But in May's local elections UKIP would love to make the kind of breakthrough that could bury accusations it's a single-issue party.

And judging by weight of candidates, it's certainly putting in the effort.

UKIP has never fielded as many potential councillors, and it's pushing in places where its presence has been limited in the past.

Four years ago, the party only managed to field four candidates in Cumbria.

Now it has selected 52 to fight for seats on the county council - fewer than Labour and the Conservatives but more than the Liberal Democrats.

The local party in Carlisle alone says it has seen a 42% rise in membership.

Michael Owen, the local chair, believes that reflects dissatisfaction with the established parties.

He said: "Certainly we already have recruited some disillusioned Conservatives, and I believe we'll be seeing a lot more who are fed up with the current leadership.

"But I'm also very hopeful that we will continue to recruit people from other parties, and people who've never been politically active before.

"It really is time for a change. We have a full local manifesto and it is fully costed."

The Conservatives are currently the largest party on the council, and perhaps have most to fear from a UKIP surge.

But their deputy leader Councillor James Airey believes his party needs to campaign on its record.

He said: "I'm not worried but we mustn't underestimate UKIP. They've done well to find 52 candidates.

"But the message to my candidates and council colleagues is to get out there and campaign on local issues, on the issues they've worked hard on.

"This is a Cumbrian election, not a national election, and so we'll be fighting on our record of the last four years, and telling people what we can offer in the next four."

UKIP though will also pose a challenge for the Lib Dems, as it seems to have replaced them as the catch-all protest party.

But their group leader Councillor Ian Stewart believes they don't provide a viable alternative.

He said: "We're perfectly capable of shaking up Cumbria County Council. A vote for the Lib Dems is about listening to people and being more local.

"I've listened to some of the things UKIP have said, and I think people need to be careful.

"If you look at what they have to offer, they want to introduce massive cuts and take us back to 1974 spending levels.

"I think the people of Cumbria would find that totally unacceptable."

Labour of course may stand to benefit if UKIP does takes votes from the Conservatives. But as leader Nigel Farage has said he wants to poach their voters too, they're not dismissing the threat.

Group leader Councillor Stewart Young said: "Clearly they have to be taken seriously. They seem to have a bit of money behind them.

"My assessment is they will take votes from all parties because they are a repository for protest votes, but they are more likely to attract the right wing of the Conservative electorate.

"But with Labour you can trust us to protect vital front line services and the most vulnerable and do the best for the whole Cumbrian community."

Cumbrian voters will have other choices too. More than 30 Greens are standing, as are 18 independents.

The BNP and the Trade Union and Socialist Alliance also both have a handful of candidates.

But UKIP believes it can offer more than just protest, and perhaps it's testament to the party's rise that the more established parties are looking to address that threat.

It's unlikely the party will win a host of seats in Cumbria this time, but at a time when some of the other parties are struggling to attract members, its growth is a sign that something's happening.

And I suspect there is a longer game. UKIP knows that hard work on the ground may lead to gains at next year's European elections.

Beyond that it may also worry Conservative MPs in marginal seats.

In Cumbria, just a few thousand UKIP defectors could cost the Tories the vital Carlisle constituency.

The big breakthrough may not be here yet, but UKIP are undoubtedly posing a new problem for the older parties.

I have little doubt she is the most significant UK politician of my lifetime.

And she has certainly never been forgotten in the north-east of England where I ply my trade.

So when I first began compiling the elements of her obituary, it wasn't hard to find people with strong opinions.

When I came to look at our archive pictures, I was also struck by how much of what's become legendary about the Thatcher years played out in the region.

Of course, there was the miners' strike - though the North East was just one of the battlegrounds in that dispute.

There were also other major industrial closures and job losses in the shipyards and steel industry.

But there was also the "walk in the wilderness" in Teesside. To her detractors this was her revelling in the industrial wasteland produced by her policies.

To her it was a symbol of necessary change - clearing the way for a brighter future.

There was also the footage where she described critics as "moaning minnies" while on a visit to the North East in 1985.

In fact there was an astonishing edge to almost every encounter I saw her have here.

It's hard to see the same footage ever being produced in these days of media management and focus groups.

Of course, there are plenty of people in the North East who detest Margaret Thatcher to this day. There are many anecdotes about people having champagne on ice in anticipation of her death.

But a study of the politics of the day actually suggests far more people voted for her brand of Conservatism than for David Cameron's.

In 1983, her party took 34% of North East votes. In 2010, David Cameron won less than 24%.

After the 1983 election the party had MPs in Darlington, Stockton, Langbaurgh, Tynemouth and even in Newcastle. Now they have just two in the region, and they don't have a single councillor in Newcastle.

It's possible that the folk memory of Thatcherism has left Conservatism as a toxic brand in the North East - but if it did, it only really took root after its architect had left office.

And perhaps local Conservatives still have something to thank her for. The wilderness she walked through in 1987 is now a business park in Stockton South - the only North East seat the Conservatives gained in 2010.

But if you really want an example of Mrs Thatcher's conflicted legacy, I'd point to two women who I spoke to for her obituary.

Both of them entered politics because of Margaret Thatcher, but for very different reasons.

Juliana Heron's husband Bob was a miner at Hetton pit in County Durham when the 1984 strike began.

At the time she had little interest in politics. But the strike radicalised her. She became one of the band of miners' wives sucked into the dispute. The strike was lost, and the pit closed.

She said: "Our group of miners' wives was in the House of Commons when she called us the enemy within and that'll stay with me forever.

"I'm not a hateful person but I despise what she did to our area.

"People will go through history and they'll wonder what happened to Hetton. Basically Margaret Thatcher happened to Hetton - she closed the pit and closed the area."

Juliana has since become a Labour councillor in Sunderland, even becoming the city's mayor in 2003, and admits that she only entered politics because of the impact of Margaret Thatcher.

And the same can be said of Anne-Marie Trevelyan. She stood for the Conservatives in Berwick at the 2010 General Election, and will contest the seat again in 2015.

She vividly remembers her political awakening beginning when she saw Margaret Thatcher on the news as a child.

She said: "I was watching what was the winter of discontent, and then Margaret Thatcher came on. I was only 10 but what she said made sense to me.

"That sparked something in me which has never gone away, and I'm putting myself forward for election. It built a belief in me that if you don't agree with something you should stand up and fight for it. She was my first clear example of that being possible."

As we approach Baroness Thatcher's funeral, people will continue to clash about her legacy. While some watch the procession from London on television, some ex-miners in Easington in County Durham will be holding a party.

She will not be forgotten any time soon in the region where she had such an impact.

When I began my journalistic career in 1992 she was no longer Prime Minister, but she hasn't stopped being part of political debate in the last two decades, and I expect her name to continue to generate strong emotions and opinions well past my retirement.

But some are already wondering whether the government's pledge of support actually amounts to the revolution that the former deputy prime minister proposed in his No Stone Unturned report.

In that document Lord Heseltine set out a masterplan to unlock the economic potential of England's regions and cities.

His central beef - London and Whitehall has too much power and too much control over taxpayers' money.

The Conservative grandee believes that shackles the potential of the likes of Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds to become the economic powerhouses they were in Victorian England

One change he suggested was transferring £49bn of government money controlled by Whitehall into a Single Local Growth Fund that would go to the English regions to spend.

That would include money for transport improvements, housing and skills.

And the government has now confirmed it does plan to create that fund.

The Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England will then be able to bid for money from it. The LEPs are boards of businesspeople and councillors in charge of developing local economies.

What's not clear though is how much money will be in it.

That will have to wait until June's spending round when the chancellor will make it clear just what will go into the pot.

But the left-leaning think tank IPPR North says it believes the fund might only amount to a few billion.

In addition, it won't begin operating until 2015. That's too little, too late according to IPPR North's director Ed Cox.

He said: "Lord Heseltine said a fund of £49bn was needed. Government sources are now suggesting the size of the pot will be in the 'low billions'.

