Category Archives: Liverpool And Merseyside
Big Science, Technology And The New Localism
Big Science is a central part of the U.K. economy. The Knowledge Economy, with science and technology as the tangible drivers, is critical to economic success. But for many involved in regeneration Big Science remains a mystery, especially at the level of the ‘new localism’. This paper offers real examples of regeneration strategies, science policy and how science has synergy with, and impact on, economies at regional and local level.
The Golden Triangle and the Holy Grail of the Triple Helix…….
Big Science, Technology and the New Localism
Hilary Burrage
[This is a longer version of the CLES Local Work: Voice paper of February 2006, entitled Knowledge Economies and Big Science: A challenge for governance]
Knowledge-Led Regeneration, Regions, Sub-Regions & City Regions and Science Policy.
Modern science is massive. That’s why it’s often referred to as Big Science. The costs (and sometimes the rewards), the numbers of people involved, the management and resource levels and the skills required – all are very, very high. And yet… to most of us, science remains effectively invisible.
Away from the public eye
The invisibility of science is curious; it probably arises from a number of different factors:
· Big Science, like (say) public motorways, is paid for by money from very high up the funding chain. Decisions on funding are made at national (and international) level by people of whom almost no-one outside their particular sphere of influence has heard. But unlike motorways, which we can at least see, we rarely encounter Big Science directly in our daily lives. It therefore remains off our radar.
· Most of us know very little about what science is ‘for’ and how it works. The numbers of school children studying science in their later, elective years is still falling, as are numbers of degree students. We are not therefore conscious of the ways in which science gives rise to things with which we are familiar, from shampoo to plastics to machines.
· Whilst information technology and health are of interest to many people, they do not see these matters as ‘scientific’. (Nor, incidentally, do many practitioners in the health and IT fields themselves see this connection very clearly.)
· Whether science and science-related practitioners see themselves as having a linked core interest or not, they nonetheless usually believe that their work has little or nothing to do with the wider worlds of public involvement and politics. There may be issues arising from science and technology (which I shall refer to from now on as SciTech) for others to address around economics or ethics, but what happens in the labs is the main concern – and this is observed by very few.
· Science is likewise not a vote-catcher. It is unusual for the electorate to invest much time and energy pursuing issues around this theme; which means that in general neither the media nor politicians spend much time considering it either.
Returning then to the comparison with motorways, both may be very expensive, but Big Science is almost always off limits for the public at large – it is often located within universities or on special campuses of some sort, very much less visible than a large road.
Does Big Science need to be visible?
But why should invisibility matter? After all, we may well not think about science very much, but every region of the United Kingdom has its own science and technology parks, where scientists and technologists rub shoulders with business and commercial people. These parks may not be in our thoughts a great deal, but they create jobs and inward investment and are often key parts of regeneration strategies.
In general we do not see the vaccine research laboratories, the synchrotrons, or the materials science analysts at work. But so what if they’re not ‘visible’? Does it really matter?
Answers to this question can be given at a number of levels; but in all cases the answer is Yes, invisibility does indeed matter.
The invisibility of Big Science reduces:
· public interest and involvement;
· the number of young people who will have an interest in SciTech as a career;
· engagement with industry and business;
· influence in matters of planning and infrastructure;
· opportunities to procure regeneration, at both practical and strategic levels.
Some of the follow-on repercussions of this invisibility are obvious; others are less so.
And the consequences are likewise different for different terrains. The ‘hothouse’ of the Golden Triangle [roughly, that area covering London, Oxbridge and the M4 / 5 corridors] is probably less directly vulnerable than, say, a Science Park in Northern England.
But it is at least possible that every part of the high level Knowledge Economy is disadvantaged by the inequity and uneven distribution of synergies between ‘hothouse’ and more isolated facilities. The former is becoming stressed, the latter need more support and development of capacity.
The Triple Helix of Innovation
It is now accepted that it is the synthesis of Universities, Industry and Government – the ‘Triple Helix’ – which brings about serious SciTech innovation. This Triple Helix, as we shall see, is in effect the Holy Grail to a vibrant knowledge-led twenty first century economy.
