Pauline Jayne Donovan 1961-2014

My mother died at around 3:30 this afternoon, age 53, after deteriorating suddenly overnight.

I was there along with my father, brother, grandparents and aunt until the very end and I held her hand throughout. She died peacefully after mechanical support was withdrawn.

Part of me is relieved the uncertainty if over, and this has been – without a shadow of a doubt – the worst week or so of my life, and complete roller coaster of emotions and stress.

She was quite lucid when she was brought around from sedation on Monday and things were looking brighter – unfortunately I wasn't there at the time. Even this morning I was discussing how long she would be in hospital and what sort of adaptions could be made to make her life easier upon release.

Then we got "the phonecall". A phonecall I wouldn't wish on anybody, but we're probably all going to get at some point. It shows you how quickly these things can change.

Mam was always in relatively poor health, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and COPD (from years of smoking - don't ever smoke), and arguably had the body of a 75 year old. I know it's cliched, but there's no more pain now.

I'd like to place on record - on behalf of the family - my gratitude to the staff at the Princess of Wales Hospital intensive care unit, whose professionalism, skill, sensitivity and dedication was downright inspirational. They've been stars since day one, but they could only do so much and they did their best.

I'd like to thank everyone who has left messages of support in the last blog too. I'm having problems logging in to Disqus so I couldn't thank you all personally.

It's hard news to take obviously, but there's been plenty of gallows humour already (and she would want that) – as I said, I'm glad the uncertainty is over. This is inevitably going to take a while to come to terms with, but I'll pencil in July for a return to blogging.

Goodbye, Mam. You were great fun, a great laugh, a great friend. I'm going to miss you as will many others. So it goes.

Read More

500th Post : The Sliding Scale of Nationalism

I've reached an important milestone today - the heady heights of 500 blogs.

I'd like to thank everyone who's read or scanned over my ramblings for the last three years. I might make it look easy, but it's hard work - often miserable, sometimes fun – but always rewarding. Taking time to read it means a lot and I hope I can continue to count on your support for however long this blog continues. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.

To "celebrate", I'm going to do what I usually do and over-analyse an abstract topic.

There's been some discussion on here, and for many years elsewhere, about different strands of nationalism. Some people in Plaid Cymru, for example, don't support independence. Meanwhile, people who I would consider hardcore unionists have been tarred with the "nationalist" brush simply for backing Silk Commission recommendations.

In the light of a high-profile Twitter row involving the Welsh rugby captain, it's fair to say there's little  understanding of other people's points of view and how they might form their opinion on the matter.

A person's relationship with a nation can change based across a range of different factors. In my opinion, there are three broad identities that engender a sense of nationalism.

• National Identity : The stomach – This is the primal, visual manifestation of nationalism. It's a "gut instinct" where you define who and what you are, and the visible outward label. This could also be expanded to include ethnic identity too. This asks the question, "Who am I?"
• Cultural Identity : The heart – This is the more fluid, dainty identity by expressing what you feel about the nation you belong to, trying to figure out how to express that, and trying to determine what being Welsh/British/English represents. This asks the question, "What does it mean?"
• Political Identity : The head – The rational, thinking side of it. This determines how you express nationalism based on decision-making, policy and democracy. It determines how far you're willing to go in terms of self-determination and how the nation fits into that. This asks the question, "How does it work?"

In trying to determine what all this actually looks like, I've come up with a sort of Kinsey Scale of nationalist sentiment for each of them, based on two poles - Welsh & British nationalism. It's worth pointing out that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers here.

National Identity

(Click to enlarge)

The only solid figures we have from this are from the 2011 census (covered in more detail here).

The results clearly showed that a majority of people in Wales consider themselves exclusively Welsh with no British identity whatsoever. This sentiment was stronger in some parts of Wales than others – in particular the south Wales Valleys.

