Circulation has dropped by a quarter in the last five years and that fall shows no sign of stopping.

In the last set of figures many newspapers saw an annual fall of 10% in sales with dailies hit particularly hard.

It's no wonder then that some publishers are considering big changes to maintain their businesses.

Johnston Press owns dozens of titles across the UK but has caused controversy by proposing to alter the way it works.

Some of its daily papers are being converted into weeklies and more may follow.

And in addition, some functions are being centralised away from the communities served by the newspapers.

In the North East, some advertising staff and journalists are being moved out of Hartlepool and South Shields to Sunderland.

This has caused concerns that a newspaper like the Hartlepool Mail will become less local by being partially produced 20 miles away in Sunderland.

North East Press, which is owned by Johnston Press, says the changes at the titles are about ensuring their survival rather than managing their decline.

It says the staff that need to be local will still be based in Hartlepool and South Shields, but that it's sensible to centralise some functions in order to cut costs.

Managing director Stuart Birkett said: "The investment in journalism and advertising staff will remain in those communities, but where back office functions can be centralised that makes sense.

"It doesn't feel like a crisis to me. There are challenges but also huge opportunities."

And the group is bullish about the future, because the one silver lining for the local newspaper industry is the growing number of people accessing their websites.

While the Sunderland Echo saw sales of its newspaper decline by 10% last year, the number of online users rose by 25%.

People then are still reading local news but in a different way.

The problem is they are generally accessing it for free rather than paying for it.

North East Press says it is now attracting more advertising online because of the growth in people clicking on its site.

It says it's also winning back some of the property, motors and other classified ads lost to other websites.

They are also hoping that people will begin to pay for apps to deliver the newspaper to their tablet computers.

It is early days on that score though and some in the industry doubt that app subscriptions will ever be enough to replace sales of the physical paper.

For now at least no newspaper group has proved definitively that you can make websites pay their way.

But if that isn't the answer, what is?

Some MPs have talked about offering financial help to the industry.

Local newspapers play a big role in scrutinising councils and other officials - a role that nobody else can do as well.

The Corby Conservative MP Louise Mensch believes they are providing a public service and has talked about a state subsidy.

She said: "When we consider how many things receive national subsidies that only have a minority appeal, surely local newspapers, at the heart of their towns and villages, deserve some of that government support as well.

"Local papers are not only loved by people in their local communities, they are the only vehicle that holds local politicians to account and they have an irreplaceable role in our local democracy.

"They can't be replaced by the internet and we have to look at community ownership as a model going forward and ask ourselves if some government subsidies shouldn't be targeted towards something that people really use, enjoy and need on a daily basis."

The newspaper industry is nervous about state subsidy though. They fear their independence will be compromised if they become reliant on government funding.

Many editors do believe there is more that politicians could do though.

The government is currently considering ending the requirement for councils to publish traffic notices in local newspapers.

The industry says such plans should be abandoned as it will cost newspapers millions in lost revenue.

And Northern Echo editor Peter Barron believes MPs should look at what other help they could give.

He said: "We do not want to be in the pocket of the government but that's not to say that ministers shouldn't look creatively at what benefits, tax incentives and help local newspapers could be given.

"We just need to be careful about our independence."

Others though think the industry needs to scale down its desire for high profit margins and be prepared to adapt.

The Bishop Auckland Labour MP and Shadow Media Minister Helen Goodman said: "Last year Johnston Press made a 17.5% operating profit. Compare that with Tesco - the most successful retailer in the country - that had a profit margin of 6%.

"If Tesco can keep going with a 6% margin, the local newspaper chains really ought to be able to get their business models right.

"What concerns me is that the local people do still want a local newspaper and they are being let down by these big groups."

There is no imminent danger that local newspapers will disappear altogether, and of course they have always had to adapt to change.

But how they and the politicians respond may decide whether they remain at the heart of our communities or gradually become a part of history.

Perhaps the scale of the no vote wasn't that surprising in the end.

This was a top-down campaign. It was the government that was keen on the idea of mayors. Voters in the cities needed to be persuaded - and the case clearly wasn't made to them.

Without any grass roots enthusiasm, the debate was often confined to the political elite, leaving voters unmoved. Support from business was thin on the ground.

And at a time when people take a dim view of politicians, asking them to vote for an extra one in the shape of mayor clearly didn't appeal.

I think the government also hoped city voters would look at London with envy and want their own mayoral contest.

But anecdotally many of the voters I spoke to in Newcastle were turned off by the personality politics of Boris v Ken.

They didn't fancy seeing their own versions of spats in lifts.

There was also an incoherence in the government's proposals that chimes with the other problems that have dogged the coalition in the last few weeks.

The government says it's keen on handing power to the people and, in truth, giving people a vote on whether to have a mayor fits in with that.

But at the same time the government is imposing directly-elected police commissioners on communities without any referendum.

If mayors are as good for communities as the government claims, why not just introduce them without a vote?

Then there is the problem of powers.

The government offered the referendums without specifying what might be on offer.

And while Nick Clegg told the cities that they could have extra powers whether they had a mayor or not, the PM seemed to suggest those that voted for mayors would get special treatment.

But in reality other government policies were actually removing powers.

The introduction of police commissioners meant the new city mayors would have less power over law and order than existing council leaders.

The growth of free schools and academies would also see them have more limited power over education.

Then there was the government's argument that city mayors would have influence beyond local authority boundaries.

There was never any guarantee that could happen, just a vague desire.

If you really wanted that sort of politician, why not create mayors covering wider metropolitan areas - for Tyneside, Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire?

They might have been able to go toe-to-toe with their equivalent in London.

All this incoherence weakened the arguments of the yes campaign.

If the government is serious about handing powers to communities, it will now have to look for other solutions.

The government saw elected mayors as the key to the unresolved problem of English devolution.

In 2004, Labour saw elected regional assemblies as the solution.

Both have now been firmly rejected by the electorate.

But the problem of how to take power out of Whitehall remains.

The reality now is that the government will have to work with what's already there - the existing councils.

And there is a model for that. The councils in Greater Manchester have secured a city deal worth millions of pounds by signing a deal to co-operate together.

Others like Newcastle have been made to wait for similar extra powers and resources because the government wanted to see which way the mayoral referendums went.

It'll be up to the government now to prove it is still serious about handing powers to England's big cities.

But it will also be up to the cities to show leadership by co-operating with their neighbours to secure these city deals, and proving they'll use the resources and powers wisely.

There's little question our big cities are crucial to getting the economy growing again.

On that point the government was right, but now it must find other ways of unlocking that potential.

And as for David Cameron's proposed cabinet of city mayors, he may have to search for a smaller room than he originally booked.

We know from the 2010 General Election that Labour support is at a low ebb in the south, but equally we know that the Conservatives are still struggling to break through in large expanses of the north.

Research released this week tries to shed some light on the reasons behind the divide.

Think tank Policy Exchange used number crunching, polling and focus groups to examine whether where we live influences how we vote.

It found a north-south divide but a slightly more nuanced one.

Conservative support is alive in the north but mostly it's confined to rural areas. It's in the northern cities where they are struggling to mount any comeback.

The party was wiped out as an electoral force in Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and Newcastle in the 90s, and there's little sign of recovery.

The Lib Dems have moved in to the vacuum, as the main opposition to Labour.

Policy Exchange then describes a "chicken and egg" situation for the Conservatives in those cities.

People won't vote Conservative because they don't believe they can win, and the Conservatives can't show they can win because people won't vote for them.

The party has fared better in cities such as Sunderland, Salford, Bradford and Leeds where their council representation wasn't completely wiped out.

Indeed, some of those saw a mini-revival in support during Labour's time in government.

The danger is that they could soon be on the retreat there if national polling is replicated in Thursday's local elections.

So what's behind this continuing malaise?

It would be easy to pin it all on Margaret Thatcher and the ongoing folk memory of what happened to the north's traditional industries in the 1980s.

But a Policy Exchange poll suggested that people in the north hold Margaret Thatcher in higher esteem as a PM than Gordon Brown. Only Tony Blair was narrowly rated more highly.

The polling did come up with some interesting perceptions on class, with northerners much more likely to describe themselves as working class than southerners.

It also suggested that many do still see the Conservatives as the party of the rich.

But it also found that Labour was ahead of the Conservatives in every social grouping in the north.

