How Plaid Cymru Works - 17

In February this year, I published the email correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself relating to a complaint made by Elin Jones, the AM for Ceredigion, in which she alleged that I had "damaged the public reputation of Plaid Cymru" by what I had written on Syniadau during the Ynys Môn by-election campaign last summer.

Apparently, Elin seems to think that it is unacceptable for me to point out that Rhun ap Iorwerth lied about Plaid Cymru's policy on nuclear power, and wants me to be thrown out of the party because I did so. This is particularly hypocritical of her, because she had no difficulty in pointing out that Dafydd Elis-Thomas told the same lie during the Plaid leadership election. According to her double standards, it's all well and good for her to point out that Dafydd was not telling the truth when it suited her because she is looking to be elected, but not for anyone else to do the same. I'll write more about her particular brand of hypocrisy later.

As well as the original series of posts, I’ve collated all the emails in one place on this page, How Plaid Cymru Works - Complete. They show the extent to which people in positions of power in Plaid Cymru were prepared to break nearly every one of Plaid Cymru's disciplinary rules in order to find me "guilty" of doing this. But, in the end, the decision was overturned on appeal, and the people who were responsible were confirmed as having acted unjustly.


I had hoped that this would be the end of the matter. It had been nothing more than a farce from beginning to end, and not only reflected badly on those who had done wrong, but was highly embarrassing for the leadership as a whole. Time after time I warned that their actions were making Plaid Cymru a laughing stock, taking matters right to the top. But both Leanne Wood as party leader and Dafydd Trystan as the Chair of the party chose to turn a blind eye to my warnings.

Similarly, over the last few months I have done my best to persuade the party leadership that it would be better to let things rest, as the emails I am going to publish over the next few days will show. This wasn't for my sake, but for the sake of Plaid Cymru; because the party members who have overwhelmingly upheld Plaid Cymru’s policy of being against nuclear power at conference after conference deserve better than a leadership that is clearly determined to put two fingers up at them by doing absolutely nothing to correct the lies told by people such as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry, Dafydd Elis-Thomas and now Rhun ap Iorwerth. They know they cannot change our policy on nuclear power by open debate and a vote at conference, so they have decided to ignore the decisions we make at conference and change the policy by underhand methods instead.

Sadly, however, the party leadership do not want to let things rest, and are determined to press ahead with “re-starting” disciplinary action against me. The fact that the party's Constitution and Standing Orders do not allow them to do this doesn’t matter to them. Just as they did first time round, they think they are free to ignore our rules when it suits them, and free to invent new rules out of thin air when it suits them.

I can't stop them making fools of themselves, but the problem they face is that they can no longer do it in secret, behind closed doors. This is because Plaid's Standing Orders only prevent someone from making public statements about disciplinary procedures until after the conclusion of any appeal. As an appeal was held in back in January, there is nothing to stop me from exposing what they did, nor anything to stop me exposing what they are still trying to do.

The only reason I have held off doing this until now is because of the European Parliament elections. Although what has happened shows that the rottenness at the top of Plaid Cymru is certainly widespread, not everyone in a senior position in Plaid Cymru is as rotten as the rest, and Jill Evans, whose seat was certainly in the balance, did not deserve to lose it.


Because what I wrote on Syniadau is demonstrably true I have nothing to hide or fear, and those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru can do absolutely nothing to prevent me from speaking out. It was silly of them to even try. They are terrified by truth and are doing everything they can to suppress it, but I've made it perfectly clear that telling the truth is much more important than Plaid Cymru will ever be. So, if the party leadership is foolish enough to want to go through the same thing all over again, I am more than happy to tell the truth all over again to everybody who is prepared to listen.

Their little game has already backfired on them once. As a result of what happened first time round, the whole of Wales has found out that Rhun ap Iorwerth not only lied about Plaid’s policy on nuclear power, but that he lied about his previous membership of Plaid Cymru and, even more amazingly, had been telling different stories to different people about his own views on nuclear power. In public he had been telling people that he was all in favour of it; but because of the official investigation we now know that he was telling members of the party that he was against nuclear power. So who knows what will come out this time round? Watch this space.

For those who want to remind themselves about the previous correspondence, it is all collated on this page, which I will continue to update as further emails are published.

From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014 5:08pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint

Dear Michael Haggett

I have been contacted by the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel (MDSP) in relation to the complaint made against you by Elin Jones.

The Panel has written to me in my capacity as Deputy Chair of Plaid Cymru following your concerns that the matter should be handled by someone other than the Chair.

