Burnley shows why you can’t rebalance the British economy through manufacturing

Hammerton Street, Burnley. Image: Tim Green/Flickr/creative commons.

Manufacturing plays a larger role in Burnley than in any other British city, taking up 22.6 per cent of its total jobs share. And yet despite this, it has one of the weakest economies of any UK city. So how does this square with calls for a manufacturing renaissance to create a brighter future for struggling places?

This isn’t something that is unique to Burnley. As the chart from our data tool below shows, those cities that had a higher share of jobs in manufacturing tended to have lower productivity in 2017. And no British city with over 10 per cent of its jobs in manufacturing met the national average in GVA per worker. On the other hand, the top ten performers in terms of productivity had much lower shares of jobs in the manufacturing sector. (Of these, Swindon had the highest share at 8.4 per cent.)

Burnley’s lagging performance in terms of productivity is reflected in how well it does on other measures too. Cities Outlook 2019 shows that it:

  • Had some of the highest levels of young people claiming unemployment benefit (60th out of 63);
  • Ranked in the bottom ten in its business start-up rate, with only 36.2 businesses per 10,000 population (the national average was 57.8);
  • Has seen the third slowest growth in population of any city in the last decade;
  • Had the lowest average house price at £107,900, and is the most affordable city, with a housing affordability ratio of 4.3.

This sits somewhat uncomfortably with the notions of both Labour and the Conservatives of rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing. The line goes that Britain doesn’t make anything anymore and, in a world of black and white and no shades in between, is over-reliant on finance and doesn’t make enough goods. But if anything, the data suggests that what Burnley needs is a rebalancing away from manufacturing if its fortunes are to improve, not more of the same.

It also challenges the notion of looking at an area’s ‘strengths’ when assessing its performance, something that many strategies and independent reviews are very fond of doing. But this is the wrong way of looking at the problem. The question for weaker cities like Burnley should not be “What do we have?” Rather, it should be “what have we not got enough of?”


In Burnley’s instance, it is a lack of higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs in both manufacturing and services. In manufacturing, data from the Census shows us that for every high skilled job in manufacturing in the city, there are five lower skilled jobs. This compares to a ratio of one to one in Cambridge and Crawley. And at 6 per cent of all jobs in 2017, it had the lowest share of knowledge-based jobs of any British city.

While national politicians may miss the point on this, it is something that is well understood by Burnley Borough Council. As a result, it has been focussing efforts on expanding the University of Lancashire’s presence in the city, has set out a masterplan for its city centre which goes beyond retail, and where it has been supporting manufacturing firms it has been to help them raise their productivity and the skills of their workforce. All with the aim of helping its economy to adapt in the face of ongoing changes to the global economy.

Assisting cities to adapt to the constant changes in the global economy should be the goal of government. Sadly too much national policy – the Regional Growth Fund and Enterprise Zones to name but two – looks to the past, ignores the situation that cities find themselves in, and doesn’t help cities to adapt to the ongoing changes in the world of work.  In many instances, national politicians are more nostalgic than local politicians.

Recent decades have not been kind to Burnley. If it, and other cities like it, are to fire again, they can’t be constrained by nostalgia. They need help to make themselves attractive to tomorrow’s businesses and workers, whatever industry they’re in.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

You can see more data for all UK cities on the Centre for Cities’ data tool.

 
 
 
 

London’s rail and tube map is out of control

Aaaaaargh. Image: Getty.

The geographical limits of London’s official rail maps have always been slightly arbitrary. Far-flung commuter towns like Amersham, Chesham and Epping are all on there, because they have tube stations. Meanwhile, places like Esher or Walton-on-Thames – much closer to the city proper, inside the M25, and a contiguous part of the built up area – aren’t, because they fall outside the Greater London and aren’t served by Transport for London (TfL) services. This is pretty aggravating, but we are where we are.

But then a few years ago, TfL decided to show more non-London services on its combined Tube & Rail Map. It started with a few stations slightly outside the city limits, but where you could you use your Oyster card. Then said card started being accepted at Gatwick Airport station – and so, since how to get to a major airport is a fairly useful piece of information to impart to passengers, TfL’s cartographers added that line too, even though it meant including stations bloody miles away.

And now the latest version seems to have cast all logic to the wind. Look at this:

Oh, no. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

The logic for including the line to Reading is that it’s now served by TfL Rail, a route which will be part of the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail, when they eventually, finally happen. But you can tell something’s gone wrong here from the fact that showing the route, to a town which is well known for being directly west of London, requires an awkward right-angle which makes it look like the line turns north, presumably because otherwise there’d be no way of showing it on the map.

What’s more, this means that a station 36 miles from central London gets to be on the map, while Esher – barely a third of that distance out – doesn’t. Nor does Windsor & Eton Central, because it’s served by a branchline from Slough rather than TfL Rail trains, even though as a fairly major tourist destination it’d probably be the sort of place that at least some users of this map might want to know how to get to.

There’s more. Luton Airport Parkway is now on the map, presumably on the basis that Gatwick is. But that station doesn’t accept Oyster cards yet, so you get this:

Gah. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

There’s a line, incidentally, between Watford Junction and St Albans Abbey, which is just down the road from St Albans City. Is that line shown on the map? No it is not.

Also not shown on the map: either Luton itself, just one stop up the line from Luton Airport Parkway, or Stansted Airport, even though it’s an airport and not much further out than places which are on the map. Somewhere that is, however, is Welwyn Garden City, which doesn’t accept Oyster, isn’t served by TfL trains and also – this feels important – isn’t an airport.

And meanwhile a large chunk of Surrey suburbia inside the M25 isn’t shown, even though it must have a greater claim to be a part of London’s rail network than bloody Reading.

The result of all these decisions is that the map covers an entirely baffling area whose shape makes no sense whatsoever. Here’s an extremely rough map:

Just, what? Image: Google Maps/CityMetric.

I mean that’s just ridiculous isn’t it.

While we’re at it: the latest version shows the piers from which you can get boats on the Thames. Except for when it doesn’t because they’re not near a station – for example, Greenland Pier, just across the Thames to the west of the Isle of Dogs, shown here with CityMetric’s usual artistic flair.

Spot the missing pier. You can’t, because it’s missing. Image: TfL/CityMetric.

I’m sure there must be a logic to all of this. It’s just that I fear the logic is “what makes life easier for the TfL cartography team” rather than “what is actually valuable information for London’s rail passengers”.

And don’t even get me started on this monstrosity.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.