People who consider themselves Welsh & British are in a withered minority. In fact, more people in Wales consider themselves English-only (11.2%) than Welsh & British. It seems most people have a very firm idea of what their national identity is : Welsh, English or British – not a mix.

You would think, therefore, that the fortunes of nationalist politics in Wales would be much better than they are currently.

Clearly, national identity isn't that important in political terms. It's been successfully adopted by all of the main political parties in Wales to such an extent that it's become rather elastic, or is being used as a dog whistle when it suits their ends – as we saw recently with Welsh Labour's claims of a Tory "War on Wales".

It can be a successful tactic too, as playing to national identity illicits a primal, somewhat territorial, response in voters and public. As a living embodiment of Welsh self-determination, many of us probably will defend politicians - and devolution as an institution - if there's any hint of an outside attack that would infringe upon Welsh identity or self-respect.

An exception there would be those who would consider themselves British, and/or have an outward antipathy towards all forms of Welshness.

The real nuanced layers of nationalism and its outward expression perhaps lie in cultural identity.

Cultural Identity

(Click to enlarge)

Although culture and nationality are inextricably linked, they needn't be symbiotic. You can measure national identity in the census, and you can measure its political expression in voting intentions. Cultural nationality is very hard to quantify.

So, how can you tell if you're culturally Welsh, culturally British, or a mix of both? I suppose it's what's in your heart. If you feel Welsh you are Welsh, likewise with British. If you're comfortable with both – so be it.

The outward signs of a person's cultural identity involve those things outside the formality of national identity, ethnicity or voting. That includes : attitudes towards the Welsh language, sports, literature, arts, hobbies and media consumption habits.

Those at either end of the scale are more romantic in their cultural identity. They probably get a sentimental glint in their eye thinking of traditions and are highly involved in cultural affairs of their chosen identity. They're proud of what they are, and aren't afraid to tell the world. When that level of patriotism turns unpleasant it becomes chauvinism.

The next step down would be those who are very firm in their cultural identity. On the Welsh side, they might speak Welsh or really enjoy things like Welsh literature and Welsh music but aren't obsessive about it and are a bit more flexible.

Logically speaking, those who identify themselves as culturally British
will have to accept things like the Eisteddfod and Welsh language as
a part of British culture despite being uniquely Welsh.
(Pic : Ynni Cymru)

Likewise, anyone considering themselves "culturally British" will still have to accept all of Welsh culture – including the language – as a part of that identity. British culture without the Welsh bits isn't "Britishness" but "Englishness" because it rejects a key part of what makes "Britain" Britain.

Then there are those with a more fluid cultural identity, but with a clear preference for one. On the Welsh side they would be "Ninety Minute Nationalists". I've come up with "Olympic Unionists" for a British equivalent as I couldn't think of anything better.

Someone supporting Wales at the Six Nations, or the Welsh national football team, is 100% Welsh for ninety minutes. Even an ardent Unionist is advocating Welsh independence by supporting the Welsh national side - which by most normal conventions of international sport shouldn't even exist.

However, once the game is over, their Welshness disappears and they don't think about it too much.

That's why "Ninety Minute Nationalist" is adopted as a pejorative. To the hard nationalist, the position is nonsensical, as Welsh culture should be – and is – linked not only to national identity, but political nationalism. To use footballing terms, 90 minute nationalists are seen as glory hunters and armchair fans, while nationalists are season ticket holders and will question anyone not seen to be pulling their weight. Similarly, from the opposite end, hardcore royalists might have similar suspicions of of Celtic republicans.

Things become a lot more complicated when you come to ethnic minorities, who are cited as feeling more British than white ethnicities, despite coming from cultures and backgrounds which are very different and contribute to the "melting pot" of Welsh and British society. Ethnic minorities might see adopting "Britishness" as a safer option, as Englishness in England has been claimed by the far-right - though that's starting to change.

