The main speaker was David Davis who raised points about the betrayal of a long history successful work at the Brough plant. That the Hawk still has prospects for sales and that much of it is being offered to overseas companies in ‘offset’ deals to gain more sales. Also the point was raised that BAE had made the error of selling off its commercial aircraft interests which had often taken up the slack when defence orders are slow. A plea to slow the rate of redundancies at Brough was raised.

There was also talk about the terms in the ‘yellow book’ which represents the trading agreements between government and industry. This relates to guaranteeing jobs to maintain capability and covers who pays for redundancy costs. It seems the government pays in this case. Some MP’s think BAE is exploiting this.

Others mentioned large overspends that need to be reduced and ensuring the ability to satisfy future projects.

Each MP spoke. It seemed reading the debate that very little was said that hasn’t been said a dozen times. It is perhaps unusual for redundancies at one company to secure so much time for discussion and it left me wondering what was achieved. At the end there was a resolution which might mean more in politics than it does when reading it. This says;

That this House urges BAE Systems to act to preserve the UK’s defence production skills base and, as a recipient of enormous resources over many years from the UK taxpayer, to deploy those resources in such a way as to protect the nation’s manufacturing capability.

Or it seemed;  Carry on as planned,  if what you make costs more and what you can offer is limited by inflexibility then you reduce the chance to sell it, and so could lose more jobs.

It could be argued that to preserve jobs the government should place contracts that pull work forward or create new research. In the current climate this seems unlikely.

An overview of defence as a whole could read as follows. Over the years the UK aircraft industry has consolidated to a few plants and BAE has changed from an aircraft company to one that delivers systems with a large part in the US. Also the number of projects has declined and it appears that the UK is likely to become an aircraft ‘part’ manufacturer. With UAV’s potentially creating work but it isn’t clear how that will evolve. The alternatives come with large bill. Perhaps a measure of the UK’s decline over the years coupled with increased complexity and the range of military options from tanks to submarines, UCAV’s and very expensive electronics, counter-measures, surveillance and cyber-warfare. Where to focus? Which elements to play a major part in?  Off the shelf, licence build, direct purchase? A lot to consider.  Let’s hope we can maintain a viable aircraft industry producing whole aircraft rather than a bit player. Today we might not be optimistic. Only the French put national glory and maintenance of capability on an equal pedestal to financials e.g. Renault, Airbus, TGV, Nuclear Power, Ships.

The aircraft industry has been recognised as one that generates large export earnings through products and services over long periods of time.  Aircraft also contain a wide range of sophisticated equipment that provides high technology business and employment all over the country and these items are also exported. The business fosters close relationships and partnerships with other countries of all sizes that often leads onto other business, particularly infrastructure, as well as demonstrating a capability to participate in future high technology international ventures. Investment in aircraft projects provides the likes of BAE, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, Marconi with the foundation for their products. There is a lot to lose without care.

Read the full debate on the website ‘they work for you’.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-11-24a.472.1&s=speaker%3A11668#g475.0

One solution to this irritation is to stop voting in local elections because no-one asked for this and yet here it is. To let us know we are in the 21st Century and consistency is a thing long forgotten the motorway speed limit is expected  to go up to 80mph and red tape and regulation is to be reduced. Obviously a significant number of these incidents aren’t on roads that will be part of this exercise.

The leaflet contains no data or targets for improvement. Yet searching the internet it seems that in the last 5 years the number of serious injuries and deaths on Lancashire roads has reduced from about 1100 to around 800 although deaths seem to fluctuate around 60 people.

Who’d deny that saving one life isn’t worthwhile and yet this seems like another handcuff for decent people being spread broadbrush.  Let’s face it there are jobs at stake here, jobs creating rules and how proud you’d feel to have brought in such a rule. How proud you’d be that having landed a job in safety you improved it even though the environmental department got a pasting with increased emissions that created a demand for further restrictions and the NHS got more asthma cases in hospital. Bravo!

After over 10 years of debate and delay it is surprising anyone is still in the project. Blackburn must think they won in the end by delaying it with their legal challenge.

What now? A smaller project is mooted with no bus station and containing an M&S. There must be a clue here and with the Winckley Square on-going discussion that the way to get things done needs to be changed. It might be thought that John Lewis would have come into Preston years ago if the first stage had been to build their shop, and perhaps M&S, along with parking. Shrinking the bus station to half its size would have left part of its iconic shape and been big enough while providing car parking space as well.

