Reflection on the Latest Welsh Political Barometer Poll

So today (11/04/16) the latest Opinion Poll data on for the Welsh Assembly Election in just under a months time was released. This will, most probably, be the most important poll data for the Assembly Election for its release at the beginning of the campaign season gives the parties an idea of what level of campaigning they will need to do and will determine their campaign strategy for the coming month. In this blog I plan to release the results of the poll and give a basic analysis of what the results show us and what the potential consequences are for the parties involved. I have collected all the data from Roger Scully's blog (which can be found here). All of the data he uses is from the Barometer Poll however he adds a useful extra which is the predicted outcome of seats with the swing seats included, which the Barometer Poll does not seem to have done. This, therefore, gives us a more realistic prediction of the distribution of seats. The results of the poll can be found below, both the constituency and regional votes (the plus and minus represents the gains or loss of potential vote from the last vote) and the predicted outcome of the distribution of seats.

 What do these results show us? Well, firstly they show that Labour has firmly cemented their place as the top party in the assembly with, roughly, 10% more of the vote than the party after it and roughly 15 more seats. As a result, unsurprisingly, it seems that a Labour government is most likely to occur again in May. However, in both the Barometer Poll's predicted outcome and Roger Scully's, Labour are just short of a majority. This means that Labour will have to consider either a minority government (again) or a coalition. But I shall explore this more later on in the blog.

The battle for second place, however, seems to be the most interesting part of this poll data and, indeed, the Assembly election for this year. In the constituency vote, the Conservatives are three points down which allows Plaid Cymru to overtake it to claim second place. However, both Plaid and the Conservatives lose two points in the regional vote and therefore are still in joint second place. The most interesting results comes from the predicted outcome of the distribution of seats. In the Barometer Poll's predicted outcome, Plaid will be the second largest party in the Assembly with 12 seats compared to the Conservatives 10. Yet in Roger Scully's predicted outcome, which takes into account the ratio swing, second place is instead taken by the Conservatives with 12 seats closely followed by Plaid with 11. This shows that the big battle in the next election is in fact between Plaid and the Conservatives for second place in the Assembly. This presents an interesting dilemma for both parties who are competing with each other for Labour seats, with markedly different policies. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the upcoming campaign.

The Liberal Democrats are obviously set to lose a lot in this election, which is unsurprising to many. But the more shocking outcome for them is the difference between the Barometer Poll's predictions and Scully's. The Baromter Poll still predicts them to have some seats in the Assembly, even if it is two thirds less than what they had in 2011, whilst Scully's poll predicts them to have no seats at all. The Liberal Democrats certainly seem to be the weakest party out of all of the parties in the upcoming election and, by far, have the biggest fight ahead of them just to even stay in the Assembly. For the other parties, however, it seems that targeting Liberal Democrat seats may be possibly the most advantageous strategy given how weak the party appears to be in the poll. The Conservatives certainly made good use of exploiting the gains of ex-Liberal Democrat seats in the General Election and I would suspect they would do the same here. If Labour want to get that majority or if Plaid want to beat the Conservatives to second place, focusing on the Liberal Democrat seats seems to be a good strategy.

The final party to consider is UKIP. UKIP gained two points in this most recent poll, bringing them back up after seeing a drop in the latest poll. As is shown in both the Barometer Poll prediction and the Scully prediction, they are expected to have eight seats in the Assembly, all from the list. UKIP certainly seems to be that thorn in the side of the main three and a harder party to resist as its seats are coming from the list and not constituencies. The parties need to develop a strategy to counter this rise of UKIP in Wales so as to gain from the eight seats UKIP are expected to get, particularly for Labour if they want that majority. However, 2015 has shown how difficult that will be and it seems the parties have resigned themselves to the fact that UKIP are going to gain a lot of seats in the next election. Despite this, a strategy to counter UKIP could see a party benefit at UKIP's expense.

So what would the possible government outcomes be from such results? Well, unsurprisingly, the ball is very much in Labour's court. With Labour, at most, two seats away from a majority they will most certainly be forming a government, but what type is certainly debatable. The ability of a non-Labour government is very unlikely unless the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru decide to form a coalition to keep Labour out of government but this seems highly unlikely and would be near political suicide for Plaid, who have campaigned furiously against the Conservatives for the last 6 years and pretty much guaranteed they would not consider a coalition with the Conservatives.

