Open Letter on Cuts and working together.

[GPStone]

These are my general thoughts on the situation - very general but something I wanted to say a couple of days ago and couldn't.

I think we have to be aware of what is going on within the political discussions regarding cuts. They are not particularly targeted or, in many instances even politically motivated. They are simply a barrage of across-the-board reductions which put everyone under pressure to change the way they do things or get out of the way. The 38 Degrees campaign demonstrated something important. It didn't try to argue that there was an economic imperative to retain state ownership of woodland. It didn't compare the woodland resource to police officers or doctors – an incredibly crude political tactic when used by Mr Pickles and co that supplies no real justification for cuts, it simply acts to bully others out of the argument (which is probably why you won't here anyone really important or self-respecting using it). All the 38 Degrees campaign had to do was deliver the message that enough people were opposed to the act and that this represented a significant enough political risk to the Coalition (when combined with a few well aimed shots to undermine faith in the economic purpose of the sell-off).

Mobilise and knit together the mass of popular support for heritage and archaeology and we can defend the discipline from cuts, whatever our own professional insecurities and self-doubts. I wonder if there will already be doubts amongst politicians about such attacks on things which might fall under terms like 'popular' and community heritage as a result of the cross-societal opposition displayed through the 38 Degrees campaign on woodland and the evident strength of opposition still being carried through by the follow-on campaigns on 38 Degrees.

I agree that there needs to be a holistic defence of society and social values against and beyond the pure economic arguments given by some Tories and those conservatives (note small c). Society is not formed solely from pure economically beneficial and functional roles and to stop support for everything but the most essential services and roles is to remove the key linkages which hold society together and give it identity. It is to tear apart the fabric of society itself and leave it on life-support - still technically alive but with no means of existing beyond pure function.

As such, I support Prospect's approach to this by including heritage and refusing to separate it out from its wider CutStop campaign. That cause is right and the approach is in the interest of the wider campaign. BUT, I also fear that it would be far to late to wait for that argument to be had and hope that it prevails. We have to simultaneously support heritage and archaeology, mobilise their own support bases and demonstrate that it exists in depth and with passion and commitment - we need to demonstrate that the political parties will lose votes and gain vocal opposition if they do anything to attack it or allow anything to erode it.

[GPStone]

Sounds like a start. I agree, let's keep it proactive. On the side, I met up with and had dinner with some mates. They own their homes in the village, one just bought a grade II listed property. Inevitably the subject of listed buildings and archaeology came up. I explained the relationship of archaeology and planning. Their most important issue was the added cost, and they asked me only one question in terms of expense and importance that I had trouble answering:

Why is archaeology important?

Surely the question they're really asking is not, 'Why is archaeology important?' but, 'Why is archaeology important enough to cost me more money?'

In some ways, I think we have to accept either we are all a part of society with individual responsibilities to participate and contribute including financially. But I sympathise with their position. The fact is, when the 'the polluter pays' concept was introduced (the first attempt to shift the financial burden of archaeology from the state) there was no real account taken of the fact that individuals wanting a lesser service (an external survey and recording of their Grd II listed house, for instance) would have to pay at least the same rate as a larger developer with a somewhat greater capacity to accept the financial risk and cost of such a venture. It factors in - perhaps - to the recent thread about Killing The Goose. Perhaps it would actually help us to review the methods we employ in the commercial environment and show that we are making attempts to limit the financial hit from heritage wherever possible and review the tools like theEH listing system. If times were better, I suppose you could argue for a public fund for assisting in levelling the cost of archaeology and heritage to individuals to some extent, but that is a bit like raising a red-rag to a bull and would probably just represent a target to be fired upon at will by county councils. There are community based ways around such things in some instances, although its all a bit Big Society!

[Mander]

Hi. I'm kinda new at this, as I have been burying my head in the (academic) sand and not paying very close attention to what's been happening in the wider field. But I'd like to get involved now, because I think that it is an important defining moment in not only archaeology/heritage but society as a whole. So I volunteer to do what I can to help with all this, even though my positions and opinions on the myriad issues are by no means fully formed.

I'd like to echo the point that all of these cuts and the emphasis on pure cost is ripping away at what makes society a society. Surely we archaeologists, as scholars of culture, are in an excellent position to demonstrate that heritage is fundamental to community and even national identity, that healthy communities are a key part of a functioning economy, and that archaeology (and the heritage field generally) is essential to both.

[Kel]

The 38 Degrees campaign had something solid and popular to work for. You'll note that nobody asked "Are you willing to have taxpayers' money spent on maintaining the forests that remain in State ownership?" because the answer might have been quite different.

If somebody suggested bulldozing Stonehenge, we could mount a 38 Degrees-style campaign against it and win handsomely. We're not really dealing with the same type of issue.

And that's ignoring the fact that the government have already flogged off a lot of the forests that were in State ownership anyway. Suddenly playing it up felt rather like a diversionary tactic to me. Wonder what we weren't supposed to be noticing, that slipped under the radar whilst the hoohah about trees was going on? Perhaps I'm being overly cynical...

I know someone who's a senior Civil Servant and they confirm that cuts are just being made across the board with very little prior consideration. Much of what they're instructed to do is illegal and they spend quite a bit of time patiently explaining legislation and statutory responsibilities to ministers. Basically, it's cut first and see who yells about it later. If you can find a particularly weak constituency, then it's a natural target.

