From LDP Business -

City must look elsewhere

Sep 10 2008 by Bill Gleeson, Liverpool Daily Post

LIVERPOOL should look beyond its borders and work more with Manchester to maximise its economic weight, according to a report out today.

If it does not, the report warns, it will not be able to compete effectively in the globalised economy.

The report assessing the impact globalisation has had on British cities urges the Government to do more to ensure the spoils of global trading are shared out more equally.

UK Cities in the Global Economy, published by Centre for Cities, a London-based think tank, points out that, within a 40-mile radius around Manchester, which is equivalent to London’s commuter belt, are Sheffield, Liverpool, Bradford, and Leeds, as well as a cluster of other smaller towns and cities.

The report adds: “The potential economic weight of this multi-city cluster reflects the need for smaller UK cities not just to build on their specialised, niche areas of competitiveness, but also to look beyond their borders and collaborate with their neighbours to maximise economic weight within their city-region.”

Report author Hannah Brown says UK cities are small on the global stage but benefit from being close together. They need to collaborate more effectively – by clubbing together across city-regions.

The report continues: “Every UK city is affected by globalisation, which shapes the economy in which businesses and individuals compete. It also influences long-term population falls we have seen in Northern cities like Liverpool, and population growth in Cambridge.

“Globalisation makes cities and city-regions more important as hubs of economic activity. But globalisation also means that some places will be more important than others in driving UK growth. Cities – and local leaders – need to consider policy interventions that help their economies adjust to global realities.” The report reveals Liverpool has far fewer employees in the top 20 exporting sectors than many other UK cities.

Dermot Finch, director of Centre for Cities, said: “Higher-skilled people and well-connected cities tend to gain more from globalisation. That’s why Reading has seen jobs and population growth, and Liverpool’s employment base and population has shrunk.”

From here - http://www.ldpbusiness.co.uk/liverpool-news/liverpool-business-news/2008/09/10/city-must-look-elsewhere-96026-21716218/

Liverpool's employment base is growing and has been for around fifteen years. We know where these characters are coming from. They want to kill Liverpool. Fight them. Or just give up and let your city die.

This is what these twats want:


Cities Unlimited

Publication: www.epolitix.com
Author: Adam Marshall
Date: 13/08/2008

Policy Exchange's latest report - Cities Unlimited - puts forward some radical proposals to address the continuing economic gap between Britain's cities. While we don't agree with everything they've put forward, the basis for the report is right - geography and history do constrain the economic potential of some British cities and towns. Places like Sunderland and Hull have undergone wrenching economic changes over the last half-century, leaving them with enduring economic and social challenges.

It's also true that the Government's regional economic policy, which seeks to promote convergence between the greater South East and the English regions, is increasingly unrealistic.

However, it's not time to write off the cities of the North - or to encourage a mass migration away from Britain's less-successful cities and towns.

Instead, policy-makers need to do more to prioritise resources - focusing regeneration, economic development and transport funding on areas where it will deliver the biggest economic impact. With careful planning, it's still possible to improve the economic performance of Northern cities and sustain the success of the greater South East.
How could both these goals be accomplished?

First, steps should be taken to build up the North's regional economic hubs, Leeds and Manchester, and to ‘network the North'. In the short term, resources should be focused on supporting business growth in the North's best-performing cities - for example, by improving infrastructure and the skills of local workers and thereby encouraging businesses to locate there. With improved transport links, neighbouring towns and cities like Burnley and Halifax would be able to tap into regional growth hot-spots - and develop a new economic role linked to Greater Manchester or the Leeds City Region.

Second, house-building in the South East needs to be geared towards making the entire region both denser and better-linked. There is a strong case for careful expansion in Cambridge, Oxford, and London, using some green-belt land, to ensure that these cities have the houses they need to support their local workforce. Massive expansion in places like Cambridge is both politically and economically unlikely, given local opposition to greenbelt development and the well-documented downturn in the house-building industry. Instead, policy attention should focus on adding denser, high-quality development in these cities - together with the transport links that enable residents to access jobs.

Finally, cities and towns across England need more control over the money that is spent in their areas. The Policy Exchange report makes a strong case for the devolution of regeneration spending - giving councils the ability to experiment with new ways to jump-start their communities. We agree that greater local control over resources would help to grow local economies. However, rather than give every district council in England its own budget, economic development funding should be allocated at the level of ‘real economies' - that is, the sub-regional or city-regional level.

Policy Exchange's urban vision presents challenges to politicians on both sides of the Commons. The Labour Government has staked significant political capital on its regeneration record and is not happy to hear its achievements questioned. The Tories, meanwhile, have been battling to regain votes in the cities, towns and suburbs of the North - and will find it hard to support calls from "Cameron's favourite thinktank" to ‘close down' the very places where they have been working to expand their political base.

