Are politics changing in this city? What would be the chances that a conservative administration could eventually run this city.
Not such a wayward prospect. Socialists have run this city since the 1950's
albeit social democrats in the latter few years (who have done a creditable job)
but prior to the last 5 years you have to ask where it has got us? We have lurched from the ideological 60's (mostly bad ideology) to the militant eighties and beyond, in that period we have seen the city suffer its worst slump in its history.
Is socialism is for failures? For people who expect to fail in life and know that if they do they can lean on others for support. Is it time we removed the crutch and see what happens? could we be surprised at the results.
Just postin' a hypothesis no stroppy replies constructive please!

One major problem is that the false memory that Liverpool is a traditional labour supporting city has stuck.

All things change eventually it takes a long time but I sense that things may flip over in the next few years, the eighties are now a generation away (boy do I feel it) so it is only a matter of time.

Fear of paragraphing is a big issue.

Are politics changing in this city? What would be the chances that a conservative administration could eventually run this city.
Not such a wayward prospect. Socialists have run this city since the 1950's


Tories mainly ran the city until the 1960s, then they changed from red and blue. The Liberals (Lib-Dems) made great gains in the 1970s and have mainly held that grip since.

God forbid a Tory council.

I struggle to see any of the main parties as being good for the long-term interests of the city. Whatever power base the Tories might have had in the past, it's hard to see how they could ever re-establish it in the city. Labour in Liverpool is all about how to manage state aid in the context of a declining city and the Lib Dems are tied into the regionalist status quo that is against Liverpool's long-term interests - whatever Liverpool might become it will be framed within that context.

A rock and a hard place?

I struggle to see any of the main parties as being good for the long-term interests of the city.

What the city needs is the national economy in good shape. Gordon did that over the past 12 years and the city prospered, and that can be clearly seen. It is up to the city to take advantage, which the city is not very good at. You talk as if you want hand-outs.

There was more of a hint in government circles wanting Liverpool to get CofC.

What the city needs is the national economy in good shape. Gordon did that over the past 12 years and the city prospered, and that can be clearly seen. It is up to the city to take advantage, which the city is not very good at. You talk as if you want hand-outs.

There was more of a hint in government circles wanting Liverpool to get CofC.


You made that up.

The government has continually placed high-powered jobs in Manchester over this period. Liverpool has prospered over this period because it was the last major city to 'regenerate' and this came about largely as a result of private money that had nothing to do with the government.

No one except you is talking about the city wanting handouts. Most people just object to the governmental handouts being given to Manchester on an ongoing basis by the Labour government.

There wasn't any governmental influence in terms of Liverpool winning CofC. It gained it on its own merit.

The government has continually placed high-powered jobs in Manchester over this period. Liverpool has prospered over this period because it was the last major city to 'regenerate' and this came about largely as a result of private money that had nothing to do with the government.


The government laid down the economic base to prosper. Manchester sells itself better and get the jobs. Manchester is regarded as the best run council in the country - not a secret. The BBC went to Salford Quays. Why? Because it is an attractive place with good transport connections. They could have gone to the south end docks if the city have done something instead of rejecting world-class towers. The excavated Toxteth and Harrington Docks, maybe with attractive quay realignment would have been superb for the BBC. The BBC will take what is best for them and Liverpool had little to offer over Salford Quays, as the city was sitting on its hands as usual with all these water assets looking at them. Look at where the fault is...with the organisation in the city.


There wasn't any governmental influence in terms of Liverpool winning CofC. It gained it on its own merit.

Nothing to do with the PMs wife coming from the city? mmmmm

Nowhere in the 'rules' of Capital of Culture does it state that the government of the country who's turn it is to host Capital of Culture has invite bids from interested cities, and run a competition to find the Capital of Culture. Indeed, in previous years, the government in question has simply selected a city, with no competition at all. If the government wanted Liverpool to be Capital of Culture why go to the hassle and expense of setting up a tender process, a competition, a judging panel, and everything else they did before Liverpool was selected? They could have just selected Liverpool right off the bat if they had wanted the city to be Capital of Culture that badly. Babs is right. Liverpool became Capital of Culture on its own merits.

John, you're not dumb, so stop acting so by making mad claims about things of which you obviously do not know.

Have a try at outlining the regional agenda as it manifested int'noowerthwest' and let's see how far you get?

This is a core strategy of nulabour's economic and social policies. They leave Liverpool with no options and no handle on its own fate. And you talk about the tories smashing the city's destiny???

Have a try at outlining the regional agenda as it manifested int'noowerthwest' and let's see how far you get?

This is a core strategy of nulabour's economic and social policies. They leave Liverpool with no options and no handle on its own fate. And you talk about the tories smashing the city's destiny???

Manchester is going places. Not a secret it is rising. They do not find that a North West authority hinders them. You are claiming the two are in the same bed and both ignore Liverpool.

