Hello and welcome to the Wales 20:20 Online Forum.
Many of you will have already seen the first Wales 20:20 commission - Winning for Wales. If you have not, just visit www.wales2020.com to download a copy.
Then please join the debate and leave your comments and contributions below. All published comments will be collated and published in due course.
Thanks for visiting.
Update - Weds 15th August
Thanks for your comments so far - all have been published, with one particularly offensive exception! In response to requests, we are taking registration off, so anonymous comments will now be allowed. We would prefer you to give yourself a name, however, as this will make the subsequent publication more accessible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Yawn- what a bore!! Obviously hurt by his sacking!
The Welsh Labour party has hit its end.
Ministers of the devolved government must leave the office each day knowing that they have done absolutely nothing of worth.
Why is Huw Lewis the first person to admit to this, and why only after he has left office?
ps. encouraging debate isn't exactly spurred on by the fact you have to be a Google account holder in order to post a comment. Consider changing the comment settings?
Loser's lament by Huw Lewis
Sacked Welsh Assembly Minister Huw Lewis ventilates his disappointment in a pamphlet which claims that Labour 'lost' the Assembly Election because (in last year's cliché) the party organisation was 'not fit for purpose'.Images1
Cobblers Huw.
We lost because of timing. Welsh Labour MPs in June 2006 urged Tony Blair to go by Christmas so that the 'Brown bounce' could win the elections for us in Wales and Scotland. The election date was fixed. Blair's departure date was of Labour's choosing. Blair refused and insisted on his self-indulgent elongated farewell. Had he gone by Christmas, the Brown Bounce of 10% would have guaranteed stunning victories in Wales and Scotland. Blame Blair.
As an ex party-organiser Huw believes in the supreme power of well-funded party organisation to win elections.
Cobblers twice Huw.
It's voters' perceptions that win. Funding and organisation are marginal. In the Blaenau Gwent by-election Labour drafted in scores of professionals and spent, it's claimed, five times as much as the ramshackle amateurish Peoples' Voice lot. The result was ignominious defeat.
Huw has backed all the wrong horses on Cardiff Bay. Power in the party is shifting from London to Cardiff. The centre of gravity of Welsh Labour should be in Wales.
Thought provoking stuff.
My initial reaction is that Huw is largely correct in his analysis of the organisational side of the problem Welsh Labour faces. I am however sceptical that the wider Labour movement, particularly the unelected full-time officials who run the major trades uniions in Wales have the imagination or the capacity to come to the aid of the Party in the way Huw advocates. The democratic centralist culture and fear of losing control affects both Welsh Labour and the Unions, deterring us from boldly championing the issues that matter to working people today, such as; affordable wrap around childcare; access to workplace training and skills development; flexible working and the 'glass ceilings' invisible barriers to promotion that hold back so many people, particularly women, in Wales.
We need to escape from the sterile 'transactional' nature of the Party - Union relationship (i.e. 'we give you the money and you give us x, y, z). Beyond a basic committment to maintain full employment, invest in public services and improve the social wage - i.e. governing in the broad interests of ordinary working people, there needs to be a partnership culture where union leaders engage with the realities of government; are actively involved by ministers in consideration of the issues, make policy in partnership and share responsibility for implementation. In other words a new social contract.
Sadly it appears to me that the unions are facing the same spiral of decline as parties, but appear if anything even less willing to face up to the causes and reinvent themselves to remain relevant to the social structures and changing patterns of work of the 21st Century. Instead of modernising, democratising and reaching out to new generations of workers, the unions seem intent on circling the wagons, merging to maintain scale in the face of membership decline and preferring the comfort of conference hall rhetoric to any radical reappraisal of their role and structures. Until we make the unions themselves 'fit for purpose' there is I fear little likelihood that they will be capable or interested in breathing new life into Welsh Labour.
That said, there is much else in Huw's pamphlet to commend. Labour's 26 seat representation in the Assembly actually flatters the Party, which saw a far more drastic decline in our vote in May than witnessed in either England or Scotland. We need to embrace new technology, build capacity and membership in local party units and focus more on reaching out to Labour voters as well as those members who are disengaged with the traditional pyramid structure. Above all Huw is dead right about the need to establish and communicate a clear policy vision based on our core values rather than relying on tory scare messages and gimmicky pledges.
I don't know whether this initiative will be successful, but unless we honestly face up to the problems we will not find the right answers. Above all we need to reach out to engage our people and be seen to be working not just for them, but WITH them.
The document "Winning for Wales" is an interesting one - I particularly commend its identification of one major problem for Welsh Labour, viz, the Central Party's tendency to treat WL as another 'region'. It also betrays the Central Party's view of devolution in Wales from the very beginning, as a 'sop' to the country to keep them quiet when Scotland was given a parliament.
But where is the language? Perhaps the one remaining thing which keeps Wales as something other than the "West England Region" is the language; Labour have historically been guilty of ignoring the language to the point of disrespect (the fiasco with the Welsh Labour website at the previous election being a case in point). Such a gap in this document is indeed extraordinary.
Congratulations on setting up this new platform, Huw.
What we need is a genuine and interactive debate on the centre left, one that extends beyond the traditional structures of the Labour Party and reaches out to our local communities to ask why May’s result was such a reverse on 2003 and where we go next. Meaningful analysis is going to mean asking some hard questions – inevitably leading to some answers we don’t particularly like to hear.
The election was not merely a temporary defeat, or the natural swing of a pendulum that will inevitably work its way back to us if we just give it time. The public’s political allegiance and whole approach to politics has changed remarkably and fundamentally in the last 10-15 years and we have to adapt to this. Times have changed and the old certainties of the past we relied upon to give Labour the tools to govern no longer apply.