As you will be aware from the email you received from Alun Cox on the 4th February, your appeal against the earlier decision of the Hearing Panel in relation to your complaint was upheld. The panel decided however that the process should be re-started from the point at which the potential problems with the process arose i.e. after the MDSP had determined that there may be a case to answer. In doing so it was decided that a new Hearing Panel should be constituted and an Investigating Officer appointed to conduct the investigation.

The reason the panel has written to me is that they have asked that the NEC co-opts 3 new members to the MDSP in order to undertake this work.

I am writing to you therefore to inform you that this process is underway and it is my intention that the NEC will be in a position to ratify the new members of the MDSP by next week.

When the NEC has ratified the new members of the MDSP I will then inform you of the names of the new Hearing Panel. I will also ensure that the new members declare from the outset if they have any conflict of interest or involvement in any aspect of this complaint.

In the meantime may I remind you that this complaint is still under investigation and that no public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in this should be made by any member other than me at this time.

I have been informed that you have already been made aware of this.



From: Nerys Evans
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014 5:50pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Complaint

Dear Michael Haggett

Following my previous email to you, I can confirm that Plaid Cymru’s National Executive Committee has selected a new Panel to proceed with hearing the complaint submitted by Elin Jones. The three members are Glyn Erasmus, Eli Jones and Sian Powell. In accordance with 4.2 of the Standing Orders they will now meet to appoint an Investigating Officer and to determine a timetable for the completion of the Investigating Officer’s report.

You will be contacted by them to confirm these details.

Kind regards

Nerys Evans
Deputy Chair

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Monday, 3 March 2014, 4:12pm
To: Nerys Evans
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Nerys

Thank you for your emails of 13 and 25 February.

I have been on holiday and therefore have been unable to write before now. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I have returned to rather a large pile of things that need to be dealt with, so the purpose of this email is to let you know that I expect to be able to address matters in more detail within the next few days.

You will note that I have included the complete chain of previous correspondence relating to the complaints by Elin and myself in order to help you understand what has happened.

Best regards


From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 10:30am
To: Nerys Evans
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett

Dear Nerys

In your email of 13 February you say that you have been contacted by the MDSP regarding Elin's complaint against me. I assume that this was by email or letter, so would you please send me a copy of it.

Let me first say that I welcome the fact that the party leadership has realized that it is inappropriate for any of those who have previously been involved in this fiasco (namely the whole of the MDSP and Dafydd Trystan) to have any further involvement in it; and therefore it does appear appropriate that you, as Deputy Chair, should now as as "honest broker" to deal with the mess.

Because it seemed likely that you would not be fully aware of what had happened, I attached the full chain of correspondence to my email of 3 March, and trust that you have now been able to digest it. As you will see, there are many, many outstanding matters that have not been addressed.

I would particularly draw your attention to my email to Alun dated 7 February. Although he replied on the same day, he failed to address many of the points I raised. In contrast, in my reply of 9 February to his email I gave a full answer to every single point he raised, but have received no further response. As the baton has now been passed on to you, and as more than a month has now passed, would you please address these outstanding matters without any further delay.


Stepping back to look at the wider picture, it is clear that there is no constitutional basis for anyone in Plaid Cymru to continue to pursue disciplinary action against me in relation to Elin's complaint. The irregularities in the way the matter was handled were repeatedly drawn to the attention of both Chris and Dafydd before the formal hearing, but they deliberately turned a blind eye to them and pressed ahead regardless. It is now too late to go back and do it all over again.

But as well as the blatant irregularities in the way that the MDSP conducted themselves with regard to Elin's complaint against me, there were equally blatant irregularities in the way that they conducted themselves with regard to my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd ... as I noted in section 5 of my email of 7 February. You cannot pursue one matter while completely ignoring the other.

The root of the problem Plaid Cymru now faces—and the the reason why the MDSP made such a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process against me—is not merely a matter of flaws in the way it was conducted. The problem is much more fundamental than that. They decided to take disciplinary action against me because I drew attention to the fact that Rhun was misleading the public and other members of the party by lying about our policy on nuclear energy; however they broke the rules to do it not only in the way they handed Elin's complaint, but also by deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that Rhun had lied, and that Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd had told essentially the same lie before him. Taking action against me for telling the truth about Rhun's dishonesty, but not taking action against Rhun for his dishonesty is blatant favouritism. Taking Elin's complaint seriously, but failing to take my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd with the same seriousness is, again, blatant favouritism.