The world wide web may keep researchers and others in touch, but there is nothing like direct involvement from the big investment players to secure scientific progress in a given location. In other words, ad hoc development of SciTech facilities will take a local economy so far, but not far enough. Only strategic planning on a grand scale, and by with all parties working together, will however produce the sort of results which make a significant difference. And that means involvement at the highest levels of decision-making.
A corollary of this scenario is that people at all points on the decision-making ‘chain’ need to be aware of the complexities of SciTech. Again, this is more likely to be the case in the Golden Triangle, than in our off-the-map Northern Science Park. When a lot of local people are employed in SciTech jobs at the highest levels, as in the Golden Triangle, awareness of science and technology will be far greater than when this is not the case. Dispersed discreet locations without significant business links are on their own unlikely to change the local business or political perspective about what is important. – what does this mean for us and our knowledge economies?
The Daresbury Connection
A case in point here is the Daresbury Laboratory near Warrington, in the North West of England. This establishment, much of the work of which is as a world leader in the field of high energy physics, had been in existence for some decades, collaborating with the University of Liverpool and several other higher education and research laboratories.
By the mid-nineteen nineties, however, Daresbury had become something of an island unto itself, still conducting worthy international research but effectively disconnected from its locality, the local business / industrial base, and, critically, the political and administrative decision-making process.
The result of this disconnection was that the warning flags were not hoisted around the North West when the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, based in the Golden Triangle, decided to bid against Daresbury to the CCLRC (Central Council of the Laboratories of the Research Councils) to construct and operate DIAMOND, the planned third generation synchrotron – an intense light source which propels sub-atomic particles at extraordinary speeds in order to effect particle collisions for academic research and industrial / medical purposes.
By the approach of the Millennium it was becoming clear that Daresbury’s initial understanding about where the new light source would be placed were at best optimistic, although by then numbers of local and national politicians and others had also become involved in Daresbury’s attempt to secure the research funds which it had assumed were coming to the North West.
Similarly, and too late in the day, the North West Development Agency recognised that this was not simply a matter of ruffled feathers in academia, bur rather a matter of serious consequence for the whole of the region. Conferences were held, industrial and business liaisons established, plans proposed for collaboration with a number of the North West’s leading universities and hospitals – from which was later to be developed a proposal for a much more broadly-based programme of academic and applied science (CASIM). It was however too late to secure DIAMOND, and the contract went to the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, taking with it some of Daresbury’s most highly skilled technicians.
An emerging perception of how Big Science fits the national economy.
It slowly transpired, however, that all was not lost when Daresbury had to concede DIAMOND (and thus much of its future funding) to Rutherford Appleton. The North West campaign to retain support for the Laboratory had by then gained considerable momentum. Regeneration and strategic planners across the region had begun to realise that here was a facility which no-one could afford to see as an ivory tower. The science and technology might be extremely complex, but it was not simply a toy for boffins; it was potentially an enormous asset to the North West region and beyond. (And besides, for many local people, the campaign had become a matter of civic pride – a factor which politicians and planners ignore at their peril!)
Interestingly, the collapse of Daresbury’s expectations at this time also proved to be a watershed for national governmental understandings of the interaction between Big Science and the economy, nationally and regionally. The model in use at the time of the DIAMOND decision was essentially that of straightforward competition.
It had hitherto been accepted – though perhaps largely on face-value – that the physical location of Big Science facilities should be brokered only on the basis of the preferences of direct partners and funders (the Wellcome Foundation, a massive funding body, was particularly vociferous about supporting only Rutherford Appleton – already, through long-standing connections between key Oxbridge players, a Wellcome partner in a number of activities).
Media outcry
The North West media outcry about losing DIAMOND also coincided with the beginnings of a repositioning nationally about how Big Science was to be taken forward. It was slowly dawning on national decision-makers that, whilst the quality of the science itself had to be (by a very long way) the lead criterion for the allocation of funding at this level, the project evaluation playing field was nonetheless not entirely even.
For instance, whilst it might perhaps be valid to suggest that more immediate business and industrial benefit might accrue from investment in the South East, the ultimate benefit of funding to the North West might be greater in terms of its impact on the regional economy.