So given a Labour government is almost confirmed for 2016, even if short of a majority, what are the possible Labour government outcomes? Given it is reasonable to assume that Labour would not consider a coalition with either the Conservatives or UKIP, this leaves just Plaid and the Liberal Democrats as possible coalition partners. This, therefore, leaves three possible governmental outcomes for Labour, based on the current opinion poll data:

1) A coalition with the Liberal Democrats - This is not entirely implausible, given Labour have been in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in Wales before, but it is most certainly dependent on how the Liberal Democrats do in the election. If we take the most optimistic current prediction for the Liberal Democrats (the Barometer Poll), a coalition with the Liberal Democrats would take Labour up to 30 seats - not enough for a majority. Eventhough it would give Labour control of the government and the near spoils of office, the lack of a majority makes a coalition with the Liberal Democrats pointless. In this light, with the current poll predictions, a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is unlikely.

2) A coalition with Plaid Cymru - This is most certainly possible. It would not be the first time Labour and Plaid have been in coalition and Plaid are certainly itching to get back into government. It would also give the government a comfortable majority in the house, regardless of the outcome. However, relations between Labour and Plaid have not been the best at the moment and Plaid's unorthodox coalition proposals, such as the rotating First Ministership (read my blog here to see how unusual it actually is), would certainly make many in Labour wary of considering a coalition. There is also the concerns of whether Plaid would actually consider a coalition with Labour. Leanne Wood certainly talks strongly about her opposition to Labour and this would suggest she would not consider a coalition. But, in my opinion, the possibility of power would make her consider otherwise, especially given it is an option they have openly spoken about in public. But would the party allow her to take them into a Labour-Plaid coalition? In this light, doubts do arise over whether a Labour-Plaid coalition would be possible, but who knows what can happen in the negotiation stages.

3) A Labour minority - This is most definitely possible. Out of the last four Assembly governments, two of them have been Labour minorities. Labour has shown it can run as a minority for full terms in Wales in the past and there's no reason why they cannot do it again. Despite having less seats than last term, they will on need three seats in the worse case scenario to get a majority, not too much of an impossible task. As a result, given Labour's history of minority governments and small margin to a majority, negotiating agreements to pass legislation would really not be difficult. As a result, a Labour minority government is not that unlikely and probably the most plausible outcome out of the three listed.

So the latest poll reveals many answers but also many questions. It has certainly confirmed that Labour has maintained its position firmly as the leading party in the Assembly and has also confirmed that another term of Labour government is most likely to occur. However, it has also revealed how close the battle for the second largest party is - between Plaid and the Conservatives. This will be the most interesting battle to watch over during the campaign and the smallest advantage in strategy will probably mean the difference between second and third place. UKIP's future is certainly confirmed with a good proportion of seats in the Assembly predicted however the Liberal Democrats future is the most uncertain with the Barometer Poll predicting two seats but Scully's prediction giving the Liberal Democrats no seats. The Liberal Democrats certainly have the toughest battle ahead of them in the campaign whilst the other parties would be wise to try and take advantage of the Liberal Democrats current weakness.

In regards to possible government outcomes, there are three possible options. A Labour-Lib Dem coalition is, in my opinion, off the table unless the Liberal Democrats can somehow maintain enough seats to give Labour a majority in the Assembly, which seems unlikely. A Labour-Plaid coalition is certainly a lot more plausible, but many questions remain over how likely either party would be willing to work together (even over how likely Leanne will remain leader after the election). A Labour minority government for the second term is, in my opinion, the most likely solution. They have proven they can do it and the current predictions place Labour in a comfortable position to negotiate legislation agreements, like they have already had to do. Whilst minority governments are difficult, I have no doubts that Labour can run one in Wales effectively. Therefore, my current prediction would be a Labour minority government in May.

Is the Plaid Cymru Rotating First Ministership Proposal That Unusual?