"With a lot of that not released until after the next general election. This shows the government response has fallen far short of the Heseltine blueprint - and that is bad news for the British economy.

"We are also concerned that the whole process of how the share-out of money between individual LEPs is too centralised and potentially unfair to some."

And although the government has said it's accepted 81 out of the 89 recommendations made by Lord Heseltine, 21 of those acceptances are partial.

Can it really break the culture of centralisation in Whitehall?

The government says yes and insists it is already rolling out measures which will help LEPs and councils generate growth.

From November this year, LEPs will be given the chance to borrow up to £1.5bn to fund a pet infrastructure project.

Councils are also being allowed to keep any growth in business rate income to reinvest in their local economy.

It's also rolled out city deals to the likes of Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester which will give the councils extra powers and borrowing capacity.

The government will also allow local authorities who work together to have their own "conurbation mayor" should they want one.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is convinced the government has accepted the need for change.

He said: "Over the last few decades, central government has systematically deprived local government of control and power. Only half of the money spent locally is raised locally, robbing our cities and regions of both the power and incentives to drive local growth.

"That is why we've already allocated £2.6 billion through the Regional Growth Fund. And through City Deals we are giving cities a core package of powers and freedoms.

"Lord Heseltine's review is the icing on the cake.

"His local vision is the best way to foster local growth and stimulate the economy. A single local growth fund that Local Enterprise Partnerships apply to will be a big change from the hand-out attitude of the past."

But of course there will still be considerable central control.

Money won't be handed directly to local areas for them to spend as they like. This is no Scotland or Wales-style devolution.

Instead they'll still have to convince officials or a panel of experts that what they want is worth spending money on.

That may provide a safeguard against embarrassing failure perhaps, but will it really empower cities and regions?

We'll know more after the spending review, but so far at least local enterprise partnerships have welcomed the news.

Stephen Catchpole, from Tees Valley's LEP said: "We should be able to make sure that the money is spent on what we need, which should mean more investment in jobs."

And these ideas will ultimately be judged on whether they can deliver the economic growth everyone is seeking.

Housing benefit as a separate payment will begin to disappear from October when it gets rolled into the new universal credit.

And that will mean another change.

At the moment the millions of council and housing association tenants who claim housing benefit have it paid directly to their landlord.

But the government wants that to change under universal credit.

Instead, tenants will get the housing element of the benefit paid directly to them. They then will be responsible for paying their rent.

But when the idea was piloted in six areas of the country there was a big rise in rent arrears as some tenants failed to pass that money on.

Figures obtained by the BBC suggest arrears rose from about 2% to 11%.

The concern is that people under financial pressure will struggle to budget for their rent.

That now is worrying social housing providers.

Cestria Community Housing Association owns about 4,000 homes in Chester-le-Street in County Durham.

It believes the amount of missed rent payments could treble under direct payment to tenants.

That could cost the association £500,000 a year.

Chief Executive Paul Fiddaman said: "We're a not-for-profit company, so we plough all the money back into our homes.

"So to lose half a million pounds would prevent us building 120 new houses or investing in other community improvement projects.

"We're concerned that sometimes tenants will make poor choices about what to spend their money on, and at the end of the day that could put their home at risk.

"We're a socially-responsible landlord, but to be fair to tenants who do pay their rent, we would be forced to take action."

The association also believes most tenants would prefer the system to remain the same.

Angela Walker, who is part of Cestria's tenant involvement group certainly says she prefers the certainty of knowing her rent has been paid.

She said: "You know you're not being given the opportunity to spend the benefit on other things. The most important thing in paying bills is keeping a roof over your head.

"I'm fearful that people will spend that money and put themselves at risk of eviction."

But although the government acknowledges it needs to learn from the pilots, it believes the principle is right.

Work and Pensions minister Steve Webb said: "The skills that people need in work for example, using IT and managing their budgets are the skills we want people who are out of work to acquire, so then when they get a job they'll be more able to cope.

"So we have to treat people like adults, but then also support people who'll struggle with the system.

"Most people will cope fine, as we know from the million people in the private sector who pay their rent directly."

You won't find many private landlords who are fans of direct payments to tenants though.

But they are also concerned that the switch to universal credit could affect them.

Although housing benefit largely goes direct to tenants in the private sector, landlords can get it paid directly to them if someone has more than eight weeks of arrears.

But so far the government has failed to say whether that system will still be in place under universal credit.

That's worrying some private landlords, who also believe the monthly payments planned under universal credit will make it harder for tenants than the current fortnightly benefits.

David Cook owns a handful of properties in Sunderland. He says the uncertainty is making him wonder whether he will want to rent to universal credit claimants.

He said: "It's going to switch you off from that market place. When asked by a letting agent who you want as tenants, you're going to go for a working professional who's going to pay by direct debit and not someone on benefits."

South Shields letting agent Ajay Jagota deals with about 700 landlords like David Cook in the North East, and he says many are worried about the lack of information coming from the government.

He believes unless the introduction of universal credit is delayed for more pilots and refinements, it could see many more tenants made homeless.

He said: "Whether it be in the private or the social sector, if people get into arrears and find themselves facing eviction I fear we could end up back in the 1990s when people were in B&Bs.

"That is clearly going to be a more expensive option for the government."

The government is confident that universal credit can be designed to avoid that, but it seems some tenants and landlords remain to be convinced.

But now you can get a chance to get a glimpse inside the whips' offices - or at least a recreation of them.

The National Theatre's This House takes place largely in the government and opposition whips' inner sanctums as we follow the political machinations of the 1970s.

This was a time when the whips - the MPs in charge of maintaining party discipline and winning parliamentary votes - certainly earned their salaries.

Between 1974 and 1979, Labour was in government, but for much of the time it had no majority.

That gives playwright James Graham a surprising amount of drama to work with.

Indeed, the very survival of the Labour government depends on the whips delivering. Fail and they know Margaret Thatcher is ready to banish them from office.

But just how real is this drama? To find out I invited someone with inside knowledge to see it on stage.

Newcastle East's Labour MP Nick Brown did not enter the Commons until 1983, but he knows a thing or two about the whips' office.

He was Tony Blair's first Chief Whip in 1997 and Gordon Brown's last in 2010.

His challenge was rather different to that facing his 1970s counterparts though.

He had a whacking Labour majority to work with in 1997, and it was still a secure one even at the end of New Labour's terms in office.

But when he entered the engine room the tales of the Wilson and Callaghan whips were already legendary.

In This House we see Labour MPs literally dragged off their death beds to maintain the government's majority.

Seventeen Labour MPs - including one whip - died during the period, and the play suggests some at least were victims of the need to turn out at all costs.

At one point, ministers are flown back from Northern Ireland in atrocious weather to prevent defeat.

Nick Brown said: "All that is true. In the case of the two ministers, all civilian flights had been stopped. But they were flown back for the vote through a ferocious storm even though it put them and the military personnel who flew them back in great danger."

The play also highlights the class divide between Labour and Tory whips.

Labour's are largely working class with little education beyond school. The Conservatives are ex-public school, ex-Oxbridge and ex-military.

And even in his time, Nick Brown says that divide was still there.

He said: "The only difference was that our whips had started going to university by then, but there was still a very different atmosphere between the two camps - with the opposition often from more privileged backgrounds. It was a rivalry, but there was respect there too."

Crucial to Labour efforts to stay in power were the whips' relations with the "odds and sods" - the Liberals, and the nationalist and unionist parties in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Unlike today there was no formal coalition, but bar-room deals had to be done to secure their votes.

Nick Brown had no need to cultivate such alliances. Labour's 1997 majority was 179 and even by the end of Gordon Brown's time it was over 60.

But he still liked to meet the smaller parties to gauge their views and keep them as potential voting allies so recognises the need to build relationships across the house.

In This House though, the Labour whips have as much trouble with their own side.

As well as dealing with the mentally-unstable John Stonehouse - who disappears, reappears and then resigns - there are serial rebels who threaten to bring the government down.

