RETURN TO MAIN PAGE

Daniel Morrissey

Where Next for Welsh Politics?

[Workers Action 21 (April-May 2003), 20-23]

The National Assembly for Wales will shortly complete the final session of its first four-year term. On Thursday, 1 May, its sixty members (or at least, those not stepping down) will face the electorate. For all the excitement that surrounded the referendum campaign in September 1997, it would be fair to say that the people of Wales have been distinctly underwhelmed by the institution in which so much hope was invested a few years ago. As I explained in the last issue of Workers Action, the body has been systematically undermined by the Blair Government's determination to restrain any ambitions for a distinct Welsh political agenda and the Welsh Labour leadership has lacked the inclination and the nerve to challenge this. While the focus of Welsh politics has largely shifted from Westminster to Cardiff, it is principally the professional/administrative tiers who are engaged with the Assembly, rather than rank-and-file activists or politically conscious citizens. None of the four parties represented in the body has been able to enthuse or inspire the people of Wales and there is little realistic prospect of Welsh politics suddenly becoming more exciting after 1 May. Nevertheless, there is a degree of interest to be derived from the election because of the considerable uncertainty about the voters' verdict on the last four years. With only its unique, inaugural election available for comparison, the Assembly is still too new for any confident predictions to be possible. And the political impact of the war against Iraq, particularly on the fortunes of the Labour Party, means that that uncertainty is considerably magnified.

Clear Red Water?

Welsh Labour activists and supporters who hoped that a Labour-led administration in Cardiff might make a clean break with Blairism have repeatedly been disappointed. With the exception of the Education Minister, Jane Davidson, who has acted resolutely on her opposition to selection, league tables and privatisation, the Assembly Government has shown little evidence of any unifying policy agenda at all. Instead, it has approached government in a completely piecemeal fashion, and relied on soundbites, gimmicks and jibes at its opponents to conceal the paucity of its ambitions. Nevertheless, hopes have lingered that, if not political principle, then at least the electoral survival instinct, would convince Rhodri Morgan and his colleagues that something more substantial was necessary. There was, therefore, keen interest when on 11 December Rhodri gave a lecture at Swansea University in which he sought to put 'clear red water' between his administration in Cardiff and the New Labour Government in Westminster. The speech picked up a theme from an earlier address to the Wales TUC, in which Rhodri had talked about a 'Welsh Way' of approaching public services - driven by socialist convictions, but applied pragmatically. In December he took this theme considerably further, claiming for his governmental programme 'ideological underpinnings' in the best traditions of the labour and socialist movement.

The main thrust of the speech was to project the key achievements of the Assembly Government as making up an overall strategy - 'the creation of a new set of citizenship rights [...] which are as far as possible, free at the point of use, universal and unconditional' - and to promise to build on this if Welsh Labour wins a second term of office. Stripped of the rather grandiose language, this is basically a repackaging of the handful of Assembly initiatives which have made the most difference to people's lives, and for which Welsh Labour never fails to claim credit. These are: free school milk for children under seven; free nursery places for three year olds; free prescriptions for the under twenty-fives; free entry to museums and galleries and free bus travel for pensioners and the disabled. While this list falls a long way short of a comprehensive strategy for addressing Wales' many social ands economic needs, it does represent a worthy, if modest, set of achievements, and in each case the decommodification of an important public service. Previously, Welsh Labour had always failed to link up these policies in this way, instead presenting them as 'one-off' give-aways. Rhodri's speech has belatedly remedied this, albeit under the pressure of an impending election, without which it is doubtful that he would have felt such a burning desire to point out an unacknowledged policy agenda that was supposedly there all along. 

Hitherto, the Welsh Labour leadership, while containing few (if any) convinced Blairites, has been wary of risking an open rift with Westminster, sometimes hinting at 'Old Labour' inclinations, but having little of substance to show for this. But the danger of a repeat of Labour's poor showing in 1999 - or even worse - seems to have strengthened Rhodri's nerve and pushed him into revealing himself in all his glory as 'a socialist of the Welsh stripe'. In order to carry this through convincingly, however, he has to be able to show that he has something new to offer for the second term, rather than simply recapitulating the story so far. But the only concrete initiative unveiled in his 'clear red water' speech was the possibility of free access for children to local authority swimming pools (this is now being 'piloted' in certain council areas). Beyond this, he talked about the need to focus 'upon a small number of key policy objectives', and specified improving food and nutrition and raising economic activity levels. While the latter should certainly be seen as one of the central objectives of any Labour government worth the name, Rhodri's description of the approach to be followed is simply a string of vague and nebulous phrases - e.g., 'the engagement of the developmental contributions of community regeneration and cultural animateurs'. Part of the problem is that many of the levers of economic policy are beyond the reach of the devolved administration - yet Rhodri now dismisses the debate over further powers as the preserve of 'the narrow circles of political anorakism'.