May’s election should, I think, be seen in the context of what it actually was, namely a hugely significant moment in the life of our proud party here in Wales that highlights the fact we no longer have a direct hotline to the loyalties of voters.
It was a significant electoral message from the voters that change is needed and we must recognise it as such. We fell further than we have ever done before and lost good Assembly comrades across Wales. Just as worryingly, we held on to a number of seats that have now slipped into the ‘marginal’ column and are in danger of losing come 2011 if something significant isn’t done.
We shouldn’t lose heart, however. The socialist values we hold of equality, opportunity and social justice are just as relevant today as when the party was first established. What has happened is that we have lost touch with how to articulate and frame those ideals in the modern, devolution context.
Huw’s pamphlet rightly outlines that to begin putting that right we need a dynamic, organised party structure that reflects that changed context and the new political realities. That is why he is right to outline the need for better support and greater resources for the party organisation we all rely on in Wales.
I know that from my own experiences in North Wales during the election, the organisers we had up there did a fantastic job and worked their socks off. We need more of that, all year round, to help translate our values into meaningful electoral muscle and change in our communities.
We seem sometimes, here in Wales, to recoil at the word ‘modernisation’, but that is exactly what we need at this point - a forensic analysis of what went on in May and a long-term programme of modernisation to give us the vision for the next decade and beyond.
Hopefully this is the kind of forum where we can have that discussion.
Andrew
Splott, Cardiff
I think that Huw sees himslf as part of the solution whereas to many people including in his own constituency he is part of the problem. the labour party in wales and nationally has been in power for a long time. to many people in the labour heartlands a time of unprecedended economic prosperity has not produced notable benefits or significant structural economic and social change. 2020 is just another pipedream promise. Labours electoral problem is that people have truly now realised that they are not delivering for the heartlands and question if their ever will. A view arguably reflected in the very poor vote huw received in the last election - tantamount as he states himself (though talking about welsh politics generally( to a massive defeat.
I’m pleased to see that someone there is concerned about the future of the Welsh Labour Party, rather than just the past. It’s the future that counts, and without any money or resources, that future seems unlikely to be bright. Good on Huw for having the guts to come forwards and actually suggest a positive move for the Welsh Labour Party. I’d like to see a lot of the ideas you mentioned in the pamphlet to have an affect upon Welsh Labour.
Pleasantly surprised by what I have read in the document. Thought this would be the bitter and twisted rant of a scorned former deputy minister with a grudge. Don’t agree with everything but the general gist is good. Surely no one can argue that extra money, staff and support is a bad thing for welsh labour? I’d like to see more on what you actually propose in reality, however.
Having just downloaded and read the document and listened to some of the chat on BBC Wales this morning I have found myself in the unhappy position of agreeing with Russell Goodway regarding party members – we do need a regeneration of recruitment. Isn’t that the grass roots the most important thing? But you did hit the nail on the head when you spoke about the need for more money. Labour definitely needs a kick and maybe your ideas will give it the necessary push forwards.
Obvious, tired and no new ideas of note. If this is Wales in 20:20, then I’m off to Bristol.
Lots of comments here on the Winning for Wales document, which I thought was a sound snapshot of where we are as a party. Less welcome, though, for the whole Wales 20:20 concept. Think that's a shame - a new platform for debate which seems, by and large, to be working after only a day 'online'. Hope they keep it up.
This paper is anything but boring. It is one of the frankest inside looks at a political party I have read in a long while.
Dave is fundamentally correct: "Labour's 26 seat representation in the Assembly actually flatters the Party, which saw a far more drastic decline in our vote in May than witnessed in either England or Scotland."
And I think it took some people a long time to realise that. The paper talks about share of the vote and seat outcomes, but there is an even starker set of figures - the totals of people actually voting Labour at an election.
I know different elections are different beasts, but in 1997 Labour in Wales polled 887,000 votes. This year 315,000 voted Labour on the constituency ballot and 289,000 on the regional ballot. Yes, I know I'm taking extreme figures from two different types of election.
If you don't think those figures are very indicative, look instead at the Assembly election of 2003 where Labour got 341,000 or the supposed "disaster" of 1999 where 385,000 people voted Labour.
The other factors he mentions are true too: poor use of IT to spread a message; chronic under staffing; and a failure to communicate ideas with much of a sense of passion.
Huw is right to admit Labour has been on the electoral slide in Wales. Whether or not the menu he sets out is a recipe for reversal is an interesting debate, but I'm happy to add my voice from the sidelines in recognising that Labour had a bad election in 2007 and for the party to reverse its current downward trend the first thing it needs to do is recognise that fact.
Whilst any debate on the future of Welsh politics is to be welcomed, I can't help feeling that it is not debate that is needed or even facilitation of debate - it is action that is needed.
All this post election manoevering has dragged on and on and on and nothing substantive has been achieved in the way of delivering on campaign (or any other) promises. Any operational decisions such as the distribution of convergance funding have been delayed by at least a year and even then couched in so many precautionary provisos and ifs and buts as to be virtually useless.
And of course everyone is now on holiday!
All this talk about Labour dogma seems incredibly out of date and irrelevant even the terminology (cf.the Welsh Labour(ed)Movement) is antique and harking back to the 30s when a Labour Movement was really needed.
As to the lack of understanding of and involvement with the Internet and the way it is shaping modern political consciousness, well you prove my point with this half hearted attempt at a web site/blog.
Paul Flynn is a pompous humbug, who's political advice if ever followed would guarantee that Labour in Wales was never hindered by a Westminster incumbency factor - only problem with that of course is that there would not be an Assembly to hold elections to!
The suggestion that if Blair had been deposed by the PLP last year then Gordon would have got in without a bitter and damaging fight is further proof of Flynn's loose grip on political reality.