Even the most ardent unionist can support Welsh independence
for 90 minutes - plus time to chug a beer or two.
(Pic : City School of Languages)

Being stuck in the middle might be a sign of cultural apathy and no real strong connection to either pole than a cultural identity in itself.

I was born in a former colony, have an Irish surname, support an English football team, haven't read much Welsh literature and most of my favourite authors and books are American. I don't speak much Welsh and I've listen to more Norwegian and German music.

In cultural terms, I should be about as British as they come or don't have a cultural identity at all, placing me somewhere slap bang in the middle. Based on that alone I probably have more in common with the Lib Dems and Greens than Plaid Cymru.

Yet I'm still one of the more prominent hard nationalists and supporters of Welsh independence out there. I can only relate to this from my own anecdotal experiences, but far from nationalism being solely about identity issues, it clearly goes a lot, lot deeper.

You can like British culture and still be a Welsh nationalist. Likewise, you can even live and breathe Wales in everything you do and still be a British nationalist. Look at the some of the Tories.

Political Ideology & The Constitution

(Click to enlarge)

I suppose this is the meat when it comes to nationalism and national identity. It mostly manifests itself as support (or lack of) for varying levels of self-determination, without which a nation can't exist.

At either end, you're going to have the fanatical nationalists - people who are exclusively and stridently Welsh or British. On the Welsh side, they'd support independence by any means necessary, and completely reject Britishness. On the British side, they'll show an antagonism towards any outward sign of "Welshness" and would equally support the union by any means necessary. You're talking Northern Irish paramilitary groups, historical figures like Owain Glyndwr and protest organisations. So they're thin on the ground, if they even exist at all in modern Wales.

A step down from that at either end would be those who support Welsh independence on both an ethnic and civic basis, and those who oppose all forms of devolution – but would stop short of violent direct action, just be very, very vocal about it.

There are differences between between ethnic and civic nationalism . The former is generally seen as more right-wing because it links blood to soil, while the latter is bog-standard social democracy with extra flags, and has pretty much been adopted by all the main parties in Wales to varying degrees.

I probably count as an "8" – a civic nationalist who supports independence more strongly than mainstream opinion and perhaps stronger than Plaid Cymru. Such people are often called "hard/dry nationalists".

The vast, vast majority of people will fall somewhere in the middle. This includes those who are civic nationalists but don't support independence strongly (Plaid Cymru in general). Also, "wet nationalist" Home Rulers who support further devolution or a form of federalism and consider themselves happy to be Welsh – this would include the likes of David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central).

Welsh Labour are arguably slap bang in the middle – they're happy with devolution as it is, and are open to more powers, but would fall short of federalism, considering themselves both "Welsh & British". Yet, as the census figures paradoxically show, being "Welsh & British" is something of a minority thing and enjoys less support than Welsh independence. So playing up dual-identity is unlikely to win support on its own. It looks like, quite frankly, nobody cares if they're Welsh or British when it comes to politics, unless they're already a nationalist.

Also lurking are the devo-sceptics (or devo-realists), who think devolution has gone far enough. They perhaps consider themselves more British than Welsh (but will play up the Welshness when it suits them) and would likely oppose further powers, but not the principle of limited self-determination as a compromise. I'd image the Conservative grass roots would be found here, as would many Old Labour and Labour MPs.

(Click on Wales)

It's worth noting this perceived spread of nationalism within parties as it can cause problems. Plaid and UKIP are fairly obvious candidates to be placed at either end – one a Welsh nationalist party, the other a British nationalist party. The Lib Dems have historically been "Home Rule" party so are fairly easy to place too.

But even within those parties, there are going to be differences. Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) is clearly a Lib Dem style "Home Ruler", while UKIP have come around to tolerating the Assembly's existence.

People who consider themselves "internationalists/citizens of the world" might often fall under British nationalism too because they support the status quo by default. The Green Party of EnglandandWales  gives the impression of having quite a few of these - and have really struggled to adapt to post-devolution Wales, despite being officially federalist - so are arguably closer to UKIP than Plaid in terms of nationalism, but not general ideology.