Similarly, scientists of the very highest order might in general have been found in greater numbers in the Golden Triangle, this was not an excuse for failing to invest in research and development in the universities of the North West. As has subsequently been demonstrated, top scientists are willing in significant numbers to follow the most challenging science, wherever it is located – especially if the costs of housing etc are lower, as well.
And so we come to the present day story of Daresbury Laboratory. Daresbury has attracted a number of new and very senior staff to support outstanding colleagues based in North West universities, it has connected with business, industrial, strategic and political interests throughout the region, and it has established a fast-growing SciTech park led by major NW companies. Not every part of CASIM proved to be deliverable (the medical applications especially proved difficult, perhaps of the way that hospital-based research is supported); but Daresbury most importantly has secured the Fourth Generation Light Source programme, which will make it the world leader in this field.
The lessons of Daresbury
The Daresbury saga is salutary in a number of respects.
First, it demonstrates the increasingly competitive nature of SciTech, and especially Big Science, in modern economies.
Second, it shows that all parts of the Triple Helix – collaboration between universities, industries and the state – are essential in order to secure the sort of funding required for present day Big Science programmes.
And third, it illustrates very well the need for scientists, politicians and other public and private sector decision-makers at regional and sub-regional / local levels to remain alert, if they are to ensure adequate funding and other strategic support for prestigious and regenerationally effective SciTech enterprises.
There are therefore important lessons to be learned at regional and sub-regional levels.
Regionalism and the New Localism
One of the most defining aspects of Big Science is its internationalism. In the U.K. almost all Big Science projects will have a European aspect, probably under one of the European Union Frameworks for Science (we are currently on our 6th, and the 7th is under negotiation); and most projects will also be attached in some respects to laboratories such as, for instance, those at M.I.T. or CalTech in the United States.
This huge span of expertise and personnel arises largely organically in the first instance. Most serious scientists and technologists barely recognise national boundaries in their academic and applied work. Venture capital and the very high level knowledge economy have an operational syntax all of their own.
These facts of scientific life put notions of the ‘New Localism’ and of City Regions in a different light. They are, to be blunt, too small as areas and populations on their own to be realistic players in the battle for Big Science.
To illustrate this, the European Union recognises a number of population bases – NUTS, or Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – of which the most commonly used in NUTS 1, or areas containing 3 – 7 million people. NUTS 1 areas are the size of major administrative units in most European countries; in fact, about the size of each of the English regions, and of Scotland and Wales respectively. City Regions are usually NUTS 2 size – 0.8 – 3 million people, and outside capital cities do not generally in most of Europe have autonomous governance.
Given that the annual budget of connected major Big Science programmes can approach that of the government of a small European country it is obviously not possible for them to operate at, say, the city region level . They require massive financial backing in terms of regional infrastructural support and they require equally massive buy-in from business and industry. And of course they need very significant numbers of available in-house expertise from local universities and other research institutions.
No non-capital town or city on its own is likely to be able to provide the levels of support required to secure significant Big Science onto its patch. The North West Development Agency and / or the Northern Way, for instance, can take full part as lead players; individual sub-regional cities, however otherwise important, can only be bit players on the Big Science stage.
The challenge for the New Localism
The message of Big Science is not entirely encouraging for those who eschew regionalism and seek preeminence for city-regions – not least because in reality most major cities simply don’t have the actual physical space, let alone the budget, to secure Big Science for themselves alone.
This is one scenario where, whatever applies elsewhere, only a shared and regional approach, or more, will do. For the U.K. at least this means that, if Big Science growth is to occur outside the Golden Triangle, the Holy Grail of the Triple Helix must be pursued by everyone, regardless of inter-city or inter-university rivalries or of otherwise competing interests between industries and businesses.
National Government must develop a policy on regional science, and regions and sub-regions must likewise respond to the opportunities such a policy would bring.
Read more about Knowledge-Led Regeneration, Regions, Sub-Regions & City Regions and Science Policy.
Modern Cities Need History And Style – So Let’s All Find Out How It’s Done
The strongly held views on Liverpool’s World Heritage Site and the Museum of Liverpool proposals have something to tell us about how we sometimes need to look beyond our own patch, to see what could or should be done. Perhaps ‘cultural exchange’ programmes within our own shores might be a start, so helping citizens to know each other’s towns and cities across the nation?