Recently Plaid Cymru gave an interesting suggestion as to what they would like if they were to enter into another coalition with Labour later this year. Plaid's suggestion was for their to be a rotating First Ministership, with one party holding the First Ministership for the first half of the government and then swapping the First Ministership to the other coalition partner for the second half. You can read the details of the suggestion in more detail here. 

Plaid's suggestion has caused controversy amongst some people. Many see it as unfair that the smaller coalition partner should ever hold the highest office in the Welsh Government, even for only half the term. As some people have pointed out, if Plaid want the First Ministership then they need to win the election. However, these comments got me thinking about the whole situation. Firstly, whilst people are correct that if Plaid are entering the coalition they have not won the election, the simple fact of the matter is that if Labour need a coalition partner then they have not won the election either. Therefore, theoretically, Plaid are just as entitled to the First Ministership as Labour, as they are both as important as each other for the government to exist. Despite this, it is still unusual to hear of the minority coalition partner gaining the highest office position in the government (which is the Prime Ministership the majority of the time). I decided to look into this and see if there are any historical examples in Europe of minority coalition partners gaining the Prime Ministership (PM) and try and explore why this has happened. The hope is to then identify if Plaid's proposal really is as outrageous as some people suggest it is and also why Plaid have made the proposal.

There are, to some people's surprise I am sure, historical examples in Europe of the minority coalition partner having the PM. Denmark has had one incidence with the Baunsgaard government between 1968-1971. Italy have had numerous examples in the post-war era up to the major electoral changes in the mid-1990s. Finally, and the most contemporary example, the current Belgium PM is from a minority coalition partner. What I shall do is look at these examples in slightly more detail to try and understand why the PM office was given to the minority coalition partner. I shall than use the findings to help us understand if Plaid' suggestion is really that unorthodox.

Denmark has one example of a minority coalition partner taking the PM. In 1968, Hilmar Baunsgaard took the PM despite being in the smallest party in the coalition (the list of Danish governments can be found here and the Danish electoral results can be found here). This incidence has never happened before or since in Danish politics, and is even more peculiar when you consider that Denmark predominantly has minority governments. So why did it occur in 1968? An analysis has shown that Baunsgaard was the first Danish politician to make good use of the media, which was starting to becoming a big influence on politics, particularly television. Baunsgaard was almost ahead of his time and was certainly ahead of his fellow Danish politicians in his use of the media. As a result, he was the most recognised, and some argue trusted, politician in Denmark. This public recognition, it is argued, is why he was given the PM because it was felt that with Baunsgaard as PM the government would be more trusted and respected by the people. Although for me this raises questions as to why Baunsgaard's party did so poorly electorally during the election, it appears to be the most accepted reason by scholars at the moment for why Baunsgaard obtained the PM.

So does Denmark's case help us better understand Plaid's suggestion? I would say not really. The use of the media is something that all politicians do now and both Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood are well recognised by the Welsh electorate. And recent polls by Roger Scully have in fact placed Carwyn Jones slightly above Leanne Wood in 'likeability' (the results can be found here), although they are still roughly equal. This therefore means that Plaid would not be able to claim the First Ministership on the trust and likeability of the Welsh public argument that Baunsgaard was evidently able to use in Denmark in 1968. I would also argue this is not the argument that Plaid want to convey either for obtaining the First Ministership.

Italy has three examples of the minority coalition partner gaining the PM office, all in the 1980s and early 1990s (the list of Italian governments can be found here). Italy is an interesting case when it comes to coalitions due to the vast amount of coalitions they have had, many oversized, and also how quickly they have ended. As you can see when you follow the link, Italy has had many governments since the Second World War. An analysis of these governments makes the selection of the PM from the minority coalition partner in the 1980s and early 1990s more understandable. From the Second World War to the mid-1990s the Christian Democracy party featured as the biggest party in every single coalition government, which meant it was part of the government for 50 years straight. And up until the early 1980s the Christian Democracy party had also held the PM for every single coalition government. 1981 see's the PM being taken up by a different party for the first time. This would suggest that the PM being given to a minority coalition partner is a sign of trying to break the constant ruling by the Christian Democracy party and give Italy a chance to be ruled 'afresh'. It was also probably a sign of  the Christian Democracy party trying to appease its coalition partners it had been in government with for decades and had controlled, particularly to stop them from breaking away from the coalition and causing a collapse of the government again.