It is this refusal to act in an impartial and even-handed manner which needs to be addressed. It shows blatant bias and prejudice, has damaged the reputation of those responsible, and has brought shame and disgrace upon the party as a whole. It is of course understandable that the MDSP should now want to close their collective ranks and claim, as Alun did, "that there was no intention to mislead or to ignore procedure", but any fair-minded person would see that they cannot be allowed to pass judgement on themselves, and no responsible organization would dream of allowing such self-serving behaviour. The real question now is whether and how far the rot has spread within the leadership of Plaid Cymru. Will others in positions of power in the party attempt to defend the appalling behaviour of the MDSP and Dafydd as Chair, or will you face up to the truth and act decisively to put things right while there is still a chance to do so? That is the stark choice that the party leadership now faces.

You should be under no illusion that Plaid Cymru as a party is on trial. In the penultimate paragraph of your email of 13 February it appears that you still want to keep this matter out of the public eye, but it is too late for that. Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders only prevents a member from making public statements until after the conclusion of any appeal, and that point has now been passed. It has nothing to do with whether, to use your words, "the complaint is still under investigation". This matter is, and will now remain, in the public eye because the best protection I have against a repeat of the previous arbitrary and unfair use of power is openness and transparency.


I would remind you that in my email of 9 February I offered a way forward that would enable matters to be concluded in a way that will be seen by other members of the party and by the general public to be fair and reasonable, and I will repeat it:

So I am going to present the party with a proposition that might surprise you, but is perfectly in keeping with my standards of openness, honesty and accountability.

As I have said from the outset, I am prepared to answer any criticisms about anything I have written on Syniadau from anyone who wants to take issue with it. I extend this courtesy even to those who write anonymous comments on Syniadau, so I'm certainly not going to refuse to be accountable for what I say with those who do not hide behind anonymity.

Therefore I am prepared for there to be a new investigation, but the remit of this new investigation must include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, as well as Elin's complaint against me. Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd must be formally told that their statements are being investigated as part of a disciplinary procedure against them and must be made subject to the same potential sanctions as I might be. The investigation must be carried out by someone of stature from outside the party, must itself reach firm conclusions as to culpability, and must be published.

... I would like Leanne, as leader of the party, to now make the decision as to whether this is an acceptable way forward.

It is a great pity that Leanne has not been prepared to act in the way that is required of the leader of a political party, even when asked directly to intervene. Political parties exist to win the trust of the general public, because it is only by winning their trust that we can have any hope of winning their votes. Are we going to let other political parties put us to shame? Look at the Liberal Democrats. They undoubtedly did the right thing by referring the recent complaints against Chris Rennard to an independent QC, and we should learn from them. No in-house investigation would or could be credible, because Chris Rennard in the case of the LibDems and Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd in the case of Plaid Cymru are in positions of power within their respective parties.

Put bluntly, if you wish to take the matter of disciplinary action against me any further you must now do it by means of an independent investigation, and must include Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd within the scope of that investigation. But if you are afraid that a truly independent investigation will confirm that those four have lied, but that I have told the truth, then you must act even-handedly and drop your threat of disciplinary action against me.

Personally, I think you'd do better to see sense and let the matter rest. Surely we all have better things to do.

Best regards

Michael Haggett

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

Interesting that a party that once professed itself to be SO very different from the lies and spin of the New Labour years reveals itself equally toxic. Politics as Persil...disposable but now with extra bleech for removing those really hard policy stains.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, not all this again. I thought normal service had resumed on this usually excellent blog,

MH said...

Criticism of Plaid Cymru for what we get wrong is as much part of "normal service" as praise for what we get right, 13:51.

Sure, it annoys the hell out of those in the party who want a message "controlled" from the top. But I'm not going to play that game. Thank you for saying that you consider most of what I write excellent, but if anything makes this blog excellent, it is that I believe the only way that I can properly or credibly criticize other parties for what they get wrong is by applying exactly the same standards to my own party.

Anonymous said...

If Rhun ap Iorwth lied to the voters on Ynys Mon and all those who voted for him in the by election believe that then he'll lose his seat in 2016

If Elin Jones making a complaint against you was wrong for exposing lies and voters believe it then voters in Ceredigion will turf her out in 2016

But your personal crusade against Plaid Cymru is unlikely to change the leadership of the party anytime soon and whoever takes over will have to mend bridges and clear up the carnage you are causing. I hope you get a leader who'll agree with everything you say and that trashing the party's reputation is worth the extraordinary efforts you've gone to over the past few months.