Yet the significance of Rhodri's speech lies more in his willingness to distance himself from New Labour and situate himself in a clearly social-democratic tradition - talking about 'strengthening the collective voice of the citizen' and 'the powerful glue of social solidarity', and criticising 'the theory of marketisation'. This was implicitly acknowledged by the sharp dismissals of his speech by the leaders of the Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru - the former seeing an identifiable ideological enemy, the latter no doubt fearing a loss of his party's appeal to disillusioned Labour voters. Whatever Rhodri's intentions, he has opened up the possibility of a real debate within the Welsh Labour party about the policies that the people of Wales really need - a debate in which socialists can and should take the lead. There has so far been little response, however. To some extent, this is understandable, given the general preoccupation with the war, but it also demonstrates the extent to which Labour activists have lost the habit of discussing substantive politics. Rhodri himself has failed to enlarge on his theme, so far returning to the 'clear red water' concept only once - and then somewhat tangentially. And it is, unfortunately, probably significant that at the Welsh Party conference on 27-28 February Rhodri made a banal, populist speech, full of clumsy pop-culture references and cheap jibes at Labour's opponents. 

The prospects for an Assembly Government further to the left if Labour wins an overall majority look even less rosy when one considers the human resources available. Practically all of the more independently-minded Labour backbenchers are leaving the Assembly, either voluntarily or under duress. Richard Edwards, the most prominent and consistent opponent of the 'War Against Terrorism', is stepping down due to health problems, while the former Education Minister Tom Middlehurst and former Merseyside Assistant Chief Constable, Alison Halford are effectively retiring. 

In addition, recent weeks have seen the political demise of the two most high-profile Labour mavericks. John Marek, AM and previously MP for Wrexham, and one of the few Labour members publicly to criticise the Assembly Government, has been deselected. As with every other sitting Labour AM, Marek originally won a trigger ballot which should have enabled him to avoid an open selection battle. Marek had made a number of enemies in his constituency, however, not least by criticising the Labour leadership of Wrexham Council, and there was a call for him to face disciplinary charges for bringing the party into disrepute. The bureaucracy seized on this, being particularly displeased with Marek after he sent a letter to a CWU official expressing the view that the union should withhold further funding from Labour until such time as the party adopted more pro-union policies. As a compromise solution, it was agreed that a second trigger-ballot be held. This time, Marek failed to get through, and in the ensuing selection contrast he was beaten by 84 votes to 80 by his former political assistant, Lesley Griffiths. Marek complained to Welsh Labour of improper conduct by Griffiths' husband, a local councillor, but the complaint was turned down, and it is likely that he will stand as an independent candidate, and at one stage seemed likely to secure the support of the RMT.

And finally, Ron Davies, described with some justice as the 'architect of devolution' has left politics after The Sun printed photographic evidence of another 'moment of madness' at a well-known gay cruising site. Ron badly mishandled his response to the Sun article, changing his story within twenty-four hours. He thereby lost a lot of the initial sympathy that had been felt for him, and was ultimately left with little choice but to resign. He will be a major loss to Welsh politics, having remained almost the only Labour backbencher with both the intellectual capacity and the political independence to make an informed, constructive critique of Assembly Government policies. 

The newly selected candidates are, if anything, even less promising than the existing Group, and the only medium-term hope for a more left-wing leadership lies with a couple of members who are currently cabinet ministers or deputy ministers, and are therefore bound by collective responsibility to back the existing policies. However, socialists' role in the Labour Party should never involve pinning one's hopes on the best, or least bad, of our elected politicians. Instead, we must build support among party members for socialist policies, and maintain constant pressure on our 'leaders' to adopt and implement those policies. Part of the reason we have such poor leadership in the Welsh Labour Party is the lack of a strong, organised left over the last ten years or so. That is starting to change now, as a general revolt develops through the party over the war, the firefighters' dispute and the privatisation of public services. A revived and organised Welsh Labour left will have to work hard to hold all of our AMs and MPs to account, and to press socialist policies upon them.

Plaid Cymru: A Socialist Alternative?

