-Susanne Charlesworth is a member of SUDS – Sustainable Drainage Applied Research Group, Coventry University. The opinions expressed are her own.-

The scenes of flooding in Cumbria are a shocking illustration of how Britain’s ageing drainage infrastructure is failing.

The function of the majority of drainage structures is to remove water from inhabited areas as soon as possible via so-called receiving watercourses as conduits to carry excess water away. Unfortunately, cities and towns have grown beyond capacity, back-up floodplains are built upon, and water overflow has nowhere to go.

Householders are shown on television blaming the government and demanding that something must be done to prevent flooding.

In my opinion, part of the solution lies in sustainable drainage, which mimics nature by encouraging filtration via permeable and vegetated surfaces and detention via ponds, wetlands and slowly flowing water.

By slowing the water flow, SUDs offers a way of attenuating the storm peak, allowing the water to slowly dissipate. As it does this, pollutants are sifted out of the water. Since many SUDs devices involve vegetation, the sustainable approach also enhances biodiversity, amenity and local landscapes.

You would think planners, Local Authorities and even individual householders would be falling over themselves to incorporate SUDs into their built environment. But no. While SUDS have been around for several decades, particularly in the U.S., Sweden, France and latterly in Scotland, uptake in England and Wales has been slow.

People argue that the cost is prohibitive and that it is difficult to maintain. Negative views could be countered by research and development, education and information.

There is also the issue of money. Research and development is expensive.

Legislation in England and Wales does not necessarily encourage the implementation of SUDs. Rather, it has get-out clauses to enable SUDs to slip down the agenda.

The problem is more wide-ranging than this, involving everything from the trend for paving front gardens, to wider issues of SUDs devices such as wetlands actually being used as water treatment installations rather than “natural” ecosystems which area protected from dirty urban water.

There is no way I would suggest that SUDs would have prevented the current flooding, but it could have helped. The likelihood is that winters in Britain will be wetter, and the weather more stormy in general. We need, therefore, to plan now for what looks like uncertain times ahead for the British weather. If the future is wet, then the future has to be SUDs.

-Simon Chadwick is the Director of the Centre for the International Business of Sport at Coventry University, and runs the blog ‘Daily Sport Thought’ in which he addresses many of the important challenges currently facing sport. The opinions expressed are his own.-

I love sport, I have always loved sport, and I make my living researching, writing and talking about sport. As such, I do not need to be convinced about the social, cultural, psychological and health benefits associated with our engagement in sport. I also do not need any convincing about the economic benefits of sport, although some people will always and inevitably exclaim, “he would say that wouldn’t he!”

Well, it is not me it is actually the United Nations which states that sport may account for as much as 3 percent of global economic activity. It is the European Union that estimates sport to be worth 1.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). And it is the British government that has recently acknowledged just how significant sport as an industry has become by commissioning research which will result in the development of robust measures for the contribution that sport makes to the British economy. Previous estimates already indicate that sport may generate as much as 2.5 percent of GDP, in which case this means it is an industry bigger than agriculture and not so far behind manufacturing.

Sport is, indeed, much more important than we realise or acknowledge. It is deeply ingrained in many of our psyches: for some people this dates back to our childhoods and is bound up in our social and geographic identities; for other people, sport allows us to indulge in vicarious achievement (related to the psychological phenomenon of BiRG-ing – Basking in Reflected Glory) and euphoric collective experiences.

The consumption of sport is thus not a rational economic activity, an observation that is particularly pertinent amidst these recessionary times. Whereas other industries continue to suffer the effects of the downturn, sport remains one of the more recession-resistant sectors, buoyed by the inherently unique features that differentiate sport, making it a safe-haven during difficult times.

Sport can be relied upon not to let people down, it provides value for money, not least because of its central proposition: the uncertainty of outcome – you never know what the result is going to be, something absent from virtually all other forms of consumption in our otherwise increasingly homogenised and standardised world. As such, people actively seek out sport and remain loyal to it, even during economically troubled times.

There is clear evidence already that sport has bucked recent recessionary trends; for instance, over the last year, Arsenal reported a profit of almost 37 million pounds; both the Rugby Football Union and the Premier League have announced new, high value, long-term televisions rights deals; Badminton England signed its most lucrative ever sponsorship deal; advertising revenues derived from slots during American Football’s Superbowl broke all records; and television viewing figures for the Champions League Final in Rome were up by 27 percent.

