So the government are thinking of putting money into the regeneration of seaside towns.
I might be wrong, but wasn't it the previous government, of the same coat, who contributed to the degeneration of most seaside towns. In the 1990s the government relocated unemployed persons to bed and breakfast establishments in seaside towns.
As I see it, the relocation of unemployed persons to seaside towns was counter-productive. Seaside towns are usually "kept alive" by small businesses....these small businesses only employ a small number of people, seaside towns tend not to be bases for large businesses or industries, therefore there aren't a huge amount of jobs, there aren't now, and weren't back in the 1990s. So why were the unemployed of the 1990s rehoused in an area where they had less chance of finding a job, than the place they were from? Surely saving short term on housing has been more than outbalanced by them being longer term unemployed? I might be missing something, but the reason this seaside town went into decline was for several reasons, and I don't think housing unemployed here long term helped in the least. It did make the small job market even more competitive.
I am all for the regeneration of seaside towns, but suspect that Morecambe was not the only seaside town to suffer in the way I have argued, so think that the regeneration help is well deserved.