Both parties should be focusing on policy ideas that help to improve the absolute economic performance of the North's biggest economic hubs - with complementary policies that help smaller cities and towns to benefit from their growth. That's the best way to keep the North open for business - and to underpin regeneration in the decades to come.

A version of this article first appeared on Epolitix

In bold: therefore divert all funding to London's pet milltowns and ensure not a penny gets to anywhere else. New Labours milltown regionalism and a half century of featherbedding a dreadful, inferior milltown (no threat to London, see?) at the expense of one of the world's great cities has meant this anyway. Hubs indeed. Arf.

Is the only solution independence?

These sort of statists, or statist minded folk always see it as rational to organise the resources into a hub. These clustering or agglomoration initiatives is directly responsible for Liverpool beign cut out of the most benificial of the inward investment industries. What they always fundamentally miss however is that in truly free city economies these sorts of things happen organisally, and intefering, say by putting all the core resources in Manchester first then hoping something eventually leaches down to Liverpool has only ever caused Liverpool to remain fragile whilst Manchester can only attract, rather than grow.... stupid cunts!

When are we going to be rid of these people who insist they can eventually sort out our 'structural shortcomings' if only we wait until everything is sorted out in manc first?

This kind of shit is why I won't be voting for Labour ever again.

Putting aside the Liverpool/Manchester thing for a moment, it's utterly crass to try and compare Reading's growth with Liverpool's decline (which is debatable IMO). Only a London-based think tank would have the temerity to do so, whilst ignoring the fact that Reading is conveniently situated slap bang in the middle of Europe's most successful region, next door to the world's biggest international airport and within spitting distance of the world's financial capital.

Liverpool's employment base is growing and has been for around fifteen years. We know where these characters are coming from. They want to kill Liverpool. Fight them. Or just give up and let your city die.Electrification of the railway Bootle to Trafford would provide enormous benefits to both cities by connecting both to the WCML (Northbound for Scotland) as well as to each other.

Liverpool and Manchester should at least be able to cooperate on jointly pushing for that.

Sep 9 2008 by Neil Hodgson, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL John Lennon airport managing director Neil Pakey wants to set up links with Greater Manchester tourism officials.

He revealed that JLA attracted one million passengers from the Manchester region - 20% of its total throughput - and he wants to build on that by working with Marketing Manchester.

Mr Pakey explained: “Our core loyalty is Liverpool, but we have one million people using us from Manchester in one year.”

He believes Marketing Manchester could welcome Mancunians passing through Liverpool and work with Liverpool on joint promotions abroad.

With people across the north west using both Liverpool and Manchester airports, he added: “We have two regional airports, and now the north west is more mature maybe Marketing Manchester can take a look at JLA?”

No-one from Marketing Manchester was available for comment.

"No-one from Marketing Manchester was available for comment."

No comment, oh except for the fact that `Ringworm` sponcered the `Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra" a little while back.....

We should only think about working with Manchester, when we can compete on a similar level. Otherwise we will always be the lap dog in the relationship.

We should take the best aspects and learn from the Mancs and improve on them. I think we are already making inroads on that score.

Sep 9 2008 by Neil Hodgson, Liverpool Echo

Mr Pakey explained: “Our core loyalty is Liverpool, but we have one million people using us from Manchester in one year.”

He believes Marketing Manchester could welcome Mancunians passing through Liverpool and work with Liverpool on joint promotions abroad.

With people across the north west using both Liverpool and Manchester airports, he added: “We have two regional airports, and now the north west is more mature maybe Marketing Manchester can take a look at JLA?”

A fully competetive JLA should always be used as a perfect reason why expansion at Manchester is not neccessary, from an econmic or environmental point of view.

This is the oddest, most suspiciously worded article I have read in some time.

If the man is so ignorant of the 'local set up' what's he doing reporting on enterprise and businness? I can't make up my mind whether he is hinting that the NWDA is good or the Tories are bad.. either way he seems to want us to continue having t'regional albatros around our necks.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/10/02/nwda-is-doomed-tory-claim-64375-21944998/

Well, what do you expect in a Trinity Mirror North West publication?

Changes would be made on the basis of consent, which meant existing regions could continue to work together as “one big bloc” if they wanted.

But no region would wish to, he [Eric Pickles] predicted.

Well said, Pickles, you fat, ugly Tory Yorkshire bastard.

Why the hell would Carlisle want to work with Crewe and not Newcastle? Basildon with Norfolk but not Dagenham? Swindon with Penzance and not Oxford?

The article, however, is right in pointing out that the current unified government regions were created by the last Conservative government. Previously different govt departments and agencies operated in differently defined regions.

Seriously, Liverpool should work with anyone that furthers its economic interests.

What it should never do is sign up to the notion that it should adopt a 'complementary role to Manchester' as part of a wider NW. You know, they do banking and we do call-centres.

I'd rather see it burn first.

Yes, that is the point though, Liverpool should be free to pick its partners as and when needed or desired, not be shoehorned into Manchester's region!