Having said all this, it's worth being careful in strictly equating levels of support for independence with nationalism. If there were a Welsh independence referendum tomorrow, with no underlying case along the same lines as Scotland's Future, even I'd vote no. It's one thing to support something superficially, it's another thing entirely to check the details - and there are plenty of details on Welsh independence that need to be ironed out if a realistic case is ever going to be made.

Although it's true that you can't eat a flag, they can make very good tablecloths for a skilled chef.

Nationalists shouldn't get too despondent about low levels of support for independence, as all the foundations are there for a sudden change in opinion given the right circumstances. However, it's off the menu for now and we should perhaps learn to accept it and play the long game. Many hard nationalists might not like the idea of Plaid sidelining independence, but they're broadly right to do so.

Likewise, unionists shouldn't get complacent about high levels of support for the Union, which is perhaps all head and no heart. Technocratic arguments about finance and borders will only get you so far. As the Scottish independence campaign is proving, heads can be turned and the positive case for union is – in some areas - built on sand.

You're going to cause controversy in politics when you try to mix the three identities or try and stamp a single one on people.

One of the most important modern human virtues is tolerance. Tolerating something doesn't mean have to like or accept it. You should just respect that some people are going to have different ideas and values from you. When we can all tolerate something or someone you don't like, without resorting to smears or hyperbole, it's a sign our society is starting to mature and our media along with it.

Read More

Booze, Bans & Bogs

The Welsh Government have launched a consultation of their - slightly
controversial - Public Health Bill, which has led to accusations of "nanny stateism".
(Pic : chronicallive.co.uk)

About a fortnight ago, Health Minister, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), unveiled draft proposals for a flagship Public Health Bill, which has been put out for consultation until June 24^th (more details here).

The Public Health Bill will be a key piece in the jigsaw surrounding another (slightly bizarre) law in the pipeline – the Future Generations Bill – which is supposed to address long-term, generational challenges like climate change, the economy, demography, the future of the Welsh language and long-term health problems.

The British Medical Association describe the proposed Bill as a potentially "seminal" piece of legislation.

I've done quite a bit over the last few months covering public health – most notably childhood obesity and drugs – so I'm not going to go into extensive details (heh).

The proposals include measures on obesity, registration of tattooists & cosmetic piercings and community pharmacies. Alongside these, there are three "headline policy proposals" that could make their way into the Bill : minimum pricing of alcohol, a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) in enclosed public spaces and public toilet provision.

Booze : A minimum price for alcohol

A 50p minimum price per unit of alcohol is included in the draft proposals,
which could see the price of a standard bottle of whiskey set at £14.
(Pic : Daily Record)

This has been discussed in EnglandandWales and Scotland for some time, but finally has some concrete foundations under it.

As I covered last month, there are around 500 alcohol-related deaths each year (mostly men), contributing to liver disease, strokes, high blood pressure and depression. The total cost of alcohol-related disease in Wales is said to be somewhere between £70-85million per year, and there were more than 15,000 hospital admissions related to alcohol in 2011-12.

Although it's said the number of adults drinking to excess has decreased slightly, some 42% of adults report drinking above the daily recommended guidelines (3-4 units for men, 2-3 units for women) at least once a week.

Most of the powers over this are in the hands of the UK Government, and licensing alcohol is a non-devolved matter. The Welsh Government have requested licensing powers, but they've been consistently refused, though the devolution of those powers could be included as part of inter-governmental negotiations arising from Silk II.

The main measure the Welsh Government propose is to introduce a 50p per unit minimum price of alcohol. "Setting a floor" for alcohol prices means it can't be sold for anything less, restricting access to cheap, high-strength alcohol (White Lightning, Special Brew etc.). It's said a 70cl bottle of whiskey would sell for a minimum of £14 under this price arrangement.