While he's got a point about voter perceptions and about the shift in the centre of gravity I think he and Huw are in danger of talking past one another. I think Huw understands, and in the pamphlet explicitly recognises that the gravity has shifted. The trouble is that this has never been acknowledged by the powers that be in Millbank, Old Queen St or Victoria St. Thus we have the kind of feast and famine approach concentrated on the UK electoral cycle, and denying Welsh Labour the capacity to engage in the kind of long term party building and outreach work necessary to counter the negative perceptions peddled via the media - and encouraged by bitter backbenchers who feel their talents have been ignored, who try and compensate by building up a self portrait of themselves as lovable mavericks.
Go and have another spliff Paul ...
It seems to me that the Labour Party is now in decline in Wales. There is only 1 political party in Wales that could defeat Labour and what is Labour doing about it? well inviting them into government!! how forward thinking is that?
The Labour AM's who sold their party to the nationalists should remember the words of The Red Flag.
Then raise the scarlet standard high!
Beneath its folds we'll live and die.
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
How many of those AM's were traitors to the socialist ideal.
David.
I for one welcome this initiative.
I have read the document with an open mind, and have to say that there is very little I could disagree with.
I have been an active member for some 35 years, and intend to remain so, but if the valid proposals outlined in this pamphlet are not heeded, then I fear I will be in a minority.
Keep up the pressure & good luck!
Its difficult for those of us with 'intimate' knowledge of Welsh Labour and the wider political scene to not agree with what Huw sets out in the document- although i honestly don't knowe how helpful this approach is in terms of galvanising us as a party, shouldn't we be having these discussions internally and not via the media?
That said, thank god one of our AM's has got enough fire in his belly, to stand up and recognise that we need to pull together utilise our assets and start to function as a slick political machine once again and I am pleased to see Huw suggests some focused and deliverable ways to move us forward.
I think his view can at some times be slightly insular, in terms of policy making unions and members are vital and i concur entirely with the need to establish some proper mechanisms that actually work to develop policy (although where was the recongition of the moves unions have made to already do much of what is suggested?)- but lets not forget the wealth of expertise from the voluntary sector and others who are increasingly extending their hold over the Assembly Government in terms of policy making as WAG grapple for ideas as a result of the lack of propoer processes within Labour to feed our programme of policy development within Government.
As a young member of welsh Labour, i think Huw now needs to stand by his comments and drive forward development of utilising the youth and the widespread expertise of researchers and other party staff that is consistently overlooked by AM's and others at the continued detriment of the party. Lets galvanise those that are at the forefront of the Labur machine- make them feel a bit more valued and those at the top, start to get our house in order and implement a viable policy making process so that in 2011 we have a programme of government reflective of what the majority of welsh people hold as core values, a commitment to reducing inequalities, to promoting wales and the welsh culture and more than anything to proving that Welsh Labour are up to the job of strong and stable government.
I really welcome this chance to engage in some real discussion about the organisational and policy issues we face as a Party, and it’s good to see someone thinking about how we meet these in the long term rather than just the current stage of the electoral cycle.
It’s often easier to achieve a more thoughtful debate at a more arms-length level like this than it is through the usual formal policy process and party meetings. I hope that this will allow us all to engage in a bit more free thinking and ‘thinking the unthinkable’ than is sometimes the case, something we need to do a bit more, now that we are well into our 10th year in government.
So Huw should be congratulated for kicking off the debate and being so honest about the challenges - and opportunities - ahead. I look forward to seeing more of the same as Wales 20:20 finds its stride.
I also wanted to add a West Wales perspective to the debate.
We will never win a majority (which Huw Lewis rightly points out should be our consistent aim and should never bee seen as a ‘one off’) without winning West Wales seats like Llanelli, Carmarthen West, Preseli and making inroads into the Nationalist vote in areas like Carmarthen East.
There are a number of factors we now need to urgently address in order to begin this fight-back.
Huw is quite right to point to the need for a permanent staff of full time professional organisers who do not fall prey to the inevitable cut-backs following general elections. One of the key problems we have consistently come up against across West Wales has been the lack of a full time organiser for this region for a full Assembly term, despite the fact that we had three very vulnerable seats at stake in May, as well as the potential to gain a list seat on top of the seats we held.
We did have the support of a first rate, experienced organiser in the run-up to May’s Assembly election but organisers need time to build the capacity of local parties to fight and win elections.
So the current system of financing and staffing the Welsh Party is clearly not working, from a West Wales perspective at least. We have to find ways of providing the Welsh Labour Party with the resources needed to keep this level of support in place throughout the electoral cycle if it is to really make a difference.
We also need to have more tailored and responsive message for different parts of Wales, although obviously consistent with our national message. It has been clear for the last two Assembly elections at least that we are not getting through to the people of Mid & West Wales as we are in other areas. Even at the supposed “high watermark” in 2003, we did significantly less well, seeing swings to Plaid when compared to areas like the valleys and areas of North Wales. I know we had a mini manifesto but frankly it looked like too little, too late. We need to do some proper research as to why people have switched away from us over the last few elections in Mid & West Wales.
I don’t confess to know all the answers – but we need to find this out from the real people out there. I hope that Huw’s ideas of regional policy clusters involving supporters and community groups as well as party members is taken up by the Party, as this could be a valuable way of making sure that we are more closely linked in with what people are thinking and feeling in Mid & West Wales, as in other areas.
Finally, Paul Flynn needs to look in our own back yard before drawing too many easy conclusions about why we lost seats. One of the principle reasons for our losses in West Wales (and thus the biggest part of our defeat this year) was undoubtedly the quality of decisions made regarding hospital reconfiguration and their handling – all of which were the responsibility of WAG and could have been avoided.
