A New National Party?

There has been some discussion of late about creating a New Nationalist Party in Wales, by people who are as peeved with Plaid as I often am.

My general attitude is one of the more the merrier. Many different organisations pleading the national cause from differing viewpoints can only benefit the overall cause of national self determination.

The problem that I have with almost every proponent of a new nationalist party is the lack of ambition; almost all proponents of such a party seem to want to oppose Plaid Cymru!


Plaid Cymru has 3 out of 40 MPs, 11 out of 60 AMs, gained 19% of the vote in the last Assembly elections on a turnout of just 42% - less than 10% of those eligible to vote. A new nationalist party that just wants to steal a portion of Plaid's vote is a waste of time and would dilute the national cause – what gain would there be for the general cause if there were 3 or 4 more unionist Assembly Members in the Senedd as a result of the New National Party splitting the Plaid vote?

If a New National Party was formed that could appeal to the 58% of those who couldn't be arsed to vote in 2011, or that took votes from the Unionist Labour Party or the Unionist Conservative Party or the Federalist Lib Dems – I might be interested, but I just can't see the point of a new party that restricts its ambition to pinching a small part of Plaid's electoral support because of petty ideological spite.


Congratulations Leanne

I would like to offer sincere congratulations to Leanne Wood on gaining the leadership of Plaid Cymru.

There is no secret in the fact that there are huge differences of opinion between my right of centre politics and Leanne's left wing politics.

I have berated Leanne's political stance on a regular basis since I started blogging; I don't expect that to change! The posts in which I have noted that Leanne and I disagree are the ones which have attracted the greatest number of comments by both those who support her and those who agree with me! That is Leanne's strength as a party leader; she is a politician who can spark fierce debate, a woman whose opinions attract a strong response be it in her favour or against her.

Too many of our current politicians are people who are too respectable and too moderate; people who are afraid to upset anyone; people who follow the crowd rather than challenge people to think about alternative routes.

According to the old cliché the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you. Unfortunately people have not talked much about Plaid, Independence or the alternatives to the political consensus recently!

Leanne is a woman who cannot "not be talked about", she is a lady whose views tend to create a fierce political debate.

As long as she isn't mesmerised by the importance of her new office or forced into compromise by party advisors too worried about rocking the boat, Leanne's uncompromising and clear views on all the important issues facing Wales will created interesting, sometimes heated, debates which will not only be beneficial to Plaid Cymru but will also be beneficial to Welsh politics in general.


Defining marriage to exclude gays!

I am always busy on a Thursday night, so I always miss the politics programmes. Why do all of them have to be broadcast on a Thursday? It must be boring for those not interested in politics, and is frustrating for those of us addicts who like our daily fix of politics.

I have just caught up with Thursday’s QT and a claim by Cardinal O’Brian that proposals for gay marriage are “redefining” the meaning of marriage!

The term marriage, in my experience, seems to have a much wider meaning, than the narrow one that the Cardinal wishes to restrict it to.

When I was doing woodwork in school we had to do joints, mine were never good enough because they didn’t marry together!

When I watch antiques programmes on the telly I hear the term marriage for two bits of antiquity that don’t naturally belong together but are, however, joined together – like a 19th century mirror on a 18th century dressing table.

The person trying to redefine the word marriage is the Cardinal; he is trying to claim that the word marriage can only be used to describe Holy Matrimony as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. But he is wrong, even there.

When Catholic people were executed for the abomination of homosexuality, they were condemned for the sin of marriage of men, so the Catholic Church actually acknowledges that gay marriage exists, even if it has never approved of it, because it has murdered people for partaking in it!

If the Cardinal doesn’t want to ask God’s blessing on the marriage of two men or two women, he shouldn’t be forced to do so; but why should a Catholic dictate that I, as a Methodist, shouldn’t be allowed by law to ask God for that blessing?

In civil proceedings what practical difference is there between a civil partnership and a civil marriage? None! Why should a man-woman civil proceeding be given a different term to that of the same man-man or woman-woman civil proceeding?