Anonymous said...

Anon 16:05, Run ap Iorwerth was infinitely more duplicitous than you suggest.

He 'flip flopped' his way to electoral victory and he is still 'flip flopping' now.

Anonymous said...

I think the days of "my party/my leaders" are now well over for ALL political agencies. The exit of lay Tories to UKIP; the Labour Party still hasn't (if ever) recovered from the abject sycophancy and delusion of the Blair years; the Lib Dem's "Our Great Leader Nick" fantasy has just enjoyably exploded in their sanctimonious faces. You can treat the membership as pliant fodder for only so long. They DO "have other places to go".

Anonymous said...

I think Michael did the right thing by trying to get the Plaid leaders to quietly let the matter drop while honours were, as it were, equal.

It is clear that they didn't, otherwise he wouldn't have written this post. But he seems to have bent over backwards to allow Plaid's leaders to retreat with dignity.

Anonymous said...

It is a bit of a mystery really; I thought it was universally understood that when you are in a hole you stop digging. Plaid seemed to have moved from using a spade to a JCB.
I mean no disrespect but was MH really so influential that he endangered the Plaid vote in Ynys Mon or nationally? Pretty well we all pick and choose what we accept of opinions in blogs; the debate was harmless...the reaction less so.

Anonymous said...

MH deserves the fullest support for his stand on trying to maintain the integrity of Plaid Cymru. It is a disgrace to PC, and not MH, that there are some amongst the leadership that think otherwise.

Here in Gwynedd, the growth of Llais Gwynedd shows how disillusioned former Plaid Cymru voters are. Seimon Glyn is now to stand against Dafydd Elis Thomas in Meirion-Dwyfor in the next Assembly election. If Plaid Cymru had supported Seimon Glyn in his stance against 'incomers' this situation would not have arisen. SG deserves to win.

It is Plaid Cymru that has split the nationalist vote, and taken its supporters for granted.

Anonymous said...

Seimon Glyn remained in Plaid Cymru for years after making his comments about incomers. He left the party over the schools issue.

Not all of Llais Gwynedd's supporters are nationalists, and it is important to remember that Plaid Cymru in Meirion Dwyfor isn't just Dafydd El, there are alot of good nationalists involved. If Seimon Glyn was to win election, it would be with the help of non-nationalist and anti-Plaid tactical voters. Louise Hughes stood for Llais last time...

I am not referring to MH's issue with Elin Jones and Rhun but the stuff about Plaid in Gwynedd is not as one-sided as people make out. Llais are not angels. They are a very ecletic mixture of people and are a localist project.

MH said...

The tragedy isn't that either Rhun or Elin will lose their seats, 16:05. The seats will be lost elsewhere, where Plaid aren't so safe.

But even Ceredigion isn't that safe. Elin has been steadily squandering Plaid's majority. It was 10,249 in 1999; 4,618 in 2003; 3,955 in 2007 and only 1,777 in 2011. If she continues at this rate, she'll lose it in 2016. So it might well be a good idea for us to find a better candidate before then.

As for a new leader, I wouldn't be looking to change Leanne for now, simply because none of the alternatives are much better. I think it will be different after 2016.

But I certainly don't expect to agree with anyone in Plaid, let alone a party leader, on everything. Everybody has their good points and their bad points. Even Rhun has his good points, for example his background as a TV presenter means he comes over well as a communicator. It doesn't make him any less of a liar, but does mean that he can mislead people more easily.

There are people who resport to telling lies across the whole of politics, in every party, including Plaid. So it shouldn't be so much of a surprise to find that Rhun is one of them. But when people are caught telling blatant lies, it's normally a good idea to come clean and say sorry, otherwise they'll be made to look foolish. In fact it would have been relatively easy for Rhun to admit it sooner, perhaps using the fig-leaf that he was "mistaken".

But he fact that he's refused to do this; that Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas have also refused to; and, most importantly, that no-one in the leadership has put the record straight, has severely damaged the reputation of the party. But the fact that the leadership are going to such lengths to punish me for telling the truth (and, irony or ironies, for upholding party policy) is making that damage far worse.

There is clearly a larger agenda at play. The party leadership find it inconvenient that our rules say that members at conference are responsible for policy, and are going after me because I have exposed the underhand way they are either ignoring, or in some cases actively undermining, what members have decided.

Anonymous said...