If one then factors in the specific economic impacts that sporting success can have, there are strong grounds for optimism that our love affair with sport may actually help lift us out of our current economic malaise. In the months immediately after last year’s Beijing Olympic Games, sales of bicycles reportedly increased by upwards of 20 percent; sales of sports bras were up by 27 percent; sales of swimming equipment may have increased by upwards of 36 percent; and sales of energy bars and sports drinks apparently increased by as much as 155 percent.

Moreover, a YouGov poll conducted prior to the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany indicated that almost half of all men and women felt that sporting success lifts their mood, helps them be more optimistic and increases their productivity.

So what are the prospects for this summer, and beyond into the autumn? It is a pity that there is no major football tournament due to take place, as previous research indicates a tangible link between football success and economic uplift. A Manchester United victory in the Champions League Final would have been helpful, as would an Andy Murray win at Wimbledon. We still have the Ashes ahead, the World Athletics Championship in Berlin, and Jenson Button leading the Formula 1 World Championship.

It may nevertheless be towards the end of the year before witnessing the real economic excitement. If the England football team can keep their nerve and qualify for next year’s FIFA World Cup in South Africa, then businesses from pubs and pizza-makers to television manufacturers and internet service providers will be gleefully rubbing their hands.

Perhaps that Anglicised Scot, Gordon Brown, may be the one who will rub his hands more than most? Sporting success over the next year could not only help to save the economy, it might also help him to save his job. Roll on that Croatia game in September, eh Gordy?

Professor David Bailey works at the Coventry University Business School and has written extensively on globalisation, economic restructuring and industrial policy, with particular reference to the auto industry. The opinions expressed are his own. -

Recent comments by Tom Purves, Chief Executive of the British based but German-owned luxury car firm Rolls-Royce, struck me as interesting on a number of levels this week.

Firstly, despite the downturn, the firm has apparently received some 1,500 “serious expressions of interest” in its new Ghost model to be unveiled later this year. If these were translated into sales they could effectively double RR’s annual sales.

The Ghost will be unwrapped in September and has generated much interest after a prototype has toured the globe. Despite the global downturn, it seems that firms – luxury brands included – can still innovate and develop new products for new markets.

The Ghost is key for RR in extending their product range and hence tapping into new markets, both in terms of market segments and geographical markets. The model will especially aim at a lower price category (i.e. people who might otherwise buy a Bentley Continental Flying Spur). It could also appeal to the growing numbers of rich people in emerging markets such as Russia and China. The Ghost shares elements of the platform which underpins the BMW 7 series, and enables BMW to achieve some economies of scope across brands through platform sharing.

Secondly, RR sold record numbers in 2008 (some 1200 of its Phantom model) but sales have this year been flat given the recession. Yet that in itself is no mean feat when auto markets are down considerably around the world. Apparently the luxury market is often late going into recession and late coming out.

Thirdly, Rolls-Royce is still – it seems - delivering a profit to its German parent BMW (which by the way is currently loss making, like many of the world’s auto firms). RR should be a prized asset for the parent company.

Fourthly, for RR at least the economy has bottomed out: “We are bumping along the bottom … I do not see things getting any worse.” If accurate this will be welcome news to many in the auto industry which has been hammered by the double whammy of recession and credit crunch.

What has been especially impressive about Rolls Royce is that it has worked hard to keep skilled craftsmen in place through the recession. While some agency staff were unfortunately laid off, the firm has kept its skilled workforce in place: “we know we need them with the Ghost coming, and also because we know they are highly skilled and highly qualified and it is much better for us to retain them than not” said Purves a few months ago.

When the upswing does come, RR will be in a better place because of this long-term thinking.

- Professor David Bailey works at the Coventry University Business School and has written extensively on globalisation, economic restructuring and industrial policy, with particular reference to the auto industry. The opinions expressed are his own. -

Despite a run down in heavy commercial vehicle production in the UK in recent years, light commercial vehicles are still made in Britain in quite significant numbers.

However, this could easily change over the next few years unless something is done. The seismic changes that have unfolded in the world’s auto markets now threaten to eliminate mass van production in the UK, leaving just small niche production.

Today there are three main producers in the UK: Ford at Southampton, a GM/Renault joint venture at Luton, and LDV in Birmingham. The latter stopped production back in December when the double whammy of credit crunch and recession impacted.

