Malcolm Gladwell, Adam Price and "Why Not?"

This week I was discussing on twitter the limitations to Malcolm Gladwell's ideas (as much as discussion can take place in that medium anyway). I enjoy Gladwell's writing, it has a laconic wit and a comforting almost home cooking feel tone to it. It's relaxed enough to enjoy it, understand the idea but not feel it is being sledgehammered into your skull.

Gladwell's 'The Tipping Point' is his best idea, if not book (I preferred Blink as a book). Gladwell's central idea, one where "epidemics behave in a very unusual and counterintuitive way" is something Plaid Cymru need to think about as we enter the business end of these elections. As Gladwell says;

"As human beings, we always expect everyday change to happen slowly and steadily, and for there to be some relationship between cause and effect. And when there isn't -- when crime drops dramatically in New York for no apparent reason, or when a movie made on a shoestring budget ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars -- we're surprised. I'm saying, don't be surprised"

You might think with the polls how they are, the media pointing in a different direction and hangover of the most British General Election in living memory we as a party face huge challenges. We do of course, but it's important to refer back to tipping points.

Adam Price has probably read Gladwell (less so this Blog I am sure), however I thought a comment in made in that excellent research reminded me of a tipping point.

There may be many plausible reasons for opposing Welsh independence, but the risk of impoverishment can no longer credibly be said the strongest.

Clearly the time the Welsh electorate engages with "Why not?" rather than "How can we/Why?" on Welsh independence maybe our very own national tipping point.

The same can go for these elections. I am at pains to give it to you straight, the polls must have some grain of truth in them nationally. I don't foresee us breaking the 20 seats barrier (an essential strategic goal by 2020 IMHO) this time. However, remember that "epidemics behave in a very unusual and counterintuitive way".

Might we see us remain on the same number of AMs but with new 'tipping point' victories. As someone involved in the Caerphilly campaign, believe me that it's neck and neck and that every time Ron Davies goes out and meets voters we are winning new and untapped support - built on a strong base of the Council. Even the most one-eyed Labour hack might hesitate when asked "Who would make a better AM for Caerphilly - Cuthbert or Davies?"

Might there be a seat we don't win but gain 500, 1000 or 2000 votes? A seat that in a decade becomes the next Caerphilly or in 2012 brings far more councillors? To borrow this metaphor, might these flotillas of Councillors in the long run deliver the breaking of the glass ceiling nationally?

Change is rarely linear and is often hidden under something as blunt as 'national election story'.

Don't laugh too hard at the Lib Dems

I wrote this in response to this article.

It is interesting that everyone is so dismissive of the Lib Dems, yet their vote (if it does collapse/switch) will make or break many seats.

The whole ‘sell out’ schtick as been done to death. The Lib Dems would have been halving the deficit in a term with Labour, raising tuition fees on the Browne Review etc.

However, the total reversal of policy is only one part of the story, it is the total misunderstanding of what motivated their voters that will be the death of the Lib Dems. The Lib Dem growth was built on pitching at centre-left voters and just about holding together soft Tories who wouldn’t vote Labour, with an underpinning of tactical voting in most seats.

I genuinely believe that the Liberal Democrat do not have a USP in British politics. Liberals exist in all the other parties; UKIP, Tories, Labour, Plaid and Green. It is a neat but totally inept explanation to maintain the Lib Dems USP is ‘liberal vs authoritarian’.

Without the outsider, nice, tactical vote, you have the figure of ‘real’ liberal voters – that is all that is left from their poll figures.

So while we can all guffaw at the Lib Dems plight, I think we all might need to consider how much we look at our own parties. Understanding your vote and not assuming that they are all passionately for your policies is crucial with such a potential mobile electorate.

…and yes, in all the close seats in Wales, it could well be the collapse or switching of the Lib Dem vote than wins and loses those seats.

Drakeford's proof is in the pudding

Mark Drakeford's article seems like a decent attempt at providing some thought to the basis of post-May coalitions. It all seems a bit "well who wouldn't be for that?" in places, but that is natural for the setting out of parameters.

I was particularly taken with this;

3. Content
My third principle shifts to the issue of content. Here, two key components seem to me to be essential in resolving the difficulties which agreeing content inevitably throw up:


1.Any final joint programme should contain only items which had been put before the electorate by either one party or the other.
2.It must not contain any item which had been explicitly rejected in the election by either of the coalition partners.

Number two is on such shakey ground you couldn't drink a pint stood on it. Can you think of one Plaid policy Labour hasn't apparently rejected? Hell even ones that later we found out their Ministers have put forward?

I would extend the question the other way, but aside from Carwyn's rehashed education promise I haven't actually seen a Labour policy to rubbish.

Point one is reasonable, but again I am not sure if it is chicken and egg stuff. Two coalition partners can have different policies on a big issue, a referendum is the best example to make my point. The two parties could agree to hold a referendum, but campaign on different sides or on a middle ground issue. The AV referendum is a case in point, but ultimately it represented what the ConDems would argue is a middle ground between the refusnik Tories and the pro-reform Lib Dems.

Oh yeah, remember only Labour went into the election promising a referendum on AV, most of their MPs ditched that promise when the Governing parties brought it in.


