Why Plaid/SNP should be at the Leaders' Debates

Look at the picture. Only the big parties from the grey bit are going to be part of the televised Leaders' debates. That is unfair, writes Marcus Warner. And he's right.

I think Plaid/SNP should be present on the Prime Ministerial debates.

This is based on my view that many of the issues discussed are devolved. Not enough so far is done to offer the ‘England Only’ health warning.

‘Free Schools’, ‘Cancer Guarantee’ – are all meaningless to Welsh and Scottish voters.

It’s also worth remembering that:

* That voters in Wales and Scotland are often in seats whereby the fight does not include either Labour, or Tory or both.

* That the BBC has a right to be fair to other parties

* Plaid get 1000 votes in every single seat in Wales. Unlike the three major Westminster parties, who do not.

* We do not have an elected presidency – voters in Wales vote for an MP, and in places like Aberconwy, Ceredigion, Llanelli, Ynys Mon the battle is not between two westminster parties, but Plaid/Lib Dem, Plaid/Labour/Tory.

Secondly, from a liberal left perspective:
* English voters hearing about devolved policies is good for understanding the system, but also hearing different ideas. There is a westminster consensus on things, often teetering centre right at times.

* The Lib Dems are being asked about their views on a hung parliament, but it is just as valid for English voters to hear the SNP/Plaid views too.

The opposing arguments are also worth arguing against:
* That Plaid/SNP leaders cannot be PM. Nor will Nick Clegg.

* That you open the floodgates to other parties – which is not true, both those parties have elected westminster representatives. UKIP, Greens and the BNP do not.

Marcus Warner blogs at Plaid Panteg.
This article originally appeared on Liberal Conspiracy.

Clegg and the battle of the "two-bit" parties

The Lib-Dems don't like it when a vote for them is dubbed as "wasted", so why is Nick Clegg demeaning Plaid Cymru and SNP voters?

Right when I was warming up again to the Lib-Dems in the run-up to the general election, here comes Nick Clegg's useless, gratuitous and arrogant swipe at both Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

Similarly to what he said last week about the Scottish Nationalists, on a visit to Cardiff the LibDem leader described Plaid Cymru as an "irrelevant, two-bit" party.

Yet, confirming that politicians are incapable of grasping irony, two seconds later Clegg slated those who routinely say the same about the Lib Dems.

For instance Lord Adonis, the Labour peer who yesterday urged LibDem voters to support Labour if they want a realistic chance of stopping the Conservatives -in line with twenty years of Labour or Tory politicians repeating that a vote to the LibDems is a "wasted" one and that "nobody cares about the Liberals".

What's that saying...treat others the same way you want them to treat you?

Click here to access our 2010 Election Guide.

2010 Election special: Plaid Cymru

Part 6 of our Pre-Election series: Ceri Ames makes his pitch for Plaid Cymru, 'the Party of Wales'.

For the first time since 1992, this year I will be casting my vote in a UK general election in Wales. In 1992, despite some reservations, I voted Labour, hoping that they would form a government. This time round I will vote Plaid Cymru, and while there may not be any great breakthrough for Plaid, I suspect that many ex-Labour voters will act like me.

There are two main factors influencing my vote. The first is my despair at Labour’s policies. Whatever lip service New Labour has paid to its leftwing over the years, and despite the pitiful attempts recently to shore up its traditional support, it remains committed to the policies that have predictably failed over the last 13 years.

Plaid offers the kind of social democratic policies that Labour shed in the years leading to power, such as a commitment to reining in the power of the financial sector, greater employment rights and the creation of worthwhile jobs, and a more progressive tax regime.

Of course, Plaid will never be in a position to implement these policies from Westminster (even a conveniently balanced hung parliament would allow a few concessions more likely to involve issues regarding increased Welsh Assembly powers or overall funding), but a vote for Plaid will strengthen its position, and show both the U.K. and Welsh Assembly governments that Welsh opinion is to the left of the U.K. political mainstream and in favour of pursuing policies based on these views thorough the Welsh Assembly.

As well as this, there is a more general reason for my vote, that of creating a more accountable democracy.