Lots of debate as usual about architecture and design, following the Heritage Lottery decision not to fund the Museum of Liverpool…. The views about the World Heritage Site and so forth have been interesting – as ever!
The last few days I’ve been in London with my family and, as it happens, doing the ‘visitor’ bit around the Tate Modern, the City, Covent Garden and Westminster. What strikes me so strongly is that most people in London don’t seem to have a huge problem about Big Buildings and Little Buildings, old ones and new.
The mix of old and new
Of course, ‘new’ buildings adjacent to ‘old’ ones (and they don’t get much more historic than some in the parts of London I was seeing) are often designed very well in a style which merges… but then you get the Gherkin. What an amazing construction! There’s St. Paul’s being done up, and behind it what you can only term a huge conical mirror. But I really don’t think it looks ‘wrong’.
In fact, one of the things that strikes me is how vibrant this miscellany of buildings, mile upon mile of them, is. Some young people I know who have moved to the Capital have actually chosen large drawings and (v dramatic) photographs of the Foster building and similar as the artwork for their own home…. and they’re exactly the sort of young professionals Liverpool would dearly have liked to keep here. But London offers so much more.
I definitely don’t think that all ‘modern’ architecture is appropriate wherever it’s put. It has to be excellent and well-positioned to earn its footprint. But I’d guess the folk in London are lucky in being (literally) more cosmopolitan in their approach; they’ve seen more of the world – in general, not all of them of course – than folk in Liverpool (again, in general). Expecting exciting and perhaps controversial architecture alongside a proper respect for the historic, and off-set by wide-open green spaces, probably goes with that wider mindset.
Where’s the wider experience and context?
When are we going to start to try to ensure that as many Liverpool people as possible have a wider context in which to judge their city? Isn’t it time actively to encourage people, young and older, to visit other places and experience (not just ‘look at’) other contexts, so that they can have a more broadly informed view of what goes on here, as well? It’s difficult to have a positive, balanced position when the basis of it is often so narrow, even perhaps parochial.
And is there something here for everyone? Would it be a good thing if we all tried to experience parts of the country outside our own patch? Never mind ‘foreign’ exchanges, worthy though these can be. What about learning more about where we actually live, as well?
The Friends Of St James’ Cemetery And Gardens, Liverpool
The Friends of St James’, who are restoring the historic cemetery and park next to Liverpool Cathedral, have achieved much in the few years of their formal existence. The inner city becomes, by the hard work of volunteer environmentalists and gardeners, joining with equally committed volunteer lobbyists, a place where green space can thrive to encourage the naturalist in us all.
The Friends of St James Cemetery And Gardens held its third AGM this evening. Reports from the Chair, local resident and sculptor Robin Riley, and the Vice-Chair, Prof. Tony Bradshaw, a noted emeritus researcher from the University of Liverpool, were incredibly encouraging – programmes of volunteer engagement, plans for children’s educational activities, accounts of excellent public engagement events during the past year … all warmed the heart and gave us hope for the future of this unique inner-city environmental resource.
St James’ is a space dug out by the masons of yesteryear (I suspect that blocks of its red stone comprise the wall at the back of my house), and situated right next to Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral. It holds about eighty thousand graves, relating in their stony way the history of the city for many decades up to the 1930s.
The cemetery, now also a park or ‘gardens’, hosts the Huskisson Memorial and much other testimony to Liverpool’s history. Amongst the other very interesting things to be found in this hollow scooped from the innrer city are a natural well and many exciting nooks and crannies. But until recently it was a no-go area, somewhere that most of us were rather afraid to explore at any time of day.
Pulling together to reclaim the space
The opportunity to reclaim this large space arose at least in part from the Bishops’ Conference on Social Responsibility which was held at Liverpool Cathedral in 2001. The environmentally aware theme of this conference resonated with the ambitions of many of us at the Cathedral and in HOPES: The Hope Street Association to develop the St. James’ site (which runs along the southern part of Hope Street) as part of our long-awaited Hope Street Millennium Public Realm proposals. In this ambition we found sterling support from David Shreeve of the national organisation the Conservation Foundation, a keen environmentalist who was much involved with Liverpool Cathedral and in this conference.
