At time of writing, there are just four days to go until polling day for the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections, and you would be forgiven if you were surprised at that information. With the timing of the EU referendum, we were always concerned in Wales that our key national elections would be lost in a sea of barely relevant political coverage, and so it has been the case. Frankly, Wales and devolved politics in Wales, has been treated with criminal disregard by the power makers of Westminster, and this should not be forgotten in this, or future elections. That being said, we are where we are, and that is on the doorstep of potentially the most forgettable set of national elections Wales has ever seen – but they might yet be among the most important. Voter turn-out for and general awareness of Welsh Assembly elections is poor, and it is not a situation helped by things like the EU referendum. 2016 looks set to be one of the lowest voter turn-outs in many years, if not on record. This, categorically, is a terrible situation, and makes a mockery of generation’s worth of sacrifice and toil made in the name of democracy. It is also an opportunity, namely for the likes of Plaid Cymru, to make a real surge this year. Where voter turn-out is low, it is the establishment that suffers. The support base for Labour, the Tories and indeed UKIP (relatively new, but oh so establishment in their composition) is fickle, and a turn in the weather is as likely to motivate them to stay home on polling day, as the opportunity to confront injustice and social inequality is to get them to go out and vote. The Plaid vote, however, remains pretty consistent – they will vote regardless of circumstance. This creates an opportunity to force a change in the governance of Wales. Having researched the political framework in Wales following devolution (albeit focused on the culture sector) I am confident making the assertion that devolution works when Labour is forced into coalition. Phrased another way, devolution in Wales fails when Labour have a majority government. This has to change, and will do. Labour has had an opportunity to inspire in Wales, and instead they have stagnated. Important policy changes and changes to the legal framework of Wales have been made – but has anything truly exciting or transformative happened in Wales (for the better) during their administrations? It’s hard to answer that positively. The Labour hegemony in Wales is flagging, and is due some severe shocks to the system this week. I won’t advocate a coalition government, nor necessarily want one, but I do want to see a break from Labour dominance, and this wish, if nothing else, will almost certainly be granted once the results are collated. This then leaves the question of “who”? Who steps up, either as a coalition partner, minority government or, who knows, a new majority government (possible, though unlikely)? From where I’m sitting, Plaid can be seen as the only legitimate choice. In terms of policy and personality, Plaid is striking a rich balance between ideas and charisma, the likes of which the other parties cannot offer. The exception to this would be the Welsh Liberal Democrats. Undoubtedly, the most talented and forthright politician in the Welsh political community today is Kirsty Williams. Having met Kirsty several times, I say from personal experience how warm she is as an individual, but how determined she is in her political considerations. There is much to be admired here. Sadly, her party in Wales has been unfairly tainted by the Con/Lib-Dem coalition in Westminster. The hangover from that failed experiment still looms large, and with UKIP pressuring an already crowded community, it’s difficult to see where the Lib Dems can hope to muster enough support to be relevant. I’m sure this will change come the next Assembly elections, but for 2016, the toxins of coalition remain in the system. For the Tories and UKIP, two parties which I’m inclined to refuse to treat as separate entities, I still see parties which are far more concerned with what is happening across the border, than they are with the day to day of governance in Wales. Andrew R T Davies leadership has provided a welcome touch of the bulldog to proceedings. He might not be pretty to look at (in terms of his political style) but he does offer a much needed sledge hammer to the day to day of the Assembly activities. However, and I write this as someone increasingly involved in my local farming community, to see a Welsh Conservative leader, from an agricultural background, arguing vehemently for an exit from the EU (something which I can only see as being catastrophic for the farming sector in Wales) feels like an agenda led betrayal. I cannot conceive how this man has the best interests of his constituency or country at heart when making such arguments. It is a shame in a sense, because the Monmouthshire incumbent, Nick Ramsay, is standing along in east Wales, as a Conservative voice in favour of remaining within the EU. This surprised me, mainly as a bold statement from Ramsay, a politician who has long been in the shadow of his Westminster comparative, David Davies. He has flown in the face of local leadership and national (Welsh) leadership, and this is to be commended, though not to the extent of actually voting for him. I am yet to be convinced by the merits of anything UKIP have to offer Wales. What tolerable policies they do propose are largely recycled, or just brazenly stolen from established parties in Wales, while their list of intolerable policies are too numerous to cover here. What particularly galls me though, is the parachute politics performed during the selection of candidates. I am a firm believer that any elected candidate should have a continuity with their community. For anyone to be dropped in, regardless of nationality, is very poor. I resent this about other parties as well, with the dropping in of Kinnock MarkII into a safe Labour ward for the last general election, being the most onerous example I can think of. Oh, and the fact that UKIP refused to remove a clear racist from its list of regional candidates in Cardiff, that’s pretty heinous as well. Meanwhile Nathan Gill, party leader, is such an insidious character that even his own membership in Wales seem set against him. I’m not convinced that Tim Price, the Gloucester business man standing as a “local” candidate, has even