And I think Mr Drakeford misses another point - the Westminster parties offering non-devolved sweeteners. It seems a bit amiss that Drakeford is all talk about the two points above, but make's no mention of what being in power in Westminster can do to aid an offer of coalition. I will eat my hat if Rhodri Morgan never made it clear that Labour in Westminster would make sure the passage would be secured on the referendum. Nick Bourne will offer the willingness of a man whose party is in power in Westminster this time and even Plaid have raised the issue of 'What can Labour offer us?'

I fail to see how things not in the manifesto are totally off limits, but promises on non-devolved areas are given a free ride? Personally I think both are fair game depending on the circumstances.

Ultimately Mr Drakeford is a Labour candidate, however thoughtful. His list represents a fair ish but ultimately still slanted offer. It is there to make sure that anyone dealing with Labour are limited in their demands, while Labour can attempt to 'reject' any policies from other parties and therefore render them unacceptable post election.

The Fourth Estate of another place

It is important to raise this issue prior to the end of the campaign because I don't want it to be written off as a whinge or special pleading. It is important to also make clear this is hardly a revolutionary new viewpoint.

The Welsh media landscape is clearly not fit for purpose for a functioning democracy.


I'm not an instinctive BBC-basher, I am a wholly satisfied license fee payer on the whole. But I am have grown increasingly angry at the way the corporation covers Welsh politics. My blood boiled when we had a BBC Question Time in Newport that included a question about who John Terry was shagging, but not one question on a devolved issue. It made my blood boil that the referendum panel show they hosted feature a pretty unscreened audience who were a rabid in their approval of abolishing the assembly.

On the day of the referendum, a vote that impacts on all parts of the UK, we had wall to wall of the Barnsley by-election, which wasn't even a competitive seat, without any coverage of the referendum. Now we have the London media giving reams of coverage to the AV Referendum with but barely a passing mention to elections in Wales and Scotland.

To me there are a number of things that can be done - the BBC has to be the beginning, but not the end. Firstly, Wales needs it's own six oclock news - one which focuses on global, devolved and UK events, but through a Welsh lens.

Secondly, Wales has to have a monthly question time devoted to devolved matters with only Welsh representatives on the panel. No more Kelvin Mackenzie/Janet Street Porter etc talking about England only policies beamed from Swansea. I think a monthly show is a fair ask.

Thirdly, Plaid must make devolution of broadcasting a massive priority. The fact is that any new democracy needs a free and fair media that reports on the things happening in said nation. Wales is being let down. I believe that devolution will flourish if we have a media that transmit this focus to the Welsh people.

It is unacceptable that many Welsh voters are not consuming any news that will inform them of the Welsh Assembly election. This is particularly important and doable when we have a state funded media outlet in the BBC.

To put my Plaid hat on - it is a massive issue that Plaid cannot put across their ideas through the media that Welsh people primarily consume. While there are no easy answers with the printed press, there has to be pressure being put on the BBC to properly reflect this democratic deficit.

And let's be clear, the lack of Welsh focus suits the other three parties very well. No token 'England only' mentions will disguise the fact that all news was focused on the three Westminster parties talking about NHS Reforms.

I also think we need to look at any way we can encourage local media companies to set up media outlets - online, radio, print or tv to provide Wales focused news and comment.

Peter fails to pot the black...again

I find Peter Black’s blog readable and enjoyable. He writes with the correct amount of mischief, politicking and good humour needed for a blog to be so. He also gives his opponents a huge amount of fertile ground to remind him of the real world outside of his own head.

So in this post he is quite correct to assume that Plaid Cymru cannot merely attack their joint record with Labour in the Assembly. But he does the classic trick of blathering on about something else for most of the post and hoping we don’t notice the not so subtle connection he is trying to make.

Plaid Cymru were never in Government with Labour in Westminster. The two issues that Plaid have raised - spending cuts and barnett formula reform - are not devolved. It is perfectly correct and in keeping with taking responsibility for our record in Government to make clear Labour’s intentions on these issues.

This is particularly important, as Peter will well know himself, when Labour’s campaign appears to consist of histrionics over ‘savage cuts’ from Westminster. As I understand it, Labour’s proposed cuts UK were £14billion, the ConDems were £16billion - at what point is one savage and one is Ed Milliband’s nice cuts?

As a brief aside, I do think that the left in general need to seriously up their game when talking about an alternative to cuts. Personally I am of the view that it is the wrong debate to argue, as Labour have, that you can oppose every cut but not suggest an alternative strategy. And before it seems like I am singling out one party, there can be no dispute whatever the reason that Labour in Government left that deficit, hence why there an absolute focus on them.

To return to my original point. Plaid Cymru did everything a coalition partner in a devolved Welsh Assembly could do regarding Barnett Reform. It insisted on the Holtham commission which forced Labour what it had known for decades - that the Barnett Formula was unfair to Wales. I am not sure if even Peter Black is colour blind enough to believe that Plaid Cymru could have somehow forced New Labour to change the formula also.

The fact that Labour proposed even faster cuts than the ConDems in Wales should be made the number one issue every time Labour utter a breath in this campaign.