The “solidarity of the international working class” was always what the late, great Ian Dury would have called “rampant bollo”. One thinks of how Keir Hardie was destroyed by the miners and metal-workers of the valleys howling him down with “Land Of Hope” and “Rule Britannia” when he tried to persuade them not to join the English army to fight against their ‘fellow working-class’ in Germany. And of how all those ‘hard-left’ trade unionists and shop stewards at car plants in Dagenham, Halewood, etc. thought it was wonderful that they were taking their families on package holidays to a Spain which was still ruled by a mass-murdering Fascist psychopath called Franco.

When push comes to shove, people will fight for their countries, their communities rather than for some nebulous crap about ‘class loyalties’.

It could be that you’ve touched on a very important point with “The thing about any putative new party is that it must put the nation first, above all ideological considerations”. I would agree with that, because I’m a nationalist.

Yet there are too many in the Labour Party, and some in Plaid Cymru, who believe in a transnational ‘working class’, and use this interpretation as an excuse to do nothing for Wales. Worse, they have used this view in the recent past to divide Wales, arguing for example that a Welsh-speaking miner in the Gwendraeth had more in common with a Yorkshire miner than with his own family back in Ceredigion.

In contemporary terms this difference is exemplified with Brit socialists arguing that deprived areas of Wales lose out due to some capitalist conspiracy, or Tory malevolence, whereas I would argue that these areas are neglected because they’re in Wales. They see working class people, a nationalist sees Welsh people.

As a nationalist, and a Tory in the traditional sense of that word, my concern is for the whole nation. To introduce class into the discussion is to divide us against ourselves to the advantage of our enemies. Yet ‘Welsh’ socialists do this over and over again.

I regard myself – in economic policy terms – as ‘left of centre’. That does not mean that I buy in to the Statist view which has dominated Labour and Ddy Parti Of Wêls for all these years. I see it as essential to a peaceful and successful society that no-one should have to live in squalor in the midst of plenty, and that the basics of a dignified existence within that society – good education, healthcare, a passably habitable place to live, protection from criminal acts, etc. – should be placed as a charge on all members of that society.

To that end, a successful and equitable economy is needed. If just a fraction of the money spent on bribing companies to come in from outside (who then leave at the first sign of the bribes running out, inevitably leaving a worse mess than before) had been spent instead on encouraging and growing native SMEs, then we would have an economy which would rank with some of Scandinavia’s.

It can’t be left to the market (as Max and one or two others seem to imply), because the market will only work primarily to the advantage of those with the clout already. The argument for ‘Libertarianism’ (which is merely turbo-charged free-marketism) looks very attractive until it is actually applied to real situations featuring real people. I’m reminded of my old sixth-form history tutor, Eric Earnshaw, who – describing Anarchism (but the same caveat applies) – said, “Ah, anarchy! It’s a wonderful idea!…..Unfortunately, people tend to be naughty.”

Anyway, I’ve wandered off the point myself. The thing about any putative new party is that it must put the nation first, above all ideological considerations, and that any means (within the straightjacket of the system, of course; although there may be moments when what is euphemistically called ‘civil disobedience’ might come into play) which promotes and brings nearer the moment of our liberation must be considered, whether (sorry, Big Gee) ‘left’, ‘right’ or ‘centre’ on the current spectrum. After independence, it will be for the people of this land to decide which way to go; but that power will rest with them, and with no-one else, and that is a message which I think an increasing proportion of our fellow citizen-subjects could readily embrace.

Ymlaen!

So why do Plaid Cymru MPs and AMs champion the building of Wylfa B nuclear power station when it’s party policy to oppose nuclear power? So why is it that Plaid Cymru Llanelli constituency party are not allowed to select a candidate of it’s choice to stand at election and have one imposed upon it? So why is it that Plaid Cymru Cynon Valley constituency party are not allowed to select a candidate of it’s choice to stand at election and have one imposed upon it? So why is it the AM who’s a champion of the party and delivers the best election result in Wales is suspended from the Plaid Cymru group in the Senedd? I don’t see any disaffected right wingers, what I see is disenfranchised left wingers. Plaid Cymru is supposed to be a strong community campaigning organisation, not a top-down elite of Bae apparatchiks dictating to the communities of Wales (left or civic, or right) what they can or cannot do. To be the party of Wales you must be FROM the communities of Wales FOR the communities of Wales.

We’ve all done it, Daley.

And your point is?

Liberty (Liberté in French). The French people overthrew their monarchy, with the cry of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”. It is, in our times, also closely associated with being able to do anything that does not harm others, so, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.

We in Cymru do not share the same rights as our centuries old rulers. Whether generally accepted or not, the reality is we are viewed and treated as second class citizens. Whilst we have the freedoms associated with England and it’s citizens, we do not have the same scope for freedom when it comes to our own country and it’s peoples, nor the basic human right to exercise our own values, laws and guidelines uniquely associated with our ancient nation and it’s peoples, it’s various customs, traditions, language, culture or education – both old or new.

Liberty also means freedom, freedom from a yoke. It is especially synonymous with INDEPENDENCE and SELF DETERMINATION. The all too rare luxury of being able to think, speak, act and govern independently of those who rule us, (especially from the viewpoint of a colonised country) is not available to us at present.

In our specific case as a nation there is no need to explain in what context “liberty” is mentioned here – it is from a political point of view. It is about the freeing of our country, and all who dwell within her borders, from enslavement by another.

Our new party should therefore reflect (as freedom) the:

Liberty of self determination;
Liberty of thought;
Liberty of speech;
Liberty to decide what our children are taught;
Liberty to fashion our own economy;
Liberty to access work on all levels;
Liberty to decide on citizenship of our country;
Liberty to manage in migration to OUR country;
Liberty to ensure adequate housing for all;
Liberty to ensure that our own people’s interests always come first.
Liberty to govern ourselves.

And the list can go on indefinitely, but you’ll note the key word. It’s different, it’s fresh it’s motivating. It is a quantum leap from the tired and over subscribed terms like ‘Socialism’, ‘Conservatism’, Liberalism’ and ‘Nationalism’ and God help us – sorry to mention it again – ridiculous terms like ‘right’, ‘centre’ and ‘left’, along with all the extensions that go with them. All we want is LIBERTY.

For these reasons I propose that if it is decided on the 4th of November that a new party is to be established, then it’s name and it’s aims should enshrine ‘Liberty’.

As I am unable to be there due to prior commitments will someone please make this proposal on my behalf?

Hell, I’ve written Inca in the response when I meant Aztec.

By ‘proper’ I meant one that involves real and heartbreaking loss.
Religious beliefs from the distant past are baffling in today’s world, but in the Old Testament you’ll come across the verses where God calls on Abraham to sacrifice his son.
On the other hand, the Incas carried out mass human sacrifices where the victims belonged to neighbouring tribes.
The Incas, a warrior tribe, ruled by way of forming and abandoning alliances with other groups. If you belonged to a tribe in alliance with the Incas, you knew that you’d not be on the altar for the time being. However, if the Incas changed their allegiances you might find yourself on their hit list.
It is not surprising that tribes joined with the Spanish to overthrow Montezuma.

I like that, Daley, “a proper sacrifice”, as opposed to any old sacrifice. Fussy buggers, them Incas.