P.S. Sorry it's a bit long winded!!
Yes the result in Wales was far worse than in Scotland or in English local elections; why?
Stratergy, Tactics, Performance in Government or Organisation.
Huw seems to believe the later was key,though pointing his finger too clearly to other causes may be too risky.
I believe the fault lies in part with all four but predominantly with stratergy.
For several years Welsh Labour has sought to position itself as left of New Labour and of course much more Welsh. By implication and sometimes explicitly New Labour was criticised.
After our debacle in 1999 this response was justified and at first productive. However by continuing with this line what message do we send to the electorate.
Some will of course be happy with this and stay within the tent. Others will hear what we say and think if being more Welsh and more Left is good why not vote Plaid as they claim both with greater vehemence. On the opposite side of the spectrum of our support there will be admirers of New Labour policies that will support either the Tories or Lib/dems.
Thus the broad coalition of support built in 90`s splinters to the left and to the right.
The fact that Paul Flynn has seen fit to issue one of his smug sermons should re-assure Huw that he's on the right track!
This pamphlet hits all the right notes as far as I'm concerned and it's good that the Labour group in the Assembly has at least one thinker who's looking ahead.
Oh and Paul, if you don't think that organisation matters in winning elections then you won't mind if party members or Transport House sit back and do sod all to try and keep Newport West Labour next time!
Oh and if you decide to run again, then the campaign is on you!
I have blogged as follows :
http://martin-eaglestone.blogspot.com/
A couple of commentators thought I might have jumped the gun in my blogging about the new discussion forum but, some 24 hours on and having read the pamphlet in full, I remain with mixed feelings.
I have no doubt that debate is good and never to be feared in a democracy. It is partly why I enjoy blogland, not because it contains the future of democracy, but adds to debate.
Huw makes a number of points that many will share. We can have Labour majorities - PR simply makes it more challenging. I feel however that Huw loks at the bleaker side of May's results, I perhaps see the glass as half full. Loosing some seats, but doing comparatively better than other parts of the UK. After some distraction we should now be able to focus on delivering major parts of Labour's manifesto as the senior partner in a coalition. I am sure Scottish Labour would like to be in our position.
Yet review and reform are right. The Party itself is doing that and we can all contribute. I'm not sure we need new Forums and websites to debate Party organisation and which I feel takes up a major part of the new pamphlet.
My impression of May 2007 - and factors hardly mentioned by Huw are Blair and Iraq, stay at home voters and yes I agree to an extent our decreased resources as a Party. However when the wind is against I feel we might have spent much more for not much return in the PR system.
Huw refers to a fresh intake of AMs but I am not sure what mechanism he proposes. People work hard to get elected and at both Westminster and Assembly levels do not often voluntarily opt to step aside for fresh blood. Nor does it always work - Sue Essex being a big loss in my opinion and we know the pain of imposing central solutions on local parties.
Clearly Labour, of all parties, faces the big challenge in closing any talk of a widening gulf between MPs abd AMs. Could it be we had no commonly agreed vision of where we wished to actually take devolution after delivering on Labour's referendum ? The shortfal on the Richard Commission recommendations was noteable sign of any gulf. So that is common ground as a task to be resolved.
Neither does Huw address the linguistic cultural issues that I feel are part of political life in modern Wales. Eluned Morgan has asked how we are to reach out and embrace potential support in western/Welsh speaking parts of Wales ?
Huw feared some would react angrily. Perhaps he had Paul Flynn in mind !
For my part I see no need to fear debate. I have several reasons to disagree with elements of Huw's analysis
* many of these points about organisation could have been tackled internally,
* it is not just resources,
* what about Blair/Iraq and May 2007 ?
* perhaps Wales fared better than Huw admits ? (although not well enough)
* modern politics requires relatively broad churches working to a common good,
* can Wales reach outwards across current cultural divides (not for example by missing the Eisteddod)
So there is some thought generated by the pamphlet and new blog.
Finally is the language wise. Talk of not being fit for purpose (in bold print) is, I feel, aimed at generating controversy for its own sake. Perhaps distracting from oterh elements of the pamphlet.
I have read Huw's pamphlet and find that much of what he says is, in the vernacular, a case of 'stating the bl33ding obvious'.
His removal from Cabinet has clearly given a Huw an opportunity for a 'reality check'.
I note that he seeks more involvement with the Unions as representatives of the 'workers'.
He has, unfortunately, forgotten a large section of the electoral demographic which probably accounts for many of the disillusioned and lost Labour voters whose departure he bemoans.
The grey vote.
As a life member of Unison and retired, I heard of a retired Unison branch at County Hall in Cardiff Bay. I made enquiries as to their political activity and was told:
"Oh no! we don't do any of that".
I then asked what exactly the 'branch' did.
"Oh it's lovely, we go on trips, we have refreshments provided and it's all free. We have a dinner at Christmas and that's free too".
I was barely able to contain my apoplexy.
It would appear that the 'grey vote' in Unison are quite happy to dip their retired snouts in the trough in much the same way as so many politicians and their mates.
I declined their kind offer to join and informed them that their activity was hypocritical in the extreme. Particularly as, having been an active member of Unison, I found it somewhat disingenuous of them to describe their group as a 'Unison' Retired Branch, i.e. a campaigning Union, when they were solely intent on jollying at others' expense.
What waste of tea and talent.
If Huw or someone in Labour could activate the more politically aware 'greys' of Wales, I am quite sure that they may be pleasantly surprised by the response.
Apart from that, I found it to be a well thought-out document that, although I don't necessarily agree with some of it, at the very least has generated thought, discussion and an appreciation that Labour has a hill to climb in terms of its ebbing support. It's not too late to turn that tide.