Matthew 23:24

Anonymous said...

No, it's Mathew 7:3 you're looking for.

Anonymous said...

The BBC/ICM poll looks good for Plaid. Maybe it would be a good idea to lay off UKIP; if they take a few thousand votes off Labour and Plaid takes a few thousand it could be a very good result.

Anonymous said...

Dear me. Talk about shooting the messenger! So when Plaid politicians tell lies it's "only a speck of sawdust" is it? Who's writing this crap? Rhun ap Jobsworth's research assistant?

Anonymous said...

MH - since you are so unbelievably right & the Plaid leadership are so unbelievably wrong & since you are such a staunch defender of ordinary members while the Plaid leadership hold the views of the membership in utter contempt, you must have recieved massive support from the membership.

Are you going to tell us about that?

MH said...

You might be the only person that thinks I'm "unbelievably" right, 21:59. All everybody else has to do is look at what I wrote, follow the links I've provided to what Rhun and others have said, and follow the links I've provided to the motions approved at conference. Then they will be able to see for themselves whether what I've said is true or not.

As for support, I've had several hundred messages of support, including from some very prominent members of the party. But I don't need to namedrop, because truth isn't a matter of popularity; it's a matter of hard, objective fact.

Anonymous said...

That's strange. I don't know of a single party member who's aware of your blog (& that's a rather small minority) who holds you in anything other than complete contempt.

Anyway I'm sure that at least one of your hundreds of well wishers will make himself known & that there will be a motion in your support at the next conference.

If not we'll have to assume that you've invented your hundreds of supporters & that you are in your own parlance a barefaced liar & a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 14.58, I was trying to be diplomatic teehee

Anonymous said...

C'mon - surely you can name at least one supporter. Why doesn't anybody want to make himself known? Are they afraid they're going to be kneecapped or something? Surely at leadt one of your supporters will waive the anonymity clause that seems to be required before anybody is willing to indicate support for your prolonged exercise in self indulgent egotism.

Surely you can name one supporter. Your dog would suffice.

Gwyn Rees said...

Although I don't always agree with what Mike says on this blog, I support him on this. The party leadership have made themselves look stupid with threats of having him thrown out of the party in a kangaroo court in which they stacked everything against him, judge and jury, but he still got the better of them.

The truth is that they feel threatened by him because his voice is becoming too powerful in the nationalist movement. What he says is usually better presented, more coherent, and more persuasive than what Plaid's own mediocre politicians say. And as well as that, people from other parties take note of what he says because they know he isn't one to paint a rosy picture of Plaid being right all the time and everyone else being wrong, like some blogs do.

However the most telling thing about these calls to "name a supporter" is that they're coming from someone who's afraid to give their own name. Says it all really.

Anonymous said...

Could you please explain Gwyn what precisely does the fact that the question I pose to MH (whether he can name a single party member from the hundreds of supporters he purports to have) have to do with the fact that I choose to ask the question anonymously?

All his so called party support is anonymous & most people who support him here are anonymous - & for all we know written by his good self. Are you suggesting that the huge amounts of support he claims to have is irrelevant because it's anonymous - something I agree with, or are you claiming that anonymous support for MH is of significance but that anonymous criticism of him is irrelevant?

If it's the latter I'm afraid you're a bit soft in the head.

Anonymous said...

You've made page 16 (half page) in the Western Mail today. So, it's not only those that read your blog that now know the "saga"!!

Anonymous said...

Bertolt Brecht (1953)... "Would it not be easier / In
that case for the government (party) / To
dissolve the people / And elect another?"

Plus ca we say in Bangor.

Anonymous said...

As someone merely Kremlin watching all this from outside, I am curious how the "confession" process can be driven with such determination and vindictiveness by the Elin Jones faction? Does not the Red Rosa of Rhondda, Ms Woods, have the political sense to shout "enough Comrades, stop digging in the Soviet, some errors have been made by the central committee"?

Anonymous said...

I support Michael. I think the party made a mistake to go after him (you should be ashamed of yourself, Elin) and is now making it worse by doing it all over again. When you are in the wrong, its best to hope things will go quiet, not bring it up again and remind everybody about it.

Phil Evans, Rhondda.

Anonymous said...

@14.42- Don't you know that the central committee is not capable of doing anything wrong? All criticism must be ruthlessly crushed.

Forget about the five year tractor plan we published last year. The Soviet now has a new five year tractor plan which has been purged of all those inconvenient counter-revolutionary lies.