Grandiose plans have created an all or nothing state similar to Blackpool when the casino dream died.  Yet after being badly holed Blackpool has obtained a lot of money to rejuvenate its centre, the tram system and its two best known buildings and is now starting on a Central Business District development. So perhaps Preston can dust off its plans and start a more realistic scheme phased sensibly so not to disrupt the centre for years and not to frighten the neighbours.

Whether demolishing the building is good or bad is open to question. The attractiveness and potential uses of a building change with time. Many an old hovel was knocked down and now they are classed as characterful and in demand to live in or as tourist attractions.  At this time the elaborate stonework contrasting with the red brickwork is the main feature of Edwardian buildings and it could be said there are still quite a lot of them around. Also there is a need to build on brownfield sites rather than greenfield and as travelling becomes more expensive building near town centres is likely to become more popular.  On balance the decision seems acceptable.

The other old building in the news is the former Park Hotel, built 1883, a major feature of Preston, having a commanding position over the Grade II listed Miller Park. This building is deemed surplus to Lancashire County Council’s use as offices and staff are being moved into the main Pitt Street offices. The building will then be put on sale. If justice was to be done it would be kept as Council Offices as that is one of the best ways to preserve it.  It might be thought that a preservation grant would be available to councils for this. Let us hope that a good use is found although the recession and general cut backs make this unlikely in the short term.

The preservation of buildings is a controversial subject. There are as many opinions as people and we can’t keep every building. Those no longer fit for a purpose have a difficult time.  The main bus station and Mount Street Hospital being two buildings at risk. Proposals to modernise buildings and places are often sacrilegious, like the hanging letters on Winckley Square.  Careful planning and cash are needed. Of the above buildings it seems the Park School isn’t worth keeping but the former Park Hotel should certainly have its exterior shape preserved at least.

The previous government planned that £2bn a year would be spent on rail. Crossrail and Thameslink in London would spend that up to about 2017 when High Speed Rail work would start. Yet it seems very unfair that all the investment is going into London while the rest of the country gets London’s old rolling stock as they get new trains. There are 55million people living outside London and the gap in wealth gets larger while more and more money is poured into London – the Olympics being another example. Surely it is time for some equality.  It is said that London is more dependent on rail transport yet it has the only high speed rail line in the country and that goes outside the city to Europe. So London is sucking in people from outside to use its monopoly position. Why should people from the Midlands and the North need to travel to London to go to Europe on the train.

London is currently like a pressure cooker, hemmed in by small hills north and south and nothing of significance crossing those barriers. High Speed Rail will release some of the pressure and it would be expected to shrink the country so that areas well beyond those hills feel the benefits of the London investment effect. On top of that it could release capacity at Heathrow for lucrative international flights rather than domestic ones.

The need for a high speed line is here now, the West Coast Main Line is very busy and increasing train length is only a stop gap. Adding more track will cost as much if not more than a High Speed line.  Building should commence on the full length of line to Manchester and Leeds immediately with a target opening date in 5 years. British engineering companies should be given research funding to develop train technology. Work should also start on improving the track to ensure High Speed compatibility all the way to Scotland. The recession provides a benefit by reducing costs and the project will create jobs.

Whether the Blackburn appeal has already done its job might be another factor. The delays to the project have put it into a time when retail on the high street is going through a bad patch.  Investors now need convincing that there is the prospect of a return. In the last week alone well known retailers like Habitat, Jane Norman and TJ Hughes have called in administrators. The battle between the high street and the internet is one reason, not to mention out of town shopping, and it might be thought that over the longer term the internet can only get bigger.

If it is true that John Lewis are looking to open a store they are one of the few retailers that isn’t doing so badly. Although their business tends to be with people who have a decent level of disposable income, whether Preston can still present many of this type of customer might be questioned.

The government is also looking to steer the economy away from the consumer led boom and high borrowing.  Also the cost of Chinese made goods is increasing. Whether this means retail will no longer be a growth area and growth will come from other businesses might tip the balance of the project away from retail and towards business premises. It has seemed possible that Tithebarn is expanding Preston’s retail area more than might be sustainable if you add in out-of-town supermarkets and retail areas.  A watch needs to be kept on potentially conflicting interests; developers, builders, retailers, businesses and the council, to ensure that a white elephant doesn’t appear in the heart of Preston or that it compromises the rest of the centre which is looking quite smart now.

In this world the council empty your bin onto the street and then turn off the streetlights, some might say what’s new.  Then at night when it’s completely dark mindless graffiti, fly tipping and a mass dog fouling exercise occur. What’s new? This being TV, solutions must be found immediately, wrong ones are penalised and conflict dramatised.

