Saying ‘us' is exclusionary, says Welsh Labour
The devolved Labour administration devised a series of principles to steer future culture sector policy, including the idea that 'culture brings us together'.
However, in a consultation for the plans, the government was told to 'consider how the use of the word 'us' in this statement could seem exclusionary' and urged to use terms such as 'everyone' instead.
Ministers subsequently replaced the word 'us' with 'people' in its final published policy strategy.
It is not clear which group among the hundreds of consultees took issue, or why.
The final version of priorities for culture policy, published this week, outlines how the culture sector in Wales will be managed up to 2030.
The first priority in the document, under the new heading 'culture brings people together', states that the sector must 'promote a modern and diverse Wales, reflecting the variety of people and cultures who call Wales their home'.
This goal is reflected in the foreword written by Jack Sargeant, the Welsh Labour minister for culture, skills and social partnership.
'True diversity'
He wrote: 'By working together to realise these shared ambitions, we can provide a platform from which our culture sector can thrive, innovate, and reflect the true diversity of our nation.'
Some of the newly stated principles related to what the government has dictated to be a suitable approach to national history.
The Welsh government previously set out its broad approach to history in an anti-racist action plan, which insisted that cultural institutions are expected to promote the 'right historic narrative'.
The document states: 'Culture should take an inclusive, thoughtful and balanced approach to interpreting, commemorating and presenting our past, to how we consider and respond to contemporary issues, and to how we look to the future.'
Historic sites, and collections in museums and galleries should also 'be relevant to a diverse and contemporary Wales'.
It added that there was 'tension between respecting the history and lived experiences of the majority population and supporting their understanding of minority cultures.'
Another priority was making the cultural sector more environmentally friendly.
The document warns that hotter summers, rising sea levels and an increasing number of pests put heritage assets at risk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Russia says excluding Moscow on Ukraine talks is a ‘road to nowhere'
Russia 's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, issued a warning to Western nations regarding the exclusion of Moscow from security discussions concerning Ukraine. Speaking on Wednesday, Lavrov's comments followed a meeting hosted by Donald Trump at the White House with Volodymyr Zelensky and other Western leaders. Lavrov stated that alienating the Kremlin from collective security matters is a 'road to nowhere' and 'will not work'. He emphasised that Russia would continue to express its 'legitimate interests fairly and harshly', asserting that the US must understand the futility of excluding Moscow. Watch the video in full above.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour-run councils consider legal challenges to close asylum hotels
Labour-run councils are considering legal challenges to close hotels housing asylum seekers after a landmark ruling prompted officials to consider increasing the use of former military sites as emergency accommodation. Wirral and Tamworth councils said they are exploring high court injunctions to remove claimants after the Conservative-run authority in Epping Forest won a temporary high court injunction to remove people from the Bell Hotel. The developments come after the Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the government is looking at alternative options if there is a flurry of successful challenges from councils. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is determinedto stick to her plan after the Epping ruling and its consequences, a source said. 'We have a plan and we're sticking to it to close asylum hotels by the end of the parliament. This is one narrow court judgment that happened yesterday. We're not being knocked off course, this is our manifesto commitment,' the source said. Ministers are reluctant to disclose the details about alternatives to asylum hotels because of concerns that it could be used as a recruitment tool for the far right, a government source said. Cllr Paula Basnett, the leader of Wirral council whose boundaries include the Wallasey constituency of the immigration minister Angela Eagle, said the council is actively considering 'all options' to close a local hotel. She added: 'Like many other local authorities, we have concerns about the Home Office's practice of placing asylum seekers in hotels without consultation or regard to local planning requirements. 'We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities. 'Wirral has always been proud of its record in supporting families and those fleeing conflict, but it is unacceptable for the government to impose unsuitable, short-term arrangements that disrupt communities and bypass local decision-making. 'If necessary, we will not hesitate to challenge such decisions in order to protect both residents and those seeking refuge.' Labour councillor Carol Dean, leader of Tamworth borough council, said they had explored similar legal avenues in 2022 when the Home Office first started using a local hotel, but did not end up pursuing them. 'The situation at Epping Forest represents a potentially important legal precedent, and we are carefully assessing what this might mean for our circumstances here in Tamworth. 'We fully recognise the UK government has a statutory duty to accommodate people seeking asylum. However, we have consistently maintained that the prolonged use of hotel accommodation may not represent the best approach,' she added. Conservative-run Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire has said it was taking legal advice 'as a matter of urgency', while Tory-run East Lindsey district council in Lincolnshire said officers are investigating and 'will take appropriate action'. Reform UK-led councils, West Northamptonshire council and Staffordshire county council, also said the authorities would look at the options available after the high court ruling. On Tuesday, Reform UK leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice indicated that councils run by the party will consider their own legal challenges. However, a number of these do not have responsibility for planning permission, which may limit their ability to launch legal bids. Other authorities have ruled out legal action, with the leader of Labour-run Newcastle city council saying she was 'confident' the council could end the use of hotels without going to court. Karen Kilgour said: 'We recognise that people seeking asylum include families, women, and children, many of whom have faced unimaginable trauma. 