Does Italy's examples help us better understand Plaid's suggestion for the First Ministership? I would argue that it does. Labour have formed every government since the the first Welsh Government in 1999 and only in 2007 did they form a coalition, with Plaid Cymru. For Plaid, their campaigns have regularly focused on getting Labour out of government and therefore Plaid taking the First Ministership for half a term would be them breaking the constant ruling by Labour and giving Wales a 'fresh start'. In this light, its very similar to the incidents that happened in Italy. Also, Plaid probably felt hard done by Labour in the last coalition they were in (rightly or wrongly)  and most probably want the First Ministership as a way to prevent that from happening again.  

The final example of a minority coalition partner having the PM is Belgium. Belgium's current PM, Charles Michel, is from a minority coalition partner (list of Belgian governments can be found here and Belgian electoral results can be found here). Like with Denmark, this is the only example in Belgian history of the minority coalition partner gaining the PM. The way Charles Michel was able to obtain the PM appears to be a mixture of political goals within a bigger coalition partner and issues in the wider political arena. The biggest party in the coalition is the New Flemish Alliance, which is a Flemish separatist and conservative party. Due to its separatist standpoint, it appears to be a party that no one in Belgium want to officially rule the country. The second largest party to then take the PM is the Christian Democratic and Flemish Party. However, they chose to have a party member to take the position of European Commissioner than have their party leader take the PM. This therefore left Charles Michel, in the next largest party, to take the PM.

Does Belgium's current example help us to better understand Plaid's suggestion for the First Ministership? I would argue that it does not. Firstly, UKIP would be the only party that people would not want to lead a Welsh Government, however recent polls suggest the amount of seats that UKIP would get would be too small to even be considered for a coalition let alone be big enough to lead a coalition. Therefore, there would be no need for Plaid to take the First Ministership to prevent UKIP leading the government. Secondly, at the moment it seems highly unlikely that a potential coalition partner (namely Labour) would give Plaid the First Ministership so they could achieve political goals elsewhere. Particularly given that this type of bargaining would happen at the Westminster level and not the Welsh Assembly level. All in all, Belgium's example is not really applicable to Wales at all. There's almost no similarities in situations to explain Plaid suggestions of the rotating First Ministership.

A small analysis of other examples of minority coalition partners taking the PM reveals alot. Firstly, it reveals that this type of incidence has actually be hugely under researched and is probably something that somebody should look into researching in the future. Finland is another example where the minority coalition partner has taken the PM, half the governments between 1945-1954 had such incidences, however nobody has researched these incidences for me to have used them as an example. Therefore, I think it would be really beneficial for somebody to look into this in the future.

Secondly, only Italy has examples that would be comparable to the Welsh example. Namely that Plaid's call for a rotating First Ministership is an attempt to break the continuous rule of Labour in Wales and to help Plaid not be hard done by Labour in a coalition. Or at least help them feel like they are not being hard done by Labour. This certainly helps us understand what Plaid are asking for and at least shows that this incidence of minority coalition partners taking the highest government office for such reasons has happened before in Europe. However, despite all of this, Plaid's suggestion is still very unique and very unorthodox. Unlike Italy, Plaid is proposing a rotating First Ministership between themselves and Labour, not a permanent Plaid First Minister. This has never happened in European politics before in post-1945 Europe. In this light, Plaid Cymru's proposal is very unusual and certainly an idea that many people would struggle to get their head around. As well as that, the proposal is very unlikely to ever come into practice because it is evidently only in Plaid's interests and therefore something Labour would never agree to. However, to say that it is wrong for a minority coalition partner to take the highest government office is most certainly wrong. There are examples of it in European Political History and for a variety of reasons. And so in this light, I feel that many of the criticisms of the proposal are harsh.

Does Wales Still Vote Left-Wing?