The UK Government rejected a similar move to cover EnglandandWales because they weren't convinced it would reduce alcohol consumption, while minimum pricing at 50p per unit was introduced in Scotland in 2012 – though it's currently subject to a judicial appeal from alcohol producers.

The Welsh Government say "there is indisputable evidence that the price of alcohol affects consumption", with a particular affect amongst younger drinkers. They cite research from Sheffield University (pdf) which states a 50p per unit minimum price would reduce alcohol consumption by between 7-11%.

Bans : Use of e-cigs indoors

In a slightly controversial move, the Welsh Government are considering extending current
smoking bans to e-cigarettes. Is this the "nanny state"? Or is it prudent public health policy?
(Pic : The Independent)

I should probably declare an interest here as I know someone who runs an e-cig store.

This is perhaps the most controversial proposal, and certainly caused a stir, with accusations and counter-accusations about encroachment of the "nanny state" (related blog from Peter Black) and the dangers of "normalising smoking".

Without question, tobacco is the deadliest way to take drugs in Wales. As covered last month (again), smoking-related diseases kill ~5,000 people in Wales each year, estimated to cost the Welsh NHS £302million, and a further economic impact of £90million in sickness and smoking breaks. The numbers starting smoking have shown consistent falls, however the number of Welsh adults who smoke remains static at around 23% of the population.

There's nothing Welsh Labour love more than a good ban, proving that not all left-wing parties are as progressive or liberal as they think they are - what I described last month as, "a social conservatism based around wanting to protect people from themselves". I'm certainly a "lefty", but I've come round to disliking this sort of paternalist collectivism as much as the rampant free market.

Recent tobacco restrictions include banning vending machines sales, banning smoking in enclosed spaces and bans on open tobacco displays at point of sale. They also support standardised packaging for tobacco products - which could be introduced across EnglandandWales at some point - as well as a ban on smoking in cars when children are present.

Proposals here include the creation of a register for tobacco retailers, and a ban on "proxy sales" of tobacco (adults buying fags for kids), making it a criminal offence. They are also asking for views on internet sales.

The headline proposal was, of course, a ban on the use of e-cigs in enclosed public spaces in the same way as the current ban on tobacco smoking. Around 14% of smokers use e-cigs. There are no current restrictions on sale, though the UK Government are going to introduce an 18 age limit in line with cigarettes.

The Welsh Government say health authorities are concerned that e-cigs are "normalising" smoking, acting as a gateway to full tobacco, risking "a new generation addicted to nicotine". They also believe e-cigs make it harder to enforce current smoking restrictions and/or make people think they can smoke when they really can't.

Current evidence points towards there being little to no harmful effects from e-cigarettes other than nicotine addiction – which is harmful in itself, but only one small factor in the harm caused by smoking.

Although they'll almost certainly have an affect on the lungs, e-cigs don't contain many of the harmful ingredients found in cigarettes (tar, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide etc.) which causes chronic lung disease. The exhaled "smoke" is mostly steam, though it does contain traces of chemicals and nicotine - albeit to a much, much lesser extent than cigarette smoke. Until more thorough research is undertaken, it's hard to argue that e-cigs are harmful to anyone else other than the user.

E-cigs work the same way as a nicotine patch but used in a similar way to a normal fag, potentially - though not 100% conclusively (pdf, pdf, pdf) - making them powerful tools in getting people to stop smoking, and they're certainly more healthier than fags. The Bevan Foundation's Victoria Winckler (also discussed on Syniadau) argued that the primary goal in any public health policy on smoking should be to reduce the use of cigarettes, and e-cig restrictions would "only have a marginal effect".

I fear this is another case of policy-based evidence making. The consultation reads as though the Welsh Government and health authorities are fishing for evidence from the public in order to say e-cigs are bad. It'll probably take the form of the usual "argumentum ad filium".