There also seemed to be a desire amongst northern voters for more MPs to come from working class roots.

Conservative supporters also felt their party did not have enough MPs from the north.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the research also found that people were more likely to vote Labour in areas of high unemployment.

And some do feel that's the killer fact.

Fellow think tank IPPR North believes Conservative support won't revive until the government produces a credible plan to create jobs and prosperity in the north.

The government would argue they do have one, but IPPR North director Ed Cox disagrees.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "A recent You Gov poll put the Labour lead at 31 points in the north, so the Conservatives have got a mountain to climb if they want to win seats in the north again.

"They really need to bring forward a proper plan for jobs and investment in the north."

So why does this matter?

For a start, a polarised country isn't necessarily a good thing.

But there is also the self-interest of the two largest parties. If both end up ghettoised, we might end up with more inconclusive general elections.

It's hard to see how the Conservatives can get much stronger in the south, so the party needs to win over the north to get a parliamentary majority.

But of course Labour faces similar electoral problems in the south.

Outside London it's still struggling there, and it won't get into government by stacking up more votes in the north.

So when the parties start crunching the numbers from this year's local elections they will be poring over not only how many votes they won, but also where they won them.

The North East has seen neither hide nor hair of a government minister or shadow cabinet member yet.

But across the Pennines in Carlisle, the city has been visited by both David Cameron and Ed Miliband.

I understand more high-profile visitors are due in the final week of campaigning too.

It's not hard to see why.

It's a council that Labour has high hopes of winning.

It lost control of it to the Conservatives in 1999. Since 2003, it's been hung, with the Tories running it with the help of the Lib Dems in recent years.

Labour need three seats to take control though, and on last year's results the party should get over the line.

But of course you can't leave anything to chance, and Ed Miliband showed up on his party's local election launch tour to try and boost the campaign.

The Tories though would love to stop a Labour triumph, particularly as Carlisle is a marginal parliamentary seat.

In 2010, Conservative candidate John Stevenson took a seat that had been represented by Labour MPs since 1964.

It was hardly surprising then that the PM should pop up there during the campaign too.

In fact this was his sixth visit to the city since 2005.

That shows how important Carlisle is to the Conservatives. With half an eye on 2015, it can ill afford to see support slipping away there.

Of course you could argue that it won't mean that much if Labour do win control. The Carlisle parliamentary seat remained in Labour hands in 2001 and 2005 despite them being out of power in the city council.

But with northern Conservative success stories few and far between, the loss of Carlisle would be another blow to the Tories' national credentials.

Where does that leave the campaign in the rest of the North East and Cumbria though?

I'm sure local activists have been taking the campaign seriously, but the lack of high-profile visitors suggest there's not much at stake in the view of the party leaderships.

And it's fair to say in some areas campaigning has been low-key.

Privately, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are resigned to losing more seats across Tyneside and Wearside with Labour gains likely.

The Tories made good progress in Sunderland and North Tyneside during the Blair and Brown years, but all that seems to be going into reverse at the moment with Labour likely to entrench their majorities in the council chamber.

The Conservatives are also fighting to hang on to their last remaining councillor in South Tyneside. They have not had a councillor in Newcastle for 20 years and the city and neighbouring Gateshead look likely to remain Tory-free zones.

The Lib Dems are downbeat too. They lost control of Newcastle to Labour last year and may endure more losses in 2012, both there and in Gateshead. The party won't field any candidates in South Tyneside, and it could lose its last remaining councillor in Sunderland.

The more intriguing contest is in Hartlepool. A redrawing of council boundaries means the whole authority is up.

Labour had a majority in the previous council chamber, and that should remain the case, but the threat could come from independents Putting Hartlepool First rather than the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

For the coalition parties the more fruitful territory will be in the areas where they are fighting each other rather than Labour.

The Lib Dems will continue to control South Lakeland but the Conservatives will hope they can eat into their majority.

The reverse is true in Harrogate where the Lib Dems have slipped back in recent years and the Conservatives have taken control. The Tories will be hoping to take some more Lib Dem scalps.

Of the smaller parties, the Greens have the strongest field of candidates. UKIP have 29 candidates but will hope to capitalise on some healthy national opinion poll ratings.

The BNP though appears to be a much-weakened force with only 12 candidates across the region. They aren't fielding anyone in Sunderland - a city they targeted heavily in the noughties.

And the Liberals remain alive and well in South Tyneside, alongside a series of other independents.

But you can bet Labour and Conservative eyes will be most firmly focused on the result in Carlisle on the night of 3 May.

Somewhere like Birmingham has seen high profile candidates emerge and a respectable level of debate.

But in Newcastle, campaigning has been low-key with the arguments often taking place among a relatively restricted circle of the politically-engaged.

The campaigners who want to see an elected mayor run the city have not even had enough money to put leaflets through people's doors.

This was always going to be a danger in a referendum that's a product of government policy and not popular demand.

There has been a mechanism in place for the people of Newcastle to petition to have a mayor for more than a decade, but it has never happened.

Instead, the referendum's taking place now because the coalition is keen on the idea of elected mayors running England's biggest cities.

We'll find out next week whether voters share that enthusiasm.

But I did get to test the temperature in Newcastle in a limited way when I took the yes and no campaigners into the city centre.

We placed them in the middle of bustling Grainger Market and invited shoppers to pose questions.

And actually over the two hours we did some good business. There were people who'd made up their minds either way, but quite a few who just wanted to know more.

Some wanted to know whether a mayor would offer value for money, others whether he or she would have the powers to tackle a particular problem. Others just wanted to know who that mayor might be.

There were some who saw other mayors as a force for good, others who had been turned off by what they saw as the personality politics of Ken v Boris.

We also saw a few people turn up who don't even have a vote on the issue as they live outside Newcastle's boundaries.

That, perhaps, at least offers evidence to support the government's contention that a mayor in Newcastle could be a figure of importance beyond the administrative area he or she will govern.

But there are problems for the yes campaigners too.

The government has not really specified what extra powers an elected mayor would have that aren't currently invested in the leader of the council.

Ministers say that will allow individual mayors to decide for themselves what powers they need, and lobby for them.

That makes it a tougher sell though.

And "no" campaigners have been focusing heavily on costs, estimating that with the expense of an extra election and salaries, an elected mayor in Newcastle could cost the city £1m over four years.

That figure is disputed by "yes" campaigners, who say it is based on some dubious assumptions.

But again it has made life difficult for supporters of the idea.

Perhaps then it was inevitable that the government and "yes" campaigners would focus on something that matters to everyone - jobs.

They argue that an elected mayor will be vital in efforts to attract new investment, and say those voting "no" risk falling behind the cities that embrace the idea.

No less than the Prime Minister has been making that point. And there is some potential government patronage at stake here.

In Newcastle, the city council is waiting to hear whether it'll get a so-called "city deal" from the government. It would give Newcastle extra powers and resources to potentially create thousands of jobs.

But the government says it won't make any decision on whether to sign off that deal until after the mayoral referendum. It says it wants to be satisfied that there will be good enough governance in the city for it to deserve the deal.

The implication: if you vote for a mayor, the promised land awaits.

Some, including the Newcastle Labour MP Chi Onwurah, have accused the government of trying to blackmail the city.

And in reality the picture is more complicated.

Manchester has had its city deal approved ahead of its referendum because it has already put in place a system to get the councils in Greater Manchester to work together.

If that's been enough to satisfy the government, then the same deal would presumably be open to a mayorless Newcastle if it got together with the other Tyneside councils.

And it's hard to believe any government that says it is focused on growth would want to stop a council creating jobs purely because it didn't have a mayor.

But with the coalition so committed to the merits of mayors it is likely that cities which go for the idea could get some form of preferential treatment.

The PM has already talked about forming a cabinet of city mayors to meet with him. The coalition would certainly want them seen as a success.

So can we tell what the voters make of all this?

One poll by YouGov suggests more than half of northern voters support the idea with only a quarter firmly opposed, but that does not give specific data for Newcastle or any other city.

And a contradictory Comres poll suggests more than half of voters believe a mayor would be a waste of money.

That leaves us with some canvassing by "yes" campaign supporters in parts of Newcastle. They say that put the "no" vote four percentage points ahead of "yes", but with a quarter of voters still undecided.

