 |
| Before addressing Silk II, it's worth registering my irritation, anger even, at Plaid Cymru's backfired attempt to "discipline" Michael Haggett. (Pic : Syniadau) |
All Plaid Cymru had to do was shut up.
They got their man in the Senedd. Beds had been made, and Plaid's anti-nuclear lobby have been tucked in so hard they've been suffocated - whether they realise it or not.
The party top brass weren't satisfied with one of the best constituency performances in Plaid's recent history, embarrassing Labour in the process. They had to celebrate the triumph by flaying those of little faith - Syniadau's Michael Haggett (MH) in their sights.
MH : Deserved Criticism
After the by-election, I said some of MH's language and timing was "brazen", and that Plaid Cymru had a right to be angry "for that reason, but that reason alone". MH had to answer for it.
The sole justification (for a complaint) would be his, "it would be tragedy for Plaid if Rhun (ap Iorwerth) was elected" comment. You wouldn't expect a member to, effectively, hope their party loses an election, regardless of their opinion of the candidate. All parties would treat that seriously, and people have been expelled for less.
Those who volunteered time or money on Anglesey last July have a right to be angry, and perhaps MH owed them an apology. The initial punishment (a written warning with an expulsion suspended for 12 months) even seemed proportionate.
However, you would've expected Plaid to let it go, because any disciplinary actions would've had to have revisited public statements on nuclear energy - except it didn't because the process was an absolute train crash.
If Plaid had disciplined MH fair and square, I wouldn't be posting this. But the whole thing was rendered an injustice by the hamfisted way Plaid got to that position, raising serious questions about how the party is run behind the scenes.
Speaking Truth to Power
Being accused of lying is hardly the most stinging insult towards a politician (however unpleasant) as it's an unofficial part of the job. MH's criticism of Plaid's nuclear policy and its misrepresentation by senior figures in the party stands up - regardless of the tone of his arguments.
Llyr Gruffydd AM (Plaid, North Wales) produced an excellent energy policy paper a few weeks ago, but it was hard to take seriously because – once again – Plaid tiptoed around a controversy for the sake of being everything to everyone. Their "We don't support nuclear power, except...." stance is farcical.
There are plenty of "pragmatic" realpolitik policies Plaid Cymru oppose or oppose when they want to - fracking, opencast mining, large-scale onshore wind farms, moving Trident to Wales, the monarchy, closing small schools, the "bedroom tax", GMOs, toxic waste dumps, drones.... the list goes on.
Based on the Anglesey precedent, if someone proposed a nuclear-powered Aberthaw B or Trawsfynydd B promising thousands of jobs, what would Plaid's position be? Will it be "We don't support nuclear power, except...." all over again? You can't tell.
An issue of little importance? Absolutely not.When it comes to independence - Plaid's "long term aim" - you have to place yourself 20, 30, 40 years into the future, weighing up all variables including nuclear energy. It doesn't matter if it has minute support or not, if it's a "long term aim" of a political party they have to future proof policy with that in mind.
Plaid secured a crushing by-election victory, the price being the "The Party of Wales" backing the construction of a 21st Century Caernarfon Castle.
I don't have an issue with nuclear power on safety, technological or environmental grounds (unlike MH), even whilst living in the shadow of Hinkley Point. My objections are mostly economic. Even if decommissioning liabilities were shared, it's a long-term bill and liability we don't need.
Wales doesn't need a nuclear power station based on our energy requirements and potential for renewables; the UK does. Construction will likely be undertaken by experienced contractors – not locals, that's why there's talk of lots of temporary housing on Anglesey - while the number of operational and long-term jobs are partly related to decommissioning Wylfa A.
Losing Anglesey Aluminium completely will be the bigger blow to the Anglesey and Welsh economies in the long run. Producing aluminium - a hard product - is worth more in terms of domestic productivity than utilities ever will be.
Even if Wylfa B was going to be steam-rollered through by Westminster, supporting nuclear power in Wales is logically incompatible with both Welsh nationalism and sustainable development – the latter of which Labour continuously pays lip service to as well.
A valid complaint heard in a Kangaroo Court
Maintaining discipline amongst a 7,000+ member organisation is always going to be a tough, thankless task.
Elin Jones AM (Plaid, Ceredigion) can't be criticised for making a complaint. There's nothing wrong with a party disciplining its members as long as the process is fair, objective and the same rules apply to everyone regardless of rank.
The disclosed emails and documents are unequivocal - Plaid bollocksed it up.
At the start, you would've expected an enquiry into MH's comments – which could've then led to a formal disciplinary procedure.
The first question would be, "Have senior members of Plaid Cymru publicly misrepresented the party's nuclear energy policy?" If the answer's yes - and it is yes - then MH is entitled to question the party or candidate's stance. Case closed. His only responsibility would be to express that reasonably, and you can certainly argue he didn't. But the truth is the truth.
If Plaid don't like that, they'll need to change their policies. That's supposed to be the job of the membership, making Plaid "different" from other parties, isn't it?