'the regions' have been around in one format or another since the end of WWII awayo, they have just not been formalised as power centres until 92 (I think).... It was only in 98 though when Liverpool was forced into t'noowerthwest', with the aquiesence of our local political 'giants'... fucking bastards, biggest crime ever commited on the city by them!

One day someone should do a j'accuse LCC. I know every city/town in the country thinks that its local authority is shit but our council must be in the running for first place in the City That Squandered its Historic Assets Prize.

Having said that, I think we don't give LCC enough credit for how things have improved since 1998. I often find myself finding fault out of habit - just for the sake of it.

And then I remember what it used to be like pre 1998.

Yes, that is the point though, Liverpool should be free to pick its partners as and when needed or desired, not be shoehorned into Manchester's region!


'the regions' have been around in one format or another since the end of WWII awayo, they have just not been formalised as power centres until 92 (I think).... It was only in 98 though when Liverpool was forced into t'noowerthwest', with the aquiesence of our local political 'giants'... fucking bastards, biggest crime ever commited on the city by them!

Of course you're right. On the particular point about Government Office Merseyside, that "region" was a weird anomaly, being based on the Merseyside Task Force and kept in existence only because of its role in dishing out Obj One money. No other "region" was based on a single county. More than that even, I think that when Merseyside qualified for Objective One, the understanding might have been that a Region (capital r) needed to qualify rather than any differently drawn area. Therefore Merseyside briefly got its own Euroregion. Once they realised that this was not needed (or the rules changed), the Merseyside "region" was done away with. I think that it was always a goner in any case.

I don't know a great deal about local government but I think an elected mayor in Liverpool would get things done.

One day someone should do a j'accuse LCC. I know every city/town in the country thinks that its local authority is shit but our council must be in the running for first place in the City That Squandered its Historic Assets Prize.

Having said that, I think we don't give LCC enough credit for how things have improved since 1998. I often find myself finding fault out of habit - just for the sake of it.

And then I remember what it used to be like pre 1998.

Pre 98, no Liverpool 1 just a redundant Paradise St, Hanover St, Chavasse park. Church st row of tacky stalls up the middle. No Kings Dock arena, failing Albert Dock. No Pier Head developments, No capital of culture, No revitalised business district Old Hall st skyscrapers. Port still in the doldrums, airport still a shoebox. No regenerated St George's Hall, No Olympic size pool, No Met quarter just a post office in Whitechapel. Few hotels in the city, fewer visitors, and many many more. Oh and by the way yes I am a Liberal supporter but my intention is not to antagonise political opponents, yes the Lib Dems have also made some major cock ups but in my view the city looks better now than it did pre 98.

the Liverpool Lib Dems are as entitled to make the claim that Liverpool's revival is down to them as Nulabour can say that the past ten years of economic growth for the UK is down to them!


If either are responsible for the boom then they both must take ownership of the bust!

Liverpool could have done much better.... really!

the Liverpool Lib Dems are as entitled to make the claim that Liverpool's revival is down to them as Nulabour can say that the past ten years of economic growth for the UK is down to them!


If either are responsible for the boom then they both must take ownership of the bust!

Liverpool could have done much better.... really!

Yes it could but the Lib Dem led council has taken Liverpool to a level where the old Labour council never could have. Labour in Liverpool has never been new and still isn't. Now some may think that a good thing but militant aside which was totally off the scale and simply bonkers, the more centre left councils that followed it were useless too. And we haven't necessarilly got 'bust' we have serious problems but it's nothing like the 80's when Liverpool wasn't in recession it was in a long and serious depression and decline when week after week factory closures were announced and joblessness went through the roof. I think what we are seeing now will be ok by the middle of next year.

Pre 98, no Liverpool 1 just a redundant Paradise St, Hanover St, Chavasse park. Church st row of tacky stalls up the middle. No Kings Dock arena, failing Albert Dock. No Pier Head developments, No capital of culture, No revitalised business district Old Hall st skyscrapers. Port still in the doldrums, airport still a shoebox. No regenerated St George's Hall, No Olympic size pool, No Met quarter just a post office in Whitechapel. Few hotels in the city, fewer visitors, and many many more. Oh and by the way yes I am a Liberal supporter but my intention is not to antagonise political opponents, yes the Lib Dems have also made some major cock ups but in my view the city looks better now than it did pre 98.

All so true, and change by and large through private initiative -- certainly with L1.

Biggest problem? In my eyes a tendency to be too conservative if anything.

Pelli building should have been bigger, as designed.

and Arena should have been bigger, to provide genuine competition for the MEN for EVERY concert.

The CLF should have been an embarkation point and terminus to rival Southampton.

Minor points though! A symptom perhaps of a lack of confidence which is understandable given our recent past.

I would never suggest that a labour administration would have done more for the city, but that is a different question, i.e Lib Dems have stymied the city's regeneration a tad, but retaining a labour council in the late 90s' would have meant even less redevelopment! :)