I like federal systems and certain cities being city states - as in Germany. It works. It is up to Liverpool to advance and break away.

They do not find that a North West authority hinders them.

But Manchester's relationship with the North West authorities (and the government that made them) is clearly not the same as Liverpool's. You imply a level playing field that simply doesn't exist and wouldn't no matter how well run Liverpool as a city was .

And your idea that Liverpool was ever in the running for the BBC relocation is laughable. To be frank, I think it was decided to be (Greater) Manchester at the earliest stage. Brunswick Tower would've made fuck all of difference.

I agree with your last point though. We have to fight our corner for ourselves, because no one else is going to do it on our behalf.

But Manchester's relationship with the North West authorities (and the government that made them) is clearly not the same as Liverpool's. You imply a level playing field that simply doesn't exist and wouldn't no matter how well run Liverpool as a city was .


I think the playing is a lot more level than you think. Manchester takes advantage, Liverpool does not.


And your idea that Liverpool was ever in the running for the BBC relocation is laughable.


I don't say it was. If Liverpool was more attractive with the dock areas ready, Liverpool maybe would have taken the BBC as they would have looked. They never considered as nothing was there.


I agree with your last point though. We have to fight our corner for ourselves, because no one else is going to do it on our behalf.

The council lacks fighters. It is up to them to form links with the local MPs no matter what colour. They have a habit of rubbing people up and fighting between themselves.

No, John.

Andy Burnham was spouting the same nonsense last year - how much better Liverpool would be doing if it had a Labour council. Kinda let the cat out of the bag, except that he wasn't bright enough to realise that there's only one cake on the table and its portions have already been allocated.

Manchester was considered second in importance to Liverpool right up to the late 60's. Ever seen the Italian Job when Michael Caine refers to the three most important UK cities as London, Liverpool & Glasgow. My dad always used to say that this was the case when he was young in the 50's & 60's.
This begs the question of what went wrong and when.
This can be put firmly down to the politics of the city at the time, the city went too far to the left and this destroyed trade in the port and industry and commerce in this city, why, well as any potential employer will tell you and as any potential investor will tell you, they wouldn't touch the place with a bargepole. Even the government was put off. Crucially in the early 60's the gave regional television to Manchester, not just the BBC but ITV too. This heralded the turning point. From that point on Manchester's importance grew and Liverpool's declined ....never underestimate the power of the media.
This reversal between the two cities continued up until very recently (this decade) In this time we had had become a Joke (militant etc) crime soared and our reputation was damaged. In the 70's when the metropolitan counties came about Manchester wisely named their area Greater Manchester knowing that name gave their city (not to mention their population) a much greater profile. We named our Merseyside and it became a tag synonymous with failure.
Most of this could have been prevented with competent professional politicians in power during this time and I would say that the blame would have to been laid fairly and squarely at the the Labour party's door, in my opinion they destroyed the city, and they should not be allowed to darken the town hall door again.
For the future, if David Cameron says he will give Liverpool an elected Mayor then that's where I want it to go. A person with real power and someone who can grab the issues aforementioned in this thread by the bollocks and make it happen ...push themselves ahead of Manchester in the queue for everything that is up for grabs, a person of character and intelligence.
Then this city will rise again.

Manchester was considered second in importance to Liverpool right up to the late 60's. Ever seen the Italian Job when Michael Caine refers to the three most important UK cities as London, Liverpool & Glasgow. My dad always used to say that this was the case when he was young in the 50's & 60's.
This begs the question of what went wrong and when.
This can be put firmly down to the politics of the city at the time, the city went too far to the left


So propaganda says. The problem was London and the south east . They wanted Liverpool out of the way as it was the only city that could economically rival London in the UK. Look at the money poured into Docklands, while Liverpool docks got sweet FA. London and the south east got bigger and richer and the rest grovelled.


For the future, if David Cameron says he will give Liverpool an elected Mayor then that's where I want it to go.


You do? How foolish, when Labour has been the most successful government we have had in modern times? Wow! We need a mayor for Merseyside, not Liverpool, like London has.

The city will nor use under the Tories and never will. Neither will the country. An outdated asynchronism that should have disappeared long ago.

I've been around a bit, self made and nobodies fool old son.
You must be one of the last people to harbour the delusion that THIS labour government has been successful, maybe it looked that way for a while because they loaded the public sector with highly paid civil servants and we all got good services but now the chickens have come home to roost, guess who pays for all these freeloading bastards who do not generate a single penny for the economy of this country, yes its fucking me! and others like me, trouble is there's not enough of us now. I can give you countless examples from someone in business who knows what they are talking about as to why this government has fucked up our country!

So propaganda says. The problem was London and the south east . They wanted Liverpool out of the way as it was the only city that could economically rival London in the UK. Look at the money poured into Docklands, while Liverpool docks got sweet FA. London and the south east got bigger and richer and the rest grovelled.