That was something Nick Brown could certainly relate to. As we watched, he joked that dealing with MPs as Chief Whip wasn't too far removed from dealing with livestock in one of his other roles as agriculture minister.

He said: "Whips are really the government's business managers, and the real challenge is to get legislation through in the face of adversity. Your crucial relationship is with the Prime Minister who has to trust you to deliver."

And in This House the Labour whips do deliver almost to the end.

Only in the dying days of office in 1979 does Labour lose the vote of confidence that ushers in a general election and 18 years of opposition.

But it's in the twists and turns of the previous five years, and the pitting of wits between the rival offices that makes the play edge-of-the-seat entertaining.

It's creatively staged and also very funny, and avoids getting bogged down in the rather rarefied gentlemen's agreements between the rival offices.

Playwright James Graham interviewed many of the participants during his research and that shows.

And unlike the monstrous Francis Urquhart in House of Cards, these whips are real people who want to win but not ultimately at all costs.

In the end it's an act of compassion by a Labour whip towards an ailing colleague that the play suggests caused the loss of the crucial vote.

Nick Brown said: "It works as a terrifically-entertaining piece of theatre. It takes a very complex and taut political situation and breaks it down, and makes it understandable even 40 years on.

"The human side comes across very strongly. Everything in it may not literally be true, but it has a sense of truth about what it's like to be in the whips' offices, and what it must have been like then."

And of course This House throws the spotlight onto the politicians we as the public should never see. The whips who have to get things done.

But would Nick Brown have liked or loathed the challenge of governing without a majority?

He thinks for a second, and then with a hint of relish, he says: "Absolutely everything they did, we would have done I'm sure.

"Yes, I think I would have enjoyed it."

This House runs at the National Theatre in London until 15 May, and a performance will be shown at cinemas around the UK on 16 May.

And one country many Euro-sceptics are keen to point to is Norway.

Despite several referendums of its own, it has consistently chosen to stay outside the EU.

But that does not mean it has nothing to do with the member states.

Around 75% of its trade is with the EU, and its economy is booming.

It's scarcely surprising then that UKIP points to Norway as a model for a UK that could thrive outside the EU.

North East UKIP chairman Richard Elvin said: "I do believe Norway shows the world doesn't end if you're outside the EU.

"Norway has its own sovereignty, and it can pick and choose who it trades with. Of course it trades with the EU, but it also has agreements with 20 other countries."

But how good an example is Norway?

To find out I was despatched from Newcastle to the Norwegian port of Stavanger - a tough assignment I know.

It didn't take long to find a local who was prepared to back UKIP's arguments up.

Bjarne Kvadsheim is a city councillor in Stavanger. His Centre Party has always opposed any plan for Norway to join the EU.

He said: "Norway and the UK are similar so I understand why they are using us as an example of how you can manage outside the EU.

"We sell things that the EU wants, and that's important, so the trade is good between the EU and Norway today.

"And we have our own democracy, Norwegian politicians make decisions, Brussels doesn't."

Not everyone in Stavanger agrees though with Bjarne. Indeed, even his brother has a different view.

Henrik Kvadsheim has campaigned for Norway to join the EU. And he thinks UKIP is mistaken.

Norway can't just ignore the EU. In order to get access to its single market, it has to adopt many EU laws and directives.

But of course because it's not a member state, it can't take part in the discussions which frame those regulations.

Henrik Kvadsheim believes UK voters would do well to bear that in mind when deciding whether to leave the EU.

He believes while Norwegians might be happy being the "little brother" of the EU, the UK would not be happy with losing influence.

He said: "Around 50% of what the UK produces you export to the European Union.

"You will still need to export that, and you will still need to implement all the regulations from Brussels. That would be your problem as it is Norway's now.

"I don't think the British would accept all the regulations from Brussels without having any influence over them."

And indeed Norway is more enthusiastic than the UK about some of the EU regulations.

Svein Tuastad from the University of Stavanger said: "You cannot use Norway as an example of being outside the EU as we are almost the European champions of implementing EU regulations.

"Around a third of Norwegian laws include European legislation. We are perhaps more integrated than the UK."

And it does seem those regulations haven't inconvenienced Norway's successful economy.

But there may be another reason for that.

It has huge reserves of oil and gas that have helped insulate it from Europe's economic difficulties.

One man who works in that industry is Geordie ex-pat Michael Velle-George.

He moved to Stavanger seven years ago to provide IT services for an oil company and has now set up permanent home in Norway.

He believes Norway's oil reserves give it a bargaining power with the EU that the UK would lack.

And he's not entirely convinced life outside the union is that perfect.

As I and many other visitors discover, Stavanger is an expensive place to eat and live. And Michael believes being outside the EU can affect everyday life.

He said: "I mean you can see here in Norway that basic goods cost a lot of money, and the selection is not so great.

"These are perhaps the ways the normal man in the street might be affected."

Despite that scepticism, UKIP remains convinced Norway is a model to follow.

It points to the freedom that its farming and fishing industries enjoy, and the fact it can make its own decisions.

And it believes the value of UK imports and exports to the EU would give it bargaining power within the same free trade agreement that includes Norway.

And at the very least the Norwegian experience suggests life outside the EU isn't an icy wasteland.

But as the Kvadsheim brothers show, not even the natives agree on whether their country provides an example or a warning for the UK.

We may then just have to make up our own minds, rather than rely on Norwegians to guide us if and when we have our own referendum.

Group B Streptococcus infection kills around 40 babies every year and leaves a further 25 with serious disabilities.

Ruth Caisley, from Haltwhistle, Northumberland, is one mother who still lives with its devastating results.

Her son William is now 17, but the Strep B infection left him with cerebral palsy and other learning disabilities. He is unlikely to ever live independently.

It was only years after William's birth that Ruth Caisley discovered that a simple treatment of antibiotics during her pregnancy could have cleared the infection and prevented her passing it on to her son.

She is now one of a number of parents campaigning for a screening programme for pregnant women.

She said: "When I look at the children who William started school with, they're now building independent lives. William will never get that chance.

"He should be going to college, and having girlfriends, but for the want of a few antibiotics that'll never happen.

"I love him to bits but if I could go back in time and change that tomorrow I would."

Vikki and Peter Craig, from Rowlands Gill, Gateshead, also believe mothers should be screened.

Their daughter Alice Ellen is approaching her 1st birthday, but last March she also became infected by Strep B soon after birth.

They endured days of agony while the premature baby was treated with antibiotics.

Thankfully, Alice has suffered no long term ill effects, but the couple were shocked when they discovered just how serious the infection could have been.

Vikki Craig said: "Because I had a fibroid, I was in hospital being scanned every four weeks. It was just ludicrous to think that I was there that regularly and yet I could have had this blood test that could have picked up this infection."

Peter Craig said: "The cost of the test and antibiotics do seem like a very small price to pay for something that has an opportunity to prevent a horrible situation."

The Department of Health though does not believe a screening programme would be necessary or effective.

It's advised by the UK National Screening Committee, which looks at what conditions could be monitored.

During a review in November 2012, it looked at the evidence on whether screening would be effective and concluded the harm involved would outweigh the benefits.

The panel said it would lead to many mothers having antibiotics unnecessarily. That could cause dangerous allergic reactions and in some cases the drugs could also pose health risks to the babies.

It also says the risks of Strep B are relatively low given that there are 700,000 births every year. But the Department of Health says it is looking at other ways to tackle the infection and protect newborn babies.

But some are not convinced that decision is right.

The Easington Labour MP Grahame Morris sits on the commons health select committee and has tabled a motion calling for a rethink.

He says the evidence for routine Strep B screening is compelling.

He said: "The evidence suggests it's on the increase and those countries like the USA, Canada, France, Germany and Spain that have introduced screening on a routine basis have seen a dramatic reduction in infections in the newborn.

"I believe in early interventions in life, and this could prevent years of expense and agony with a simple, cheap measure."

So far more than 35 other MPs have backed the commons motion. A petition has also been started by the Group B Strep Support group, which includes dozens of the families affected by the infection.