United we stand, divided we fall.....Unity is strength.... and all that sort of good stuff.
Your patient yet perspicuous pal.
johnny.
What a sad response. 24 replies and 20 of them have not had the courage to sign their full names. I'd be happy to reply to those that mentioned my comment if you say who you are. Otherwise you will just have rely on my blog.
This is no way to run a forum. It's wide open to manipulation and anonymous sniping. Cheer up Welsh Labour - the party is doing well!
Huw
Had been all keyed up to have a pop at aspects of your pamphlet, but Paul Flynn’s comments made my blood boil.
Paul Flynn has always been something of a joke within political circles, and as a mean-spirited snob by those that have had the misfortune to work with him.
His comment on Radio Wales yesterday that 'organisation doesn't win elections', however, takes the biscuit. He wouldn't really know what wins elections in non-safe seats, as he never shows his face and campaigns in them. Since 1997, he has seen his majority slashed by more than 10, 000. Of course, Flynn always uses the tired old ‘Blair / Iraq’ argument, conveniently failing to spot how he lost his first 5, 000 votes in 2001, long before Iraq became an issue. As one of his long suffering constituents, I know full well why people are turning away from Labour in Newport – it’s because of idiots like Flynn, more obsessed with lining his own pockets and showing off with pop bands he doesn’t understand that doing his job.
And please, Paul, spare us any more of your pathetic 'insights' into Blaenau Gwent. I was out knocking doors there every night of the campaign bar two, and didn't see your face once. We lost because of an entirely unprecedented set of local circumstances – without the organisation and spend, we would have lost by a larger margin still.
Having said all this, if Flynn loses the same amounts of vote in the next election as he did the last, he'll be out on his arse. So maybe we should let him have his pathetic fun while he still can.
Some interesting points in your pamphlet, Huw, and I give my full support to Wales 20:20 and its aims of instigating real debate. Labour in Wales got beaten heavily in the last election and we need a big re-think to set the party onto a winning footing in 2011.
One of the ways we need to do this, and a proposal in the document which would certainly get my support, is the extended role in policy making for ordinary party members. I know that from my experience of taking part and contributing to the last process we had to put the 2007 manifesto together, there are a lot of very positive and innovative ideas amongst members that we have plainly under-utilised in the recent past.
After all, when we ask members to go onto the doorstep and defend the policies of our party, they have to feel a sense of ownership of the ideas themselves and must buy into an organic policy making process. There must certainly be a sense of detachment from what members and affiliated groups come up with within the party process and what we offer voters before an election. The new regional network to the policy making process outlined in the pamphlet will go some way to tackling the sometimes ‘unwieldy’ nature of the current national process.
I am sure the Trade Unions themselves will welcome the invitation being made to play a bigger part in how we shape Wales for the next generation. Often the very idea is enough for our opponents to attack us, but when the relationship between us is balanced, democratic and strong, the unions – authentically reflecting the voices of their members - are a superbly placed vehicle for us to keep our finger on the pulse of ‘what works’ and what needs to be changed in the workplace - the engine room of any successful economy.
We need a genuinely social-democratic partnership of this kind for the future to take Wales forward.
Despite what detractors might say, I’m only interested in looking forward, a 21st century party allied to, and part of, a 21st century labour movement that is reflective of the concerns of those it represents and robust enough to win elections and able to change Wales for the better.
Let’s start the discussion now.
My problem with the "it's all a reaction against Blair/Iraq" and if it weren't for that all would have been fine school of thought is that although there indisputably is such an effect, it is trotted out as a buck passing explaination by those who do not want to admit that maybe there are also reasons closer to home which have also deterred people from voting for us and which we should be looking to fix, or that perhaps we need to be more active and better focused in our campaigning and voter communications activity all year round. Yes people were bored and disillusioned with Blair, having invested far too much faith in him 10 years ago. Those of us who never had such lofty expectations on the other hand have in some ways been pleasantly suprised by what his government did deliver. The same however can be said of Rhodri Morgan. Whereas he was once perceived as a man of the people, standing up for Wales, on the doorsteps of Rhyl back in April the message I was getting was that he was perceived as a bit of a clown, out of touch with their concerns and something of a national embarrasment. The D-Day issue in particular still rankles among older voters.
That is all I have to say to Paul Flynn. Martin Eaglestone's criticisms are a more pertinent and nuanced contribution to the debate. As one of the collective involved in this initiative I shall try and respond in a comradely fashion.
Martin believes that Labour in Wales performed comparitively better than in other parts of the UK, and it is clear he is thinking principally of Scotland. With all due respect, that is not the case. In terms of seats, overall Scottish Labour lost four seats in May in a 129 member Parliament - over twice the size of the Assembly - Labour in Wales lost three. In terms of overall vote share, Scottish Labour's dropped by 2.5%, compared with a fall of 7.8% for Welsh Labour.
The other thrust of Martin's concerns is with washing our dirty linen in public. We should in his opinion have kept the debate in the family. This is something that we debated long and hard. Our conclusions were twofold.
Firstly that the Welsh Labour hierarchy does not seem that interested in considering the problem. This is partly because they have managed to cling onto power and so are consumed again by the day to day dilemmas inherent in government. Also, being still in government, many share Martin's view that there is no real problem. As Huw says, unless we acknowledge 2007 as a serious defeat, we face an even worse one in 2011. In 1999, after securing 28 seats, Welsh Labour recruited a new general secretary and director of communications. Also the Assembly Group was aware of the battering they had taken and had the will to act accordingly (the real reason Alun Michael lost power because he had lost the confidence of his own Group, who were not prepared to support an 'empty chair' policy to face down the other parties). There is no indication of any such seriousness of purpose this time.