You do? How foolish, when Labour has been the most successful government we have had in modern times? Wow! We need a mayor for Merseyside, not Liverpool, like London has.

The city will nor use under the Tories and never will. Neither will the country. An outdated asynchronism that should have disappeared long ago.

I've been around a bit, self made and nobodies fool old son.


You are naive though. I know many self made people who are as thick as pig shit. Making some money = intelligence? Does not follow.


You must be one of the last people to harbour the delusion that THIS labour government has been successful


I always find it amazing when I read this sort of stuff. I always think, where were they in the past 12 years? Selective amnesia clearly set in about anything pre-1997. And where were they in the years from 1997 to now.

FACTS.....


The city of Liverpool has changed immeasurably in the past 12 years - but maybe those buildings are all cardboard cutouts.
Maybe the strongest economy in the world for 12 years, was a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the strongest currency in the world for around 12 years was a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the super low interest rates were a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the super low inflation rates were a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the longest ever economic growth in British history, under Blair/Brown was a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the boom and bust of the Thatcher/Major years, and absent under Labour were a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the near zero unemployment was a figment of our imaginations.
Maybe the economy so strong that we could absorb 1 million eastern Europeans was a lie - who were all those Polish fellas then?
Maybe the Brown G20 world-wide rescue plan was a lie - it is now being reported by a number of economists in a few countries, that the recession is now over.
In many respects a worse financial crash than 1929, but no soup lines, so well plugged, and no massive unemployment as was predicated 18 months ago.


I look at facts and results first. Look at the facts that matter to a country at large. The Labour government over the past 12 years has been the best in modern times. They plugged the C Crunch too - G20, etc, did you read the papers and watch TV?

The history over the past 100 years is enough to give the Tory Party a wide berth and cast to oblivion. In 1918 only 10% of men had the vote. The Lab and Lib enfranchised the working classes and full voting ensued. Then look at it over that past 30 years - disaster. Yet one generation does not learn from the previous and makes the same mistakes.

The Labour party introduced the housing policy for the soldiers coming back from the war. "Homes for the Heroes." The Liberal government however was a bit backwards, however brought in the national insurance act, employment, education and the first seeds of the NHS, with Labour fully implementing post WW2. People just forget the great achievement from the past. The Conservative Party, well what they have done during the past was clearly disastrous and giving them another chance to do so again? Grow up please. Don't you people learn from history.

The Tories have opposed most social reform, brought in little to none of it themselves, having repealed some of it at times. Most people in the UK are Lab or Lib and of total eligible to votes only about 20% go to the Tories, yet they get in far too regularly and ruin matters

The Tory Party has a naive Eton old school boy shadow cabinet. All old school chums - how cosy for them - all with silly those arrrcents. The sort of thing you see in third world countries. Mainly from the same school and unis and always have been. Only two unis matter to them, as the other 97 are dismissed as not being "the right type". Trust the economy with them? Are you serious?

World-wide, Liberal/Social Democrats improved the living standards and quality of life of people. In the 1950/60 the country was supposed to be economically contracting, yet living standards for the masses were rising. The poorer, the vast majority of the people, were getting more of the share. The rich were not as rich and said the country was going to the dogs. My Dad didn't give a toss about shedding an empire, all he was concerned about was the standard of living for his family, which was rising because of social justice.

Do not tell yourself lies and believe them. Look at facts.


I can give you countless examples from someone in business who knows what they are talking about as to why this government has fucked up our country!

I can give you ten times as many who say the opposite. Those who you put forward will obviously be deluded and should not be in business.

I've been around a bit, self made and nobodies fool old son.
You must be one of the last people to harbour the delusion that THIS labour government has been successful, maybe it looked that way for a while because they loaded the public sector with highly paid civil servants and we all got good services but now the chickens have come home to roost, guess who pays for all these freeloading bastards who do not generate a single penny for the economy of this country, yes its fucking me! and others like me, trouble is there's not enough of us now. I can give you countless examples from someone in business who knows what they are talking about as to why this government has fucked up our country!





I think there is a growing chance of 'back to the future' with UK politics. There may well be a fundamental reversal to what we had up to 1918 with the Liberals replacing Labour as the second major national party.....back to the whigs/tories. The Labour party has been lobotomised in the last 15 years. The British character just won't swallow that big brother anti libetarianism shit that labour is pushing with ID cards/traffic monitoring.

Deep down brits rather like and admire a more classy, gentlemanly ethos to our politics. Shit stirring class warrior wannabees just don't fit the bill.

That's any prospect of John having a political carreer down the pan then? :)

I think there is a growing chance of 'back to the future' with UK politics. There may well be a fundamental reversal to what we had up to 1918 with the Liberals replacing Labour as the second major national party.....back to the whigs/tories.