The Department of Health panel says it will look again at the case for screening in two or three years' time.

It doesn't believe the problem of Strep B is more serous in the UK than in countries that do screen.

But families living with the effects of the infection remain convinced that a simple blood test for pregnant women at around 35 weeks would save many more lives and prevent others enduring pain and loss.

And it seems despite the success of the likes of Jack Ashley and David Blunkett, the political representation of disabled people hasn't really improved substantially in recent years.

Perhaps it's asking too much to expect one in six MPs to have some form of disability, but surely it would be better if the commons chamber looked a bit more like the society it governs?

Disabled people might also wonder whether the policies that affect them might be drawn a little differently if they had more of a say.

The experience of one disabled councillor in York might not encourage others to enter politics though.

Lynn Jeffries has been a well-known campaigner on disability issues for more than 20 years.

In fact she was so well-known that in 2010, Labour approached her to join the party and stand for the council.

After some hesitation, she decided that she might be able to achieve even more inside the political machine.

Two years on, although she remains a councillor, she has resigned from the Labour group after finding it hard to get her voice heard.

She said: "There was quite a lot of being patronised, and a lot of believing that disabled people are people you do things for.

"That's such a shame because what councils miss is that experience of being a disabled person.

"It's so valuable to them in terms of policy-making as disabled people bring solutions to their own difficulties.

"Not to get that and not to engage with disabled people is quite a loss really."

At the time of her resignation York's Labour group leader accused Ms Jeffries of walking out after failing to win the arguments within the group.

But the campaigner felt the party whip prevented her speaking when she disagreed with policies that affected disabled people.

And other campaigners also fear they would get lost in the party system.

Steve Wilkinson is well-known in Newcastle and beyond for his campaigning zeal on disability access. He's clashed with councils over the years about their lack of action.

And the wheelchair user has been asked whether he would be interested in entering politics. But he says that's not for him.

He said: "I think with the first past the post system you really have to be either Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or perhaps UKIP.

"You could stand as an independent, but the chances are you wouldn't get elected, so I don't think I'd be able to champion the causes of the people I'd want to represent."

Of course there are also other barriers as well. Not all of our council offices and ministries have great disabled access, and extra support might be needed.

But there is some help at hand with those issues.

Last year the government began offering grants to disabled people with aspirations to enter politics.

The Access to Elected Office for Disabled People fund has £2.6m available.

Individuals can apply for up to £20,000 to help them stand for office.

The government says it's about levelling the playing field rather than giving disabled people an unfair advantage.

For example, the money could be used to support the extra transport costs of someone with mobility problems or provide sign language interpreters for deaf people.

And some people do think there are grounds for optimism.

Newcastle Disability Forum's chair Alison Blackburn believes we could even have a disabled prime minister in the future.

She said: "Anything in politics is gruelling and the person has got to be supported with certain areas of their disability and in their home life.

"But I do think over the years things will change and we will get more disabled people in politics."

But so far interest in that government access fund has been limited.

By February 2013, just £33,970 has been awarded to six applicants, with six more applications being considered.

If that sluggish pace continues only a fraction of the fund will be spent by the time it's due to end in summer 2014.

Some then believe further change is needed. The campaign group Disability Politics UK wants the law changed to allow MPs to job share.

It believes that would allow more disabled people to enter parliament.

Labour MP John McDonnell has presented a private members bill to make it possible, but without government support it is unlikely to succeed.

But perhaps our political parties also need to look at their own attitudes.

Lynn Jeffries certainly believes the existing political elite needs to change its attitude to remove psychological as well as physical barriers.

She said: "Lots of the barriers start because councillors don't engage properly with disabled people.

"To be honest, unless that changes I do not think we will get disabled people wanting to be councillors."

Unlike working age benefits, their pensions will go up by at least the rate of inflation for the next few years.

While child benefit is now means tested, bus passes, free TV licences and winter fuel payments still go to pensioners regardless of their income.

And that looks likely to remain the case until at least 2015.

But there have been murmurs on all political sides about whether older people should continue to enjoy protected status beyond the next election.

There may well be working age benefit and tax credit claimants who think it is right that older people share more of the pain.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates means testing the help older people get for fuel and their TV licences could save £1.6bn alone.

And some older people are already sacrificing those benefits.

Former Newcastle United owner Sir John Hall is a millionaire, living in the luxurious County Durham hotel he owns.

And yet the 79-year-old is entitled to free prescriptions, a state pension, a £200 winter fuel allowance, a bus pass and a free TV licence.

He acknowledges they are benefits he doesn't need.

He said: "We have paid the £200 fuel allowance each year to the Durham Foundation. They collect it from as many people as are willing and then distribute it to those who need it more than we do.

"I do not have a bus pass, and I think we pay the TV licence. We don't need those benefits. We are comfortable, and there are many people like us."

Sir John's money then has ended up subsidising a lunch club for older men in Shildon in County Durham.

They're certainly not millionaires, and many believe it's time to ration those benefits to those who really need them.

Vernon Chapman said: "Nowadays this country's got more millionaires in it but they will still be getting all the entitlements when they do not need them."

And Richard Wheatley said: "There should be a guide, a level beyond which the payments are cut-off, say those getting more than £40,000 to £50,000-a-year."

But what about those pensioners who are reasonably comfortable but well short of Sir John Hall's status?

I caught up with some at the Tyneside Cinema's Silver Screen club in Newcastle. Most certainly don't consider they are wealthy. They are reluctant to see their benefits targeted.

John Goss said: "I do not consider myself to be wealthy at all. I do not think expats in their villas in the south of France should get a winter fuel payment. On the other hand why shouldn't I get it?"

Ray Garside agreed: "I think it is very hard to say because we are fairly comfortable we should not be getting these allowances when it's due to our efforts that we are in this position."

But Ray's wife Doreen does think there is some scope for sacrifices to help younger people.

She said: "Our generation has been lucky. They have been able to buy their house, they have seen them go up in value, and paid their mortgages off.

"They have got a working pension and a state pension so I feel that we are quite privileged."

But although older people have seen many of their benefits protected they have not been left entirely untouched by recession.

Many private pensions have been badly affected by economic turbulence, annuities have been cut, and savings are earning pitiful amounts of interest.

In addition, studies suggest older people are much more vulnerable to inflation.

The argument for protecting older people has also been based on their inability to change their circumstances.

While those of working age can hope to get a job to get out of the benefit system, it is harder for older people.

And of course many have paid decades of taxes on the basis they could benefit when they retired only to see their savings eaten up by care costs.

But perhaps some may be able to work longer in order to support themselves and generate more taxes.

Paul Hancox, from Wallsend, in Tyneside, would certainly like that opportunity. He may be 66 but he still wants to carry on working as a marine engineer.

So far opportunities have been few and far between.

He said: "Employers are not supposed to discriminate on the grounds of age but you do not know what they are saying at HR.

"They might ask, is he going to have a heart attack when he's working for us, is he going to get ill? You can see the challenge for the employer."

Of course many more of us will be forced to work longer as the pension age begins to rise.

But it does seem increasingly likely that benefits for the current older generation will be scrutinised more closely beyond 2015, especially as more cuts to public spending seem likely.

Given older people currently get £200bn from the public purse, the temptation to eat in to that will be great.

But politicians may still tread a little carefully. There's one thing all older people have in common - they're the most likely to vote in elections.

Should they look to raise council tax to bring in extra funds, or should they listen to the government and freeze the charge?

There seems to be little agreement amongst the UK's 41 commissioners.

While some will offer freezes, others are putting up the charge by up to 7%.

In all around two-thirds may end up asking the public to pay more.

There's little pattern politically with commissioners of all parties on different sides.

But in some areas those rises are causing consternation.

Northumbria's Labour commissioner Vera Baird has gone for a 3.5% increase in her force's council tax bill.

But she's been given a rough ride by both political opponents and allies.

Her budget is scrutinised by a Police and Crime panel made up partly of local council leaders.

