21-07-2004, 21:26
|
#60
|
God Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tragic Conn
Posts: 4,007
Liked: 3 times
Rep Power: 2471
|
Re: East Lancashire decline
As a product of the industrial revolution, I think that one of the important things to realise about Accrington and District is that the main reason for it's existence is work, of a specific type. In Crewe, for example, the main employer has historically been engineering linked to the expansion of the railways. You could think about Sheffield or Oxford in a similar way. In Accrington, because it was so focussed on it's main source of employment, there was little or nothing to fall back on when it failed. The loss of jobs leads to a loss of income, which in turn leads to less money spent in the local economy. Which in turn leads to a contraction of independent retailing, a stagnant property market and an unattractive investment environment. This is what we have seen throughout the last three decades.
Ok, the property market is begining to catch up with the rest of the country. but how much of that growth is locally generated and how much is fuelled by absentee landlords looking to make a quick profit or a better return than investing in the stock market? From that point of view it does not matter to landlords who uses the property, so long as the money comes in, and the DSS's money is just as good as anyone elses.
Do we see any upturn in wages beyond the basic minimum? Not according to a brief perusal of jobs on offer in the pages of The Observer. If Accrington does not attract high skill/ high wage jobs, then it's future lies in becoming a dormitory town for the larger connurbations that surround it. Perhaps in this light Mr Rix's fixation with attracting tourists begins to make some sort of sense
|
|
|