How strange, as the Tories never made any ground on votes in the euro elections.

You are very confused. What didn't you understand about post number 20? Another with no memory.

I find the fact that Mervyn King is calling for more oversight and sharper teeth when it comes to regulating the banks - just several minutes after Darling has signalled that he is happy to continue with the previous feather-lite touch that resulted in the current mess, is a cause for major concern. As King put it - "If a bank is too big to fail, it's too big."

When yet another labour MP (Kitty Ussher) has been caught flipping and with Brown et al refusing to be honest about impending cuts in public spending in order to service the gazillion pounds worth of debt this government has landed upon us and then we hear that the inquiry into the illegal war against Iraq is going to be held behind close doors without judicial powers then I start to think that Gordon didn't mean it when he said that he had listened and learnt.

if they vote for Bercow as speaker next week then we know that nothing has changed at all.

I find the fact that Mervyn King is calling for more oversight and sharper teeth when it comes to regulating the banks - just several minutes after Darling has signalled that he is happy to continue with the previous feather-lite touch that resulted in the current mess,


Oh NO! Not another one. Have you read the papers and watched TV over the past year or so? The financial tidal-wave came in from abroad. BTW, the City of London is primarily international financial trade, so it could not be avoided.

Do not tell yourself lies and believe it.


the gazillion pounds worth of debt this government has landed upon us

It is either bail the banks out and some industry or have soup lines. It is that simple. I don't think you are as stupid as your writing comes across. You have some sort of agenda or whatever.

I think it's whatever. :yes:

Feck, John.. you're like that fella in the Life of Brian.. you know 'you lucky bastard... great folk them Romans are, really know how to look after a man'!

remember? The one in jail?

This begs the question of what went wrong and when.

This can be put firmly down to the politics of the city at the time, the city went too far to the left and this destroyed trade in the port and industry and commerce in this city, why, well as any potential employer will tell you and as any potential investor will tell you, they wouldn't touch the place with a bargepole.

Most of this could have been prevented with competent professional politicians in power during this time and I would say that the blame would have to been laid fairly and squarely at the the Labour party's door, in my opinion they destroyed the city, and they should not be allowed to darken the town hall door again.


Excellent thread and excellent posts, Talismax.

It was in the 1960s and 70s that Liverpool really started going to the dogs, and you are right to blame the Labour party, although they were not the only factor. I too have come to the view in recent times that it is socialism, or just Leftism generally, that has ruined Liverpool. And let's face it, it has been utterly ruined on many levels.

Yes, the Luftwaffe didn't help during the war, and nor did a highly centralised government in London after the war. There was also the suicidal strategy on the part of local leaders of forcing well over 100,000 people out of the city and into new towns in neighbouring authorities.

But all of these things do not adequately explain why Liverpool declined as much as it did, relative to similar provincial cities, all of which also lost traditional industries the way Liverpool did.

The key difference as far as I can see is that Liverpool has suffered from the wrong kind of politics, an absense of good strong leaders who would really fight for the city, and finally the trade union movement.

Anybody who knows a bit about the building industry in Liverpool will tell you that in the 1970s it was impossible to get anything built unless it was by Tysons (the firm responsible for the few notable buildings of that era - RSA and Thistle hotel.) The unions had far too much control, and people were too willing to down tools at the drop of a hat. The city was just completely riddled with parasitic agitators, and when you combine this with the city's more formal politics, being generally characterised by poorly educated or otherwise misguided socialists, then it is little wonder that nobody would invest in the place.

As you've mentioned, not even the government had confidence in the city, and unsurprisingly Manchester suddenly found itself attracting wonderful prizes such as the regional government office, and media functions, not to mention massive expansion of its airport. These things have set the basis for growth in Manchester, whilst for Liverpool, the vicious circle it was in just got worse and worse into the 1980s and early 90s.

Whether there can be a change in the political culture of Liverpool I doubt very much. It just seems to be ingrained in a large number of people that Labour is good, Conservative is bad. A lot of people are still going on about Thatcher two decades after she left power, which is bizarre anyway, because anybody with some sense would surely hate the militant Labour councils of the 80s more. It comes across as a city of people who aren't going anywhere and who have no aspirations, and therefore vote for the party most likely to drip feed them. A vicious circle.

I feel sorry for all of the hard working aspirational people of Liverpool who are stuck with parasitic, useless leaders.

To be fair, the present council have done a brilliant job in many ways and don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should do. No other council I can think of has successfully delivered anything on the scale of Liverpool One; a true partnership between public and private. Manchester's council hasn't delivered anything of comparable scale without the help of government. The problem for Liverpool is that it has a half decent council in a sea of people who still have old ideas; crap MPs and pie eating Labour councils in neighbouring authorities. Greater Manchester has had a very cosy relationship with its own ministers in government, and their successes are widely exaggerated, but credit to them, they were the horse to back decades ago and this has just snow balled.