Instead, key decisions were taken behind closed doors without input from MH (including taking part in the initial investigation), Plaid's Standing Orders relating to discipline weren't followed correctly, records weren't properly kept and even basic things like dates were wrong.
MH was trying to answer a case without knowing : who would be adjudicating, the precise grounds for the complaint so he could properly defend himself, whether there was any potential conflict of interest amongst members of the relevant panels and timetables.
The initial investigation report - seemingly the sole evidence by which the final judgement was based upon - reads as biased in the absence of evidence from MH.
Regardless of your opinion on the rights and wrongs here, condemning someone without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves properly isn't just immoral it's disgusting.
MH was pedantic, but in quasi-judicial proceedings it's absolutely essential rules, regulations and orders are followed to the letter. That didn't happen, and should render judgements null and void.
I'm astonished Plaid had the cheek to restart the process after a successful appeal. An appeal where Michael ripped their position apart. If people don't know what "Kafkaesque" means, MH has provided an excellent example.
If a private company or public body were acting this way there would've been grounds for an employment tribunal. I'm sure Plaid at all levels would vigorously "defend the rights" of those on the receiving end of such disgraceful treatment. The placards would be out in force.
Except for their own.
Respect cuts both ways
When bloggers do something wrong, we should be called out on it. To repeat myself, some of the things MH wrote were unacceptable, and the punishment (had the processes been followed properly) was fair.
But an injustice or attack against one is an attack on all.
Although there are plenty of people and processes that come to the aid of those of higher standing in Welsh politics and society - even when they spout utter bollocks - there's nothing for those of us at the other end of the scale except each other. Call that solidarity if you want.
Yeah, the blogosphere's small, geeky, not very important nor influential. Some commentators (bloggers or those who interact with us) verge on being cartoon characters, whether they're the most strident hard-nationalist or the most uber-Brit anti-devolutionista.
It's fallen out of fashion amongst "Assembly insiders" so it's not seen in the same light it was five or six years ago. However, like it or not it's part and parcel of how Welsh politics is covered - which is in a bad enough state as it is. Summarising party policies or things like the Assembly in detail - for those who are interested but who don't want to read the official stuff themselves - is the sort of thing you don't get here because Wales lacks broadsheet newspapers.
It takes hard work and dedication to get where I am, let alone Syniadau, which for a Welsh politics site has been a phenomenal success. Often - if you're a nationalist - that means being an active member of, or agreeing with, Plaid Cymru. Sometimes it means disagreeing, and hopefully providing constructive criticism or sparking debate.
OK, Michael didn't live up to the "constructive" part, but I would've expected a member of the rank and file with a large audience of readers to have been on the list of people to engage with constructively, not treated as a nuisance.
It's in stark contrast to Scotland's "Fifth Estate". Plaid would fall over themselves to have a Wings over Scotland or Bella Caledonia. It's likely "cybernats" are playing a crucial role in the independence referendum.
Elin Jones speaks for Plaid on internet campaigning as she's the party's Director of Communications. It would've been nice to have known of Plaid's low opinion of blogs sooner, because it would've saved me hours of voluntary work – including more recently, this, this and this - and from a non-member.
To give you a rough idea of how much that's "worth" - nothing to Plaid Cymru it seems - if there were a market for it and it were carried out by journalists, the going freelance NUJ rate is ~£100-200 per 1,000 words online.
Blogs appear out of thin air, but you can't pull posts out of your backside. It can become an unpaid part-time job, and if you're a party member you're effectively volunteering all year round - not just at election time - the number of hours it amounts to bordering on insane. Except, it's never been considered voluntary work in MH's case, has it?
Your public statements are widely-read but don't carry weight. It's also a risk, with particular problems in Wales - the abuse, balancing things so you don't annoy the wrong person (ha!), litigious local authorities etc. If you get your stuff wrong you publicly humiliate yourself, because you're doing something in your free time without paid researchers and assistants to draft and fact check things for you.
Open debate should be Plaid Cymru's greatest strength, but if criticism is shouted down and critics hounded out, all you're left with is a parade of delusional feel-good fluff with no substance. The party marches off a cliff, high as a kite, because they believe stuffing more letter boxes in safe seats and dishing out more keyrings than they used to means they're heading for government.
MH was abrasive, but honest opinion and advice is absolutely essential to any political party that has ambitions of power, as integrity and fixing policy holes gets them into office. Muddled policies don't. The arsekissers, ladder-climbers and yes-(wo)men will be the first to jump ship when the going gets tough, taking canvassers, memberships and donations with them.
You could say MH is a self-important loose cannon who should know his place.
You can also say he's been a foundation stone of Plaid's online campaigning for five years, with articles - the vast majority fervently in support of the party's policies - collectively read more than a million times. You would've thought that counts for something in terms of "voluntary work" or "party loyalty", and might buy you enough grounds to be treated with a modicum of common decency when you breach discipline.
Even if the complaint was valid, Michael earned the right to be judged properly and to be heard out. People might rightly question his loyalty to the party, but the party showed no loyalty to him in kind.Plaid should take great care in ensuring that, in future, decentralised socialism doesn't translate into meaning the same old centralised bullshit.
0 comments:
Post a Comment