Novel solutions like storing waste in the lounge and filling your garage with fly tipped junk are used. A spotlight is hired for street lighting. But these are just an inconvenience.

The most contentious part is social care. One family needs extra financial help because of low income.  An old lady had previously been taken by council supplied bus to the shops and residential centre.  As the final twist a lady wanted help from this street for her father who lived somewhere else.

We all had opinions but you couldn’t help admire Mr Can do, the caravan salesman who arranged the lights and generally kept upbeat.  A lot of people put in a lot of elbow grease. Some were good at talking but weren’t seen doing a lot. Some seemed to want more than they appeared to be putting  back, although in the limited time you couldn’t get a full picture. Overall it seemed as good a range of sensible and decent people as you’d find.

The success appeared to be with the old lady who  was an invisible street member until the show, whether this lasts beyond the show time will tell. The most interesting was the resident who expressed entitlement, an idea that often causes strong feelings, and you might wonder if this scene was set up to stir the pot for the show. The residents voted to provide all the needs even though they had no money left but not without it causing bad feeling from those who felt they didn’t have much but managed.

One case thrown in seemed to test reality.  Whether to support a residents disabled father who lived elsewhere.  Wouldn’t the street where the father lived pay for his help in reality? Yet it was agreed, with some being in no doubt it was right, and some seeming to have given up.

In the end Mr Can Do said the programme had created divisions that may never heal and the lady who wanted benefits said she’d move. That’s what you get when your personal life is laid open to those nearby to judge. It made decision making look difficult and recognition for council services. Yet, if you’re thrown in the deep end with no training it will look difficult and as councils have more than council tax for income it wasn’t clear that the refunded tax was all they were entitled to, so their budget was probably low.

Overall it scored on entertainment and gave some perspective of decision making, but didn’t give a broad or deep insight or have any after programme discussion into what was learnt. Some people expressed more sympathy with the council, and why not. In general councils do a good job in a very civilised way, but it might be you think it could be done even better or cheaper.

UCLan is well down the performance tables of universities and it was a surprise when it announced it would charge the maximum fee.  The government didn’t intend that universities such as UCLan would charge so much. Yet universities can ask for the fees they need to develop their institution subject to approval of plans to accommodate certain students.

Perhaps it’s similar to the BBC who seriously expected license payers to accept a very large increase to fund their dreams of expansion. The government limited the BBC and now they are being restricted even further by the new government.

Did the government misjudge how much universities need or are the universities making the most of what is possible.  Ultimately the taxpayer pays until the loan is paid off. Yet as it’s likely to be 2015 before the smallest repayments are made, there is no government saving for a long time. On the other side it appears some universities will be raking it in from 2012.

Read more about Blackburn FEC:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416063&c=1

The full council now comprises: Labour 29  (+4), Conservative 21 (-1), Liberal Democrats 6 (-1), Others  1 (-2).

The seats were last contested in 2003 so it isn’t easy to compare like for like, but Labour achieved an increase in vote of 6000 votes or 40% compared with the seats contested in 2007 while the Liberal Democrats lost 2000 votes or 48% compared with 2007. The Conservatives breaking even.

It could be concluded that results followed a northern trend where the Liberal Democrats lost votes to Labour, whereas in the south the LD’s lost votes to the Conservatives.  While the Conservatives maintained a national trend of not losing voters. The LibDems are said by some to be suffering for being a party in government rather than a protest group for disaffected voters from other parties. This could be an honest position for true LibDems, if unpreferable.

There is some merit in the proposal but how many deaths will it save and will it change peoples attitude.  It’s easy to come up with objections to any change, and lately we’ve seen plenty, but 20 mph is very slow.  What is a ’residential road’?  Is Garstang Road or Watling Street Road residential or is it just side roads. How many street signs will it need. A 100yd cul-de-sac with a 20mph speed sign on it?  Who is going to enforce it, will it be 3 points on your license for travelling at 23 mph in mid-morning? Also it can be confusing to pedestrians who think cars are at a distance not to cross then they take longer to arrive and you are tempted to cross.  It certainly isn’t environmentally friendly or cheap as a reduction in miles per gallon approaching 20% might be expected.

Outside schools and within a certain distance it seems a reasonable idea although there is a school near us with a full set of humps and full time 20mph restriction and it’s so irritating when there is no-one about to manoeuvre round these humps and drive so slowly.  In Leyland they have sharp edged humps which should be illegal, keep away if you like your car.

Update: It seems that it is restricted to side roads, however that is defined.