Secondly, we feel there is a far wider job of political education and adjustment needed. Labour's formal structures do not really provide an adequate forum for such debate to take place. Huw's pamphlet is the first of several in the pipeline. They are intended to provoke debate rather than spelling out a 'line' as such, but Martin is right to observe that there is a dislocation between MPs and AMs as well as in the Party more generally about how we see the devolution project and he is right that this was demonstrated by the reaction to Richard. To set out a stance on this is beyond the scope of this post, but it will be addressed in our next publication. Wales 2020 is intended to be a constructive addition to the policy debate that is now urgently necessary within the Party. It is a work in progress. We hope to improve this forum for example by developing threads so that it is easier to respond to points made by others as I am doing in this post. We are limited by our IT skills and lack of any money, but we'll get there in due course.
On Cardiff North I don't think it was about the candidate. Sue would have lost had she stood. No personal vote could have stood up to a swing of that magnitude.
On the language issue I concur we need to address the issue and it is positive that Eluned and her group are attempting to do so. Again it is no use hiding the fact that there are internal differences of opinion within Welsh Labour. We will only get a settled policy which we can all unite around following a proper debate.
'fit for purpose' is perhaps not a term I would have used, but having invited Huw to write the pamphlet, that is a matter for him.
Modern politics requires broad churches working toward common aims - I agree entirely!
Dave Collins
Grangetown, Cardiff
Paul Flynn said....
What a sad response. 24 replies and 20 of them have not had the courage to sign their full names.....
....This is no way to run a forum. It's wide open to manipulation and anonymous sniping. Cheer up Welsh Labour - the party is doing well!
johnny says....
So there you have it. The Mighty Flynn, arbiter of Forum etiquette and probity, has spoken.
We, who prefer to use a pseudonym or nom-de-plume, are branded as having a lack of courage and presumably, in Paul's opinion have no right of response. How democratic is that?
Whatever next? I suppose Paul would prefer the electorate to have identifiable Ballot Sheets as well, so that he and his political cronies could identify oppsition voters and apply the necessary pressure to them in the future.
Unfortunately, Paul has little grasp of the reality of anonymous fora and blogging.
It enables we private people to have our say without fear or favour and hopefully gives a more general overview of peoples' thoughts and opinions.
Whilst I accept that there are occasionally distasteful or offensive comments made, but, nevertheless, blog or forum moderators have the sanction of removal of these postings.
Presumably, Paul has become too comfortable in his cosy world of Honourable and Right Honourable friends.
It has been noted by 'malpas mike' that Paul was conspicuous by his absence in Blaenau Gwent.
Presumably, if 'malpas mike' was identifiable, Paul would take personal issue with him from his lofty and protected position and invoke some kind of sanction against 'mike' for daring to criticise the Mighty Flynn.
Perhaps Paul should have used a pseudonym when stating that Welsh Labour should "cheer up, the party is doing well".
In fact, the Party is doing so "well" that it is currently obliged to cosy with the Welsh Nationalists in order to maintain power in the Assembly.
If that's what Paul says "doing well" means, then I would dread to think what doing poorly means.
Your partially parastatal pal.
johnny the nonny.
I have posted two articles on my own blog about the pamphlet. Please see here and here.
In précis:
1. The proposals for an organisers' college are very welcome. I would like to see some of the organisational resource used to train and help local parties do more direct community activities.
2. A detailed post-mortem of Labour's election performance is urgently needed. The party in Wales lost more share than in either England or Scotland. We cannot simply ascribe this to Blair/Iraq.
Paul Flymn said
"Cheer up Welsh Labour - the party is doing well!"
I campaigned in Blaenau Gwent in the by election and in Cardiff North in the Assembly Election I see Labour overall votes falling by over 10%.
Many AM's in the east of wales and the glamorgan valleys have upset their core supporters by joining a pact with their main enemy Plaid Cymru, wait until they know the fall out from that.
All I can say is
"Thank god they are not doing badly"
Dave usefully addresses in debate points I made in reponse to the pamphlet. Having read and posted that perhaps indicates an interest on my part in ideas and debate(whatever my misgivings on the rather public method of debate on some of the issues.)
I don't think we should undervalue being part of government in Wales-even with Plaid. The opposite being more unpalatable and we are in a position I think Scottish Labour would welcome.
I don't raise Blair/Iraq as an excuse or to pass the buck, but I feel overlooking the issue is somewhat unbalanced review of May's election cycle. As a candidate I recall the recurrent doorstep talk about it !
We need to reflect and learn, but I would choose to internalise some organisational issues. Sorry it is still the pain of those long years of opposition and not wanting to see people jumping on the banwagon (have a look around blog land today).
As a long time Labour member I am worried about the Plaid/Labour arrangement. I live in the Gwent valleys and after the Peter & Trish Law thumping we took, you would think that the Welsh Labour party would listen to it's membership. I hear what many Labour supporters are saying to me, they are livid with Welsh Labour and I find it hard to support the party line.
So what should I say to supporters that are saying that they will not vote Labour in the next Assembly election?
On his blog Paul Flynn says:
The sponsors are still refusing to reveal their names. Anonymity will provoke accusations of manipulation by sponsors and others...Until Wales 20:20 sponsors reveal who they are, the suspicion is that they are trying to prolong an argument that they lost.
Can someone tell me what this "manipulation" is supposed to be? You either accept the arguments or you don't.
So within the Party we have some concerns about the Labour/Plaid arrangement - but that seems mutual across the Party divide.
More to the point how can we best press home Labour's case within the currnt arrangement. I think we should be more self confident, not so defensive, and work to deliver our priorities within the government. That is the argument to present to our sceptical supporters and far preferable to the current position in Scotland in my view.