There's nowhere near a strong-enough case to ban e-cigarettes in public places (yet). Restrictions would perhaps be medically-sound as nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, but it's scientific nonsense. Having said that, there is clear need for better regulation, and the British Medical Association have called for e-cigs to be regulated like medicines - which is what I called for in relation to all recreational drugs, so I'd agree with that.

If the Welsh Government are absolutely determined to do it, a ban should be provisional with a "sunset clause", and accompanied by high-level research into the relative risks and harm. If it's proven there's minimal risk to anyone else other than the user from e-cigs, any ban should be rescinded by the Assembly.

I don't mean to be scatological....well of course I do, and I doubt I'll be the first or last person to make this argument....but a paint-stripping, face-melting fart is probably more toxic than e-cig vapour. Methane and hydrogen sulphide aren't things you should breathe in casually. Not wanting to put too fine a point on it, but I'm sure we've all been victims of "passive guffing" in an enclosed public space at some point.

I once experienced one, worthy of The Western Front, in a German class (ironically) during a rather hot summer's day. Portacabins aren't exactly renowned for their good air conditioning, so despite the best efforts to diffuse it, it hung like a mushroom cloud above everyone's heads, raining down sulphur. It was like the River Styx. As a result, all the boys were kept behind afterwards and lectured on etiquette. That just prolonged the misery, as everyone was desperately trying not to laugh and draw suspicion to themselves, enduring something that could only be described as drowning in ass.

I'd rather inhale puffs of strawberry laced with nicotine than be exposed to someone else's dietary issues.

Moving on....

Bogs : Access to public toilets

Public toilets are the forgotten son of public health, but are absolutely vital.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

You don't think about public toilets when you don't need them. You certainly think about them when you do!

Though, of course, men have an in-built anatomical privilege which turns any vertical surface into a urinal. Ahem. But that does public health or general hygiene no good at all.

It's not a particularly pleasant thing to think about, but provision of public toilets is – genuinely – no laughing matter; especially if you're elderly, have young children, have certain health conditions, or brought a catastrophe upon yourself by eating too many sugar-free sweets. It's one of the most overlooked and unappreciated areas of public health, and as a marginal expense, it's under attack due to local government austerity measures.

One of those much-maligned and overlooked short debates in the National Assembly could've played a role in the getting this measure on the table. Kirsty Williams AM (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor) held a short debate on the topic last November.

She explained that in rural areas in particular, public toilets are being eyed up for closure due to austerity, or – in Carmarthenshire's case (more from Carmarthenshire Planning) – being offloaded to community councils which have little in the way of resources. This would not only impact public health but also tourism.

One way the Welsh Government and local authorities have tried to address this is by encouraging local businesses – in particular pubs and restaurants – to open their toilets to the non-paying public through grants of up to £500. It's something that hasn't always happened, as it might be considered rude to use the facilities without paying in some way.

The white paper proposes that local authorities develop a strategy for public toilets, and consider the issue "in all aspects of planning". It could lead to clearer signage as to where they are, and planning conditions used to ensure more toilets are provided to the public.

Read More

Short Circuit

The goodwill shown towards the proposed Circuit of Wales
is quietly turning into suspicions and doubts.
(Pic : Click on Wales)

After numerous delays and bubbling controversies, it's worth returning to the Circuit of Wales saga.

I briefly outlined what the project involves in Formula One, Motorsports and Wales. Jac o' the North also covered it in Vroom, Vroom – The Next Gravy Train? In short, the project proposes a motor sports track, a karting track, various related facilities (hotels etc.) and an industrial park at Rassau to the north of Ebbw Vale in Blaenau Gwent.

The total cost of the project is currently estimated to be in the region of £280million, and is being led by Heads of the Valley Development Company (HVDC). Concerns about some claims made by the developers prompted a BBC Wales Week In, Week Out investigation last month (though it's no longer available on iPlayer), and also an angry response from established motor circuits like Silverstone, Brands Hatch and Donington Park, who fear the project could receive illegal state aid.