David worked with HOPES and others to encourage the City Council to see the value of developing the historic site right on our doorstep, and so the Friends of St James was formed. Here is an example of how having someone beyond the local scene to act as a champion can work wonders. What is declared by influential people beyond the locality to be precious may well be similarly perceived also by local decision-makers before too long.
Building for the future
So now we have a very active organisation for St James’ which will soon be a registered charity, and we also have buy-in from the City Council and Liverpool Vision, as well as from many ‘ordinary’ citizens of the city.
We also have big plans, including the imaginative Bridge of Hope, a project for a glass bridge which is intended to take people on a walkway at street level, high above the cemetery, straight into the Cathedral – thereby at last realising a dream which has been part of the Hope Street ambition for many decades.
What prospects for green space in the city?
Liverpool has been very slow to treasure its parks and green space. Sefton Park, for instance, has been left quietly to ‘naturalise’ for many years until very recently; but the Friends of Sefton Park, like those of St James’, have campaigned long and hard to develop these parks a sensibly managed public space once more… And it’s happened, because citizens of the city living around and enjoying these green spaces, cared enough to make a fuss and involve other, generously helpful people.
Let’s hope the same success can now be achieved by people who are campaigning for improvements to Newsham Park and other superb parks and green spaces in Liverpool. Newsham Park, for instance, has hard-working Friends as well. They need support!
The critical thing is, unless people can enjoy green space for themselves, they probably won’t be able to value it as they could, indeed should. It’s become a generational thing. If you haven’t seen it, you probably won’t want it, whether its allotments, parks or simply somewhere nice to walk.
Inevitably we must accept that Liverpool’s parks and open spaces cannot all, and unreservedly, be ‘set in aspic’ (to use a naturalistic metaphor); but I applaud wholeheartedly those who fight to ensure that the children of today have the opportunity, by example of fellow local citizens, to become be the enthusiastic users, and indeed guardians, of inner-city green space in the future.
See also
Liverpool’s Two Cathedrals
Hope Street Quarter, Liverpool and
Camera & Calendar.
How Will We Know That Liverpool 2007 & 2008 Were Successful?
The 800th Anniversary of Liverpool in 2007, and the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Year in 2008, are hugely important milestones for the city. So how are we, citizens of the city or of Europe and the world, going to measure the success of these years, once we reach 2009?
Your suggested responses and answers to this question are most welcome….
Much has already been written, on this weblog and elsewhere, about Liverpool’s 800th Anniversary in 2007, and the 2008 European Capital of Culture Year.
I don’t intend just now to extend that debate – it seems to be developing all on its own… and please do continue to add your contributions on this weblog. But I would like to ask one special question, to which I would also really appreciate answers (please use the Response space below):
By what criteria will, or should, we be able to evaluate the success of Liverpool 2007 / 8?
I’m sure many people will have many ideas on the criteria we should use – or perhaps are already using?
Indeed, it would be helpful to know whether there actually are already sol
Liverpool, Capital Of Culture 2008? Or Of Chaos 2006?
Liverpool as a city is claiming much for the forthcoming celebratory years of 2007 and 2008, but concerns exist on many fronts about the present. There is more to serious development of cultural involvement than simply ‘community programmes’, admirable though that is. So what sorts of models of citizen and ‘stakeholder’ integration are being developed, building on the experience of other cities which have managed to engage people at all levels? And will these work?
Oh dear. We don’t seem to have got off to a very good start in Liverpool this year.
The end of 2005 saw the demise of several large-scale Liverpool projects, such as the trams project, and before that, in 2004, the embarrassment of the so-called ‘Fourth Grace’ (possibly a vainglorious misnomer? nobody I know thought there were even three ‘Graces’ until someone made that name up, not long ago). And in the Summer we had the debacle of the Mersey River Festival, only now being reported…
Then, to round off 2005, there was the extraordinary fuss over the shifts at the top of our political and administrative power base.
Capital of Culture 2008 now under scrutiny
And now questions are being asked about our preparations for Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture celebrations in 2008. These have been becoming more urgent over the past few weeks – there were concerns expressed when Liam Fogarty decided to raise the issue of an elected mayor once more – but since the New Year the story hasn’t really been off the front page.