been to Monmouthshire during the campaign period… As for Labour, the actual candidate in Monmouthshire is quite promising. I’ve seen Catherine Fookes speak a couple of times, and there seems to be plenty to like from what little I have been exposed to. Yet that age old issue of giving support to a stagnant Welsh Labour party, supersedes considerations of candidate quality when it comes to their party. I simply cannot justify giving any support to the party solely responsible for the terminal decline of the Welsh devolution project. A word as well for independent candidate Debby Blakebrough. I can’t comment on her personally, but I’ve worked through her pledges. Again, lots to like, with some positive ideas on education and healthcare. However, and I get the impression Blakebrough would not thanks me for suggesting this, there is little to her policies which are not replicated and better delivered by Plaid Cymru anyway. *While the Greens are standing in Monmouthshire, I have received no literature or communication from their candidate whatsoever – which is pretty much an automatic veto of support in my book. As much as I despise UKIP, at least they got in touch… Who I can talk about from personal experience is Plaid candidate Jonathan Clark. I worked with Jonathan back in the old days of the Caerleon Campus and a stand-alone University of Wales, Newport (just one of the casualties of a Labour government) and in a broader sense, enjoyed his company on several archaeological excavations. Of course, I’m biased, but I have a lot of time for archaeologists, they have a patience for learning and a desire to understand before moving forward and making a decision. All valuable traits for an elected representative. A dedicated professional, Jonathan has been fighting the Plaid cause, frequently in isolation, in Monmouthshire for years and has shown limitless dedication to his party. This is not a career politician, but a talented individual with a strong sense of public service. I can say that of all the candidates, this is the one I have the greatest confidence in as an individual. Plaid will be getting both of my votes this year. I don’t anticipate Jonathan winning his seat, but I believe that vote share sends an important message. There is a strong prospect of Plaid returning one, or potentially two regional candidates, which would be a great return. Helping to stop “too drunk to attend Parliamentary votes” Mark Reckless take a seat in Cardiff Bay should also be motivation enough for anyone in south east Wales to vote in any direction away from UKIP (and based on party reactions to his selection, that may well go for many UKIP supporters as well). 2016 will be a year of change. The Labour government will fall, UKIP will take seats in the Welsh Assembly. Beyond those certainties, everything is up for grabs. I firmly believe that a strong surge of support for Plaid, in the face of apathy elsewhere, can force a transformative change in the future governance of Wales. If you are not a fan of independence, ask yourself this – are you in favour of Wales being represented and governed by a party which prioritises Wales, and the people living within this country, above all others? If you are inclined to agree with that notion, Plaid Cymru is the only legitimate option. This is not about independence or breaking the Union, this is about putting a positive party in a position of responsibility, to make Wales better, and not let it rot for yet another term of government.
0 Comments
Well, it turned out to be quite a year for heritage in Wales. While there were occasions which provided cause for great optimism, there was a steady stream of reminders to highlight just how vulnerable our national heritage resource actually is. The sad truth of 2013 however, is that the real negative impacts will not truly reveal themselves until deep into 2014, if not later, as the creeping tendrils of fiscal cuts continue to slowly erode the foundations of museums and heritage organisations in Wales and beyond. Surely the most controversial moment of the year though had to be the Chartist mural debacle. I’ve promised myself on more than one occasion that I would just let the mural story go, but every once in a while we receive little reminders as to why the mural destruction was so symbolic. When Newport city council battered their way through with plans to obliterate the distinctive mural, they critically underestimated the sentiment of locals in Newport. Perhaps there were not thousands demonstrating against the council’s actions, but there were certainly hundreds, not to mention the odd Hollywood celeb to add to the mix. The anger regarding the loss of the mural stimulated a debate as to what constitutes heritage. Is a thirty year old wall mounted mural something that is worthy of protection? Is it part of the heritage landscape worth protecting? Opinion in Newport was clearly divided, with the city council making a concerted decision, that being that the mural was indeed not part of the heritage landscape, and certainly not worthy of saving. This though raises other more pressing concerns, namely what comes next? What else could a council decide to cast by the wayside in the name of development and gain? Perhaps our built heritage, in terms of castles for instance, may not seem under any immediate threat, but the heritage sector is in many respects standing on a precipice. Our museums are slowly being stripped down from the inside out, as budget cuts erode staff positions, education programmes and, in places, the very existence of museums in their entirety. Chapel heritage across Wales is gradually vanishing as more and more buildings fall out of use, while proposed developments seem to be encroaching closer and closer on to the edges of hillforts in Wales (not to mention Offa's Dyke), and it is questionable how close new buildings will get to rampart defences before new residents can confidently claim to actually live on top of an Iron Age fort. Sites and staff are threatened in a manner in which we have not experienced for several decades, and it should be an ongoing cause of concern for all in related fields. At the same time, Welsh Government moved ahead with its consultation on the Heritage Bill for Wales. Many will remember a similar white paper being drafted for heritage in the UK several years ago, before it was bumped in the list of priorities for a general election. Whether