I have regularly heard a reference to how Wales is a 'left-wing' country and always votes as such. I can remember watching a Question Time before the 2015 General Election and hearing Leanne Wood say that Wales have never returned a Conservative government (and then continued on to say why a UK Conservative government is unfair on Wales and why it needs more autonomy, but this is another debate for another day). Whilst Leanne Wood is correct, I was aware of the fact that the Conservatives had been making gains in Wales (they were the second largest party in the Assembly at the time) and I was sure that the Conservatives would make gains in the 2015 General Election (which they eventually did). So this got me thinking, is Wales still this left-wing country that everyone claims it to be? Is it now more right wing or becoming right-wing? And what sort of impact would this have on Welsh politics?

Now, it must be noted that many people will disagree that Labour are simply a left-wing party and that the Conservatives are simply a right-wing party. This is certainly a fair point to raise, but in the UK we generally view both parties as falling in these respective wings and this does influence our thinkings of the parties. It also makes analysis much easier but it is proper to identify there is a debate. So for the purpose of this analysis, Labour and Plaid Cymru are taken to be left-wing parties, the Conservatives and UKIP are right-wing and the Liberal Democrats as centrist.

In the 2015 General Election (the results can be found here) the Conservatives had 11 seats, gaining three (two from the Liberal Democrats and one from Labour). This compares to 25 seats for Labour and three for Plaid Cymru, giving 28 seats out of 40 to left-wing parties. The remaining seats went to the Liberal Democrats. So in 2015, roughly one third of the seats went to a right-wing party. Is this the sign of a right-wing country? Well let's compare this to the height of the Blairite government, with the results of the 1997 General Election (the results can be found here). In 1997 the Conservatives won no seats at all. Labour won 34 and Plaid Cymru won four, meaning 38 out of 40 seats went to left-wing parties. The remaining two went to the Liberal Democrats. In light of these results, the Conservatives going from zero seats to 11 in just under 20 years is a very impressive feat. And shows a significant shift to the right in Welsh politics. Even in 2005 (the results can be found here), the last election of a Labour government, the Conservatives only had three seats. So in an eight year period the Conservatives went from zero seats to three, yet between 2005 to 2010 (2010 election results can be found here) the Conservatives gained five seats and then finally another three between 2010 to 2015. Not small gains, but rather large. This would suggest that Wales is becoming right-wing in its voting patterns.

However, the UK voting system is known to swing a lot and we have only compared the election results of one Labour government to a Conservative government (ie, one swing). Does Wales have any other history of right-wing voting? Well, the 2015 General Election is actually not the biggest amount of seats the Conservatives have ever gained in Wales post-1945. The most seats that the Conservatives have ever had in Wales was in the 1983 General Election (the results can be found here) where the Conservatives won 14 seats. In fact, 2015 is only joint second for the highest number of seats the Conservatives have won in Wales, the other being 1979 (the results can be found here). What this shows us is that Wales have been just as right-wing in the past, before going back to a truly left-wing spell. This would suggest that what we are seeing now in Wales is not unique and is only Wales fleetingly voting right-wing and will most probably return to a left-wing voting pattern in the future (rather than increasingly voting right-wing). 

Despite this, there are some problems with the analysis I have done here, namely that I have focused on the number of seats gained. This is an unfair analysis of voting behaviour in Wales due to the plurality voting system used for UK general elections, which does not give seats on the share of the vote. Therefore, to get a clearer picture of the voting pattern in Wales, it would be fairer to look at the share of the vote the Conservatives achieved, rather than the seats. In 1997, at the height of the Blairite government, the Conservatives received 19.58% of the vote, rising to 21.38% in 2005. We can take this as the low point of Conservative voting in Wales. In 1983, the most amount of seats the Conservatives have ever received in Wales, the Conservatives achieved 31.03% of the vote. In 2015 the Conservatives achieved 27.22% of the vote. These results still appear to support the conclusions we have drawn from the distribution of seats. The right-wing vote has increased, but has not reached the peak that the right-wing vote has historically reached in the past. However, this analysis ignores one key party - UKIP. In 2015 UKIP achieved 13.64% of the vote, which means the total right-wing vote in Wales in 2015 was 40.85% - the highest share of the vote right-wing parties have ever received (and nearly 10% higher than in 1983). 