Oh, what did you say? Was it printed in-house? Then they must have been innocent misprints. You do realise that, citizen, don't you?

Keep it up, MH.

Leigh Richards said...

as a plaid cymru member im happy to call on the party leadership to see common sense on this matter and abandon plans to pursue disciplinary measures against michael for merely wanting to uphold party policy on nuclear power .....

its a total and unnecessary distraction from the crucial challenge the party of wales could soon be facing - defending the interests of wales in the tumultuous period in the history of these islands that could soon be about to unfold.....

while its very telling that the only criticisms being made here of michael have come in the insidious form of anonymous trolling........nuff said!

Anonymous said...

Why is asking Michael to justify his claims of mass support within the party trolling Leigh?

Leigh Richards said...

please tell me who im talking with anon 15.47 and i'll gladly answer your question......

Anonymous said...

Why not answer the question anyway?

Why is asking people to justify evidence free claims trolling?

Welsh not British said...

If MH was release the names of the anonymous support, would you also wish him to release the IP addresses of the anonymous critics too?

Anonymous said...

This blog allows anonymous comments. It seems that it's OK to anonymously agree with the author, but it's some sort of scandal to anonymously disagree with him.

If the author doesn't want people to comment anonymously he should disable the anonymous facility on his blog, or at least publicise the fact that he only wants supportive posts from anonymous posters.

Leigh Richards said...

anon 16.37 and 17.21 your contortions on this are are becoming frankly embarrassing......youve been repeatedly asked to reveal yourself but have refused to do so.......i can only conclude that this is because you obviously have something to hide.....

so until you do im afraid wont be wasting a further second of my time engaging in discussion with you....

Anonymous said...

Just as well MH is not a badger with shotgun Elin patrolling Plaid's policy highlands!

Signed...A. Badger.

Anonymous said...

I see Leigh - you're not willing to answer questions from anonymous posters on a blog that allows anonymous comment. I suppose that we'll have to conclude that you have no idea why asking people to produce evidence is akin to trolling.

As a matter of interest do you regard Anon 17:41's personal attack to be trolling? I'm not going to get an answer to that one either.

BTW why do you find my comments embarrassing - you don't even know me, you're very easily embarrassed.

Anonymous said...

What fascinates me is this big question; WHY? What's to be gained here? What if Plaid succeed in throwing MH out? Is he going to stop writing his blog? Is he going to be less supportive/ more critical? What if he just gets a warning? Will he be expected to merely endorse the wandering opportunistic variations in policy come what may?

All I can suppose is that right thinking people in Plaid can't persuade Elin Jones to give it a rest. This is just weak management.

Anonymous said...

Dear MH. Whilst I would not agree for one moment with your general political ideology, I must say that in this matter you have shown some quite remarkable integrity, something that is rare in Welsh politics. Good on ye, Sir.

MH said...

Thanks for the recent comments; and thanks in particular to Gwyn, Phil and Leigh for their support. That's in fact three times more than my anonymous accuser asked for, but if s/he cares to look, s/he'll find many more people who have put their names to their comments in support of me in previous posts.

I would only say that it's rather odd when people say, on the one hand, that hardly anyone reads this blog (the figures are published here, for those who are interested) but, on the other hand, that what I have written is causing immense damage to the party. They can't have it both ways.


It was also good to see (thanks, 10:51) that WalesOnline has written about it. The online version is here. The opening part of the article is slightly wrong, as this is not about whether I agree or disagree with Rhun's views on nuclear power. I criticized Rhun for misrepresenting our position when he told the blatant lie that Plaid has, for the last 40 years, had a policy of supporting the construction of new nuclear on existing nuclear sites. I left a comment to clarify this.


There are many answers that could be given to 21:35's question about why the Plaid leadership are doing this, and what they could possibly gain from it.

I'll touch on some possible answers in my next posts, but can give a definite answer about what I am going to do now.

I am going to keep blogging in exactly the same way, irrespective of what happens. Whether they throw me out, warn me, or do nothing, I am not going to be any more or less supportive/critical of Plaid Cymru's policies than I am now. I will praise them for what I think they get right, and criticize them for what I think they get wrong.

This is, in fact. no different from the way I treat other parties and their policies.

Anonymous said...

So when you claim to have hundreds of supporters you're refering to people who leave comments here, most of whom are anonomous, and most of whom are not party members. People like kp.

Glad we've cleared that one up.

MH said...

You should go back and read what I wrote more carefully, Anon.

Post a Comment