I am currently writing a chapter entitled: The North East of England – Post-industrial Carboniferous Capitalism in a Birthplace of the Capitalocene for a book dealing with Mediating Industrial Change: Construction and Perception of Discourses about (De-) Industrialisation. My abstract indicates what I propose to deal with:
This chapter will examine the trajectory of the North East (NE) of England towards a postindustrial character in terms of all of economic base, employment structure, cultural character, and political systems. The NE was a birthplace of industrial capitalism globally. It was where railway systems were first developed and was a major producer of coal, ships, iron and steel, and chemicals over about 250 years. It was also the location of major technological innovation. From the 1930s there were introduced a range of department two industries including clothing, textiles, and light electrical engineering so the region for the first time had a large industrial female labour force. In the 1960s over half of all employed adults were employed in production industries. In the 19th and early 20th centuries the region was one of the great industrial zones of the world and seen as such with. After the first world war there was a massive slump in consequence first of UK economic policies and then of the global depression. During this period national government began to intervene to resolve unemployment by diversifying the industrial base. These policies continued until the election of the Neo-Liberal Thatcher government in 1979. Since then, the region has lost the great bulk of its mining and manufacturing base with profound implications for culture and identity. An important aspect in how the region was seen in the UK beyond itself was the development of a regionally based popular culture, particularly in television series, which documented lived experience. Although these presented a realist but positive version of place, at the same time national political culture began to frame the future of the regthe ion in terms of managed decline.
As part of the background research for this I have been reading a range of public body documents produced during the 20th Century. Of particular value have been the Barlow Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population with the work done before WWII but published in 1940, the Hailsham report of 1963 on The North East a Progamme for Regional Devlopment and Growth, and two indigenous documents. These are the the Northern Economic Planning Council’s Challenge of the Changing North (1966) and the Northern Regional Strategy Team’s Strategic Plan for the Northern Region(1977). Reading these well researched and written documents is a pleasure. I had criticisms of the latter in the 1970s but the plan was entirely accurate in its description of the origins of the issues it was confronting. This is in marked contrast to the inane boosterism of The Interim North East Local Growth Plan of March 2025 produced by nitwit Kim and her team. The abolition of the Government Office for the North East in 2011, apparently at the behest of the idiot LibDems in the coalition in favour of localism, eliminated the expertise and professionalism necessary for getting even a proper timeline of the past together as a basis for planning the future. It is worth noting that the Barlow report proposed elected regional governments but we lost our chance at that in 2004 when a poorly run campaign in favour of a North East Assembly (for too reliant on nobs and not on civil society) was done in by Dominic Cummins with the support of the UK branch of the wretched US Heritage Foundation and the refusal of Labour MPs and councillors, scared of losing their own power to a regional level, to campaign at all in support of it. So we have an apolitical body which has to accommodate the idiots who thinks Farage has the answer to our ills and the good Tory friend of his business associates on Teesside (for a good summary of Private Eye’s excellent coverage of this see https://northeastbylines.co.uk/region/teesside/teesworks-scandal-a-dark-tale-of-public-wealth-lost-and-private-gain/ ). Consensus means no politics. Any decent Labour politician should be calling these bums out, not giving the portfolio responsibilities, but the system does not work that way.
To be fair to nitwit Kim there was no evidence in Driscoll’s period as Mayor of “North of the Tyne” of any coherent informed planning and no sense of any political direction. His application for a Tyneside Freeport which would have involved suspension of trade union rights and environmental regulation over a wide stretch of his area was particularly inane but there was no political machinery for holding him accountable for this action.