The danger that the election presents for Welsh Labour is not just that longstanding Labour voters who are sick of Blairism will stay at home - although many certainly will. The party also faces a serious challenge from the left in the shape of Plaid Cymru. Plaid's constitution declares it to be a socialist party, but it does not, of course, seek the abolition of capitalism, but rather a set of modest reforms in the direction of greater social equality, collective provision of welfare and public services, etc. It undoubtedly won substantial support from former Labour voters in the 1999 Assembly election by presenting what was essentially an 'old Labour' platform, including commitments to re-establish the link between pensions and earnings, and to restore the full student grant. This allowed it to capture a number of seats in supposed Labour strongholds, thus denying Labour an overall majority. Moreover, it has continued to outflank Labour on the left in its responses to the crisis in the steel industry, the collapse of Railtrack and the controversy over PFI, as well as a range of other issues such as compensation for retired miners with industrial illnesses. 

This policy stance has both reflected and reinforced the substantial growth in recent years of Plaid's electoral support and membership in the industrial (or post-industrial) South Wales Valleys areas. Nevertheless, the party remains a broad coalition. The weight of its membership is in the predominantly rural, and more conservative, areas of North and West Wales, which partially explains the election as party leader of Ieuan Wyn Jones, the most right-wing of three candidates, in August 2000. But increasingly, the party is attracting the support of working class people in Wales on the basis that its policies serve their class interests. In recognition of this, Bob Crow of the RMT recently met Adam Price MP, effectively the leader of the Plaid Cymru left, to explore the possibility of the union giving financial support to Plaid.

Plaid's full manifesto for the forthcoming elections will not be published until early April, but, according to press reports, it contains 'a clear commitment to radical transformation of the economy and public services' and aims to create 'a fairer and more equal society'. The specific measures to be set out reportedly include:

• An alternative to PFI, in the form of a Public Investment Trust.

• Free eye tests and free dental checks for all and a commitment to tackle the crisis in the health service by increasing the number of doctors, nurses and beds.

• An end to the internal market in education and an undertaking to abolish school tests at Key Stages two and three.

• A promise to encourage the development of regional growth areas and the creation of a regional jobs plan, to spread economic well-being more justly throughout Wales.

The commitments on school tests, eye tests and dental checks do not represent anything novel but only the extension of measures already undertaken by Labour, and the pledge to sort out the health service is fairly meaningless unless it is backed up with hard facts and figures. But the commitment to public provision of public services, in place of PFI, and the promise of greater state intervention in the economy, are a significant improvement on the approach of the current Assembly Government - although they would have been entirely consistent with Labour policy as recently as the mid-1990s. In any case, it will not be primarily the detail of Plaid's manifesto pledges that determines its degree of electoral support, but rather the assessment that is made of its general political character and its credibility as an alternative Welsh Government. And this, of course, will have as much to do with disappointment in Labour's performance than positive enthusiasm for Plaid.

The Election and the War

The one pressing issue where Plaid currently seems almost certain to win support at the expense of Labour, is the war. From the very beginning of the so-called 'War Against Terrorism', it has consistently called for restraint, opposing the attack on Afghanistan, when the other main parties in Wales were united in supporting the Government. Its AMs, MPs and MEPs have been prominent in the anti-war movement, speaking at all the major demonstrations and, in the case of the MEPs, undertaking a 'peace mission' to Iraq. By contrast, Richard Edwards was the only Labour AM, and Llew Smith the only Welsh Labour MP, to oppose publicly the war in Afghanistan. Subsequently, anti-war sentiment in the party has strengthened and 16 Welsh Labour MPs rebelled against the Government in the crucial vote on 18 March. But although only two Labour AMs support Blair's line, the Labour Group - and therefore the Assembly Government - has failed to take any collective position, beyond an anodyne statement in January, supporting 'our prime minister in looking at all ways possible to avoid war with Iraq', which became obsolete almost immediately. Labour's Assembly chief whip instructed AMs not to respond to a Western Mail survey of their views of the war, and many have continued to observe this 'gagging order'. As with many other issues, the failure of the Welsh Labour leadership to distance itself from Westminster on the war is not only a sign of political weakness, but an electoral liability.

At the time of writing it is impossible to predict the course of the war or, therefore, the extent of its impact on party politics. But even if the war is brief and claims few casualties, there will be many people in Wales who are already sufficiently disgusted by Blair's role that they will vote primarily against Labour on this one issue. A 'Vote 2 Stop the War' campaign has belatedly begun on the basis of advising people of constituency candidates' stance on the war, and standing its own slate of candidates in the regional 'top-up' lists. It seems unlikely to make a huge impact, but voters already have the choice of two mainstream anti-war parties - Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats - as well as the Greens, Welsh Socialist Alliance and Socialist Labour Party (whose leader, Arthur Scargill, is himself heading its South Wales East regional list).

