False Prophets, False Dawns, False Hope, False Start?

So, Plaid have made a decision to pull out of talks with Labour and pursue the Liberal/Tory coalition agreement. Well, most of Plaid have. Within minutes of Plaid announcing it's decision, four AMs ventured forth and announced their opposition to the idea of governing with the aforementioned parties, presumably on the basis that the Tories are evil and Maggie is coming to eat our coal mines. The fact that this is 2007 and not 1987 seems to have passed certian opinions by.

Anyhow, Plaid are now in danger of coming out of this with nothing at all, if only because the other two parties will now assume (possibly correctly) that Plaid lacks the requisite unity to form a cohesive and above all reliable part of the coalition. It seems in this day and age everyone is expected to make concessions except the left; evidently it is the left-wing way or no way!

Before this breaking of the ranks there were three likely outcomes:

1: Plaid form a government with the LibDems and Tories.
This would give Plaid the office of First Minister, as well as the bulk of the cabinet posts. There would however be no vote on a referendum as the coalition would control less than the required 40 votes.

2: Plaid form a government with Labour.
This would give Plaid one or two cabinet seats and a number of concesions, incluidng a possible vote in the Assembly on a referendum (Plaid and Labour between them have more than 40 seats).

3: Plaid remain in opposition, coming to an understanding of some kind with Labour on a vote-by-vote basis. Plaid would hold no cabinet seats. It is again possible that there could be an agreement that the Labour party support a vote in the Assembly on a referendum in return for more consistent support, although this is less likely.

On the face of it, 2 and possibly 3 have the most appeal on the basis that they hold out the possibilty of a referendum on more power for the Assembly, but this is not necessarily so. Firstly, even if the Labour party in the Assembly support the vote and pass the motion, there is no guarantee that Westminster would do the same, thereby stopping the motion at the doors of the House of Commons. Secondly, even if it did get through Westminster, there is no guarantee that Labour would support the argument for more powers in a referendum campaign. Without the support of Labour, who could be expected to side with the Tories in opposing such a measure, the referendum could conceivably end in disaster and kill off the issue for decades. Given the aggravation that certain Labour party members caused the last time this issue was addressed, and given that the Tories in Westminster would jump on any excuse to deprive Welsh MPs of their influence (and possibly thier jobs), it is unlikely that the Labour party would support a 'Yes' vote in such a refendum. In return for this false concession, Plaid would be reduced to political vagrancy, having turned on it's erstwhile coalition partners, and receiving only the odd scrap from the Labour party on those rare occasions things come to a vote in the chamber (contrary to popular perception, most decisions are made and enacted well away from the Assembly chamber), having recived and wasted their one major concession from the Labour party. Realistically, there will be no succesful referendum vote during this Assembly term.

In terms of achieving power (presumably the ambition of any political party), the first option is by far and away the best. Although there would be no referendum (not that there would be one anyway), Plaid would enjoy considerable executive and not inconsiderable legislative power. As the bulk of the Assembly's power is executive in nature (i.e. decisions are made by those who carry them out, and not by the legislature (the 60 AMs in the chamber itself)), Plaid would find itself in a position to enact what it had previously only been able to dream about and beg for. Aside from the referendum vote, all Assembly votes need only a simple majority to pass, which means other measures that do require a vote, such as legislation on the Welsh language, would be passed by the coalition. Naturally, there would have to be concesisons to the other parties, but these would be less than the Labour party would ask for and also Plaid would get a more in return, since Plaid would be the biggest party. This however would depend somewhat on the negotiating skills of the leadership, but given Plaid's position as the biggest of the three coalition parties, it is not unreasonable to assume that Plaid would be the greatest influence.

All in all, in terms of political progress, not just for Plaid, but for Wales as a whole, the Lib/Tory coalition represents the best option. So this increasingly futlie pandering to an illusory left-wing sentiment is costing Plaid it's chance to improve the Welsh nation. Wales is no more left-wing than any other European country, and this idiotic confusion between left-wing ideology and simple fair-play (a.k.a. social jusitce) needs to end. So for that matter does this notion that Labour is a left-wing party, and by associating with it Plaid will gain some credibility when some of the magic 'lefty dust' rubs off onto it along with some of Labour's votes. If people vote for Plaid it is because of it's will to stand up solely for Wales and her communities, and not because of it's increasingly over-indulged lefty fixation.

Perhaps the nationalist cause will realise that it is better off with a sense of 21st century political maturity and compromise coupled with a strong nationalist cause, and not with the spent force of 19th and 20th century Labourite ideology. Notions of right and left are being replaced by notions of right and wrong. If Plaid wants to do what it believes is right, then it must take the opportunity presented to it and not be misled by a deaf ideology.