[GPStone]

The 38 Degrees campaign had something solid and popular to work for. You'll note that nobody asked "Are you willing to have taxpayers' money spent on maintaining the forests that remain in State ownership?" because the answer might have been quite different.

Exactly. It's how you present and phrase it that makes the question work.

Basically, it's cut first and see who yells about it later. If you can find a particularly weak constituency, then it's a natural target.

.......which highlights the fact that it isn't what your argument and justification is but how you argue it......sort of. There is no need for heritage and archaeology to be that constituency if the situation arises but it does mean tying it all together so that a threat to part of it is treated like a threat to all of it. That's the part which requires coordination.

[P Prentice]

two points - which are not likely to be seen as constructive so i'm posting here

a condem 'big society' would have archaeology for free - cus plenty would do it (however badly)

heritage/archaeology is part of the environment so we should be thinking in terms of 'environmental protection' - training in, provision of, policing of, teaching of etc -
environmental concerns are acceptabe to the public - if the 38 campaign showed anything it was that the environment is treasured

[moreno]

Surely the question they're really asking is not, 'Why is archaeology important?' but, 'Why is archaeology important enough to cost me more money?'

I reposted the question in “Constructive thoughts on the effect of cuts to archaeology and heritage” #11. In a time where government agencies are dealing with costs through cuts, companies by lowering costs; individuals are also concerned about their pocketbooks, as we all are. For the individual/home owner/small business having very little knowledge about archaeology and planning, they rely upon the county, city, district (etc) "planning" archaeologist (usually if asked to do so) to provide them with "approved" arch sub contractors. The individual's cost to have these archaeological services provided in relation to planning is contingent upon who makes up that list. In this respect, the costs can vary greatly.

[monty]

Well this is what we all knew would happen under the Tories......................}

[Dinosaur]

.....and after all the good work they did giving all us diggers waged employment by introducing PPG16 (although obviously I pine longingly after the days of subsistence....) :face-crying:

[BAJR]

This is a distillation of the discussion and suggestions for ways forward. I have tried to cover as many of the technical issues we would need to consider as possible, please feel free to point out those I have missed. Thanks for bearing with us so far and I hope this is the last epic...

All the political speculation over the weekend is that George Osborne will announce the first changes to the planning regime in England in this week's budget. Coupled with the various comments from Eric Pickles about localism and giving more power to local communities, this might give us our first potential challenge/cue to respond, or ideally, opportunity to get our retaliation in first and equally our first major opportunity to build a base for campaigning on the big archaeological issues.

• PPS5 may tick some Government boxes, particularly as regards "localism," but the suggestion is we must be prepared to claim it as ours and fight for it on a non partisan, positive agenda of community engagement with the environment. i.e Archaeology is down there in the communities and, whatever else we are [we can argue about that one], we are a campaigning part of the environmental movement whichever is the party [s] of Government.
  

• A practical issue concerns many. The opposition to the current planning system often sees planning conditions and listing as either a Tax on growth, or "Red Tape" preventing growth and proper entrepreneurship. For example this from the Telegraph "Red Tape Britain."
  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourb...dings.html

..so countering that myth must be a campaigning priority but we must not get bogged down in too much detail- that is for the specialist lobbying effort.

• Like the Forests' campaign there seems to be a feeling we must claim the past as being ours collectively [whatever the letter of the Law says about individual land ownership] and that with ownership comes both a desire for knowledge, and an individual and collective responsibility not to destroy or change unnecessarily the natural and historic environment and irreplaceable resources.
  

• The Forests campaign showed any government cannot ignore this view if it is articulated loudly and effectively. Therefore, at a practical level we must demonstrate and never shut up about, the fact that an archaeological condition is an environmental responsibility, on a par with ensuring your development is not going to evict some badgers or overload the local drains. This means we must attempt to build a base of support by highlighting projects where archaeologists have been involved in sensitive managed change of use, or environmental protection, i.e pipeline surveys, by-pass projects etc as well as promoting historical knowledge in the community. We must be seen as allies- not an obscure special interest group.
  

• Most importantly there is a feeling we must build partnerships across the environmental amenity societies, organisations and movements. Archaeology is "Green" and the Historic Environment and the Natural Environment are the same thing...the Environment and that belongs to all of us.
  

• There is a perception in the discussion that as far as effective lobbying and media goes we need one single voice, not voices. To that end we propose a national mouthpiece on-line, facebook and Twitter, backed up by an informal regional organisation of allies, based on the existing groups coming together and working with the broader memberships of groups with an environmental agenda as a lobbying alliance signed up to the broad principles of our campaign. i.e. An out of town store development will also effect wildlife, birds and plants. Why just wait until there is a direct threat to start campaigning. The idea is to have groups working together to promote the positive so that when Mr TESCO or whoever, does propose to trash the local Wild Wood, the links to media and local politics are already in place and the dialogue about sustainable development and respect for the environment has already begun on our agenda.
  

[Which is not to say that existing organisations should not continue to exploit their lobbying powers on particular issues. In particular we need to support CBA as it seeks to replace that dispreportionate cut by the British Academy at the behest of the Department of Business and Skills- thanks Vince. The idea is to offer more powerful back up, access to greater numbers than their own individual memberships and offer more flexibility in the kind of lobbying which is possible. After all 38 Degrees have not replaced the Woodland Trust, National Trust etc- they simply focussed a specific campaign which required a fast response in a way the other organisations could not].

To get up and running we need... see next post