What the verdict on Wales 20:20 ?
Certainly it's drawn attention to the dire May 3rd result and highlighted the reasons for it. It was great opportunity from my point of view to highlight the major, largely ignored, reason of 'Blair / Iraq' for the poor result.
The latter end of the web debate was reasonable and constructive but it was at best bloggers talking to bloggers. The promise of moderating political opponents and loudmouths out of the argument was not honoured. There is difficult choice to make between allowing space to those who have good reasons to remain nameless and at least one manipulative political opponent who has got past the moderator. It's impossible to have a frank debate when the media and opponents are reading and contributing destructively.
Many of the contributions are bleakly predictable. The response to election results is unchanging. Successes are credited by candidates to their own personal brilliance, agents/ organisers to their master plans and canvassers to their doorstep persuasiveness. When results are poor, everyone blames everyone else but not themselves.
Yes, the horror of our lost support in May was spun by the party into a success. That's their job. It does not help that now we are on the crest of wave, to indulge in self-flagellation and doom-mongering.
While the first document was about organisation, none of the correspondence have come up with any single new policy idea that I have seen. It's again the theory of eternal reorganisation of structures that's on offer- a Utopian party in which the Co-op is talking to the MPs talking to AMs talking to Fabians talking to Trade Union Bosses. That is not a panacea. It's an excuse for evading the challenge. None of the eternal reorganisation of councils, health services, police has achieved sufficient in improvements to justify the chaos and waste that the reorganisations caused. Instead of chasing the hare of structural change, we should concentrate on the reasons why we have lost the enthusiasm of many of out natural supporters.
Martin Eaglestone rightly said that 'Blair / Iraq' was heard again and again on the doorstep. It's a sound bet that party structure was never mentioned. What it not there is any reference to Compass? They are leading the way in new ideas.
If Wales 20:20 is to become useful, it must have papers written by those on all sides of the present Welsh Labour divide of pro and anti - coalition. Verdict? The jury is still hearing the evidence.
The new online “think-tank”, Wales2020dotcom, is a timely and welcome contribution to the much needed debate on the future for Labour in Wales.
Huw Lewis asks difficult but essential questions of all of us in the wider Labour movement here in Wales.
Inevitably, there will be different interpretations of the outcome of the May 2007 election, but this very process of open discussion is in itself cathartic and offers us the right foundation for finding a successful formula going forward.
The theme running through all three sections of the pamphlet is building or perhaps rebuilding.
First, Huw sees an urgent task in capacity building for Welsh Labour if we are to be able to campaign and communicate effectively with the electorate.
He is right to say that the current team are doing a tremendous job given the limited resources yet wide scope of responsibilities.
Managing the politics and policy of a devolved body as well as local government, Westminster and European tiers is certainly a greater task than that of an English region.
Perhaps we need to get away from the usual spike in campaign activity in the months preceding an election, and introduce a culture of year round campaigning.
A little often and regularly is better than a surge in activity four months out from likely polling day.
This is an area where local CLP’s would have to develop a plan and work with close support from Welsh Labour.
If voter contact was maintained say every weekend throughout the year in innovative ways, our contact with the public would become more organic and natural.
And this step change in activity rate needs to be accompanied by a different approach. By this I mean Labour in Wales being a champion of causes which members of the public feel strongly about.
For example, Huw points to the ease with which people can support a single issue NGO from making a monthly subscription to perhaps more involvement by overseas volunteering.
There are no rules to say local Labour parties cannot campaign for, say, greater use of Fairtrade products in public procurement or in the retail and hospitality sector.
Labour can be seen as the champion of local recycling initiatives or micro generation projects, and invite members of the public to our open policy discussions.
Initiatives such as these could be facilitated if Welsh Labour had the right level of resource, including organisers in the regions on a full time basis.
This brings me to the second form of building, which is partnership building with trade unions and co-operative movement.
I agree that Labour in Wales needs to draw more on the knowledge and experience of the co-operative and trade union movements.
As natural partners in our movement, they have a hugely important role in contributing to our policy process. Where I disagree with Huw is when he suggests government involvement in the role played by trade unions.
A better way would be for us to make a persuasive case, jointly with the trade unions and co-operative movement, for new legislation that meets the needs and aspirations of members of the two organisations.
And we should not forget that many issues which improve the lives of working people actually require primary legislation at Westminster.
On other occasions a solution may be found through newly acquired powers at the National Assembly.
So with a stronger policy formation link with trade union and co-operative movements, we could campaign more effectively to bring into law the improvements sought by our wider Labour movement.
And the third aspect addresses the need for building a policy compact – a dialogue- with the British people, as identified by the Prime Minister.
Labour in Wales can, through a pro-active and open approach driven at CLP level, involve the public in policy development.
Involving MP’s, AM’s, local party members and opening up to contributions from local stakeholders will lead to a broader and deeper pool of ideas and make for better policy over the medium term.
The above will, however, be seriously limited in impact if we do not address an even more profound question about where Labour in Wales positions itself with respect to the forces of nationalism.
This underpins everything, though I cannot comment on this matter here and now.
But unless we can win convincingly the ideological high ground on this most vexing issue, then I am afraid that, for all the good intention and eminently practical ideas of this seminal pamphlet, we will not see the bright rays of the morning sun.
David Phillips was the Labour Assembly candidate for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in the May 2007 election.
http://www.davidmphillips.com/comment.html
Huw Lewis’ pamphlet has a few welcome ingredients – not least the call to strengthen the link between party and unions and to promote co-operative enterprise more vigorously. It is particularly encouraging to read that ‘”Welsh” Labour needs to exist both in name and entity’ – this from someone who, not so long ago, denounced the very idea of a Welsh agenda as ‘crypto-nationalist nonsense’! I would also agree that Welsh Labour’s 2007 Assembly manifesto did not do justice to the radicalism of many of the party’s policy proposals and that we need to ‘break down the election cycle mentality’.