Well, that there are questions is unsurprising, both for particular reasons and because there is always a period before these huge events, as far as I can see, when Questions Are Asked. What is more worrying, however, is the difficulty some actual citizens and ‘stakeholders’ have experienced in learning what’s happening and / or in getting answers.
Who takes day-to-day responsibilty for ‘stakeholders’?
I leave it to others to pursue the specifics of this alarming situation; my own concerns are quite complex, though I do have to say it would be helpful if they were being addressed at the practical day-to-day level… one problem seems to be identifying anyone who can take on issues of normal operational accountability. But there you go.
For me, and I suspect numbers of others, the real issue is, where do we go from here? As a long-time resident of Liverpool with strong roots in the city I know it’s really important that we make a big success of 2007 and 2008, the 800th anniversary of our City Charter, and then our European Capital of Culture Year.
What some people haven’t the foggiest inkling about, however, even after serious attempts to find out, is how they can bring their ideas to bear to help this to happen. And that perhaps has occured also in other European Capital of Culture locations, which begs a question about what models of social and artistic inclusion work best, and where.
Tesco And The Objectors Both Win Their Points
Tesco has won its appeal to expand a store in South Liverpool (Allerton) by 50%. Some – though not all – local people are very worried by this. But the retail giant has also offered to set up consultation with residents to see how developments can be made to have the most positive impact. This offer must be taken up.
I see (front page of today’s Daily Post) that Tesco’s appeal for their South Liverpool development has been successful.
It’s been interesting that so many people have read and / or responded to my postings on Tesco and the environment. This is clearly a matter about which a lot of people have strong feelings, one way or the other. My own view however is that the debate, whilst it’s probably now come to an end legally – unless there’s a challenge? – has been beneficial whichever view one takes.
The community has gained influence
Perhaps those members of the local community who were and are against the development of the South Liverpool (Allerton) site – and by no means all local people took this view – are currently despondent about the outcome of Tesco’s appeal. I’m not so sure that they should be.
Yes, Tesco has the go-ahead to enlarge their store very considerably, but there have been serious efforts made to reduce the ‘green impact’ of the development as far as possible, and the University is pleased they can confirm they will go ahead with their own sports proposals. Also, of course, the promised money from Tesco will now be forthcoming for the public realm work along the Allerton shopping corridor.
But that’s not the only positive outcome. The most recently evident one is that Tesco is striving to show itself in very publicly ‘listening’ mode. They want to set up a residents’ committee to work on the local impact of their development, and they have acknowledged the significance of the concerns expressed. The opportunity is therefore now available to take Tesco up on these offers and see if the promises of consultation etc are kept.
The ball is now firmly in the objectors’ court. I hope, to continue the sporting reference, that those who protested will choose to pick that ball up and run with it. Tesco has offered to work and liaise with local people. Let’s respond in kind and see if and in what ways the offer is meaningful.
English Regions or City-Regions?
Protagonists for City-Regions are often much less sympathetic to the rationale for the English Regions as such. But perhaps it’s all a matter of differential scales. City Regions could well choose, to their mutual benefit and that of their hinter-lands, to collaborate on some of the much bigger strategic things without fear of damage to historic and local identities.
The debate about City-Regions vs. English Regions shows no signs of resolving. The recent launch of a campaign for an Elected Mayor in Liverpool (and some other towns and cities) has if anything exacerbated the differences between those who support regionalism as such, and those who support city-regions within England, or presumably, come to that, anywhere else.
Whilst there are obviously some areas where people may not ever agree, I do however believe there are a number of areas of common cause between the protagonists for each ‘side’, if the issues are looked at in a particular light.
The meaning of ‘regionalism’
For those who take a strongly anti-regional line the main problem seems to be that they perceive this as inevitably favouring one stronger city over other cities in the region… indeed, they may even take the view that there is no such thing as a region, as a way to circumvent such a perspective entirely.
In this view the real issue is the power of one place over others, and the expectation that, given half a chance, this place will take unfair advantage, at significant cost to other towns and cities nearby.
