved to grumble about this eulogising. Nor should they, for there is inevitability in the coverage. What makes One Wales newsworthy is not the continuation of Labour by other means but the admixture of Plaid. Stories surveying another year of the same Labour faces cannot compete with three new faces, together with a new party upon which to focus attention. Novelty trumps continuity.
Personally, I'll take nine years of Labour government in Cardiff Bay and perfunctory media coverage over one year in part-power and a good write-up any day. It seems many other Labour supporters are sanguine enough to do the same.
There is also a certain immutability to the way Plaid are banging their own drum. It reminds me very much of 1998, when Labour issued a stream of documents (there was no YouTube then) detailing progress here, there and everywhere. As someone commented to me at the time, these were very "input focused", in other words they were about plans drawn up and money committed rather than good things actually happening on the ground. That's understandable; a week may be a long time in politics but a year is the blink of an eye in government. It takes a long time for inputs to cause outputs.The trouble is that people respond to outputs, not inputs. "£50 million invested in xxx" is pretty abstract to your average punter, and so scarcely registers as a result.
Labour therefore is right to be relaxed about the Plaid 1st anniversary fanfare. Hopefully Plaid is smart enough to realise that a punchy video and some decent write-ups butter few parsnips.
To the obvious disappointment of some others, Labour did not feel moved to grumble about this eulogising. Nor should they, for there is inevitability in the coverage. What makes One Wales newsworthy is not the continuation of Labour by other means but the admixture of Plaid. Stories surveying another year of the same Labour faces cannot compete with three new faces, together with a new party upon which to focus attention. Novelty trumps continuity.
Personally, I'll take nine years of Labour government in Cardiff Bay and perfunctory media coverage over one year in part-power and a good write-up any day. It seems many other Labour supporters are sanguine enough to do the same.
There is also a certain immutability to the way Plaid are banging their own drum. It reminds me very much of 1998, when Labour issued a stream of documents (there was no YouTube then) detailing progress here, there and everywhere. As someone commented to me at the time, these were very "input focused", in other words they were about plans drawn up and money committed rather than good things actually happening on the ground. That's understandable; a week may be a long time in politics but a year is the blink of an eye in government. It takes a long time for inputs to cause outputs.The trouble is that people respond to outputs, not inputs. "£50 million invested in xxx" is pretty abstract to your average punter, and so scarcely registers as a result.
Labour therefore is right to be relaxed about the Plaid 1st anniversary fanfare. Hopefully Plaid is smart enough to realise that a punchy video and some decent write-ups butter few parsnips.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Leave it son, he's not worth it
Adam Price jokes:
"We’re sending George [Osborne] an invoice anyway for this bit of policy development work on behalf of the intellectual power-house that is the modern Conservative Party. No doubt, he could recycle some of his income from his recent IoD appearance in Jersey."
But who will the invoice be from? Policy development is an area where Plaid's costs are met from the public purse (the Electoral Commission to be precise, whose £240,701 since late 2006 makes them by far the party's biggest regular donor).
Mind you, I'm not sure Mr Osborne will be getting too hefty a bill. According to Plaid's accounts, it only expended £18,323 in "policy development research and direct costs" in 2006, when much of the 2007 manifesto was presumably being compiled.
"We’re sending George [Osborne] an invoice anyway for this bit of policy development work on behalf of the intellectual power-house that is the modern Conservative Party. No doubt, he could recycle some of his income from his recent IoD appearance in Jersey."
But who will the invoice be from? Policy development is an area where Plaid's costs are met from the public purse (the Electoral Commission to be precise, whose £240,701 since late 2006 makes them by far the party's biggest regular donor).
Mind you, I'm not sure Mr Osborne will be getting too hefty a bill. According to Plaid's accounts, it only expended £18,323 in "policy development research and direct costs" in 2006, when much of the 2007 manifesto was presumably being compiled.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Normal Eye: week ending 6 July 2008
In case you missed them, I'd recommend:
Frank H Little on James Griffiths of Betws, giant of the modern welfare state.
Robert J. Lieber on why the American era is not over. Jonathan Pearce: happy birthday, anyway.
Peter Black on Plaid's Peerage posturing.
Ideas of Civilisation: Glasgow East facts and fictions.
The Welsh Lobbyist on a Welsh Referendum Party.
Richard Thomson: Unionism's commission works for nationalism.
Jackie Ashley: Labour can't limp along like this.
Frank H Little on James Griffiths of Betws, giant of the modern welfare state.
Robert J. Lieber on why the American era is not over. Jonathan Pearce: happy birthday, anyway.
Peter Black on Plaid's Peerage posturing.
Ideas of Civilisation: Glasgow East facts and fictions.
The Welsh Lobbyist on a Welsh Referendum Party.
Richard Thomson: Unionism's commission works for nationalism.
Jackie Ashley: Labour can't limp along like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