Many of those have made sacrifices and savings to try and deliver a council tax freeze to their residents.

But now of course all people in the force area will pay more from April because of Vera Baird's decision.

She faced some tough questions when she met them, with some refusing to support the rise.

And Liberal Democrat Newcastle councillor David Faulkner believes the commissioner should have offered a freeze.

He said: "I appreciate the difficulty of anyone having to deal with budget reductions.

"But when the Chief Constable came to the city council a few months ago, she said she'd protect the front line but she didn't say council tax would have to go up to achieve that.

"Bearing in mind there is a government grant available to anyone who freezes the charge, the net figure the commissioner would have had to find for savings is £700,000 out of a budget of £300 million.

"I think that's achievable."

The rise will though go ahead, but Vera Baird believes it is the right option.

The 3.5% might sound inflationary but Northumbria's police charge is the lowest in England.

The rise will cost a Band D property owner an extra £2.93 next year - less than 6p per week.

It'll raise £1 million and pay for 50 officers.

Vera Baird says she has cut her own office costs, and so the extra funds will be some compensation for the 20% budget cuts the force has had to implement.

She said: "The Chief Constable has made it very clear that she is almost at breaking point because she has had to make such cuts and she has promised to protect the front-line.

"This is a small amount of money which when collected together will pay for 50 bobbies.

"We have just done a survey and 82% of those who responded said they would pay up to 10p a week more to fund these bobbies so we feel this is comfortably within what people can tolerate."

But what might have wound up local council leaders is that if she had been one of them, Vera Baird would have been forced to hold a referendum on the 3.5% rise.

A quirk in the rules though means that forces with a relatively low council tax charge can raise it by up to £5 on a Band D property without asking for public approval.

Neighbouring forces though have had to keep the increase below 2% to avoid a referendum.

Cleveland, Cumbria and Durham's commissioners have all gone for 2% or less.

But because their tax charges are historically higher than Northumbria's, their cash demands will actually go up by more.

In Durham, a Band D householder will pay an extra £3.07.

In Cumbria, the extra bill adds £3.87 a year, and in Cleveland, it's £3.89.

All of the commissioners say the rise will help keep more officers on the beat.

But the decision is unlikely to go down well with the government.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles says councils and commissioners are morally obliged to deliver a freeze and he says grants are on offer to any who hold the charge at 2012 levels.

But that grant is only equivalent to about a 1% council tax rise and only lasts a year, so many forces will recoup more money by refusing the government aid and charging local taxpayers extra.

Even those asking for more money are unlikely to be able to increase the number of officers.

The cuts in government funding still in the pipeline far outstrip any extra revenue from council tax receipts.

But the coalition can draw comfort from the fact that crime is still falling despite those cuts.

And it seems likely that next year the government will get even tougher with councils and commissioners who ask for more tax.

This then may be the last hurrah for those looking to extract more money from council taxpayers.

In 1999 Cumbria County Council rejected plans for a rock laboratory that could have paved the way for an underground nuclear waste store.

And now the same council has again withdrawn as a potential site for a repository.

The majority of the council's executive decided the county wasn't suitable.

The government has also said it accepts Cumbria's decision and will look elsewhere.

So is it all over?

Apparently not. Copeland Council - the Cumbrian district that includes Sellafield - did vote to enter what was called Stage 4 of the search for a site.

As the junior planning authority, that acceptance is trumped by the county council's rejection.

But now there is talk of Copeland going it alone.

The council leader has written a joint letter to the government with her counterpart in neighbouring Allerdale.

Councillor Elaine Woodburn wants an urgent meeting with the government to discuss whether there may still be a way of continuing to look at West Cumbria as a potential site for an underground store.

In the letter she says: "We have had a very clear and evidenced mandate from the communities we represent that entering Stage 4 was the right thing to do.

"The fact Cumbria County Council never heeded the majority of West Cumbrians' views and voted no, does not resolve the question over what to do with the nuclear waste in the long term."

The local MP Jamie Reed also seems determined that West Cumbria can press on.

He said: "There is an unprecedented cross-party mandate for this, an undeniable environmental and moral case and an overwhelming economic case for taking this issue forward. Most importantly, doing so is in the best interests of the people of Copeland and West Cumbria.

"This work will be taken forward quickly."

And he's also pointed out that the problem of the country's high level nuclear waste hasn't gone away.

It also remains a Cumbrian problem as 75% of it is stored above ground at Sellafield.

You can also imagine the government being pretty receptive.

No other community had come forward as a potential site, and no other community looks likely to.

And given West Cumbria's nuclear history it always seemed the best bet.

The government also has to find a solution. It will be harder to justify new nuclear power stations if the country can't find a long term way of dealing with its existing waste problem.

And the current arrangements were criticised last year when a National Audit Office report raised concerns about the safety of storage of waste at Sellafield.

It talked about it being "housed in buildings which pose intolerable risks to people and the environment".

So it may be prepared to look at ways that Copeland could follow its own path.

The council could, for example, continue to investigate sites to see if the geology would be suitable for a waste store.

But even if that's possible - and legally Cumbria has officially withdrawn - it will be controversial.

This week's decision was influenced by an impassioned campaign by the Cumbrians who did not want to see waste buried in the county - and certainly not in the Lake District.

Much of the tourist industry was opposed and a petition signed by more than 20,000 opponents was gathered.

Even if West Cumbrians wanted to press ahead (and all we know now for definite is that their councillors do), much of the rest of the county could remain hostile.

And then there is the thorny matter of how you bypass the county council.

Under the current planning regime the county would have to give permission for any exploratory drilling, and it would certainly have to sanction any store. Copeland could do neither.

At some point there would either have to be a change in the law, or the government would have to override the local planning authority.

But this is a long-term game.

Even if Cumbria had said yes this week, a store would not have been built for decades.

If a way was found for investigations to continue, there could be a different set of councillors, maybe even different councils, by the time a new decision has to be made.

The government might also look again at what incentives it could offer to persuade Cumbria to press on.

But some say it's time to rule out underground storage forever.

Martin Forwood, from Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, has accused Jamie Reed of petulance by insisting Copeland could plough on. He says improved above ground storage is the only way forward.

He said: "We will continue to oppose underground dumping anywhere in the UK.

"With significant blight from at least one major nuclear proposal now averted, Cumbria can now look forward to attracting non-nuclear inward investment and diversifying its local economy towards a safer and clean future for all its communities."

But despite that wish it does appear this story is far from over, and this week's "no" may not prove to be the end of a Cumbrian nuclear waste saga that's dragged on for more than 20 years.

Just as they adjust to the idea that their benefits will rise below inflation for the next three years, some now also face paying council tax for the first time.

The government is scrapping the national council tax benefit scheme from April.

Instead local authorities will have to draw up their own methods of supporting people on benefits and low incomes.

They will still get some funding from government but - and here's the catch - they'll only get 90% of what was needed to fund the support this year.

That leaves councils facing a dilemma on how to make up that shortfall.

The government has said councils cannot remove council tax benefit from pensioners, but it can look to ask people of working age to contribute.

That could leave councils turning to the poorest people to fill the gap.

North Tyneside Council estimates it is £1.8m short of having enough money to fully fund existing council tax benefit claims.

It is therefore considering asking all working age council tax payers to contribute at least 20% of their tax bill.

That could mean a bill of at least £200 for people who have so far avoided the tax altogether.

The Conservative mayor and cabinet say the scheme would make sure that maintenance, child benefit and some disability payments were excluded when calculating people's incomes.

The poorest would also be offered weekly payment plans to help them budget.

But the council believes it is right to ask everyone - including people on limited means - to make a contribution.

It says a public consultation also showed support for the idea.

Councillor Judith Wallace, who is deputy mayor, said: "The alternative would be to take £1.8m out of services and we don't want to see those hit.

"And indeed the response of residents in North Tyneside indicated the majority do feel that everyone should make some contribution."

That's worrying some of the 12,500 people who'll have to pay up though.