What these results shows us is that nearly half of the Welsh electorate voted for right-wing parties in 2015, which has never been seen before in Welsh politics post-1945. This raises many questions about the previous conclusion that this could be just a minor right-wing voting trend in Welsh politics that will return to an even stronger left-wing one in the future. These results point to a stronger right-wing voting trend in the Welsh electorate, and some feel this is not the end of an increasing right-wing vote. 

No one can predict what will happen in the future. 2015 could be like 1983, the peak of right-wing voting in Wales which will gradually (or dramatically as happened in the 1980s) fall in the coming years. Alternatively, this could be the sign of a new voting trend in Wales that is here to stay. What is most likely, at least from the current results, is that a fall in the right-wing vote to levels seen in 1997 is unlikely. I suspect this current right-wing trend will have some long lasting impact, most probably seeing right-wing voting hover around 30% in the future decades. But I would not be surprised if this is a sign of a change in the voting behaviour of Wales, which could have a big impact on Welsh politics that no one could predict. This is certainly something to watch!

Ending Note

It must be noted, that this analysis has focused only on General Election results. It would be unfair to analyse and predict Welsh electorate voting patterns solely on General Elections now there has been a Welsh Assembly for 15 years. As many scholars have shown, voting patterns do tend to be different between General and Assembly elections. Therefore, this analysis should be compared with another analysis of Assembly elections to get a truer picture of the voting behaviour of the Welsh electorate. Something I may look into at a later date.

Has Plaid Learnt From 2011?

I have recently read Craig McAngus' 'Office and Policy at the Expense of Votes: Plaid Cymru and the One Wales Government' (McAngus 2014). In it, McAngus uses Strom and Muller's (1999) policy/office/votes framework to analyse Plaid's time in office with Welsh Labour between 2007 and 2011 to attempt to explain why Plaid lost so many votes in the 2011 Welsh Assembly Election. His analysis concluded that Plaid were so focused on achieving pure policy whilst in office, many of which were successful (such as the 2011 Devolution referendum), that they ignored the importance of the vote seeking element within the party. In particular, he notes that Plaid were very bad at highlighting what they had achieved whilst in office and instead preferred to focus more on criticising what Welsh Labour had done in government, which meant they were also criticising the very government they were a part of (McAngus 2014). McAngus' (2014) conclusion implies that Plaid focused too much on their policy, and even office, seeking goals that they ignored their vote seeking objectives and vote maximising potential. As a result, they lost the 2011 election. 

McAngus' article has made me re-analyse Plaid's actions in the recent months with the run-up to the 2016 Welsh Assembly election. In particular, I ask the question has Plaid learnt from the mistakes they made between 2007-2011? McAngus' article is based on evidence obtained from ministers and party employees between 2007-2011 and therefore the party themselves are at least partially aware of where they had gone wrong. Have they tried to correct this and give more attention to vote seeking objectives in the 2016 election? This is what I shall attempt to partially explore here.

For those unfamiliar with Strom and Muller (1999), their policy/office/vote seeking framework argues that parties objectives will be based around three ideas - policy seeking, office seeking and vote seeking. However, the more a party priorities one, the less success they will have in the other. For example, if a party prioritises having pure policy they will do less well in the vote seeking objectives for their policies will appeal to fewer people meaning they will get fewer votes and therefore less of a chance of obtaining office. However, if a party prioritises vote seeking objectives, their policy will become less pure and will mean less to them which consequently means the voters view them as a party with no principles. McAngus' (2014) analysis placed Plaid as more of a policy pure party, which subsequently affected their vote seeking objectives and consequently led to them doing badly in the 2011 Welsh Assembly Election. But is this policy pure Plaid still in existence today?

Plaid Cymru (2015)

In some ways, Plaid has still maintained a policy pure objective. Analysis of Plaid's Facebook posts and campaigns reveals a constant referral to an 'unjust, unclear and unsustainable' devolution settlement (Plaid Cymru 2016). This is also shown by the 'We Shouldn't Settle for Third Rate Devolution' poster attached to this post (Plaid Cymru 2015). An independent Wales is the core aim of Plaid and therefore a strong emphasis on the unfair devolution settlement is a sign of policy purity. As well as that, it is a message that Plaid have always run on even though opinion polls regularly show that Welsh Independence is something the Welsh public are not that interested in. An ICM/BBC poll in 2015 indicated that only 6% of the Welsh population would support an independent Wales and only 40% would support giving the Welsh Assembly more powers (ICM/BBC 2015). If Plaid was becoming a vote seeking party, why do they persist with an increased devolved powers policy platform when the public evidently do not support it? That said, we must remember that Muller and Strom's framework does not mean that all parties will fit into one or the other, it would be very rare to find that, and every party will have some element of policy purity. And the support of Welsh Independence is one of those policy purity's that Plaid will never lose.