On current trends, Ford, GM and LDV could be gone by 2012, with mass van demand then having to be fulfilled by imports. Jobs, capacity and R&D could be lost forever.

So, the question for the UK government is whether it actually wants van production in the UK. If it does, it needs to step in with an industrial policy to support production, starting with LDV.

Ford assembles vans at its transit van plant in Swaythling (Southampton). The firm has laid off staff at Southamptom and Ford itself has stated that it only plans to continue making the Transit panel van at the plant until 2011; after that the site will make only the chassis cab version of the model.

By 2011, production will be halved to 35,000 units a year. Volumes beyond 2011 are uncertain and are likely to be limited. Meanwhile, Ford has invested heavily in Transit van production abroad, and the firm is shifting mass production of the Transit (the “backbone of Britain” according to Ford) to Turkey.

Meanwhile, GM’s problems have led to a potential sale of its European arm to the Canadian supplier Magna, with financial backing from Russia via a government-owned bank and Gaz. The German government has offered almost 5 billion euros in short term financing and loan guarantees to effectively safeguard production in Germany.

Magna has openly discussed cutting some 9000 jobs in Europe and this leaves Vauxhall vulnerable as it is easier and cheaper to lay off UK workers. Current van production at Luton is scheduled to run to 2012. After 2012, the Luton plant faces a very uncertain future as Magna wants to expand into the Russian market and Gaz has capacity there it can use.

Last but not least, LDV is now on the edge.

Having offered a critical 5 million pound bridging loan to enable the Malaysian firm Westar to complete a takeover of LDV, the government’s Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) pulled the plug last week when it saw that Westar had not raised the external finance needed to complement its own resources.

Yet this is an odd tautological logic. Even Tata, a huge conglomerate, has struggled to raise finance on the international markets because of the global credit crunch. So it seems that the government won’t intervene because the market won’t provide the finance – yet if the market did provide the finance the government wouldn’t need to intervene in the first place.

With no Westar takeover, LDV will go into administration on Monday. This opens up the possibility of another “lift and shift” of production, jobs and R&D out to an emerging economy like India, Russia or China.

This would mean an end of van production here in Birmingham, with a possible knock on effect on some suppliers who may well decide to pull out of the UK as well.

There are a number of things the government could actually do here.

It could take an equity stake in LDV (indeed, if Obama can nationalise GM, why can’t Brown think about equity stakes in UK firms?). An equity stake with Westar or another investor would also mean that it would have a say in keeping production in the UK.

Other key stakeholders could then take stakes. LDV’s major customer, The Royal Mail, might take a stake, and secure the supply of electric vans. Birmingham City Council might do the same. Such backing could then bring in private investors.

Alternatively, the government could provide a loan guarantee to Westar for the investment. This latter option – providing a loan guarantee for Westar to access the finance - would be the least risky and speediest option given where LDV is right now.

Such interventions have been seen in other countries and there is a case to be made for intervention here. Yet BERR has repeated the point that LDV hasn’t made a profit in several years.

This ignores the rather misses the fact that over the last few years some £600m has been invested in the award winning Maxus van range which could provide an ideal platform for the proposed switch into environmentally friendly green electric vans.

This electric can market is growing rapidly, especially in the depot-to-depot market in urban areas. Overseas this has been supported by tax breaks – something the government here could do to help LDV and Modec in Coventry. The electric Maxus is already developed and ready to roll, and LDV owns the intellectual property rights to the electric version.

As battery life improves and the recharging infrastructure in urban areas develops, this market will grow. LDV could be at the forefront of the proposed ‘green new deal’.

Put simply, there is a new market unfolding here, and LDV are effectively saying to the government: “put your money where your mouth is” when you talk about a low carbon future.

In support of LDV, a number of other points need stressing.

Firstly, the more than 25 percent depreciation of sterling improves LDV’s position regarding export markets.

Secondly, the firm is self-contained, owing the intellectual property rights and production facilities for the Maxus van in diesel and electric form.

Thirdly, LDV contributed around 7 million pounds in 2008 (not exactly a great year for the firm, remember) in PAYE and National Insurance to the government coffers. You could treble that by adding in the supply chain and dealer network. Of course, some of those firms and people might get other jobs and hence still pay NI and PAYE if LDV does close, but even a conservative estimate suggests that the government picks up a useful more than 15 million pounds a year from LDV’s operations. Add in more than 50 million pounds in purchasing and more than 50 million pounds in exports and you can start to see the value of LDV to the economy and the government.