Time for a change? It's long over due. But it's the culture that needs to change, not just the council. The lib dems have done well, but they won't ever have any leverage on the national stage. A tory council could potentially do a world of good, especially as they would be greatly rewarded by a tory government. Can't see it happening though.

A mayor could work; providing they are strong, clever, and willing to fight for their city. And not leftist.

Tony, I am only interested in facts. These are difficult times, which is a world-wide thing, and we need experience and expertise in place to guide and drag us through. Also the most successful gvmt in modern times is the current one. Its record is highly admirable. You do not get rid of a winning team.

Then look at the alternative. Then look at history over the past 100 years - game set and match to ditch the anachronistic Tories into oblivion.

Not another deluded one. This forum breeds them :)

It was in the 1960s and 70s that Liverpool really started going to the dogs, and you are right to blame the Labour party, although they were not the only factor. I too have come to the view in recent times that it is socialism, or just Leftism generally, that has ruined Liverpool. And let's face it, it has been utterly ruined on many levels.


Quite laughable. The city was ruined by:



Flags of convenience.
Containerisation. London Docks also closed down as did some in New York, etc.
London's asset stripping
London's encouragement of mass migration to the south east
EU membership
Changing trade patterns
Hate from a female prime minister



There was also the suicidal strategy on the part of local leaders of forcing well over 100,000 people out of the city and into new towns in neighbouring authorities.


Which happened in all cities, as people do not like slum dwelling.


Anybody who knows a bit about the building industry in Liverpool will tell you that in the 1970s it was impossible to get anything built unless it was by Tysons (the firm responsible for the few notable buildings of that era - RSA and Thistle hotel.) The unions had far too much control, and people were too willing to down tools at the drop of a hat. The city was just completely riddled with parasitic agitators, and when you combine this with the city's more formal politics, being generally characterised by poorly educated or otherwise misguided socialists, then it is little wonder that nobody would invest in the place.


You made all that up.


As you've mentioned, not even the government had confidence in the city, and unsurprisingly Manchester suddenly found itself attracting wonderful prizes such as the regional government office, and media functions, not to mention massive expansion of its airport. These things have set the basis for growth in Manchester, whilst for Liverpool, the vicious circle it was in just got worse and worse into the 1980s and early 90s.


What bollox! Manchester, Newcastle, et al all suffered the same fate as Liverpool. Manchester's resurgence is pretty recent, after the IRA bomb, and Liverpool is not far behind.


Whether there can be a change in the political culture of Liverpool I doubt very much. It just seems to be ingrained in a large number of people that Labour is good, Conservative is bad.


That is about right. Libs are not bad, they vote them in all the time. So much for your assertions that Liverpool is Labour obsessed.


To be fair, the present council have done a brilliant job in many ways and don't get anywhere near as much credit as they should do.


They are an aimless shambles full of in-flighting.


Time for a change? It's long over due.


Yep, the LibDems should be voted out.


A mayor could work; providing they are strong, clever, and willing to fight for their city. And not leftist.

Or we could get total fool like Boris Johnson:
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/sites/default/files/full-size/l/o/london-mayor-boris-johnson-falls-into-a-river-at-catford_0.jpg

The Buffoon being saved by some bird.

Tony, I am only interested in facts. These are difficult times, which is a world-wide thing, and we experience and expertise in place to guide and drag us through. Also the most successful gvmt in modern times is the current one. Its record is highly admirable. You do not get rid of a winning team.

Then look at the alternative. Then look at history over the past 100 years - game set and match to ditch the anachronistic Tories into oblivion.

If you are only interested in facts, then why do you wholly blame Margaret Thatcher for destroying the city? What did she do to Liverpool in particular?

Every point that gets raised on here has played its part in the demise of Liverpool as a major commercial entity, you even list some yourself below.



You must have also taken your last post directly off the nulabour website.. it is full of their cliches!

If you are only interested in facts, then why do you wholly blame Margaret Thatcher for destroying the city? What did she do to Liverpool in particular?


Wholly? She didn't do us any favours for sure. What was it, a document by Georrrey Howe, "Manging Liverpool the decline of Liverpool as a major Metropolitan area"? The narrow minded, petty snobbery infected lady wanted to kill the city, as she did the miners and squandered North Sea Oil and gas in the process. The likes of Hatton et al, said "oh no you are not, you tart", and they took the baton and ran. Good lads. We would have been like Doncaster without them.

Strange that a recent study put Liverpool as being a near future supercity. Maggie got it so wrong.


You must have also taken your last post directly off the nulabour website.. it is full of their cliches!

No. But great minds do think alike. :) Have you looked at their site? The cliches were the poster (such fun), who thinks the whole decline was because of some union men on buildings sites.

were as we became Mogadishu instead.