On the other hand, to at least some people who would support a regional persepctive alongside a city-focused one (and there are few regionalists who don’t also favour the healthy growth of cities per se), the underlying issue is connectivity. Who will make the case for, e.g., good road and rail connections between different cities within the region and, even more importantly, the way that very large centres of population – especially the metropolis – connect with the region at all?
Taking this perspective, there may be surprising commonalities even with towns and cities in other regions. For instance, Birmingham shares with the northern cities the issue of getting traffic up and down the country – and has in fact begun exploring solutions to this problem with them.
Size is the basic issue
Evidence elsewhere in Europe suggests that a population of between 7 and 10 million can be effectively self-sustaining in terms of producing all the requirements for modern society. But no U.K. city outside London is of this size – which means that English cities must necessarily be inter-dependent in some respects. For instance, (genuinely) Big Science can never happen just with the resources of one city, any more than can ‘Big Medicine / Technology’ and so forth. There are plenty of win-wins in inter-city collaboration for science and industry, just as there are endless reasons why the more ambitious aspects of tourism are often best promoted on at least a regional basis (see quote in New Start magazine from the English Regional Development Agencies).
But what the size issue doesn’t mean is that cities have to lose their identities, or that there must be ‘regional centre’ cities wicih will effectively dictate to all the other places in a region what they may and may not do. This maintenance of identity and self-determination provides one of the strongest cases for elected mayors or similar – provided always (a big proviso) that such leaders are well-informed, brave and sensible….
Unique identities, shared strengths
This is a rather optimistic view, but maybe there will come a time when people generally can see that there is indeed strength in commonality when it comes to the big things (massive inward investment, the knowledge economy, large-scale infrastructure etc.), but that with this does not need to come loss of identity for individual places and smaller areas within a geographical location such as a ‘region’ of England. Rather the opposite.
Perhaps it’s a matter of confidence. When we, smaller-city citizens across the nation, are confident that our own patch is well-recognised and well-defined, it will be easier to agree with our neighbours on shared strategies for the bigger things. But how to develop that confidence from where we’re at now is, however you look at it, a challenge and a half.
An Elected Mayor for Liverpool?
A new campaign has been launched by local figure Liam Fogarty today for an Elected Mayor in Liverpool. If nothing else, such a move will perhaps encourage a healthy debate about the democratic process and accountability, and perhaps more.
Today has seen the emergence of a campaign for Liverpool to have an Elected Mayor. The first step if this campaign is to succeed is to obtain enough signatures to trigger a referendum on the matter – no small challenge in itself.
The campaign, headed by ex-BBC presenter Liam Fogarty, claims that in Liverpool ‘too many decisions are taken by invisible committees and un-elected officials. Important projects fail to materialise, yet no-one takes responsibility.’
‘Only an Elected Mayor can provide the vision and leadership needs at this crucial time in the City’s history,’ we are told. This, of course, is a reference to the much-trumpeted events in Liverpool of 2007 and 2008, which certainly require great cultural leadership, skill and planning if they are to succeed.
The democratic deficit
But it is also claimed that an Elected Mayor would re-involve people in democratic process. They would be more likely to vote and become engaged in local decision-making if there were such a person. Perhaps this is true.
Whatever, there is a serious case for any sort of initiative which takes local political involvement more into the community. It would probably be worth a try – though interestingly, so far only 12 towns and cities of those which have considered having an Elected Mayor have actually gone along that option in the end.
Previous mayoral campaigns
This is not however the first time that there has been a campaign for an Elected Mayor. In 2000 the media group Aurora took up the cudgels, publishing with other organisations a book entitled Manifesto for a New Liverpool [see also ‘cultural leadership’, above], in which the case was made for such a civic leader.
Only time will tell whether this is an enduring and positive initiative. This time as far as I can see there is a strong pro-cities but anti-regional sentiment there too, and that second position (pro-cities is fine, anti-region in my books isn’t) convinces me less than does the case for democracy at grass roots.
But for the time being I suppose it’s enough to feel heartened that people are energised to do what they believe is best for Liverpool, putting heads above parapets and saying what they think. Now that really is democarcy in action.
