Sanddef's post has caused some controversy and has been reacted to angrily by some of the AM's supporters, some of whom (given Labour's record) should consider their employment prospects before sending angry comments to blog posts. The pamphlet itself, however, doesn't appear to be all that controversial. Indeed, it appears to be so mundane that my first reading left me wondering why she had gone to the trouble of writing it.
Ms Sinclair's basic premise is that Wales has a border with England, that people who live in the border areas often cross the border to access work, services leisure etc and that the National Assembly, relevant Whitehall departments councils and other authorities should co-operate to make sure that cross border facilities provide the best possible services for border dwellers. I don't think that many people would disagree with this premise.
Ms Sinclair makes her case by showing how well the Deeside Hub has worked to the benefit of those on the Welsh and the English side of the Hub
For those who may be unfamiliar with what I mean, the.
Deeside Hub is an economic sub-region of the Welsh/English
economy covering a large area of Flintshire, Denbighshire and
Wrexham as well as Chester, Wirral, Ellesmere Port and
Neston in England.
This example shows the weakness in Ms Sinclair's argument. Her own example shows that what she is calling on the Assembly and other authorities to do is precisely what the Assembly and others have been doing for the past 8 years, with a fair measure of success.
But there is a subtext to the pamphlet that goes beyond cross border co-operation. The pamphlet is scattered with comments such as:
Our continued economic development in the next few years into a world-class, added value area that continues to punch above its weight will rely heavily on developing an integrated transport policy that takes greater account of regional economic patterns than it does of historic, but artificial national borders.
Recently, heavy emphasis has been placed by the current Assembly Government on improving North-South transport links, but important consideration needs to be given to improving and upgrading cross-border West-East links
In South East Wales, Cardiff and Newport have an advantageous position near Bristol to become a financial and creative industries hub.
The sub-text of this Labour document is that attempts to strengthen the links between north and south Wales should be secondary to strengthening the ties of the regions of Wales to Merseyside, the English west Midlands and Bristol. That as little as possible should be done to provide uniquely Welsh based services. In short, that any attempt by the Assembly at Nation Building must be avoided at all costs, because the Labour party can't abide the idea of an united, confident Wales that isn't heavily dependent on England for all things.
Thanks for that Alwyn, I'd missed this. And only the other day Huw Lewis posted on how there were in effect no Welsh-British divides within the Welsh Labour Party. What you have pointed out suggests that for Sinclair and her ilk Wales does not and should not exist.
ReplyDeleteThe Labour party needs Wales and Scotland to keep them in power in England. The interests of the Welsh and Scottish electorates are very secondary to this selfish and over-riding fact.
ReplyDeleteAlwyn
ReplyDeleteYou may have lapsed into the sort of propagandising you are criticising.
I don't think the pamphlet argues that North-South links should be secondary to East-West, but rather that the latter should not be ignored.
It does not appear to me to say that as little as possible should be done to provide uniquely Welsh based services, but that these should not be at the expense of cross-border services.
Nor do I see an argument against Nation Building, but rather a suggestion that the way the Assembly develops its agenda must take account both of the fact that Wales is a nation and that she has an extensive land border with a large populous neighbour, with whom she remains highly integrated.
We read what we want to into these things, but these do not strike me as controversial arguments.
Sanddef's argument, that KS's arguments can be ignored because she has taken a position with which he disagrees on a separate topic, can be safely dismissed for the insubstantial nonsense it is. You either have views on the issue she raises or you don't. Either way, shooting the messenger is usually a sign of paucity of argument.
Sanddef's argument, that KS's arguments can be ignored because she has taken a position with which he disagrees on a separate topic, can be safely dismissed for the insubstantial nonsense it is.
ReplyDeleteIm afraid you're talking more nonsense, NM. My own post pointed not to what was being said, but to who was saying it, namely a person who evidently and demonstrably thinks little of the concerns of her own constituents. As such your "rebuttal" and the Huw-Crew panic attacks can be dismissed for the insubstantial nonsense that they are.
My own post pointed not to what was being said, but to who was saying it
ReplyDeleteExactly. Shooting the messenger.
Exactly. Shooting the messenger.
ReplyDeleteMore like pointing out what little credibility the messenger has
Well, yes. I wasn't actually accusing you of shooting her. It's a figure of speech.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. I wasn't actually accusing you of shooting her. It's a figure of speech.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing that up. That's another figure of speech, by the way ;)