You are right about her not doing us any favours, though she did none for any other area, save let in the warming light of free enterprise instead of command and control. The tory reforms of the 80s' stopped the UK going down the pan, remember, we where half way to the Soviet Union and the utter bile for her in the liberal press is because she killed this aspiration stone dead, as they did in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and even Russia some time later.

Trouble is that Liverpool never got on that bandwagon of wealth creation, waiting instead for public subsidies that where not forthcoming and once nulabour got in went largely to Manchester instead... ironic init?

We bobbed along at absolute rock bottom until, er, the Lib Dems got in, years after everyone else got going again... even Doncaster.

were as we became Mogadishu instead.


We became Mogadishu under the Tories.


You are right about her not doing us any favours, though she did none for any other area,


What world are you in? Did you live through that period? The south east got the lot. The north-south divide is from Gloucester to the Wash. If that bulk below votes for you, you get in. It is that simple. They got the lot. Docklands? Ever heard of it? A new water-based city in London? What happened to Liverpool? Hesseltine planted some trees.


save let in the warming light of free enterprise instead of command and control. The tory reforms of the 80s' stopped the UK going down the pan,


Again what world where you in? The UK went down the pan. 4 million unemployed, etc, etc.


remember, we where half way to the Soviet Union


Clearly a Daily Mail reader. How sad.


Trouble is that Liverpool never got on that bandwagon of wealth creation, waiting instead for public subsidies that where not forthcoming and once nulabour got in went largely to Manchester instead... ironic init?


Maybe those new building all over the city are cardboard cut-outs.

Do not read the Daily Mail and believe it.

Oh John, that was so delicious, but so hackneyed.

It was the post war socialists who sucked everything down south when they nationalised the life out of the north by taking the commanding heights of the economy and the main bulk of the essential (usually municipally owned) services. To compound this those same Reds took and kept hold of Liverpool's commercial trading infrastructure.. the fucking lot, and refused to give it back to us. That all really started the rot, but instead of adressing these failings we where 'rescued' by a few yankee branch plants that turned independent minded people, seafarers and the like into dronish factory fodder, for a decade or two.

Much of the 80s' was a black hole to me, so don't be so condescending. It is one reason why I am particular about not blaming it all of 'Thatcher' because doing so would not adress the fundamental, structural and attitudinal problems we still face in today's city-region. She's been gone for 20 years but the lefty narrative still imposes itself on the city, fucking any potential for real revival the city may have.


Your new water based city in London was provided by the (Big Bang financed, which Liverpool could have partook in, if only those nasty reds hadn't stolen our exchanges and dealing infrastructure) private market. If you remembered, while Heseltine was giving us a really nice festival site and, ironically, miles of restored docks and dock buildings, London got a bog standard industrial estate and some low density po-mo crap that the Guardian went to, when when LDDC (and its tory blood money) controlled the strategic potential.

Unemployment went up grotesquelly, as the economy readjusted back to a dynamic, liberal western type of economy, rather than the half sovietised one we where labouring under. With regards to my 'half way to the Soviet Union' quote, do a google. I think you will (hopefully) be shocked who I actually took it from.

And yeah, the new cardboard cut out buildings we have all round town only started growing when we got rid of Labour as a council. I remember the day. Labour out, growth started. Remember that it was Labour who were the ones who where managing our decline, it was the council who came up with that idea.. leading Howe to concedde it was proabably a good idea and that the government should help fund the council deliver its strategy.


Sad, innit?

Since when did Whitehall run Liverpool's bins? Show me that the post war Labour government took hold of Liverpool's trading infrastructure.

NO, the Thatcher hate of the city in the 1980s leaves its mark not those brave enough to rise and fight the tart.

Docklands was one third public money - the infrastructure, the most important, as without it the private sector would not set up. Big bang my arse!!! The DLR had to be run in (a fraction of that railways in Liverpool would make a vast difference), and roads as well, never mind sewers, power, etc. Despite being close to the City it was transport isolated, as direct rail access from the Tube and Souther Rail was needed to get those bank workers in from the surrounding towns.

Sock dealing infrastructure is via computer and can be done in any home and has been that way for decades.

The festival site was a joke. It filled in a vital water based dock, to use as a car park, which would have added greatly to a water-based city and it was clear it was window dressing and has been derelict ever since. A two month wonder and the lost of a valuable water space to boot.

What are these miles of restored docks and dock buildings? Some small tatty flats and renovating the countries largest collection of grade 1 listed buildings which were already there. London did not get a bog standard industrial estate but small new skyscraper city.

Claiming unemployment was not Thatchers fault is bordering on lunacy.

The new buildings we have all round town only started growing when we got a Labour government - the most successful gvmt in modern times.

Tony my boy, you are deluded. Look at history and draw times lines. Maybe you are a masochist.

bang my arse!!!