The reality is that nobody can safely predict the result of a campaign that has not really made much impact on the public.

If you can forgive a politician's cliché, the only the poll that will count in Newcastle and other cities will be on May 3.

This week the party has completed the shortlisting of contenders in Cumbria, Durham and Northumbria.

In Cumbria I understand the contest will be between Carlisle councillor Michael Boaden and housing association manager Patrick Leonard.

Michael Boaden had hoped to succeed Eric Martlew as the Labour MP for Carlisle at the last election, but the seat was won by the Conservatives.

Patrick Leonard was chief executive of Allerdale Council until 2004, when he left to become a manager of the Carlisle Housing Association.

In Northumbria, the two shortlisted candidates are the former Redcar MP Vera Baird, and Sunderland councillor Tom Foster.

As well as being a barrister by trade, Vera Baird was of course a member of the last Labour government as Solicitor General.

She was unseated in 2010 in Redcar by the Lib Dems after the closure of the town's steelworks.

As anyone who follows her on Twitter will know, she's been campaigning hard for the nomination. I understand she has rented a home in the area to make sure she meets the residency qualification.

Tom Foster is a current member of the existing Northumbria Police Authority and has been a councillor in Sunderland since 1998. He's also a former football referee.

In Durham, three candidates have been shortlisted.

Peter Thompson is the existing chair of Durham Police Authority. He has served as a councillor in Durham in the past, and has a background in local government. He's also been a magistrate.

He had opposed the creation of police commissioners in the past.

Ron Hogg is a former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police but also served as Assistant Chief Constable in Durham. He also held a national post tackling football hooliganism.

Bill Dixon is the leader of Darlington Council and has sat on the council since 1978. He's also a member of Durham Police Authority.

I understand the Cleveland shortlisting will take place next week.

Two local councillors - Barry Coppinger and Sajaad Khan - have said they are seeking the nomination.

That could be the toughest job given ongoing investigations into the force's top officers and officials.

Labour party members will vote by post over the summer to decide who should be selected ahead of the police commissioner poll in November.

The identity of those who'll stand against them is much less clear.

The Liberal Democrats may decide not to put any candidates up. The national party doesn't support the idea so won't be financing any campaigns.

It's possible the local parties could still decide to select someone, but so far the only possible name to emerge has been former MP Lembit Opik.

There have been some newspaper stories suggesting he be could be recruited to stand in Northumbria as he is a former Newcastle councillor.

But I have been told that was a suggestion born out of a few late night drinks at the party's spring conference in Gateshead, so may not come to anything.

The Conservatives in the North East are looking to spread their net more widely with plans for an open hustings.

The party says it wants to hear from potential candidates from outside the party and outside the traditional political class.

Since the commissioner is their party's idea they will be keen to field high quality but also untypical candidates.

Perhaps that's an admirable aim, but so far I have heard precious few suggestions of exactly who that might turn out to be.

With any Conservative candidate facing a tough task in Labour-dominated Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland, it might not be a big draw.

Cumbria is more winnable.

Some of the smaller parties will be weighing their options too. I understand the Greens have yet to decide whether to field candidates.

Parties with limited resources will need to decide whether it's worth their while as they would have to campaign across large force areas.

It does seem likely we will see some independent candidates though.

Hartlepool mayor and current police authority chair Stuart Drummond hasn't ruled out standing for the Cleveland role.

The most prominent independent - Middlesbrough mayor Ray Mallon - hasn't yet said whether he'll be a candidate.

As a former police officer he has a good CV for the job, but equally he has a history with the force which might make him hesitate.

After we find out who the candidates will be, the next challenge will be to motivate voters to engage in the campaigns during the non-traditional election month of November.

The police commissioners will oversee budgets, set priorities and have the power to hire and fire the chief constable.

From this week, England has 24 new enterprise zones stretching from the Scilly Isles to Tyneside.

They were announced some time ago, but with the start of the new tax year, the zones are now fully in operation.

On offer to businesses who want to set up in them will be a streamlined planning system and tax incentives.

The government hopes they'll play a big part in creating the private sector growth it so desperately craves.

But how will that happen?

Let's take the Tees Valley zone in the North East as an example.

Firstly, companies that move in or expand in to it will get up to five years of business rate relief worth £55,000.

Some firms will also be able to get more generous capital allowances, offsetting investment against tax.

And Tees Valley was the first zone to simplify the planning system by introducing six local development orders.

They will grant automatic planning permission to companies specialising in some types of manufacturing, engineering and green energy.

The people in charge of the Tees Valley zone hope those measures will allow it to create and support up to 1,200 jobs by 2015.

And Neil Kenley from Tees Valley Unlimited says the zone is already attracting interest.

He said: "Advanced discussions are already well underway with several parties keen to move onto enterprise zone sites, and as we work with them to help create the right environment for investment, we expect some exciting announcements very soon."

New jobs will of course be welcome in a part of Britain with the highest unemployment rate.

But there lies the problem. At the last count there were almost 30,000 people claiming Jobseekers Allowance across Tees Valley's seven parliamentary constituencies.

On that basis 1,200 jobs secured or created over two years is not insignificant, but it's not a solution to the area's economic ills.

And of course enterprise zones are nothing new.

A recent report by The Work Foundation looked at the lessons from the previous generation of zones in the 1980s and 1990s.

It found many had just diverted investment away from one part of an area to another - effectively moving jobs instead of creating them.

And you have to ask whether there will be much benefit if jobs are just created in the Tees Valley at the expense of neighbouring parts of County Durham.

The report also suggests that an immediate surge in new jobs in the old zones had often petered out, and even gone into reverse when the perks were eventually removed.

But the government says it has learned lessons from earlier mistakes with many of the zones geographically larger than their predecessors.

There are of course other measures in place to encourage growth too.

Just this weekend Teesside will take a big step forward with the relighting of the blast furnace at its steelworks.

Its new owner SSI is one of several in Teesside to have got money from the government's regional growth fund

But make no mistake about it, ministers are talking up the prospects for the zones.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: "We've planted these economic incubators all across the country to help accelerate growth, rebalance our economy with thousands of new businesses and local jobs in each location.

"Enterprise zones are set to become the crown jewels of how we make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business."

Big claims. We'll have to wait quite a few years though to see if they can really deliver.

Privately, even those in charge of the zones admit they won't be a panacea. But they do agree they'd rather have one than miss out while other areas cash in.

But for some he went too far this week when he called the Queen a "fifth generation German" with no right to rule over him.

In this month's Total Politics magazine he said: "Why should we be ruled over by families descended from robber barons, bandits and illegitimate heirs?

"Or, in the case of the current lot, fifth-generation Germans who changed their name from Battenberg to Windsor during the First World War.

"By what right do they lord it over us? Why should me and mine, who bend knees to no one, be regarded as 'subjects' rather than 'citizens'?"

He compounded that this week by also attacking the plan to rename the tower containing Big Ben as Elizabeth Tower to mark the Diamond Jubilee as "codswallop".

Of course in the past the Blyth MP might have been dragged off to another tower for making such remarks.

And there was plenty of outrage when his remarks were reported in the Daily Mail.

Many online readers were quick to condemn him.

But a number also turned on the MP's critics, pointing out that it was Mr Campbell's democratic right to express his opinion on the monarchy.

And actually Ronnie Campbell's views are more nuanced than the Daily Mail article suggested.

He is a republican and defends his description of the Queen as a "fifth generation German" as factually correct.

But he is not about to storm Buckingham Palace and force the Queen out onto the street.

He believes the current monarch is doing a good job. And he would view the idea of a President Thatcher or Blair with much greater horror.

He said: "I am not anti-Queen. She works hard and so does the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles. They do a good job, and they do bring money into the country, but I am just not a royalist.

"I think the Queen has got support but the status of royalty is slipping. Maybe in the next century it will be gone altogether."

One of the odd quirks of our parliamentary system means that one place Ronnie Campbell would find it hard to criticise the Queen is in the House of Commons.

Under parliamentary convention the Speaker is quick to silence MPs who attack the Royal Family.

In fact it would be against the rules to hold a debate on replacing the monarchy with a republic.

Those regulations date back to the 13th Century. Because MPs were effectively speaking on Crown land, it was viewed as discourteous and even treasonous to criticise the landlord.

Many MPs support that convention today, though, because they argue criticism is unfair when the monarch cannot constitutionally reply.