Fourthly, we know from our research on the collapse of MG Rover that quality jobs matter and that three years on workers were earning 5,600 pounds a year less in real terms than when they were at MG Rover. The Rover Task Force cost the government 150 million pounds in picking up the pieces. And in this case, the LDV plant is in one of the most deprived areas of Birmingham. Many workers will struggle to move on, especially in the current downturn.

Fifthly, the government might be concerned that Westar would shift production overseas. In that case the loan guarantee could be converted to an equity stake with a golden share that would prevent this happening.

Sixthly, LDV management state that they have restructured and have cut costs and have brought down the output level where it can break even. The government needs to scrutinise this and if costs can be covered at around 10,000 units this remains a viable firm.

It really is time for BERR and the government to think creatively, both in terms of where the market is going, and how LDV – and indeed the UK van industry - can get there. LDV can still be saved and has some great R&D and products as well as a skilled and committed workforce. It can still be saved.

- Professor David Bailey works at the Coventry University Business School and has written extensively on globalisation, economic restructuring and industrial policy, with particular reference to the auto industry. The opinions expressed are his own. -

GM declared itself bankrupt on Monday in one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history, in an attempt to seek protection from creditors.

The firm has stacked up over $80 billion of losses in the last four years, also swallowing some $20 billion in cash from the Obama administration. It is likely to need another $30 billion before emerging from Chapter 11 substantially slimmed down and free of debts.

A bankruptcy judge will decide who gets what assets. It’s not clear whether during Chapter 11 the firm will continue to function and assemble cars.

It used to be said that “whatever’s good for GM is good for the U.S. economy”. Whilst GM is no longer the world’s biggest carmaker, by some estimates it still accounts for 1 percent of the U.S. economy. The bankruptcy is not only hugely symbolic of the fate of the ailing U.S. car industry, but is of huge importance for all the workers, suppliers, dealers and creditors caught up in its travails.

Republicans have begun to criticise the U.S. president’s handling of the GM affair, but it is difficult to see what else the U.S. president could have done.

Obama had to give GM time to come up with a credible plan, and I have always thought that the firm would need up to $50 billion of government support to get through the downturn and restructuring.

Under the proposed plan, the U.S. government would get a stake of over 70 percent in GM in return for another $30 billion of state cash, with the United Auto Workers union taking 17.5 percent initially, with the union accepting shares in GM instead of cash owed by the firm for retired employees healthcare cover.

A majority of GM’s bondholders have accepted the offer to swap their $27 billion in debt for an initial stake of 10 percent with the option of buying 15 percent more later. Their agreement to do this should help in speeding GM’s progress through Chapter 11 and avoid expensive legal battles.

Whilst a minority group of bondholders are holding out for a better deal, in reality this restructuring is the only game in town.

Hopefully, the new GM that emerges from Chapter 11 will be leaner, fitter and free of debts. It will include the firm’s best models and R&D and will scrap brands like Pontiac, Hummer and Saturn.

By 2012, the new GM will comprise the Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick brands, plus its GMC truck brand. Of particular importance, its forthcoming electric Chevvy Volt car will be part of the new firm.

“GM-Lite” will cut the number of assembly sites across North America, including Canada, to 33 within three years, from 47 at the end of last year.

Eventually, the goal is to float the new firm on the New York Stock Exchange. It will shed some 20,000 or more workers in the U.S., and has also told over a thousand dealers in the U.S. that they are at risk of losing their franchise. GM plans to lose 2,300 from its 6,000-strong network.

In a deal with the UAW which saves the firm $1 billion a year, rules on breaks, vacation and overtime have been changed, retiree benefits have been cut, and the UAW has agreed not to strike until September 2015 at the earliest.

GM will never be the biggest manufacturer again, but Chapter 11 is anyway about restructuring the firm, erasing the debts, cutting costs and reorienting the firm towards more environmentally friendly cars.

A viable car company may yet emerge from the ashes of the old GM, thanks to an interventionist U.S. government which is investing heavily in new green technologies.

The situation here in the UK is rather different. An efficient and world class car industry is struggling given the impact of recession and credit crunch, and the British government has largely been a spectator as GM Europe has been sold off.

That in turn could have a very significant impact on jobs at Vauxhall here in the UK.