'Newcastle has a proud history of offering sanctuary, and we stand ready to play our part – but it must be done in a way that works for our city and supports the dignity and wellbeing of those who come here.' Mr Justice Eyre granted the Epping injunction after hearing the local council's complaints that planning law had been breached in changing the site's use. Epping district council also cited disruption caused by the protests and concerns for the safety of the asylum seekers themselves. The hotel has been at the centre of violent far-right protests since an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. Since 2020, there has been greater reliance on hotels to house asylum seekers, with 32,345 being housed temporarily in England and Wales at the end of March this year. Labour has promised to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029 by cutting small boat crossings and building new accommodation. Asked on Times Radio about possible housing options for anyone removed from hotels, Jarvis said on Wednesday that the government is 'looking at a range of different contingency options'. These are understood to include placing people removed from hotels in Wethersfield Air Base in Essex and Napier Barracks in Kent. Figures from the end of March show that almost a third of asylum seekers that receive government support were housed in 'contingency accommodation' which is flats and houses. The statistics, from the National Audit Office (NAO) and other official sources, says this amounts to about 32, 300 people, a reduction of 42% compared with its 2023 peak. But the current government and its predecessors have also been forced to use disused military bases to house refugees, with the two most high-profile being Wethersfield Air Base in Essex and Napier Barracks in Kent. Despite ministers coming under heavy criticism for the conditions refugees have been forced to endure, this Labour government is set to expand the use of both bases. It comes after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, pledged to stop using taxpayer-funded hotels by 2029 in her Spending Review, in a drive to save £1bn. The Home Office aims to achieve this by moving refugees into cheaper sites. In April of last year, Cooper said Wethersfield is neither 'a sustainable solution' nor provides 'value for money for the taxpayer'. But an internal Home Office memo dated 24 July, seen by the Guardian, shows there are plans to put people in Wethersfield despite it being at maximum capacity. It states: 'While the site's regular cap is 800 an additional 445 bed spaces may be used temporarily during peak demand. There are no plans to exceed 1,245.' In March, the high court found the previous government's use of Wethersfield to be unlawful after three men likened their conditions to a prison. Napier Barracks, which was due to be handed back to the Ministry of Defence in September, will instead continue to house migrants into 2026.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sending British troops to Ukraine is a dangerous folly
Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a European 'reassurance force' if and when the guns finally fall silent. According to the Defence Secretary, the military is 'ready to go, they're ready to act from day one'. Yet the hollowed-out state of Britain's armed forces paints a different picture. Britain is unlikely to be able to deploy troops in significant numbers, and it is far from clear that they would survive – let alone fight and win – should things get messy. The priority of this year's Strategic Defence Review was to get the armed forces ready to fight a war against Russia. But that will take time. Putting boots on the ground in Ukraine could jeopardise this ambition, as well as weaken our commitment to Nato. There are three principal reasons for this. First, numbers. Politicians will likely want to get away with deploying a single battle-group (1,500 troops) alongside a lion's share of the command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and logistics enablers. However, if Britain wants to lead the mission and provide a credible deterrent to Russia that other European nations can plug into, then the minimum contribution for the UK would be a brigade (5,000). This commitment would require 15,000 troops to sustain indefinitely (one in theatre, one recovering and one training), which amounts to 20 per cent of the total British Army on paper strength, or 27 per cent when considering that only 77 per cent of the army's soldiers (54,695 troops) are currently considered medically deployable. Committing this force to an open-ended operation would effectively be permanently removing these troops from the British Army order of battle. This would come after committing two divisions (likely over 25,000 troops) to be Nato's Strategic Reserve. Britain could just about do this, but it could not do anything else. Second, capabilities. The 'reassurance force' will not be a neutral peacekeeping one. It will need to have access to the full heavy suite of military capabilities – on the land, sea and in the air and space – to deter further Russian attacks. In extremis, this force would need to fight and fix Russian forces within Ukraine if a wider war between Nato and Russia broke out, whether it be in Ukraine, or somewhere else in the Euro-Atlantic. The British Army is modernising, but it simply lacks the drones, tanks, armoured infantry and heavy artillery to provide a credible fighting force that would concern Moscow. The army also needs time to bring in equipment, train and integrate new doctrine for a battlefield that has been revolutionised by drone warfare. This 'reassurance force' would essentially be a few thousand European troops with old and outdated gear. Should fighting break out, it is more likely that the Ukrainian armed forces – the largest in Europe, battle-hardened and up to date with the latest innovations – would be doing the reassuring. Third, track record. British soldiers trained the Afghan National Security Forces for two decades, who were swept aside by the Taliban in a single summer offensive. Similarly, US and British-trained Iraqi Security Forces crumbled under the 2014 summer Isis advance. Most concerning, the 2011 Nato-led Operation Unified Protector over Libya limited the violence but did not produce a strategic victory. In short, Europeans have a poor track record of post-Cold War military success, even when the US has been heavily involved. These recent operations were all discretionary, whereas a mission to Ukraine cannot fail, otherwise it would be fatal for European military credibility and therefore broader European security. With reports that British troops might be sent to Ukraine within weeks of a ceasefire, there is not much time for defence planners to design an operation maximised for success. Furthermore, Putin could test the reassurance force early, in the hope of unsettling the Europeans and preventing further Nato members contributing to it in the future. For this reason the operation is incredibly risky. Without concrete US guarantees – not just to Ukraine but also European allies – a European-led deployment would be incredibly vulnerable and provide Putin with an opportunity, rather than a deterrent, to continue his aggression.