For republicans like Ronnie Campbell, then, the only alternative is to raise their concerns outside Westminster.

Of course some would argue that this year of all years, we should be celebrating the Queen and not criticising her.

But Mr Campbell for one won't be getting out the bunting for the Diamond Jubilee. He plans to be away.

And he thinks many of his constituents share his lack of enthusiasm.

He said: "We are going through a hell of a struggle in this part of the world and I think for a lot of people the Jubilee is simply not on their minds."

Of course, the good news for the MP and other critics of the monarchy is that whatever the rights and wrongs of our constitution, all you get for opposing the UK head of state is some colourful headlines in the newspapers.

Mind you I think Ronnie Campbell can probably be safe in assuming he won't be getting a knighthood any time soon.

I was at 10 Downing Street to see David Cameron tell an invited audience why he is offering voters in our biggest cities a chance to have elected mayors.

And he had a carrot to offer the cities that do vote for the idea in next month's referendums on the issue.

Their new leading citizens will get to sit in a Cabinet of Mayors which will meet at least twice a year under the PM's chairmanship.

David Cameron believes the cabinet will allow mayors to share ideas, lobby for their cities and give them access to the very top of government.

Cities Minister Greg Clark said: "Mayors are a very good way of providing the strong, visible leadership that helps attract investment, and have enormous potential to drive a city's future prosperity.

"By coming together, sharing innovations and building relationships, city mayors will play an important role in ensuring their city lives up to its full potential."

Now it's up to the voters in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield to decide if they do want to replace their council leaders with mayors.

The Downing Street reception included a smattering of enthusiasts from those cities, but in some places the debate amongst the public is embryonic at best.

Take Newcastle. Campaigning is beginning to gradually get going, but I doubt whether there's much public awareness at the moment.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats - the two main political parties in the city - are largely opposed to the idea.

And Labour has decided not to actively campaign on the issue, preferring to concentrate on the local elections.

The Lib Dems are also more likely to be focused on holding on to their council seats than the mayoral referendum.

That leaves the Conservatives as the only one of the larger parties firmly backing the idea. That's a party which has had no political representation in the city for more than 15 years.

In addition, without the party machines behind them, both the yes and no campaigners will have very little money to spend on posters and publicity.

It's easy to imagine then that significant numbers of voters will only end up only finding out about the referendum when they get their ballot paper through the post or at the polling station.

It's harder to imagine though what that might mean for the result.

Voters could decide that nobody has made the case for change, but equally they might think they have little to lose by voting yes, and want their own version of Boris Johnson (albeit without large chunks of his powers).

That would dismay the no campaigners, who argue the mayoral system concentrates too much power in the hands of one person.

They say it will be a waste of money to pay for a mayor when there is no evidence they deliver better results than council leaders elected by their political group.

The government though does now seem to be hinting that once a city decides to go down the mayoral route, it is more likely to find extra powers and resources heading its way.

That may or may not prove to be true, but the government does have something at stake.

It sees mayors in our biggest cities playing a big part in kick starting economic recovery.

Mind you, it may be that not all mayors are equal.

There are already an existing cadre of elected mayors across the country including:

They, it seems, won't be getting an invite to the Cabinet of Mayors.

But of course, it won't be much of a cabinet unless voters in those 10 cities decide they like the idea on 3 May.

There might be a dozen at the table, or if voters don't like the idea they might be able to meet in a phone box.

In the end it only merited a few sentences in George Osborne's speech, but they were enough to suggest many public sector workers could face years of wage freezes.

The chancellor has told government departments they can move to local pay bargaining when the overall public sector salary freeze begins to end next year.

Trade unions believe that will lead to growing inequality as salaries in some parts of the country are frozen while others get pay rises.

We now know more about the government's case though, as George Osborne has published the evidence he has presented to the public sector pay review bodies.

It claims local pay will increase the quality of public services, help the private sector create more jobs and save the government money.

The Treasury's long-term aim is to tackle what it says is a public sector premium.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, public sector workers nationally earn around 8% more than staff in the private sector.

But there are huge variations, with workers paid on average 18% more in Wales and 13% more in Scotland.

In England, Yorkshire and Humber and the East have the biggest premiums of 13% with the North East not far behind on almost 12%.

In fact, according to the figures, only male public sector workers in the South East are paid less than their private sector equivalents.

If the government is intent on wiping out that premium, it seems inevitable pay rates in some regions might have to be frozen for years to come.

There are concerns even within government about that. Business Secretary Vince Cable told me at the Lib Dem spring conference he feared regional public sector pay would stigmatise the North East.

But the chancellor insists this will be local and not regional pay bargaining, with pay differentials often emerging within regions.

In its evidence, the Treasury says the local pay system introduced into the Ministry of Justice and Courts Service by Labour could be a model of how it will work in other departments.

That system has pay zones. It has led to higher rates for staff in London and the South East, but it also rewards staff in what it calls "wage hotspots". Most of those are also in the South East but they do include the likes of Bristol, Birmingham and Merseyside.

But in England, no hotspots are found north of Manchester, and so this system could still leave a whole region like the North East out in the cold.

Unions and Labour MPs have been particularly venomous about that idea, saying it will produce postcode pay freezes.

The TUC estimates just a one-year 1% drop in public sector salaries will take £78m out of the North East's economy.

Kevin Rowan, from the Northern TUC, said: "This is the latest attack on the North East from a chancellor who doesn't know or care about our region's economy or public services.

"This policy would have a devastating impact on the region's households, retailers and set our economy back further. We fear this figure could increase 10-fold in a matter of years if the government gets its way."

The 26 North East Labour MPs have also written an open letter protesting.

In it they say: "The Government's proposals will lead to different wage rates between regions and possibly within the region.

"The North-South divide will grow and the least prosperous areas of the country will be the hardest hit, demand will be sucked out of the local economy as the money will not be there to spend - impacting on jobs in the private sector."

But that's where there is a huge difference of opinion with the chancellor.

Much of the Treasury's case for local pay is based on the money it would save. Some is based on evidence that it could produce better quality public services.

But the chancellor also believes it could boost private sector growth in places like the North East.

He argues the private sector is "crowded out" because it can't compete with high public sector wages.

Remove the pay differential, and he believes the private sector would be more likely to expand.

It's a theory that is completely rejected by the opponents of local pay bargaining, and the Treasury doesn't quote any detailed evidence in its submission to back it up.

There are though some within business who do say it is a factor.

It will take a long time until we find out who is right.

In reality, the decision to press ahead with local pay bargaining will take a long time to play out, possibly a decade or more.

We also don't know yet whether the pay review bodies for the likes of nurses and teachers will choose to adopt it or stick to national agreements.

But all the current headlines might be causing nervousness in Lib Dem and Conservative MPs in regions like the North East.

Conspicuously, none of them have as yet backed this idea, and they must be worried that they could face the backlash if we begin to see some regions becoming poor relations in terms of public sector pay.

One increase that's been in the offing for a while affects how much we all pay to fly.

The Chancellor announced last year that air passenger duty would be rising by around 8%, and despite intense lobbying from the aviation industry, he hasn't changed his mind.

Assuming, the airlines choose to pass it on, the tax will increase the price of every flight from April.

On a European flight, it'll add a fairly modest £1 to every economy flight, making the duty a total of £12.

Travellers to the US will pay an extra £5 in economy, raising the duty on each flight to £65.

The duty on the cheapest flights to the Caribbean will cost an extra £6, making the duty £81.

While long haul travellers to places like Australia will have to stump up at least another £7 in tax, taking the total duty per flight to a minimum of £92.

If you want more leg room, or fancy the luxury of business class, those rises are even steeper.

Painful for travellers then, and you won't find many people keen to pay it.

But there's also concern that the tax is harming businesses and holding back economic recovery.

April's rise is the third hike in three years, and it's now the highest rate in Europe. Some now want to see it not just cut but scrapped.

A report for the World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that scrapping the tax could create 90,000 jobs and boost the economy to the tune of £4 billion.

The council's president David Scowsill said: "Air passenger duty is a completely disproportionate tax on people's holidays and is hitting business travel hard. When the economy needs help, it is economically illogical to continue with it."

Some businesses in the North East of England certainly sympathise with that point of view.