I'll give it a miss if it's all the same to you.:nuts:

Yes John
I hate Everton, everything about them. Thier kit stinks, they stole the trophies they claim to have won. They ahve never had a good player. They ahve only ever won a derby by cheating. Their Owners are criminals and their fans are retards let out of a saturday.

nobody ever associated with them has ever commited a kindness, Everton fans give thier children up for adoption. I am sure that every crime commited in the city is by an Evertonian, or an Everton player.

They stole their ground (which is shite) Dixie Dean cheated most of his goals, they bribe the TV to make balls going 10 yeards from the net look like they have gone in..... and their kit is shit.


I'm a Liverpool supporter!



and John, not bins, but water, gas, electricity.. our docks, our banks, our cotton exchange, our ships, the dock board.... etc.

I hate Everton, everything about them.


Tony, you need therapy.


not bins, but water, gas, electricity.. our docks, our banks, our cotton exchange, our ships, the dock board.... etc.

Utilities were national to get grids - it worked. The rest? That was filtering down to London way before the brilliant post war Labour government. Remember the deal with Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth? Not once did they sail up the Mersey.

Great, another good thread falls victim to the Liverpool Playboy - Tony Sebo roundabout of infinity.

:blahblah:

Great, another good thread falls victim to the Liverpool Playboy - Tony Sebo roundabout of infinity.

:blahblah:

That means you were way out and put in your place. :) What don't you understand?

You said in one post:

"I'm a member of the temperence movement and haven't touched the stuff for a long time. I consider alcohol to be an evil poison that destroys mental and physical health and leads to general stupidity."

I think you need a stiff drink. :) The stupidity bit gets me.

Cities don't implode overnight except in times of war or as a result of a natural catastrophe. The seeds of Liverpool's decline were planted a long time ago and not one political party / group of individuals can take the entire responsibility for it. The culture of militancy in the city didn't appear out of the blue on the back of a grasshopper - it was an understandable response to how labour was treated by the major employers in the city from the mid C18 onwards. To make sense of what is happening in Liverpool now it's helpful to know what has been happening in the city since at least 1800 otherwise it will seem that certain groups of people are just acting irrationally and being bolshy for the sake of it.

Speaking in terms of 2009 and local/national politics, it's essential to recognise that local political parties often bear little resemblance to national ones so arguing about Liverpool politics and the challenges faced here as though it were interchangeable with politics at a national level doesn't shed much light either. For example, it is possible to argue the a Labour government might be best for the country as a whole but not for Liverpool as a city. It's also important to recognise that a party that has served the city well for 10 years and was what it needed during that time might have served its purpose. There has to be an evaluation of what a party is doing well and what (according to whichever standpoint you may adopt) it might need to change to retain your support.

A fine post. I actually agree with every word of it! :cheers:

The seeds of Liverpool's decline were planted a long time ago and not one political party / group of individuals can take the entire responsibility for it.

Tony, thinks the Labour party did it all - mystifying. Unions were an understandable symptom of the problems not the cause. People were not going to lay down and be rolled over so organised - at work and at the town hall. People were not going to move to alien towns and cities receiving disproportional investment, away from their families and friends because some dork said "get on your bikes". Of course it is natural to fight back, and they did.

Cities don't implode overnight except in times of war or as a result of a natural catastrophe. The seeds of Liverpool's decline were planted a long time ago and not one political party / group of individuals can take the entire responsibility for it. The culture of militancy in the city didn't appear out of the blue on the back of a grasshopper - it was an understandable response to how labour was treated by the major employers in the city from the mid C18 onwards. .

I'm not entirely convinced by all of this.

All of the UK's big provincial cities experienced stark decline after the war and the decimation of their traditional industries. Workers were treated badly in all of these cities from the mid eighteenth century onwards. You could even argue that the mill workers of Lancashire and Yorkshire had it much worse.

I don't think harsh treatment or decline were completely responsible for the culture of militancy; maybe it was just a coincidence that particular figures with "lefist" ideas, and important to the area, just happened to have settled there, or experienced sufficient luck to get themselves into positions of authority. As for Derek Hatton, the man who helped to hammer the final nail in the coffin, I understand he is now doing well as an entrepreneur in Greater Manchester. Maybe the militant thing was just a load of tripe driven by cynical people with their own agendas, or just by people who didn't know any better.

Ultimately, things are as they are for the reasons Talismax originally pointed out. That Liverpool has had the wrong kind of politics and the wrong kind of people in charge (MPs and Councils, with the possible exception of the current council.)

To start trying to focus on Liverpool's unique past and fortunes, to focus on its exceptionalism, just leads people to wallow and to go round in circles, endlessly trying to make others understand how hard it has been and why it is all so unfair. Reality is, much of what is claimed to be exceptional for Liverpool is not, it has just suffered from the wrong politics and lacked decent leaders for a long time.