Meadowell is one of the poorest parts of North Tyneside with high numbers of benefit claimants.

Single dad Colin Banks had to give up his job to look after his child.

He says he could not afford to pay £200 in council tax.

He added: "That's not just asking me to live on less than I'm physically able to live on, but asking my child to do the same."

Denise Downey is working, but only part-time for £500 per month, and under the scheme will be asked to pay a larger share of the tax.

She said: "To me it would be a struggle. It might have to be a choice between paying it and having enough money to feed myself and pay my gas and electricity.

"It's going to end up with a lot of people in arrears and being taken to court."

There is still time for a rethink as the plans still have to go to a full council meeting where Labour could vote them down.

But there are Labour local authorities also planning to ask the poorest to pay.

Newcastle and Sunderland are considering asking for at least an 8.5% contribution.

South Tyneside may look for a minimum 30% contribution from the non-disabled. That could lead to bills of £250 or more for those on benefits or low pay.

Some though believe they need to protect the people who currently claim council tax benefit.

Northumberland County Council is proposing that nobody misses out, as are Copeland and Eden with current protections retained.

And Durham County Council has just approved a similar scheme.

It is looking to plug the £5.5 million funding gap by abolishing some current council tax exemptions.

Second home owners will no longer get a 10% discount and owners of empty homes will be asked to pay full council tax for the first time. Indeed any homes left empty for more than two years will face a bill for 150% of the tax.

But the council admits it can only guarantee that protection for this year.

Deputy leader Alan Napier said: "If we had passed that shortfall on, the average working age family on council tax benefit would have been faced with an extra £250 to pay. That's money they just haven't got."

The government says it is offering councils help though, including the powers Durham has used to remove exemptions.

In addition, local authorities that decide to restrict the tax demand to 8.5% for the poorest claimants will get access to a £100m transitional fund.

But that money is on offer for one year only, and it might not cover the full shortfall.

What local authorities will be praying for is economic revival.

Falling unemployment and rising salaries would lead to a fall in those needing council tax support.

But Durham County Council says even at a time where unemployment has fallen, it has seen 1,700 extra people claim council tax benefit.

Mr Napier added: "As a footballer I'd say this is a hospital pass from the government. They're cutting the amount of support while we're actually seeing the number of claimants go up."

And with the jobless total predicted to rise this year, the strain on councils could grow in 2013.

Many fear the government will also look to cut support again in future years.

So even the people who are protected this year, could find themselves paying council tax sooner or later.

But you might not expect to have to take on the likes of Sting, Mark Knopfler and Bryan Ferry.

Yet that's what's facing Newcastle Council's leader Nick Forbes.

The local authority has announced plans to end all funding of arts organisations in the city.

It says it has been left no choice because of unprecedented cuts in government support.

Mr Forbes has said the alternative would be to cut "life and death" services to vulnerable people in the city.

But a group of musicians, writers and artists connected to the region believe there is a choice, and Newcastle has made the wrong one.

They're led by Lee Hall, writer of Billy Elliot and The Pitmen Painters, and a man who began his career in the city.

He's now assembled a cast list of north east artistic legends to sign an open letter urging the council to think again.

As well as the aforementioned Sting, Knopfler and Ferry, the campaign has the support of Angel sculptor Antony Gormley, Pet Shop Boy Neil Tennant, folk musician Kathryn Tickell, actors Alun Armstrong and Robson Green and Auf Wiedersehen Pet trio Tim Healy, Jimmy Nail and Kevin Whately.

The letter is a stinging indictment of the council's approach, which the signatories believe will "decimate the cultural life of the city."

It says: "Generations of young people will be denied access to the opportunities we were given and without the council's support the arts will become a pursuit for the most wealthy.

"By the council's own admission these cuts are blanket and pre-emptory.

"No strategy has been made to save any part of these thriving organisations and it seems to us a short-sighted attack on the arts and the idea that culture should be available to all."

The collection of artists believes the cuts are out of line with what's happening in the rest of the country, and asks for the reversal of what it calls a "baffling" decision.

In addition, some of the individual signatories have also waded in.

Musician Mark Knopfler said: "It is mortifying and shaming that these 100% cuts should be in Newcastle, which has always enjoyed such a rich tradition in the arts."

Bryan Ferry said: "I was born in the north east, went to school there and then studied fine art at Newcastle University. I think it would be very sad if young people in the north east today were not given the same chances that I had many years ago."

And Lee Hall added: "The council is out of step with all other authorities. The list of signatories demonstrates Newcastle is remarkable in having produced so many artists who did not come from privileged backgrounds."

The signatories talk about the decision being economically short-sighted.

And on the face of it, it does seem odd that a city that saw culture at the centre of its renaissance a decade ago should now be withdrawing funding from arts organisations.

But the council insists this is a sign of the times. In the late 1990s and early 2000s councils were queuing up to fund arts organisations and support new venues.

At the time all those organisations would bank on getting council support well into the future, but money is indisputably tighter now. The council is making £90m of cuts in the next three years.

Nick Forbes insists he's withdrawing arts funding reluctantly.

He said: "The cut in government grant is grossly unfair - at a time when more and more families are turning to us for help.

"Financially, this has put us in an impossible position from which there is no escape.

"We will not abandon the residents of this city, but as we cease to provide some services they will have to do more for themselves and expect less from the council."

And when I posted some of the artists' comments on Twitter, there was some backlash from people who suggested they would have been better advised to address their concerns to the government.

Some even thought the likes of Sting, Ferry, and Knopfler might have enough money to step into the breach and solve the problem rather than highlight it.

But this coterie of cultural greats looks unlikely to step away from its fight with the council. It believes there is an alternative even in austere times.

And on that score they seem to have found an unlikely ally in Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, who has also told Newcastle's leadership to take its cultural responsibilities more seriously.

The question is can Newcastle Council now resist pressure from a supergroup of Sting, Ferry, Knopfler and Pickles, or will we all eventually have to accept our local authorities can no longer fund the arts?

The government has put £1 billion into the Youth Contract to try to do just that.

One of the key tasks is being carried out by private companies.

The government has charged them with targeting the toughest cases - teenagers with no qualifications - and getting them into training or employment.

One of those firms - Pertemps People Development - has allowed me access to some of its work.

This autumn it began a government contract to target school leavers in Teesside and Sunderland who have fallen through the net.

With no GCSEs, these are young people who have come out of formal education and have understandably failed to interest employers.

The first task though was finding the kind of teenagers who could easily just disappear off the radar.

Communities and estates were scoured and unusual approaches used to draw in young people who found school a turn-off.

Pertemps operations director David Ward said: "They don't go to youth clubs anymore. They are at home, they are gaming, they are on the streets.

"So you have to use innovative methods to find them, including activities with the local football club, sport, video gaming tournaments whatever we can do to engage with them."

But once those young people are brought on board, the next task is to make sure they stick with it.

When I arrived at Pertemps office in Stockton at 10am, the company's staff were in the middle of a round of wake-up calls to ensure their teenage clients were out of bed and ready to be picked up.

Their destination though was not a classroom or college, but a climbing wall in Middlesbrough.

But this wasn't just about tempting the young people to turn up - it was also about building their confidence.

Pertemps believes half the battle is raising the self-esteem of teenagers who in academic terms are flat-out failures.

So as they scale even the smallest heights of the climbing wall they're given massive encouragement.

All this though could look a little cosy - almost a reward for failure.

But Pertemps believes it can pass on more difficult messages at the same time as building confidence.

Mr Ward said: "There is a bit of tough love involved giving them honest answers that if they don't engage with programmes and training, you are more likely to be on benefits, more likely to be committing crime, the more likely their children will grow up on benefits.

"They are growing up into adults and they can then make their own decisions."

Another key part of the process is giving the young people role models they can follow.

Pertemps employs peer mentors to do that - former clients who through its training have got off the scrapheap.

The hope is they can relate to the trainees, and build the kind of trust that would never be possible with someone older.