At the very least they would like to see the planned rise abandoned but they are also campaigning for the air tax system to be reformed to help regional airports.

The North East Chamber of Commerce believes duty should be cut for the likes of Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley to help a region which has the highest unemployment rate.

It says the current regime is putting airlines off running services from the North East, making the region less competitive.

Head of Policy, Ross Smith, said: "It is obviously a burden on individual businesses in that it adds an extra cost, but our greater concern is the burden it places on airlines which could come into the North East.

"If it means they are going to put their flights into other locations because of the extra cost then that will put our competitiveness at serious risk in the future."

The chamber argues that cutting the duty for regions would help move services from congested Heathrow to airports like Newcastle which have spare capacity.

It's not as off-the-wall as it sounds as Northern Ireland has been given the power to cut its duty to help compete with lower rates in the Republic, and Scotland is also pushing for the same concession.

The problem is this is a tax that is also raising a considerable amount of money for George Osborne.

In 2001, it brought in around £800 million to the Treasury's coffers, but because of the repeated rises, it's estimated it'll bring in £2.8 billion this year.

And there are those who believe cutting air taxes would send out the wrong message.

The Green Party says the duty could be reformed, but not cut. In fact, it believes we don't pay enough when we fly. It points out that aviation fuel is currently exempt from VAT.

North East spokesman Nic Best said: "Air passenger duty isn't just another random revenue-raising tax the government thought up, it's a carbon tax.

"It's there deliberately to discourage what is a high carbon-emitting form of transport. Although it's a painful medicine, the illness of climate change will do far more damage to the national and international economy."

And it does seem likely at the moment that the only way is up for air passenger duty.

The industry will be watching the Budget carefully to see if another rise is in the offing.

And if you're feeling smug because you've already booked your flight, don't feel too comfortable.

The latest rise will apply to all flights after April 1, regardless of when they were booked.

There was one fringe benefit for me of their visit to Tyneside, as I got a full half hour to quiz Business Secretary Vince Cable on a host of issues highly relevant to the North East.

Sadly, there's no filmed record of the event as I was purely acting as the chair of a meeting organised by the Newcastle-based think tank IPPR North.

But it did allow me to pursue a lot more issues than I could normally rattle through in a short TV interview.

I started by asking about the government's aim of rebalancing the economy.

Could he really say that was working when the North East has seen a steeper rise in unemployment than other parts of the country?

Dr Cable told me that the North East was still wrestling with historic problems, but he was prepared to admit that the region was always more likely to be affected by cuts given its dependence on public sector jobs.

He insisted those cuts were unavoidable, but said the money North East businesses were getting from the Regional Growth Fund would help improve its prospects.

He said there were grounds for some optimism given the investment by Nissan in Sunderland and record export figures.

But he also believes the extra powers for councils could help change the region's fortunes.

There were regrets though. He accepted that regional development agency One North East had done good work, and that there had been a case for keeping it, even if the other RDAs had to bite the dust.

He also said he had expected the North East to work together by forming one Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) as a replacement for One North East.

Instead, he said there had been problems caused by Teesside's decision to go it alone. He said that had held back the work of the North East LEP in particular.

But he was now confident it was beginning to work well.

He also believed the North East should now regret not voting for a regional assembly.

He pointed to the example of Alex Salmond in Scotland as a politician who had real influence because of the democratic mandate he has from a devolved parliament.

He believes an assembly would have been in a position to act as a strong advocate for the North East and could have campaigned gradually for more powers.

The government believes elected mayors are a better solution in England, but Dr Cable told me he personally preferred the conventional council structure of a leader selected by the controlling party.

He believes the North East can achieve more by working together rather than relying on mayors, whether as councils or in the Local Enterprise Partnerships.

I also got the chance to ask him about the decision to put the HQ of the government's new green investment bank in Edinburgh rather than the North East.

It was a decision that was heavily criticised by local authority leaders and Labour MPs in the region, as Sunderland, Teesside, Newcastle and County Durham had all tabled bids to be the bank's home.

In the end all four failed to even make the last 11 in the selection process, even being beaten to the shortlist by places such as Peterborough and Milton Keynes.

Vince Cable said he had been surprised by how many bids had been submitted (32 in all), as he had only expected a handful.

He told me London had come out top in the assessment, but he had decided that it would not be acceptable to place the HQ there, so chose the city that had come out second - Edinburgh.

It seems the North East didn't stand much of a chance because it didn't have enough expertise in financial services.

One area where Dr Cable was prepared to admit there was a potential problem though was in transport investment.

IPPR North recently crunched the numbers for the infrastructure spending contained in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

It found the south was getting far more government investment than the north.

That's perhaps inevitable given that some of the biggest projects - underground upgrades, Crossrail, and Thameslink - are based in London and the South East.

But even after you remove those from the figures the South East is still getting £276 per head in infrastructure spending compared to just £5 for the North East.

The Business Secretary said the North East's local enterprise partnerships would be able to bid for extra money for transport, but he admitted the pots of money weren't big.

He was prepared to admit then that there could be a problem, and a potential case for greater investment in transport in the region.

There was one policy though he said he wouldn't support - the idea of regionally-negotiated public sector pay.

He said it would be wrong for all teachers or nurses in the North East to be paid less than their equivalents in the South East. He said that would stigmatise the region.

But he said it was worth looking at whether there could be any benefit from more locally negotiated public sector pay.

For example, he said, you could allow a school to pay staff more in areas where it was harder to recruit.

At that time, the party controlled Newcastle Council, and had high hopes of winning parliamentary seats across the North East.

They seemed to be on the rise, with legitimate grounds to claim they were the main opposition to Labour in the north.

But as they arrive in Gateshead this weekend, the landscape looks very different.

Last year, they were swept from power in Newcastle, and they seem to be on the retreat in other parts of the North East.

A recent poll suggested they had only 4% support in the region - lower than UKIP.

And the conference will be besieged by protesters, blaming the party for everything from the state of the economy to the proposed NHS reforms.

Welcome to life in government then.

But Nick Clegg will tell his party this weekend to stop feeling sorry for itself and go and shout about its achievements in power.

He'll talk about the pupil premium, the rise in the tax threshold, and the tempering of Tory NHS reforms.

It seems he'll also get the backing of Lib Dem President and Cumbrian MP Tim Farron too.

Farron is a qualified supporter of the coalition, coming from the left of the party.

But writing in The Guardian, he has also told members to stop apologising for what the Lib Dems are doing in government. He also seems to signal an acceptance of the health service changes as they now stand.

Some of the protesters who'll be standing outside the conference this weekend think differently though.

They say the Lib Dems could be committing electoral suicide by backing the Health Bill.

Clive Peedell and David Wilson are cancer consultants in Teesside, but also determined opponents of the coalition's proposed NHS reforms.

In January they ran 160 miles from NHS founder Nye Bevan's statue in Cardiff, to the Department of Health in London to highlight their opposition.

And this weekend they're running another 42 miles from Middlesbrough to the Lib Dem conference in Gateshead in an attempt to persuade the party to block the reforms once and for all.

Clive Peedell believes if they don't, there could be serious consequences for the NHS and the Liberal Democrats.

He said: "It is going to be hugely damaging because the NHS is going to fail. The reforms will be hugely unpopular and it will finish the Liberal Democrats off as a party long term.

"It's electoral suicide. They need to listen to the professionals."

There are of course many Lib Dems who have also had deep misgivings about the Health Bill, and they will get their chance to debate the changes this weekend.

But there does seem to be a growing acceptance even among Lib Dem activists that the bill will become law, and that the party has now done all it can to temper the original proposals.

That was certainly the view of party members I saw in Redcar - the North East constituency where they achieved a huge swing to defeat the sitting Labour MP in 2010.

Local councillor Josh Mason said: "I think there were some concerns about the bill when it was first introduced and at our spring conference last year changes were proposed.

"Those changes have helped the proposals evolve and I think it is now developing into a potentially very effective piece of legislation."

And even those with some qualms trust their party to ensure it won't go wrong.

Cllr Mike Carling said: "My concern and my party's concern was about the introduction of profit into the NHS, and any suggestion of an American-style health system.

"But it has been back and forth from the House of Lords, and there are lot of people looking at it so hopefully we will get something that will work."

There are though some worrying signs from Redcar of how the political landscape might be changing.

