Tweet
I don't have any issue with the idea of the towns and cities of South Wales working more closely together, as was suggested by a think tank today. Nor do I have any issue with the idea that sensible economic – and even more so, transport - planning should look at cities and their hinterland as a whole, rather than trying to focus attention on small parts of the area. But I strongly disagree with the underlying thinking behind this particular report.
They seem to be starting from a number of premises as follows:
• Globalisation is not only good, it is inevitable
• Globalisation means that cities have to compete with each other on the world stage
• Competing means that cities have to be bigger and bigger
To them, these premises are not even open to challenge. I beg to differ.
In a way, the subject is one which goes to the very heart of my own political philosophy. I believe that human institutions, towns, cities, transport, the economy – all these things and more – should be shaped and driven to meet human needs and aspirations; and on a human scale. It sometimes seems to me as though many of the cold economists are telling us that we, as humans, must adapt to fit the needs of the market – or rather, the needs of globalised big business.
Now some might argue that the two things are not that different. To meet human needs and aspirations requires jobs and resources; business creates those jobs and resources. I consider that to be over-simplistic, not least because there is nothing contained within the statement that requires globalisation.
Globalisation is the current fashionable trend; but just as generals are always said to be stuck fighting the previous war, I think that many economists and supporters of globalisation are supporting an outdated set of ideas. The future lies with re-localising production and consumption, and it will be forced upon us by rising world populations, shortage and increased cost of fuel, and climate change. Above all, the complexity which is being built into our economic systems by globalisation and long supply chains represents a major threat in itself; the globalised economy is actually becoming more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse as a result of a failure at a single point.
So, by all means let's have integrated and cohesive planning between our towns and cities rather than competition; but let's do it to shape our country to meet our needs rather than because we want to compete with Paris or London. And let's start by deciding what we want from the economy, rather than what it wants from us.
PS – I was a little taken aback by Peter Stead's quoted comment, "One is tremendously attached to the Valleys but certainly in the long term the future lies with the ports". What exactly is the fundamental difference between that and the insane suggestion just a few weeks ago that people should all move from the North of England to places like Oxford?
The price of change
-
One of the consequences of posting links to my blogs and videos on Twitter,
Mastodon, Bluesky, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube itself, is that I see
* Read t...
21 minutes ago
1 comment:
" ... What exactly is the fundamental difference between that and the insane suggestion just a few weeks ago that people should all move from the North of England to places like Oxford? "
... erm, the earlier comments were made by a 'Tory' think tank and so, Labour, had to show they were class warriors figthing for the places they've taken for granted, sorry, represented for so long.
Post a Comment