The Election and the Devolution Project

This election will be regarded as a judgement not only on the present Labour-led Assembly Government, but on the whole project of devolution, and the shortcomings of the former will inevitably influence popular sentiment towards the latter. Yet, regardless of the present position, the establishment of the Assembly should be seen as an unqualified gain for the people of Wales. Its very existence represents an opportunity for the expression, at a political level, of the distinct national identity and culture of Wales, and a potential mechanism for the solution of the country's particular problems. Moreover, it opens up a democratic space within the machinery of the British state, within which popular struggles may be conducted. To this extent, the diffusion of power represented by devolution is simultaneously a weakening of the political control held at the centre of the state apparatus. The danger, however, is that the Assembly will remain simply an administrative structure, devoid of real political content. Neglected and even resented by its intended constituency, it could prove itself more useful to the Westminster Government as a means of deflecting popular discontent, than to the people of Wales as a means of directing that discontent against the most deserving targets. This scenario becomes increasingly likely in the absence of the political will to realise the Assembly's potential. 

To avoid this outcome would mean simultaneously using the Assembly's existing powers to the full and demanding more. Welsh Labour is currently doing neither of these things. Ron Davies famously declared that devolution was a process, not an event, and there are many within his party - including some of the current Cardiff Cabinet - who share his view that the Assembly's creation was merely the first step towards a more thoroughgoing form of self-government. But there are other leading Welsh Labour figures who have no appetite for further devolution, and condemn any moves in that direction as 'crypto-nationalist rubbish' (in the words of Huw Lewis, the right-wing Labour AM for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney). Supported by Paul Starling, political editor of the Welsh Daily Mirror, they counterpose a professed overriding concern for 'social justice' to any interest in a Welsh national project - yet these are, in practice, frequently the strongest supporters of the Blairite agenda. For now, an uneasy peace exists between the two sides, but the potential for more public divisions exists in the form of the Richard Commission on the Assembly's powers, set up by the Assembly Government at the behest of the Lib Dems, and due to report in the autumn.

Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru has announced that if it gains control of the Assembly in May, it will initiate a two-year National Convention, involving all sections of society, which will draw up plans for a full Parliament in Wales, to be established by 2007. This proposal is to be welcomed, recognising as it implicitly does that Wales needs the process of national debate that Scotland underwent prior to the finalisation of its own devolution proposals - in part through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Such a process would be particularly welcome if it facilitated a positive engagement between socialists in the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and other parties on the national question. Ultimately, the left must support the objective of a Welsh Parliament with full legislative and tax-raising powers, both as a matter of principle and, in the present circumstances, as a bulwark against the neo-liberal policies of the Blair Government.

Institutionalised Coalition Politics

In October 2000, while touring Labour Party meetings around Wales to justify his coalition with the Lib Dems, Rhodri confidently asserted that Labour would win an overall majority in two out of every three Welsh general elections; it was simply unfortunate that the first such election was not among the two-thirds. This claim has looked increasingly hollow since then, and another coalition seems the most likely outcome of the forthcoming elections. In an interview with the current affairs programme at party conference, Dragon's Eye, immediately after Labour's Blackpool conference, Rhodri enraged Labour activists (and several of his own AMs) by suggesting that he might continue his coalition with the Lib Dems even if Labour did win an overall majority. While such an approach no doubt finds favour in Downing Street, it will win Rhodri few friends in the Welsh party, where the Lib Dems are almost universally disliked. And there are sound political reasons why a further Lib-Lab 'Partnership Government' should be strenuously opposed. In fairness, the junior coalition partner cannot be blamed for the weakness of the Assembly Government's programme: as argued above, there is little evidence that Labour would have had anything more substantial to offer if it had governed alone. But the long-run tendency inherent in Lib-Labism is to obstruct any inclination by Labour to put the interests of working people first, or to favour public control of services and economic enterprises as a matter of principle. 

Yet Wales' (partially) proportional system seems likely to deliver coalitions - or else minority governments - more often than not. Socialists often see minority government as the more preferable option, to avoid undermining Labour's class independence, as it would be by a Lib-Lab administration. But it is simply not credible at the moment, to argue that a minority Labour Government would be a better option for the people of Wales than a coalition between Labour and Plaid Cymru. Plaid's increasingly working-class base, reflected in its social-democratic programme, would be more likely to pull Labour to the left. 