In January the Lib Dems lost a council by-election in a seat they had held in the town for decades.

There was a big swing to Labour, and the winning candidate - himself a former Lib Dem - was Mike Hannon.

Lib Dems said local factors were to blame but Mike Hannon believes voters are now turning against his former colleagues because of the NHS reforms and other policies.

He said: "I think there will be uproar about the NHS reforms. I don't think the Lib Dems would have expected to be in the position they are.

"I think people who voted for them in 2010 just feel they've been taken over by the Tories.

"They've become the whipping boys of the Conservative party and that's why they voted for me."

So there's plenty for the Lib Dems to chew over this weekend as they debate the NHS and other matters.

The delegates know they probably won't return to Gateshead for another conference until after the next election.

It's probably only then that we'll know just how much the party has gained or lost by being in government, and whether the voters will thank them for reforming the NHS.

In 2010 the company announced plans to manufacture the new electric Leaf in Wearside and last year it said it would also produce the new Qashqai on the site.

The 400 new jobs that will flow from this latest investment will take the number of staff there above 6,000 - a record for Nissan at Sunderland.

A further 1,600 jobs are expected to be created in the supply chain, as 100,000 Invitations a year roll off the production line.

It's a remarkable success story for a site that celebrated its 25th anniversary last year.

Yet just three years ago, everything looked grim. The company had just announced 1,200 job cuts and was cutting production.

The UK motor industry appeared to be in turmoil, with even the super-efficient Nissan plant under pressure. So how has the company managed to turn impending crisis into record employment?

The first credit has to go to the leadership at Nissan. The company has come up with successful cars - the Qashqai in particular has proved a worldwide hit.

The manufacturer has seen its market share boosted by producing cars that people want.

Trevor Mann, Nissan's head of production in Europe, said: "Nissan has been growing significantly in Europe over the last few years.

"Despite the Euro crisis the European market has grown by 4%, and our market share has grown by 25%. We produced 140,000 more cars last year than we did in 2010.

"The market proves if you have got a good car at a competitive price, you can grow."

Then there is the workforce. Nissan's Sunderland plant is the most efficient in Europe, with exceptional industrial relations.

That has helped secure work which could have gone elsewhere in the group.

But there are other factors.

The weakness of the pound makes the UK an attractive place to manufacture at the moment, adding to Nissan's profit margins.

And then there is politics. Both the coalition government and Labour have claimed credit for creating the conditions that are allowing Nissan to thrive.

The coalition points to the £9.3m grant Nissan has recently had from the Regional Growth Fund - although it has yet to be paid out.

It also believes it is creating the economic conditions that encourage investment.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: "It is very positive, but you can't see this in isolation, because the other big car companies have also made major commitments to the UK.

"Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, BMW and Mini are all putting in more money."

But Labour says the previous government also deserves credit for the action it took when the car industry faced a crisis in 2008 and 2009.

The car scrappage scheme helped to prop up domestic demand at a time when it looked likely to collapse. The Brown government also provided support for Nissan's electric car plans

And Labour also established the Automotive Council in 2009 to help the UK motor industry.

Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna said: "In government Labour adopted an active approach to the UK automotive industry, establishing the Automotive Council, encouraging and supporting collaboration on research to benefit the entire sector - an approach which Vince Cable has said helped foster confidence for companies to invest here.

"Consequently automotive now represents 10% of total exports with 80% of automotive production being exported."

Of course, politicians all love being associated with a success story, but in truth it has probably taken a combination of all these to secure the latest investment at Nissan.

But it's not all rosy in the North East. Just hours after the Nissan announcement, Rio Tinto confirmed it would be closing its aluminium smelter in Northumberland on 29 March.

That will lead to 323 job losses in May, with more likely to follow in coming months.

A taskforce will now try to find ways of attracting new investment to the area around the Lynemouth plant.

But if any of the Rio Tinto workers can travel, there are already 31 new jobs in Sunderland being advertised on Nissan's website.

Number one, there will be no quick fix for the North East's economic problems.

Number two, if you want to help yourselves, back plans for an elected mayor in Newcastle.

Of course, Hezza's heyday was in the '80s and '90s when his government's policies had a profound effect on the North East.

To his detractors, he's one of the Tory ministers that oversaw the destruction of traditional industries.

To his fans, he's the man who picked up the pieces and began the process of regeneration.

His role now is less central, but still significant. He chairs the government's £2 billion Regional Growth Fund, and decides on which businesses deserve its grants.

When I met him at this week's North East Economic Forum in Gateshead, I was keen to get his view on what progress the coalition had made in its aim of rebalancing the economy and closing the north-south divide.

As a businessman himself, he admitted to being frustrated at the slow recovery.

But he believed the government was right to be concentrating first and foremost on getting the public finances back in the black.

He said: "I don't think anyone seriously believed a transformation would take place within 18 months of the government taking office - it inherited one hell of a mess.

"My own reading is that we are now beginning to see a more optimistic note on growth, but there isn't a quick fix, and it's a complete delusion to think there is.

"Politicians often like to think so, and the opposition in particular say they would be doing one thing or another, but it was the opposition politicians who got us into this mess in the first place."

He suspects things might get a little worse before they get better, but he doesn't believe it will be as bad as the 1980s.

He said: "There has been rising unemployment, and it may even go higher than it is now, but it's not been as harsh as people feared.

"There was a lot of talk of three million unemployed. We haven't got to that state, and it shows there has been a restructuring, to an extent, of the industry of the North East.

"But I don't want to give any impression that this is an easy time, or people are not suffering as a consequence.

"That is the price of the policies of reckless overspending that this government inherited."

Of course, Labour would and does dispute that.

David Miliband spoke at length at the economic forum about how the government had made a mistake by reining back so dramatically on public spending.

He said it must take the blame for a 19% rise in unemployment in the North East, and said Lord Heseltine's Regional Growth Fund was failing to make a difference because to date only a quarter of the grants had been paid out.

Lord Heseltine was robust on that issue though.

He said the process of handing grants was taking longer than he'd hoped, but he said some of the companies must share the blame for dragging their heels in providing the information needed to release the money.

But he said many of the schemes had started, and that the grants would make a difference.

One thing he and David Miliband did agree on was the merits of having an elected mayor in Newcastle.

Voters decide in May whether to have mayors in Newcastle and England's other big cities.

David Miliband backed the idea at the economic forum, and Lord Heseltine certainly believes Newcastle should seize its opportunity.

He said: "I want to see the power of Newcastle enhanced, and indeed restored. Over a long time London has sucked the power out of the provincial cities.

"That's been dramatically thrown into perspective by Alex Salmond just over the border, who all the time is on television talking about Scotland.

"Everybody knows Alex Salmond speaks for Scotland, everyone knows Boris Johnson speaks for London. Who speaks for Newcastle?

"Nobody knows who leads Newcastle Council, except a very limited number of people here.

"The big cities have been hollowed out in terms of power and influence and what I'd like to see is people here elect someone to articulate Newcastle day and night.

"That someone will have an impact on London."

He expressed similar sentiments when he spoke to the forum formally - with a slightly uncomfortable looking Newcastle Council leader (Nick Forbes if you don't know his name) listening on.

In truth, the debate about whether Newcastle should have a mayor has yet to take off in the city. Opponents doubt that it will have the kind of impact Lord Heseltine talks about.

Instead they see it as expensive and potentially less democratic.

But for Hezza, mayors will be one of the factors that will help to turn round the economy in Newcastle and beyond.

They tell us cities and towns will benefit from having a single powerful figure in charge.

But this week two existing elected mayors are discovering the limits of their powers.

Hartlepool's mayor has seen his budget proposals overturned, and North Tyneside's mayor is facing the same prospect.

The difficulty for these mayors is that they are not actually all-powerful, as they still rely on support from other elected members.

Firstly, they need to form a cabinet made up of councillors.

Secondly, they must also get the support of at least a third of the council chamber to push through a budget.

When that falls apart, mayoral powers become much more limited.

That's what Hartlepool's directly-elected mayor Stuart Drummond has discovered in the last week.

He won the job unexpectedly when he stood as the town's football mascot H'angus the Monkey in 2002.

Since then he's dumped the monkey suit and been re-elected twice.

As an Independent he cannot rely on the support of the main political parties, but he's had a largely trouble-free 10 years by chairing a cabinet made up of councillors of all political persuasions.