Some of this does seem to be getting through to the young people I saw scaling the climbing wall.

Jock Wathey said: "I have no GCSEs, no qualifications and this is giving me a way forward, qualifications and possibly a job."

Dean Myers said: "I got no GCSEs, and didn't go to college because I wasn't the best student. I was badly-behaved but I have turned myself around, come here and grown up a bit."

But in all honesty, it's too early to say whether the approach is working. It may be another year before it can be properly assessed.

But the government certainly needs it to work.

It's also used private companies to help deliver its Work Programme - but so far that has failed to meet its targets.

In the North East only 3% of the people it aimed to help have ended up getting jobs.

The jury on the involvement of private welfare-to-work companies is out at the moment.

Critics will also say that any approach will fail until there are more jobs in the economy for people to fill.

One in five young people in the North East - or around 69,000 - were classed as Neets (not in education, employment and training) in August this year. That's a big problem to solve even in one region.

Pertemps though believes it can interest employers in young people who might otherwise have been written off.

And for the company's own sake, it better be right. It doesn't get paid unless it finds its young clients a job or training that will lead to one.

It was a good, comfortable win for Labour's Andy McDonald. The party's majority dropped by 500 from 2010 but its share of the vote actually increased.

Realistically Labour would only have been threatened if the town's independent mayor Ray Mallon had carried out his threat to stand.

But the other party with something to celebrate was UKIP moving from sixth in the general election to second.

The party believes it is now better placed than the Conservatives and Lib Dems to challenge Labour in its northern heartland.

Apart from having some vibrant cities and amazing countryside, it also has economic success stories.

But a new report suggests more needs to be done to unlock its potential - not just for the benefit of people who live there but also for the good of the UK as a whole.

The Northern Economic Futures Commission has spent 18 months gathering evidence and considering what's going right and wrong.

But above all it was concerned with how the north could help the British economy return to significant levels of growth.

Over the last decade the three northern regions - the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and the North East - have been responsible for a fifth of the UK's prosperity, but London alone contributed more than a quarter.

And while countries like Germany, Holland and Spain have several economically-powerful cities, the UK just has London.

Why, the report asks, can't the likes of Newcastle, Leeds or Manchester be as economically significant as Stuttgart, Rotterdam or Barcelona?

The commission's solution is to move power and funding north.

It has come up with an action plan to increase the northern contribution to UK plc.

The commission wants air passenger duty cut significantly for northern airports for a three-year period.

It believes that could be vital in ensuring there are direct flights from Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle to the new international economic powerhouses of Beijing, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Delhi and Mumbai.

The report also says a new body - Transport for the North - should be formed to oversee the northern rail network.

But the power and money grab wouldn't stop there.

The commission also says huge pots of government money should also be handed directly to the north.

It says a single fighting fund for economic growth should be created by handing local transport, housing, skills, regeneration and development funding directly to the north's Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Under the recommendations £13bn of housing benefit and funding for house-building would also be transferred out of Whitehall and into the north.

Local employers would get a greater say over skills policy and the number of apprenticeships would double to 60,000 by 2015.

A Northern Innovation Council could get £1bn from the proceeds of sale of 4G mobile licences, and there would be a special northern section of a UK investment bank.

The commission also wants to see powerful northern leaders emerge. It says the 11 LEPs should hold an annual summit and elect a chair.

In addition, directly elected metro mayors would take charge of urban areas such as Tyneside, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The north, it believes, needs its own Boris Johnson.

The commissioners believe that could create 500,000 extra jobs in the north, close the economic divide with the south and boost the British economy by £41bn.

The commission was brought together by Newcastle-based think tank IPPR North.

Its director Ed Cox said: "The 'north south divide' is a stock-in-trade and 'it's grim up north' is a familiar refrain.

"Like all clichés, there is more than an element of truth in this characterisation.

"But the north is capable of taking its place in the ranks of successful northern European economies, with competitive companies trading in global markets, a fully employed and well-skilled workforce, and strong civic leadership that supports growth and shared prosperity.

"Far from lagging behind the rest of the country, if the north of England was to emulate its northern European neighbours then it might just lead the UK economy out of its present lopsided doldrums and towards a more progressive and sustainable economic future."

Some of the report does echo some of what Lord Heseltine recently recommended in his report, and harks back to a Victorian age when northern cities played a huge part in the UK and global economy.

The government has also repeatedly talked about rebalancing the UK and stimulating private sector growth across the north.

So some of these ideas may be welcomed.

But they also require the sacrifice of control by Whitehall - something successive governments have been reluctant to do.

So is a change of culture possible?

And does the government really want a northern Boris Johnson knocking on the door of Downing Street?

I can also imagine politicians and businesses in the West Midlands being taken aback by the idea that northern flights could be taxed at a lower rate than those leaving Birmingham.

Campaigners in the south west might also question why the north qualifies for special treatment.

But the commission is clear, the north as a whole has a population of 14.5 million people and a large chunk of its manufacturing base.

And it believes that without a focus on northern prosperity, there's less chance of the UK as a whole emerging from its current economic difficulties.

Since the current parliamentary seat was reinstated in 1974, Labour has won every election with some degree of comfort.

They're certainly the strong favourites to win again in the by-election on 29 November.

But that does not mean there aren't issues for Labour to face up to in the town.

Massive majority

A study of recent voting figures makes worrying reading for the party.

In 1997, Labour won 70% of votes in the town, piling up a massive 25,000 majority.

The decline since then has been marked, and in 2010, that vote had fallen to 45% and the majority to 8,700.

That's the lowest Labour majority in 40 years, thinner even than Labour's horror election of 1983. In all 17,000 voters have drifted away from Labour in 13 years.

Some of that may mirror national trends, but the party has also been accused of complacency.

The by-election has been caused by the death of sitting MP Sir Stuart Bell.

Although plenty of people have paid tribute to his work in the town, it's fair to say he copped a fair bit of flak in his final years.

At one point, some were even asking if he was Britain's laziest MP.

Sir Stuart strongly denied that accusation, but I understand it has been an issue that has come up on the doorsteps.

And the opposition parties are keen to capitalise on those sentiments.

The Liberal Democrat candidate George Selmer believes the town has fallen out of love with Labour.

He said: "Most of the people I speak to on the doorstep are crying out for something different.

"They are not sure what that is because I feel what the town has actually lacked is a credible challenger who will hold the Labour party to account. Now I'm offering that in this election."

Conservative Ben Houchen is also picking up on hostility to Labour.

He said: "The primary question I'm asking is what has Labour done for Middlesbrough because in my opinion there has been little or no investment in the area.

"They turn up at the election, and then disappear for five years, then turn up again and think they can win. I am here to say that does not have to be the case. Middlesbrough can do better."

There is a problem though for both the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

Middlesbrough has been hit hard by spending cuts. The council is currently consulting on 111 cuts worth £11m affecting everything from libraries to the town centre CCTV system.

The town's mayor Ray Mallon has blamed the coalition parties - and Labour says there are plenty of voters who agree.

There is another threat though - newer challengers like UKIP and the BNP.

UKIP candidate Richard Elvin said: "The North East has always been such a strong Labour area that for political reasons people can't bring themselves to vote Conservative.

"But a lot of people are beginning to realise that UKIP represents the interests of the ordinary working person better than New Labour."

And the BNP's Peter Foreman said: "There's nothing in parliament that's going to fight on behalf of these people. They do not care, all they care about is big business, not building factories and making stuff again."

Labour is facing plenty of hostile fire then. But the party believes the impact of coalition policies on Middlesbrough are a bigger issue for voters.

When I joined their candidate Andy McDonald he was knocking on doors.

As he was canvassing the street in Middlesbrough where he was born, it was probably safe territory.

But one woman told him that even if he hanged the people of the estate, she'd always vote Labour.

And it does seem likely that Middlesbrough will return another Labour MP next week.

But Andy McDonald says he is not taking that for granted.