a similar fate awaits the Welsh Heritage Bill awaits to be seen, but at the very least government in Wales is actively discussing the future framework for heritage in this country, so the field is at least not being forgotten about. However, the poor old Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales looks set to buy the farm as a result of government involvement, despite almost everyone in public consultation stressing what an incredibly bad idea it would be to merge the RCAHMW and Cadw. While government is certainly focusing on heritage in Wales, the consequences may most clearly be manifest in the loss of another significant organisation. While the RCAHMW remains threatened, the archaeological trusts are fighting their corner, and the Archwilio application, developed by the four trusts, is a positive reminder both of the scale of the archaeological resources at our disposal in Wales, and the intent in this country to enhance public accessibility to those resources and archives. In this respect, Wales has forged a path as a world leader regarding accessibility. Few other, if indeed any nation, can boast the same level of access to historic environment records as Wales currently does. The next challenge is to make sure people know that they can access this information, and of course encourage potential audiences that this information is worth accessing in the first place, but perhaps that is a battle for 2014. For the moment, we can certainly welcome and celebrate the addition of Archwilio to the likes of the People’s Collection project. The real challenge for 2014 will be one of resilience. Local and national government have collectively lined up the culture sector with a succession of budget cut tipped bullets, and are only too keen to pull the trigger. What fate awaits the Newport medieval ship for instance? This internationally significant artefact is going to be evicted later this year, with no obvious home for it to go to. What happens to the Newport ship will probably serve as the acid test for the position of heritage in Wales for the rest of this decade, for if such an assemblage were to be lost to Wales, it would be an indictment on the attitudes of officials in this country regarding our heritage resource. Should the ship be saved, with an intention to display and develop, in a manner akin to the Mary Rose museum which dominated heritage headlines in 2013, then we might have some reason to be optimistic. That all awaits to be seen though, either way, some very significant decisions regarding the heritage of Wales will take place in 2014, and the ramifications will remain with us for much, much longer. Spend a little time working through government policy papers, local authority strategies, or museum association publications, and a generally consistent message can be identified – heritage matters. There is a great deal of noise that accompanies any discussion on the value of cultural heritage. Be it for tourism, economic development, or the increased considerations for social wellbeing, on paper at least, we are unified in our celebration of and commitment to our heritage. However we do not appear to be so consistent in our protection of that heritage. Sadly and increasingly frequently, stories come in reporting the damage to, or total loss of cultural heritage sites. Many will remember the loss of a Peruvian pyramid in June/July 2013, a tragic developer led destruction of an archaeological site. What awaits to be seen in Peru is what punishment will be meted out to those responsible, following criminal charges being brought against the perpetrators. Another week goes by, and now another story of destruction reaches us, this time from Australia. Again, development led work, mining in this instance, has seen a sacred Aboriginal site at Bootu Creek damaged and severely undermined. What is interesting in the case of Bootu Creek is that this is the first instance of a company (in Australia) being prosecuted for such a culture-heritage crime. In one regard we might be inclined to celebrate, embracing the fact that the perpetrators of damage to a heritage site have finally been made to pay. But have they? A fine totalling the equivalent of £88,000 somehow seems inadequate for the desecration and partial destruction of a heritage site. The inadequacies of the fine are put into much sharper contrast when considering that the company fined, OM Manganese, as part of OM Holdings, contributed to pre tax profits of $8 million in 2013. Will OM Holdings really care about the loss of $150,000, when the costs can be offset by far more substantial financial profits? Will this fine act as a discouragement, or instead is this case study one which suggests that if companies are caught damaging heritage sites, that the financial implications offer no real disincentive to pursue such activities? In a Welsh context, this is a potentially pressing matter. Having been involved in the consultation process on the proposed Heritage Bill for Wales, the issue of enhanced protection of historic sites came up on a number of occasions, and it is heartening in some respects to see the issue of fines being discussed in the consultation document. Cited as a negative within current historic environment protection policy is the current weakness of fines imposed on developers for damaging historic buildings and sites. Point 35 of the document specifically stresses that an element of the consultation will fall on the exploration of ways in which fines might be put to more effective use to deter unauthorised works in the historic environment. As with the Australian example, we should be encouraged that this issue is being addressed by the Welsh Government. Yet the consultation process allows us to make recommendations as to the nature and severity of fines imposed on ignorant and unscrupulous developers. Token fines will deter nothing. Yet we cannot say with conviction that severe fines will do anything else. However we are simply yet to see the impacts of severe fines used in Wales, and there is a very real opportunity to put in place the deterrents that might better safeguard our historic landscapes. This is opportunity we would do well not to miss. Consultation on the Heritage Bill is open now and will remain so through to the 11th of October. If you feel that the historic environment in Wales is worth protecting, get involved. |
Archives
January 2018
Categories
All
|