All that has fallen apart though.

He has just lost a vote on his budget at full council after six Labour members of his cabinet failed to turn up to support him.

Instead Labour counter proposals won the backing of more than two thirds of councillors and Mr Drummond will now have to implement them.

His response has been to sack the six missing members from his cabinet.

He told BBC Tees: "I did this with a heavy heart, but the six of them did not show up at the meeting to support the cabinet's proposals.

"For that reason they did not get through and now we have to work with a budget that the rest of us in the cabinet are not happy with. I felt I had no choice.

"I believe they were given an ultimatum by the Labour party to oppose the cabinet proposals or face being thrown out of the party, so they were in a very difficult position."

That last claim has been denied by one of the sacked cabinet members.

Cllr Ged Hall told BBC Tees that there was no threat of suspension, although he admitted it could have been a possibility.

He insists the Labour councillors were acting in the best interests of Hartlepool though.

He said: "I understand why he took the decision (to sack us) but I do not believe it was the right one.

"Some alternative budget proposals were made at a late stage and it is up to us to decide what's best for everyone in Hartlepool.

"This budget was voted for by Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent councillors and so actually it's Mayor Drummond who is isolated."

Stuart Drummond has decided not to replace the cabinet members before May's local elections.

Ged Hall believes that is a mistake.

He said: "People are saying in the town that he is taking on two jobs, one as elected mayor and another as chair of Cleveland Police Authority. Now he seems to be planning to do the job of six cabinet members too.

"People are entitled to ask how he can manage all that."

There does certainly seem to be some politicking going on in Hartlepool.

In May the whole council is up for re-election, and later this year the town could have a referendum on whether to retain a mayor.

Even if the town decides it still likes the idea, Stuart Drummond (if he decides to stand) will face re-election next May.

Labour will hope it has a real chance of unseating Stuart Drummond after more than a decade and replacing him with a Labour mayor.

North Tyneside's Conservative mayor Linda Arkley faces a similar threat from Labour councillors.

Her cabinet is made up entirely of Tory councillors, but the Conservatives don't have the votes in the council chamber she needs to get her budget through.

That means Labour will be able to amend Ms Arkley's budget if it can get the support of the Liberal Democrats. Labour is cautiously optimistic it can do that.

So does all this mean the mayoral system is failing by leaving mayors powerless to implement what they want to do?

Maybe, but you can also argue that this is exactly how it's supposed to work.

The checks and balances holding back Stuart Drummond and Linda Arkley were put in place by Tony Blair's government when it first introduced elected mayors in 2002.

They were designed to prevent a mayor riding roughshod over all political opposition on the council.

They force mayors to work with at least a sizeable section of councillors. Without their support, their powers become more limited.

And that does seem reasonable. After all those councillors also have an electoral mandate to represent the community.

Ultimately it will be up to voters in places like Hartlepool and North Tyneside to decide who has acted in the best interests of the town.

But this week's events show that at a time when all the talk is about powerful elected mayors, from time to time humble councillors can still flex their muscles.

The reward for the lucky dozen will be up to £100,000 of funding, and the chance to test out the ideas of retail guru Mary Portas.

But there's likely to be no shortage of competition for the honour because, as I probably don't need to tell you, the last few years have been tough for our high streets.

A look at the statistics across the country shows there are towns where one in three shops are empty.

Maryport in West Cumbria is one of those strugglers. It has a vacancy rate of 32%.

At their zenith, Maryport's shopping streets were a thriving hub for the town. Today, they look slightly sad.

It's a decline that began decades ago, and like so many towns, there are multiple factors at work.

People are more mobile than they used to be, and can and do travel further afield for their shopping.

The kind of small, locally owned shops that used to be the essence of towns like Maryport have also struggled as chain store multiples have grown.

Add to that the impact of the current economic problems and you have a recipe for terminal decline.

Carol Tindall from Maryport Town Council believes revival will be difficult without investment.

She said: "The problem is that it's run down and it looks run down. We won't attract people to come here and spend their hard-earned cash particularly at this time of economic doom and gloom.

"We used to have a gentleman's outfitters, a dress shop, a hat shop, a glove shop, lots of individual bakers, and the likes of Woolworths, but they have all been replaced by charity and pound shops or they're empty."

So can Mary Portas help Maryport?

Café owner Debbie Wright certainly believes it could make all the difference.

She said: "I think it would be fantastic if we won it because all the potential is here. We have got a Roman museum, a maritime museum, an aquarium, and some really good shops but what we need is it pulled together more.

"There is a plan in place, and if you put that together with the expertise of Mary Portas we will be able to really go forward."

Some though are more sceptical. Sandra Bowman's wool shop has been one constant presence in the decades of decline.

But she doesn't believe the town will revive until the local economy picks up.

She said: "We need money to generate business. Years ago, the women used to come out of the factories with their pay packets on a Friday and spend them in the town's shops that afternoon.

"Until we get local women back into work in local factories and businesses, we won't be anywhere near as busy as we were in the past."

But Maryport will face many rivals to become one of the government's dozen Portas Pilots. Hundreds of towns are expected to apply.

And the stats on empty shops just in the North East and Cumbria reveal how many towns and cities have struggling high streets.

More than one in four shops in Stockton (26.9%) and Hartlepool (26.6%) are vacant, while Sunderland (23.6%) and Newcastle (23.2%) are not far behind. In Gateshead 20.5% of shops are empty.

In Cumbria, Wigton has a vacancy rate of 16.9%, Whitehaven 16.4%, Workington 14.8%, and Penrith 13.8%.

Only tourist hotspots like Keswick (6.4%) could genuinely claim to be thriving.

Some will query whether being a Portas Pilot can make that much difference though.

A funding package of up to £100,000 won't transform a town centre, and many retailers would actually like to see big drops in business rates.

And of course there is still the continuing development of out of town shopping, and the ongoing dominance of the supermarket giants - the one set of retailers who are still on the march.

The Portas report proposes little in the way of curbs on them.

Instead the emphasis in the government scheme will be on original ideas rather than restrictions and pricey regenerations.

Winning bidders are expected to form town teams of politicians and shopkeepers intent on turning the high street around.

The answer though may not be a return to the past.

Instead Mary Portas has admitted that towns will have to search for new uses for their shopping centres, as the high street heyday of the 1960s won't ever come back.

Towns and cities have until the end of March to submit their application to become one of the government pilots.

They're the places bidding to become the headquarters of a new green investment bank.

On the face of it the bank brings limited benefits.

At most it might generate around 80 direct jobs.

But the reason why so many places are keen to bag the bank is because it will offer far more than that.

Any area which gets the bank HQ will find it much easier to market itself to green businesses.

The bank will have up to £3 billion of government money to loan to companies in a range of environmentally friendly sectors.

Companies could find it handy to be located on the bank's doorstep, and that would give any area which got the headquarters the prestige of being seen as a centre for green growth.

Competition is fierce then. In the North East of England alone, there are four bidders - Newcastle, Sunderland, Tees Valley and County Durham.

It's a region which already has a growing green industrial base, and all four of its bidders believe the bank will offer huge opportunities.

But they are all making similar arguments.

They point to the area's history in financial services, the green industries already on site, and the availability of relatively cheap buildings.

And they also believe the North East's economic problems and high unemployment rate help their cause.

Sunderland Central Labour MP Julie Elliott said: "We have the skills and we are in the right place to do this, but the added advantage is we are in the area with the highest unemployment in the country.

"Bringing any jobs to an area like the North East, and in particular Sunderland, has got to be a good thing.

"With any government investment, employment has to a factor in the decision-making."

Critics though feel the North East might have been better to have got together and tabled one or at most two bids.

In the past regional government offices and development agencies, might have knocked heads together to produce a single bid, but with those gone, individual councils seem to have decided to go their own way.

And Professor David Byrne from Durham University believes that the region could miss out by diluting its arguments into four bids.

He said: "It makes no sense. There might have been a case for a bid from Teesside, and a bid from one of Sunderland, Newcastle or North Durham, but to have multiple bids from one labour market is just daft.

"Those bids are also up against some much better organised areas. Wales has put one bid in for Cardiff, and Greater Manchester is also well organised.

"I think it will be tough for the North East bids because it all looks very fragmented."

There are also questions about just how much the green investment bank will be able to do.