As I was preparing this post, news broke yesterday that the EnglandandWales Planning Inspectorate are going to hold a four-day public inquiry in June to determine whether the project will go ahead.

The Jobs Issue

Job creation figures have been criticised by industry experts as wide of the mark - although,
of course, any job creation is going to be welcomed in the Heads of the Valleys.
(Pic : frequency.com)

Last summer, estimates regarding the number of jobs created from the project's backers and developers were in the region os 4,000 construction jobs and 6,000 operational jobs - a total of around 12,000. Following Week In, Week Out, HVDC said the figures are 2,300 construction jobs and between 4,000-6,000 operational jobs.

Yeah, the figures are suspect. But the proposed business park could make an excellent base for the automotive industry (Ebbw Vale is an automotive enterprise zone). It's historically been one of Wales' economic and manufacturing sector success stories and would provide highly-skilled, relatively well-paid engineering jobs.

Prof. Garyl Rees of the Wales Automotive Forum, told Week In, Week Out estimates that the project would create 6,000 operations jobs requires "incredible multipliers" and "doesn't do any good to anybody". He hints the real figure is closer to 1,000 jobs – which is still significant in the Heads of the Valleys, don't get me wrong - meaning the original estimates are only 600% out.

If estimates on jobs are that far out, I doubt it's the only area where there are "issues".

Promising jobs in an economically depressed area is always going to win hearts and minds – rightly or wrongly. Just be sure the numbers add up, because I suspect Prof. Rees is right based on historical precedents.

The Money Issue

There's no deal in place to secure a major event (MotoGP), while the apparent
request for state assistance has been angrily criticised by established circuits.
(Pic : aqueduct.co.uk)

Last August, when discussing the project's finances, I said this :

"There's....the question of how events will be attracted to this new circuit in the face of competition from established circuits - and how much that might cost. It would almost certainly require some sort of capital funding from the Welsh Government at some point."

Although the developers claimed they had the money to build the track itself, the begging bowl has promptly come out, hinting towards a £30million investment from the Welsh Government and possibly up to £20million from the UK Government – a total of £50million in public funds (~18% of the total cost). I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the next round of EU funding will be eyed up too.

The project has already been awarded a £2million loan from the Welsh Government, prompting Antoinette Sandbach AM (Con, North Wales) to call for a Wales Audit Office investigation before any more public funds are put into it.

All this is wasted money if we end up with a track with no events. As of yet, the developers have no deal in place to host the British leg of the MotoGP championship from 2015 – which would move from Silverstone. It's also unclear what other events the Circuit of Wales aims to attract.

It's claimed the Circuit of Wales could generate 750,000 visits a year. MotoGP would probably attract ~250,000 people over a three-day race weekend - a third of the visitor estimates in just three/four days. What about the rest of the year? The only other motorsport event that comes close to those figures is Formula One, and there's no chance of that moving to Wales. Are the visitor figures another very optimistic over-estimate?

You can argue the business park is more economically important than the race track, as at least it would be used all-year round and provide more than temporary hospitality and race-day jobs. So surely the business park should be the priority development, with the race track a nice add-on, not the other way around.

There's feudal remnant at play too. As the Western Mail and Daily Wales recently reported, the Duke of Beaufort (a distant cousin of Bet Windsor – net worth circa £135million) stands to make several million pounds out of this development, as he's the landowner via a claim to the title of Earl of Glamorgan dating back to Chuckles II. The Earldom of Glamorgan is a courtesy tital only used to address the direct relatives of a peer, so AFAIK shouldn't have any value in itself.

Also, as Jac o' the North said, only one person on the HVDC board of directors has any experience in motor sport – and that's as a motorcycle racing manager.

What started as slightly tangy whiffs in the air that make you check your shoes, is turning into a full-blown farmer's field pong.

Here comes the muck spreader....