The biggest problem with the pamphlet is that it seeks administrative solutions to political problems. Few within the party will disagree that Welsh Labour needs more staff or that it should make better use of the internet. Whatever the organisational problems, however, political factors are far more important. Paul Flynn is right to point to the negative impact of Tony Blair; this is not just a question of the (ex-)leader’s personality, however, but of an increasingly right-wing policy agenda, including the privatisation by stealth of public services, as well as the so-called ‘war on terror’. It is a bitter irony that Welsh Labour has paid an electoral price for policies over which it had no control and in many cases had opted not to implement within Wales.
Huw Lewis’ under-estimation of the political damage done to Labour by the right-wing agenda carried out at Westminster probably accounts for his over-confidence about the party’s future electoral prospects. It is a little disingenuous to say, ‘In the last three Westminster elections we have averaged 48% of Welsh votes’, when Labour’s Welsh results in those elections have exhibited a sharp downward trend – from 54.8% in 1997 to 48.2% in 2001 and 42.7% in 2005. Against this background, Huw Lewis’ dismissal of the scale of the electoral challenge seems rather ill-founded. At other points in the pamphlet, he seems to recognise the extent of our problems, acknowledging the ‘falling vote’ and ‘low membership with many members no longer active’. Canvassers rarely hear, ‘we’re all Labour here’ on the doorstep, he admits – yet he remains convinced that the Welsh Labour party is ‘*always* in the best position to win’ (my emphasis) when voters judge which party ‘best represents their ideas and values’ – just so long as it is ‘properly resourced’.
There is an obsession in the pamphlet with formal arrangements: we read that there is a ‘shocking’ ‘lack of formalised regular liaison’ between unions and Government; ‘more formal relationships’ are needed between the different sections of the movement; assistance to the unions from party organisers ‘should be formalised’; so should policy-making with the Welsh regions; MPs should also have a ‘formal role inside the policy process’. It seems that Welsh Labour’s problems are largely down to insufficient bureaucracy and a paucity of committees.
Similarly, Huw Lewis’ prescriptions for enhancing party democracy and policy formation seem to involve making the process more complicated: his vision is of ‘Policy which is rigorously tested through the filters of CLPs, five Regional Policy Networks, the Welsh Labour Policy team and the AM/MP Policy Contact Group’. This would provide Conference with ‘robust proposals’ to debate. Yet the party’s biggest problem with policy-making and democracy is that the ‘Partnership in Power’ process minimises the number of decisions that Conference (supposedly the party’s sovereign body) can democratically make, denying it even the right to amend Policy Forum documents; it is therefore reduced to a rubberstamp. This is as true – sadly – at Welsh as at British level.
Some of Huw Lewis’ proposals seem at least worthy of consideration – the ten-year policy development programme and the union-backed party organisers’ college, for example – but these hardly amount to the ‘ambitious set of proposals’ to turn Labour into a winning party that he claims. Many of his suggestions are somewhat vague – not least those for boosting the unions’ influence in policy-making. And while the latter is certainly welcome in principle, it is not at all clear why he sees the current party-union relationship as ‘profoundly disturbing’. If things are so bad, then the Welsh union leaderships are keeping uncharacteristically quiet about it.
Although the pamphlet is careful to avoid political criticism of Welsh Labour’s current leadership, there is a suggestion throughout that the party is unduly conservative, while its author’s ideas represent a truly radical alternative. Yet this is to withhold due credit for the boldness of the ‘clear red water’ agenda pursued under Rhodri Morgan. Huw Lewis betrays the limits of his own vision in his final paragraph, holding up ‘equality of opportunity’ as a key socialist value – when this is really no more than a liberal ideal (an equal chance to become unequal). Welsh Labour’s policy agenda – as Mark Drakeford, among others, has declared – is underpinned by a commitment to equality of *outcome*.
David Phillips said: There are no rules to say local Labour parties cannot campaign.
Hi David,
I was a member of the Rhondda Labour Party, after we got beat by Plaid in the local elections we got our act together and you could not wish for a better team to campaign.
Chris Bryant needs most of the thanks for that, you could not wish for a more campaigning MP. He helped to put Rhondda back to where we were, however I resigned from the Labour party once they put their hats in with the nationists.
There is no way I could sanction any sort of pact with them.
I know that the Rhondda AM thinks differently, we voted 9 - 1 not to go with Plaid, no matter to him. As he said HE DID NOT HAVE A VOTE, but he did have a vote within the Labour AM forum. I bet he voted with Rhodri.
David Jones
Finally got round to reading the enitre document, and generally impressed with what I read. Yes, there are simple elements there that no-one could disagree with - more resources, organisers etc - but I think practical solutions are offered as to how this should be achieved so that is encouraging.
As a former active member, I think the emphasis on party involvement is absolutely crucial. As things used to stand you would trail along to meetings vote on policy at conference and then be ignored at election time. A complete waste of time and energy, and utterly futile because everyone knew that this was happening. The party should listen more to communities.
I am also amazed by the lack of consistency from detractors Paul Flynn and Darren Williams (who is at least a little more thoughtful). How can you argue both that having a Welsh message (clear red water) is right, and then heap all the blame for a bad Assembly result just on Blair/Iraq? I don't think either can have knocked enough doors in May if they think we don't have our own problems in Wales. The Lewis emphasis on Welsh solutions to Welsh problems is commonsense. To spend your time worrying about events beyond your control might be good for the ego, but doesn't get results, does it?
Post a Comment