This option was eloquently laid out by Adam Price MP in an article in Tribune on 23 January. Welcoming Rhodri Morgan's 'clear red water' speech as massively significant for its commitment to equality of outcome and services free at the point of delivery, he argued that 'the most likely party to respond positively to a radical programme of government based on socialist principles would undoubtedly be Plaid'. Price described the Lib Dems as 'neo-liberals, opposed to Government support for the coal industry, against windfarms if they are on their own doorsteps, supporters of a modified Private Finance Initiative, and viciously opportunistic opponents of the Fire Brigades Union.' 'There are', he continued, 'two anti-socialist groupings in the Welsh Assembly, and two avowedly socialist parties, divided on the national question, but apparently united in their opposition to the Government's market-driven approach. As we face down a common enemy, what unites us is far more important than anything that divides us.' He called, therefore, for a 'historic compromise between the two great currents of the Welsh Left, a radical red-green platform of progressive politics.' This is an initiative that deserves a positive response.

Socialists and the Elections

All this leaves us with the question: what attitude should socialists take to these elections? Marxists, such as the supporters of Workers Action, have historically campaigned for the election of social-democratic parties like Labour, not because we have any confidence in their programme, but because they are identified as parties of the working class, within which they have enjoyed consistent and organised support. Putting such parties in office has created the hope and expectation of policies that will advance the interests of the working people. We have always argued within the organised working class, that pressure must be maintained on the social democrats, once in Government, to carry out their programme. However inadequate such programmes might be, they generally represent at least a small advance for the working class at the expense of the capitalist class, and the struggle for their implementation builds the confidence of working people to campaign for a bolder, more radical agenda. 

In the context of the Assembly elections, however, the pursuit of such an approach is somewhat complicated. The first reason is that, under its present Blairite leadership, Labour has adopted policies which are not simply too timid, but are completely counterposed to the interests of working people. This applies indirectly to Welsh Labour, which although not enthusiastically Blairite, is bound by the same general policy framework. The task for socialists in the Labour Party is therefore to oppose the implementation of the party's programme, and to campaign for a comprehensive alternative agenda. This is a particularly difficult approach to popularise at election times, not least in Wales, where there is no realistic need to vote Labour in order to keep out the Tories. The second complication is that, in Wales voters have the choice of two social-democratic parties, which are both strong contenders for Government. One - Labour - has practically abandoned its social-democratic programme - at least until such time is it is willing or able to break free from the constraints of neoliberalism imposed on it by Westminster. Nevertheless, it retains strong organisational links with the unions and can still count on probably a plurality - though certainly not a majority - of politically conscious working class people. The other party - Plaid Cymru - has a programme that is more in keeping with the heritage of social-democracy, but also a more diverse social base, including a smaller section of the working class, and as yet no formal links with the unions (although this may change).

Workers Action believes that the best place for socialists in Wales remains the Labour Party. This is primarily because the link with the unions presents a continuing opportunity to bring working class interests into party politics. However, we must recognise that the Welsh working class is increasingly divided, as people lose any confidence that Labour can solve their problems with its current policies and leadership. We must sharply oppose any sectarian attacks on Plaid Cymru and argue that while its leadership is not qualitatively better than Labour's, its better policies - against privatisation, for state economic intervention, and for a full Parliament in Wales - should be supported. We should argue for joint work between socialists in Labour and Plaid around such concrete issues, and against the war. And in the likely event of no overall majority in Assembly, we should actively campaign for the Labour leadership to form a coalition with Plaid Cymru, not the Liberal Democrats. 

Finally, it is obvious and necessary that supporting Labour's electoral campaign will be central to the activities of socialists in the Welsh Labour Party over the coming weeks. However, the additional member system (AMS) also presents an opportunity to cast a second vote for Plaid Cymru. The first past the post system, which determines the election of 40 of the 60 Assembly seats, disproportionately favours Labour. For this reason, it is extremely unlikely that the party will qualify for a 'top-up' seat from the regional lists, other than in Mid and West Wales. A Labour vote in the regional list ballot will in most cases, therefore, be wasted, whereas a vote for Plaid Cymru will make a difference to Plaid's fortunes and will also help to minimise the number of seats won by the Tories and Lib Dems. Socialists should therefore argue, wherever it is politically possible, for a first vote for Labour and a second for Plaid. 

Return to main page