The Environment & Planning Issue

A Natural Resources Wales u-turn on their objections to
the project has been called into question.
(Pic : Chris Hatch via Gwent Wildlife Trust)

The development is on common land, which means any land lost has to be replaced like-for-like on adjacent upland moors. It's a process the EnglandandWales Planning Inspectorate says could take up to a year, leading to significant delays in planning and – subsequently – construction.

When the plans were first submitted, Natural Resources Wales (the joint environment body established in April 2013) registered an objection, which should've/could've led to the scheme being "called-in" by the Welsh Government and possible further delays.

Correspondence between Welsh Government officials, agents working on behalf of HVDC, and Natural Resources Wales (NRW), were released via a Freedom of Information request last September. The important documents are Nos. 18-18c, which is NRW's response to a request for further advice.

NRW say in 18a (pdf) that, "....from the outset, we have had serious concerns over the scale, location and nature of the scheme as submitted and the likely resultant environmental impacts."

They go on to say that they wanted to work with the developers and Blaenau Gwent Council to ensure the environmental impacts would be mitigated, adding that a lot of work went towards that goal – though all the relevant information should've been provided from the start. They then conclude that the project no longer needed to be called-in by the Welsh Government. A near complete u-turn.

Since then, it's been revealed by BBC's The Wales Report that internal NRW e-mails suggest they've been put under pressure not to object to major developments. Morgan Parry – a well-respected NRW board member who died in January – is quoted as saying :

"I don't know who wrote our submission or how high up the hierarchy it was escalated, but I know that staff are finding it difficult to do anything other than give the same answer as we would have done before....

"The only way our advice on issues such as Circuit of Wales is going to change is if we are directed by (Welsh) government to have regard for other factors over and above the environmental ones. And that, I believe, would be a very sad day."

That day came.

Coincidentally, the minister in charge of the environment, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent), is also the local AM. Quasi-judicial decisions and all that. He is, however, quoted as dismissing criticism of the Circuit of Wales u-turn as possibly the work of "one disgruntled employee".

Big Projects, Big Problems

With all the talk of improved cross Irish Sea connections, has Wales
imported something rather unpleasant from the Irish.
(Pic : tee2i.org)

Personally-speaking, I have no objection to these flagship "big projects". They should be judged on their individual merits and strength of their business/economic case – weighed against the environmental impacts (which should be offset). I don't see the point of protecting every single scrap of  moorland, which is about as unnatural as it comes as it should, ideally, be covered in forest (sheep farming aside).

So in principle, I support the Circuit of Wales. It's just the execution of the project and sheer number of unanswered questions that risks bringing the whole thing down. That's not something limited to this project either, it's almost becoming standard practice in Wales.

For "big projects", the whole process – from planning to construction – has to be transparent.  Figures shouldn't be plucked out of the sky, and key decisions shouldn't be made behind closed doors in a manner that could compromise the independence of major public bodies. An example of good practice here would be the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay.

If developers think they'll need public money, they should be up-front about that from Day 1, not drop politicians in it just as the public momentum builds behind a project. It's an underhand tactic, and bounds politicians and other decision-makers to support them in order to avoid becoming public enemy number one. It puts them in a difficult position, so it's not fair on them or fair on us.

We've seen it with RIFW (which has yet to reach a conclusion). Lest we forget Valleywood? We've also seen it with some of the schemes proposed for restoration of open-cast mining sites (like the Teletubby Village at Margam), and Carmarthenshire's dealings with Llanelli Scarlets (also something related from Y Cneifiwr). On a smaller scale, we've seen it in the case of the suspected fraud in the Milford Haven regeneration scheme.

Wales can't afford to become a nation of - what the Irish would call – gombeens; which roughly translates as shady wheeler-dealers with political connections. Labour would be wise not to perpetuate their position as a gombeen-enabler, shoring up their strong claim to be a Welsh version of Fianna Fáil.

Read More