´óÏó´«Ã½

Will there be a farewell to Rhodri piece that doesn't make something of the fact that he is just that to most of us: Rhodri?

The Morgan bit of his name is well known - no mean feat as some party leaders here can tell you - but is superfluous. He is Rhodri. The school run dad shouts 'When's Rhodri off then?' 'Has Rhodri's been keeping you busy?'

A Westminster civil servant who admitted to being more of an expert on Scotland than Wales once tried out a theory on me. Wales, he said, is unsure about devolution, still not wholly sold on it and so needs a strong, identifiable personality at the helm. Hadn't Rhodri made the Assembly, made devolution acceptable to many of those who hadn't wanted it, partly through the force of his personality? And wasn't there unfinished business which pointed to the need for another strong, identifiable character?

He was talking about a First Minister of course, or at least a Labour leader as First Minister. We didn't get as far as discussing whether the needs of the Labour party in its current state and the needs of Wales for the future are necessarily one and the same thing.

Anyway, let's stick to the point he was making.

Are strong and identifiable both characteristics Rhodri's successor must have? Strong? No doubt. Take that as read. What about identifiable? Was he saying that a distinctive personality was more important than, say, an ability to see that the party around you is in dire straits? Was he saying that a vivid USP beats a message that is direct and appealing and an ability to communicate it to people who vote Labour and more importantly, those who have stopped voting Labour?

He was thinking about Wales, about the job of keeping devolution on track, about a figure-head that could bring the force of their personality to bear on a country that is none too sure where it wants to head - or is it sometimes loses heart.

I was thinking back to that conversation after hearing another question raised: will this campaign - if it ever gets going - be about policy ideas and a clear political narrative or will it be a beauty contest, a race won by the person most of those with a say in the matter can imagine doing the job?

Think about this.

By Christmas the next Assembly election will be less than 18 months away. There's a General Election just round the corner. Are any of the candidates, or their camps, going to spell out policy ideas in detail if they think any half decent ones might be nicked by other parties? How do you persuade people you have a fistful of policies but not show your hand?

Or should we accept that, in the end, it will be about personality? And that - if there is a contest and if they do stand - Carwyn Jones, Huw Lewis and Edwina Hart will only win the votes of Labour grass root supporters, councillors, union and elected members if they tackle these challenges:

Carwyn Jones must win the argument that one man's bland is another's broad appeal;

Edwina Hart must convince them she knows abrasive is bad but assertive good;

Huw Lewis has to persuade the doubters that behind the rhetoric, there are real, deliverable policies.

And as for "identifiable" - isn't it the case that those with a vote will identify not just a First Minister but perhaps first and foremost a leader who can get their party out of the hole they're in?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?