The current disillusionment with political parties and politicians will negatively affect progressive politics more than the right. A more responsive, smaller scale, devolved polity can help to combat this cynicism. The more power is devolved, the closer individuals and communities are to the decisions that affect their lives. One of the key issues in Welsh and Scottish devolution was the 18 years of Tory government that essentially had no mandate in these countries, and key decisions were made by these Governments, or worse, by one man appointed by the Government.

Whilst I wouldn’t suggest that the Welsh assembly is the answer to these problems, it is a vast improvement on what went before, and could be a step in the direction of a healthy, more participatory democracy for Wales.

Ceri Ames blogs here at Hagley Road to Ladywood.

[Tomorrow: Respect, by Salma Yaqoob]

Nationalism- not just for the nasty things in life

The distinction between nationalism and patriotism? "Smug nonsense", writes Ceri Ames, "usually spoken by those from dominant ‘nationalities’ who have never understood the ‘minority’ nation’s refusal to assimilate".

With the by-election victory in Glasgow East, the SNP has again reminded the rest of the UK of its existence, and just how close Scotland is to a referendum on independence. And, as usual, the prospect of this brings out the usual lines. The most common relies on pointing out how much English money is invested in Scotland, and how much Scotland relies on English subsidies, as though an independent Scotland would be instantly cut adrift from the rest of Britain, and an economic iron curtain thrown across the border.

Similarly, the opposite argument, of Scotland and England’s interdependence, is also misplaced. Many independent states are economically interlinked (Denmark linked its membership of the EU with the UK’s due to its economic ties).

Eventually, then, the argument against nationalism is rolled in. Nationalism is narrow-minded, aggressive and exclusive, and, if not actually violent, could easily become so. It is usually contrasted with patriotism, which is a “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people”, according to George Orwell. Patriotism is inclusive, born of love for country, rather than hatred of another. At this point, to drive home the argument, the Nazis or the BNP are mentioned as nationalists par excellence.

Now, I’m not going to deny the bad things that have been done in the name of nationalism, but I do want to question two points.

First, the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. For me, this is just nonsense. Moreover, smug nonsense, usually spoken by those from dominant ‘nationalities’, who have never understood the ‘minority’ nation’s refusal to assimilate. This is JS Mill, the classic British liberal:

“Nobody can suppose that it is not more beneficial to a Breton, or a Basque of French Navarre, to be brought into the current of the ideas and feelings of a highly civilized and cultivated people—to be a member of the French nationality, admitted on equal terms to all the privileges of French citizenship, sharing the advantages of French protection, and the dignity and prestige of French power—than to sulk on his own rocks, the half-savage relic of past times, revolving in his own little mental orbit, without participation or interest in the general movement of the world. The same remark applies to the Welshman or the Scottish Highlander, as members of the British nation.”

It pretty much sums up the mental world of the British elite over the last few centuries, and explains their bafflement at our mystifying desire for independence.
Without complicating things too much, just consider how British or American ‘patriots’ have behaved, whether in building empires, or just generally bombing small countries, all in the name of British civilisation or defense of the American way of life. The only difference between patriotism and nationalism is the extent to which one is happy with the status quo and one wants change. It is no coincidence that the rise of English nationalism has occurred over the last 15 years or so, as fears of the EU grow in the UK.

If nationalism was simply based on hatred of difference, or even one particular ‘other’, and intolerance, then we would not have seen the enthusiasm for the EU shown by many European nationalists of non-state nations.
In fact, patriotism is a lazy, self-satisfied, complacent phenomenon, just as capable of sleep walking into violence as any foaming at the mouth nationalism, and just as capable of turning into hatred of those ‘threatening’ it.

Conversely, my own (Welsh) nationalism is in no way ‘exclusive’ (we need all the people we can get). I would consider myself to be a lot more tolerant than most English (or any other) patriots. I just believe that an independent Wales would be a lot more like the kind of place that I want to live in than a Wales within the UK, and would also probably do a better job of nurturing our talent and culture than the UK has managed. Beyond that, it implies almost nothing about my political beliefs. Can I just ask not to be compared to Hitler because of this?