But is there any evidence that Plaid are becoming vote seekers? The answer is not very clear at this time as the campaigns are still ongoing however there could be some evidence of certain elements of vote seeking attempts by Plaid. The recent incident of Plaid voting against the Welsh Labour Health Bill after the Public Services Minister said a previous deal with the party was a 'cheap date' (BBC 2016) could be viewed as an attempt by Plaid to maximise its vote by showing how it is a serious party in the Assembly and a vote for Plaid will matter and will produce results. As well as that, when senior Plaid Assembly Minister Simon Thomas refused to rule out a coalition with the Conservatives, this could also indicate Plaid is trying to take a more vote seeking objective (Wales Online 2016). This particular incident sparked controversy as Plaid had always said it would never prop up a Conservative government and therefore a suggestion they could form a coalition with the Conservatives suggests a change in the party focus. In particular, opening the option to have a coalition with any party means a vote for Plaid would no longer be viewed as a second vote to support the Labour Party, for Plaid regularly work with Labour and have obviously been in coalition with them. A vote for Plaid could genuinely be a vote for an alternative party.

However, these incidents could possibly be more evidence of Plaid taking an office seeking objective opposed to a vote seeking. Both the actions to vote down the Health Bill (BBC 2016) and not rule out a coalition with the Conservatives (Wales Online 2016) is more a sign of Plaid wishing to obtain office than necessarily votes. The 'cheap date' jibe incident is more a sing of Plaid showing they are a serious party for office and the incident of refusing to rule out a coalition with the Conservatives again shows that Plaid would be willing to work with any party to obtain office. As a result, I think it would be fairer to say that the recent actions by Plaid are probably more of a sign of a party taking an office seeking objective opposed to a vote seeking. Which, incidentally, is primarily what they did between 2007 to 2011.

So have Plaid learnt from 2011? Its certainly too early to say. The campaign season is starting up and only after the election will we be able to analyse in more detail what Plaid did. However, an initial analysis would suggest that Plaid has not learnt a lot from 2011. They still seem to have a policy pure campaign and a focus on gaining office rather than gaining votes. Of course, office seeking and vote seeking often work hand in hand but in this particular case these actions certainly do not encourage voters to vote for the party. The fact that they are 'incidents' suggests they do the very opposite. Therefore it is probably safer to say that they are office seeking actions, not vote seeking. As a result, this suggests that Plaid has not learnt anything from 2011.

References

• BBC (2016) E-Cigarette Law Fails After 'Cheap Date' Jibe at Plaid Cymru. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35812561. Published 16th March 2016. 
• ICM/BBC (2015) St. David's Day Poll. http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_bbcwales_march_poll.pdf. Field work completed 26th February 2015.
• McAngus, C. (2014) Office and Policy at the Expense of Votes: Plaid Cymru and the Ones Wales Government. Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, p209-227.
• Strom, K. and Muller, W. C. (1999) Political Parties and Hard Choices. in Muller, W. C. and Strom, K. (eds) Policy, Office or Votes: How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge University Press.
• Plaid Cymru (2015) We Shouldn't Settle For Third Rate Devolution [Poster] Cardiff: Plaid Cymru.
• Plaid Cymru (2016) Plaid Cymru Responds to Secretary of State Statement on Wales Bill https://www.partyof.wales/news/2016/02/29/plaid-cymru-responds-to-secretary-of-state-statement-on-wales-bill/. Published 29/02/2016.
• Wales Online (2016) Senior Plaid AM Refuses to Rule Out A Deal to Make a Minority Tory Welsh Government Possible. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/senior-plaid-am-refuses-rule-10863971. Published 9th February 2016.