The Tale of the Christmas Laser Lights: Spotlight on Delivery
Big celebratory events are always at risk of failing to fulfil their hyped-up promise. London experienced this so it is said when they tried one year to introduce laser lights for the Oxford Street Christmas illuminations. How much more embarrassing it would be if Liverpool were not to deliver fully on the promise for the celebrations in 2007 and 2008.
Twice in the past fortnight I’ve been in London, a city currently sporting serious Christmas illuminations, and both times I’ve heard from cab drivers the Tale of the Christmas Laser Lights.
The story goes that one year London’s Oxford Street Christmas lights (normally, as this year, fairly predictable arrangements) were redesigned to include lasers. This caused considerable excitement, to all accounts across the globe, and visitors travelled from far and wide to see these splendid displays. The problem, as related by my cab drivers, was however that splendid the lasers were not.
Promise only what you can deliver
Thus, in one case, my taxi driver told me that he had actually attempted to talk a potential visitor out of an expensive ride to see the lasers; but to no avail. His fare’s disappointment was huge, having as it then transpired travelled from abroad to see them, when it became evident to the visitor that these high-tech features of the Christmas illuminations were almost undetectable.
And there’s surely a moral here. If you’re going to talk something up, make sure you can actually deliver it. The story of the Christmas laser lights has clearly become a part of the folk lore of London tourism. It’s evolved, rightly or wrongly, into a benchmark for How Not To Do It.
The lesson for Liverpool
In the next two or three years Liverpool is lined up to deliver enormous celebratory events, firstly, in 2007, for the 800th anniversary of the Charter of the city, and then, in 2008, for the European Capital of Culture Year.
As things stand, few of us are privy to any substantive information about what will happen in Liverpool during these two years (and even fewer of us have been involved in making proposals). All, however, are regaled on a daily basis with tales of how splendidly impressive these signal events will be.
Let’s not forget the moral of the story of the Christmas Laser Lights. A visitior disappointed is a visitor who will very likely remember for many a year to come the time and resources s/he ill-advisedly invested.
Redeeming a nondescript set of annual Christmas illuminations is one thing. Redeeming two very special and critically high profile, but ultimately nondescript, years in a world-renown city such as Liverpool would be on a different scale of significance altogether.
The Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission
The launch of the final Report of the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission this morning has thrown up some interesting facts, some challenging ideas and a number of practical ‘can do’s’. The big question now is, where do we go next?
This morning I went to the launch of the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission‘s final Report. It was a well attended meeting; and I gather there are to be events throughout the week to exemplify the core messge, that enterprise is doing, not talking about it.
Is Merseyside different?
It would I think be difficult to claim that Merseyside is really different from other similar areas of Britain in terms of the need to bring the entrepreneurial message into focus. But it may be that the particular context of European Objective 1 funding makes the situation a little more striking. It’s not unusual for areas such as this to have about 60% dependency in one way or another on public funding, but perhaps the huge plethora of agencies purporting to offer ‘advice’ is fuelled by the availability of this funding stream.
Whatever, I have to agree wholeheartedly that there are too many agencies, and that they are insufficiently monitored in respect of the quality of what they have on offer. I do wonder, however, what impact there might be on Merseyside’s economy if the 300 or so agencies were ‘rationalised’ in the way some might wish. Would there be a local mini-recession? And would this kick-start or stifle further developments?
Emphasis on technology
It’s also interesting that one proposal for the way forward is to have a web forum. As I was one of, no doubt, many who suggested the web ‘ideas exchange’, I am pleased to see that this notion has now taken on a life of its own.
The web forum has been entitled ‘ucan’ (make it) and is intended to be a virtual reference point for all things entrepreneurial in Merseyside. Hopefully, it will be a means by which those other, non-e agencies can streamline and provide a joined up service for budding entrepreneurs, as well as for established followers of the mode who want to exchange news, views and so on. Perhaps it will also be able to support the educational initiatives which the Commission obviously wants to see extended and nurtured.
Where now?
The Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission told us this morning that it has now completed its formal work. It will be interesting – if not fascinating – to see what happens next. The website is to be sponsored for six months to see how much it is used and how it develops; and the challenge is firmly presented to the many agencies and other operators to get themsleves aligned in terms of the clients’ wider experience and access.
We shall all, I suspect, watch this space with interest.
Dreaming Realist 