The government believes it could help transform the economy, but green businesses have told me privately that they fear it won't be much better than the existing banks.

The Chancellor George Osborne reportedly wants the bank to makes loans on a commercial basis and not the low interest rates many entrepreneurs would like and need.

In addition, companies fear, the bank could be just as risk-averse as those currently on the high street.

Not every green business will benefit too as its priorities will be funding renewable energy, offshore wind, waste-to-energy plants and energy efficiency.

There is no mention of electric vehicles, for example.

And Labour and the Green Party have criticised restrictions which will prevent the bank itself borrowing and lending money.

Green MP Caroline Lucas said: "It's not at all clear that this bank can borrow or lend. Without these powers, it would be a fund - that is, a pot of money that, once used up, is gone forever.

"Maybe something still to be welcomed, but not a bank that can recycle the money it receives and so invest it again and again, producing far more benefit over the long term."

None of that though seems to matter much to those competing to host the bank.

They are mad keen to see it come to their area.

The government says it expects to make an announcement about that location within weeks.

But try telling that to campaigners in Tyneside who believe the changes are unleashing plans to build thousands of homes across the area's Green Belt.

This weekend a group will march through Newcastle's Green Belt land to highlight their opposition to the plans.

I went to visit some of the protesters at one of the proposed housing sites causing controversy.

Gosforth Park Nature Reserve has been protected by local volunteers for decades, providing an urban refuge for the red squirrel, roe deer and a host of birds.

It's an amazing place. You can walk through ancient woodland and stroll next to a huge reed bed having close encounters with everything from woodpeckers to weasels.

But the council's master plan for new homes will put hundreds of houses in neighbouring fields.

The people who love the reserve think that will endanger many of its inhabitants.

They say the wildlife relies on the fields as a buffer zone, and use it to forage for food.

If the fields get concreted over, they fear some animals will struggle to survive, and that's even before the pets of their new neighbours find their way into the reserve.

James Littlewood, from the Natural History Society of Northumbria, said: "We would have the impact of 1,500 people and their cats and dogs coming into the reserve.

"We estimate over a 10 year period, cats from the housing development could kill 15,000 animals and birds.

"That would be devastating."

They also feel the council has done very little to take local views into account, as they had to push the local authority into extending the original consultation.

And local resident and Save Gosforth Wildlife campaigner John Urquhart certainly doesn't feel empowered.

He said: "It's not just about the wildlife, it's about democracy, about people's rights to say what they really feel about their area."

But it won't just be the reserve campaigners marching. Similar campaigns have sprung up across other parts of Newcastle which are under threat.

There are plans to build 6,500 homes on one slice of the Green Belt on the western edge of Newcastle.

At the moment the area is semi-rural, but the existing villages are likely to become subsumed by the city as the fields near their homes become building sites.

Adam Vaughan from the Newcastle West Green Belt Protection Campaign said: "These are villages that have become part of Newcastle purely by an accident of boundaries. Now they could find themselves becoming part of a suburb.

"It will have a big impact on people's lives."

The campaigners have achieved something though. They've won support from both Labour and Conservative MPs.

Newcastle North's Labour MP Catherine McKinnell has already submitted her objections to the plan.

She said: "My main concern is the number of houses being proposed at a time when we could well be back in recession.

"My fear is we'll end up with the countryside replaced by houses that nobody might want.

And Conservative Guy Opperman is also opposed to the plans as many of the homes would be on the edge of his Hexham constituency.

He said: "I cannot understand why Newcastle Council isn't building on brown field sites, regenerating old sites and filling empty homes, instead of carpeting over green fields with executive homes that aren't needed."

With so much opposition, will the council stick to its guns?

We'll find out when Newcastle's Cabinet meets at the end of the month.

But the council insists it needs to find places to build new homes to meet the demand for houses from local families.

The council also says around three quarters of the 36,000 homes planned across Gateshead and Newcastle in the next 20 years will be outside the Green Belt.

And the councillor in charge or the plan Cllr Henri Murison, says it had to come up with a plan because of the government's reforms.

It fears without a realistic blueprint, it will be hard to prevent housing developers targeting multiple sites.

The government's is keen to see planners make a presumption in favour of development when considering any application, to help get the economy going.

At the same time it's also removing incentives that pushed developers towards brown field sites rather than the Green Belt.

The government says it's up to councils how to implement that guidance.

But the people who try and protect the environment believe the game has changed.

The Northumberland Wildlife Trust says it's having to fight to save slices of countryside it thought would never be under threat.

Mike Pratt, said: "It's opened up battles we thought we'd won a long time ago. Even the status of established nature reserves are being challenged."

Remarkably, these protests come even before the government's new National Planning Policy Framework has passed into law, so there could be a lot more tension ahead.

Local authorities always want more homes because it helps to boost the local economy and council tax receipts.

And environmental campaigners are concerned they will be competing to tempt in housing developers by offering attractive green field sites.

There may then be many more marches and campaigns ahead in years to come as the demand for more houses clashes with the desire to protect our green spaces.

But it seems some are intent on dragging the concept from the political grave and reviving it with some hefty jump leads.

Six northern Labour MPs wrote an open letter to The Observer newspaper this weekend suggesting it was time once again to consider having a northern political assembly.

None of the six are from the North East. Instead they are all from Yorkshire and the North West.

They are supporters of an organisation called the Hannah Mitchell Foundation.

It's named after a suffragette Labour campaigner, who was active in northern politics in the early part of the 20th Century.

The foundation has ambitions to be a forum "for the development of a distinctive democratic socialism in the north".

The group says it has no fixed ideas on what form of devolution is best for the north, and whether there should be regional assemblies.

But it does intend to gauge the evidence and collect opinion.

One of the MPs who wrote to The Observer was less equivocal though.

Huddersfield's Barry Sheerman said: "I am very passionate about this. The north has a much larger population than Scotland, and look at London, which has an assembly and a powerful mayor to protect its interests.

"With the scrapping of the regional development agencies, we don't have a body to deal with strategic problems and issues for the north."

The MPs base their case on the growing economic problems in the north and what they see as its political marginalisation.

In their letter they say: "We are increasingly concerned at growing economic disparities within England as a result of cuts in public services, abolition of the regional development agencies and the coalition-induced recession.

"The debate over the future of the United Kingdom ignores the growing political marginalisation of the north of England, with a cabinet dominated by southern English politicians who seem to know little, and care even less, of the economic and social problems of the north."

But although there is evidence that the north is suffering more than the south economically, there is little to show that voters are keen on reviving the regional assembly idea.

Some recent research by the IPPR think tank suggested only 10% of northern voters liked the idea, lower even than the 22% who voted in favour in 2004.

You have to suspect the same perceptions that torpedoed the campaign last time still exist.

People are likely to be concerned that it will create another layer of politicians, in an institution which will cost money to set up and sustain.

There are though three factors which might make some difference.

Firstly, while in 2004, the economy was booming, the north is now enduring high unemployment.

Secondly, there is a Conservative-led coalition in charge of the country today instead of a Labour government with a large representation of northern MPs.

And finally, there is the Salmond factor. There are already concerns that devolution has left the northern regions as poor relations of Scotland in terms of economic and political clout.

That could get even more marked if the Scots were to vote for independence or get extra powers.

There does though seem little prospect of the north being offered another bite at this particular cherry.

The coalition has been intent on dismantling the idea of regions since coming into office, with the abolition of development agencies and government offices.

Instead it sees the solution being devolution of powers to the country's biggest cities, including Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield.

It believes they can be handed extra powers to become drivers of economic recovery. They will also have the chance to have directly elected mayors through referendums in May.

And instead of political structures, it sees the tax incentives in enterprise zones and the money from regional growth fund grants as the best way of tackling the north's problems.

That though might not answer the democratic deficit argument.

The Conservatives failed to win the number of northern seats they'd hoped for in 2010.

That cost them the chance of being a majority government, and leaves them open to accusations they are a largely southern force. There has been little sign of electoral progress in the north since then.

But can voters really be persuaded that an assembly provides the answer?

The Hannah Mitchell Foundation's supporters only have to ask their patron about how difficult that might prove.

He's Lord Prescott - the architect of the 2004-model regional assemblies, and the politician who had to endure the humiliation of seeing voters blow a giant raspberry at the idea.