He said: "What I am telling people on the doorstep is that I'm absolutely committed to open an office in Middlesbrough, I will have surgeries, and I will be totally accessible.

"An MP and a party should work hard to serve the people who elect them and I will never take that for granted.

"But the message I am getting from people is that they are suffering under this Tory-led government."

There is one other danger for Labour though - the potential for low turnout.

Middlesbrough's turnout has hovered around the 50% mark at the last two general elections.

With turnout dipping as low as 18% in recent by-elections, the likelihood is that it'll also be low in Middlesbrough.

There are plenty of distractions at this time of year - and actually the most prominent campaign in the town seems to be for its X Factor hopeful James Arthur.

Even if Labour wins in the town, it will have to work hard to convince people that an MP can make a difference to their lives.

The full list of candidates standing in Middlesbrough is:

Richard Elvin, UKIP

Peter Foreman, BNP

Mark Heslehurst, Independent

Ben Houchen, Conservative

Imdad Hussain, The Peace Party

John Malcolm, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

Andy McDonald, Labour

George Selmer, Liberal Democrat

Had independent candidate Mary Robinson made it to the second ballot, they feared she might win by taking many of the second preference votes.

She failed by just 50 votes, leaving Conservative Richard Rhodes in a run-off against Labour's Patrick Leonard. Rhodes won that with some comfort.

But there will be questions about legitimacy. Richard Rhodes got 28% of the votes from the 16% of voters who turned out.

That means fewer than 5% of Cumbria's electorate actually voted for him.

It is estimated around half of prisoners cannot read or write. Hexham backbencher and lawyer Guy Opperman believes unless that is tackled reoffending will remain a significant problem.

He is suggesting judges impose literacy courses as part of prison sentences with offenders required to complete them before release.

It is just one of the ideas in a book Guy Opperman has written about how to tackle what he says is a crisis in our prison service.

In Doing Time, the MP also says the drug culture in our jails must be eliminated.

But he also suggests that churches, charities and communities ought to be given the opportunity to run what he calls Big Society prisons.

Many of the ideas - including those on literacy - come from Mr Opperman's personal experience as a criminal barrister. He became an MP in 2010.

He writes: "The sad reality in my experience is that very few clients were able to give you any meaningful written instructions.

"Too often my clients in prison simply could not read or write. It was very humbling."

The solution he believes is to make sure prisoners do leave jail with improved literacy and numeracy skills.

He says as few as one in five prisoners who need help actually seek it or receive it in prison.

So as well as imposing literacy courses as part of a prison sentence, he suggests that criminals be offered an early release if they complete them.

He said: "Many criminals are released early and we know that attaining this motivates those in jail to behave.

"If we allow judges to sentence criminals to literacy courses we can harness that motivation to give them the basic skills that will make them less likely to offend again."

The Conservative MP also calls for much stronger action to get drugs out of prisons.

He wants tougher screening of all those who enter or visit prison to try and keep drugs out.

He believes the government should trial a scheme where everyone entering a jail - from Home Secretary to relative - should be scanned or x-rayed, and if necessary, physically searched - something that does not happen at the moment.

He also wants every offender drug tested on admission and mandatory treatment programmes for those who are known users.

Mr Opperman also believes drug-free wings have to be created to make sure offenders who want to get clean can do.

And once again he says offenders should be offered an early release if they complete drug treatment programmes.

Where the MP's ideas get even more radical is on who should run prisons.

Many still oppose the idea of private companies running jails.

But Mr Opperman thinks the government should go further and create Big Society prisons.

He writes: "Why can't you have a charity running a prison or a church and community coming together to take charge and turn around low-grade prisoners.

"Imagine a prison run not by the public sector, or for profit - 'a third way' in the community, by the community, and for those from that community who have fallen by the wayside."

As an example he points to Norway where communities run prisons and reintegrate offenders.

Of course these are all interesting - and potentially contentious - ideas.

But in some cases they may also need extra resources.

Mr Opperman argues the upfront costs of action on literacy and drugs will repay themselves by preventing the "revolving door" of reoffending.

But the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said he wants to bring down the costs of prisons. And he has said he has no particular aim to cut the number of inmates.

It remains unclear then how much time the minister who said "prison works" will have for Mr Opperman's suggestions.

In addition, there has been criticism that government cuts have already hit existing rehabilitation programmes.

But Mr Opperman believes the crisis in the prisons service offers an opportunity to recognise the problems and seek radical solutions.

Not everyone will agree with his ideas, but with each inmate costing the public purse £45,000-a-year it is timely to ask whether there is a better approach.

He found his partner, her daughter and his partner's sister dead or dying from gunshot wounds at a house in Horden in County Durham.

Next to them was their killer - taxi driver Michael Atherton - who had also turned the shotgun on himself.

Atherton's murder of his partner Susan McGoldrick, as well as David's partner Alison Turnbull and her 24-year-old daughter Tanya caused shock not just in the community but nationally.

Although the killings may no longer be front page news, David and the rest of the family are still living with their devastating impact.

But there is one thing they are now focused on; they want changes to the firearms regulations and laws to prevent further needless deaths.

They have been collecting signatures for a petition both locally and on the UK Parliament site.

David Rowe is concerned that changes first proposed in 2011 after the Derrick Bird shootings in Cumbria still have not been implemented.

He believes if they had been, Michael Atherton's three victims could still be alive.

He said: "The longer this is dragged out the more likely it is that another family could suffer as we did. They need to hurry up.

"I'd hate for anyone to go through what we went through because it is the worst feeling ever.

"When you find out it could have been prevented it is a terrible blow because you know the people you love the most in the world could still be here if mistakes hadn't been made.

"That's why we want those mistakes correcting."

The inquests into the Horden shootings have yet to take place and until they do a report into the gun licensing issues will not be published.

But the family does not want to wait for change, and nor does their MP Grahame Morris.

He has taken up the case for change in the Commons.

In a debate this week the Labour MP for Easington questioned why anyone should be allowed to have a shotgun.

He said: "It is difficult for many, including me, to comprehend why someone would need access to firearms in a domestic setting when there is little need for immediate access to a weapon.

"I am not opposed to shooting per se. I am saying that people should be able to demonstrate a clear legitimate need before a firearms certificate or shotgun licence is issued."

He also outlined the changes he and the family would like to see:

1) Anyone applying for a shotgun should have to demonstrate they have a good reason to own one;

2) The authorities should automatically check with GPs on the medical fitness of applicants;

3) Partners and ex-partners of applicants over the previous two years should have to sign the application form - if not a further investigation will be triggered;

4) A new single licensing authority should take over firearms applications from police forces to ensure consistent rules are applied.

That last recommendation does have the support of people who represent firearm licence holders but they are nervous about some of the other proposals.

Alasdair Mitchell, from the British Association for Shooting and Conservancy, said: "We do have concerns about a couple of the ideas. You can imagine what problems could be caused by consulting spouses and ex-partners of applicants.

"The problem of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles is they soak up precious resources and divert police attention from the real issue of assessing the suitability of people into chasing red herrings."

The government also appears to be cautious.

Policing Minister Damian Green told the Commons that if the rules were tightened too much it could prevent legitimate gun users getting a licence.

He said: "It is generally recognised that the UK has comparatively low levels of gun crime, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

"Applying a good reason test... could be problematic. Unlike target shooters, shotgun owners do not always belong to clubs that could vouch that they had shot regularly."

He also rejected plans for a single licensing authority, although he said measures were being put in place to ensure consistent standards were applied by different forces.

The minister also said the laws would be looked at again once the report on the Horden shootings was published.

The Horden victims' family and Grahame Morris insist they are not looking for hasty or ill thought-out measures, but they do think action is needed soon.

They say they have spent months considering what measures could prevent other families suffering the same horror, and believe their suggestions are measured and sensible.

David Rowe says Christmas and new year will always now be tainted by the shootings, the trauma he experienced, and the loss he suffered.

But as the anniversary of the shootings draws closer, it seems he and the rest of the family will have to redouble their efforts to achieve the changes they want.