I'm not saying things haven't been difficult and I understand that the story is a complicated one; Liverpool experienced more war damage than its neighbours and one neighbour has certainly had it very easy for the last few years with a friendly government. But again, they were the horse to back decades ago when Liverpool was shooting itself in the head, and I think what we see now is just a "cementation" of that. It can take a long, long time to turn things around for a city.

The only way out for Liverpool in the long term is to build on the great renaissance it has achieved recently and work damned hard, and get the right people in charge. Simple as. Liverpool has spent more of its history being rich and great than it has being poor and weak; there is no reason why it cannot, with a change of attitude and ideas, turn things round once again.

Liverpool's politicians were in the pockets of the ship owners and merchants. They discouraged anything other than warehousing and shipping related industries, to prevent other high paying industries from setting up in the city, in order to keep wages low. Many of the slums were built by slave traders who turned from one human misery to another when slavery was abolished. Modern industries only came to the city in the 1920/30 on the outskirts in the new boulevard accessed new districts.

"culture of militancy"? What the hell is that?

"lefist" ideas, propelled this country forwards from mass slum dwelling and grinding poverty. The last court was demolished only in 1964.

Derek Hatton fought back. Without him we would be living in a town.

"Liverpool is not, it has just suffered from the wrong politics and lacked decent leaders for a long time." Leaders, yes. You are confused on politics bit. The last dominant leader, who was not even the leader, was Hatton. The current bunch don't even have a strategy in place when a massive construction boom came.

"one neighbour has certainly had it very easy for the last few years with a friendly government." Manchester has a very good council and widely recognised as the best in the country. I have had minor dealings with them and they are excellent.

"Liverpool has spent more of its history being rich and great than it has being poor and weak; there is no reason why it cannot, with a change of attitude and ideas, turn things round once again."

You are misguided as you will not get that with the Tories in charge. I have given enough history for anyone with half a brain to dismiss the Tories out of sight.

^^ I've put you on ignore. Don't waste your time responding to me any further.

I'm not entirely convinced by all of this.

All of the UK's big provincial cities experienced stark decline after the war and the decimation of their traditional industries. Workers were treated badly in all of these cities from the mid eighteenth century onwards. You could even argue that the mill workers of Lancashire and Yorkshire had it much worse.

I don't think harsh treatment or decline were completely responsible for the culture of militancy; maybe it was just a coincidence that particular figures with "lefist" ideas, and important to the area, just happened to have settled there, or experienced sufficient luck to get themselves into positions of authority. As for Derek Hatton, the man who helped to hammer the final nail in the coffin, I understand he is now doing well as an entrepreneur in Greater Manchester. Maybe the militant thing was just a load of tripe driven by cynical people with their own agendas, or just by people who didn't know any better.

Ultimately, things are as they are for the reasons Talismax originally pointed out. That Liverpool has had the wrong kind of politics and the wrong kind of people in charge (MPs and Councils, with the possible exception of the current council.)

To start trying to focus on Liverpool's unique past and fortunes, to focus on its exceptionalism, just leads people to wallow and to go round in circles, endlessly trying to make others understand how hard it has been and why it is all so unfair. Reality is, much of what is claimed to be exceptional for Liverpool is not, it has just suffered from the wrong politics and lacked decent leaders for a long time.

I'm not saying things haven't been difficult and I understand that the story is a complicated one; Liverpool experienced more war damage than its neighbours and one neighbour has certainly had it very easy for the last few years with a friendly government. But again, they were the horse to back decades ago when Liverpool was shooting itself in the head, and I think what we see now is just a "cementation" of that. It can take a long, long time to turn things around for a city.

The only way out for Liverpool in the long term is to build on the great renaissance it has achieved recently and work damned hard, and get the right people in charge. Simple as. Liverpool has spent more of its history being rich and great than it has being poor and weak; there is no reason why it cannot, with a change of attitude and ideas, turn things round once again.

It's the idea that there is ever the right kind of people in charge that I'm taking issue with. Right according to which/whose standpoint?

Also, you argument about similarities shouldn't deceive us into pretending that differences aren't important, too. Whilst I agree that there is little to be gained in taking Liverpool exceptionalism too far, I don't see any benefit in downplaying either.

The idea that Liverpool's problems are merely a consequence of 'bad politics' and 'poor leaders' seems to be wanting to have your cake and eat it. Having argued against Liverpool exceptionalism you are now making a case for it! It's all the fault of exceptionally bad politicians in the city!

In order to position Liverpool you need to use a much wider framework that what has occurred post 2nd WW. If Hatton hadn't existed, Liverpool would have still experienced much of what happened to it subsequently. Militant and Hatton didn't cause Liverpool's economy to crash. The whole country was in free-fall at the time. It's probably fair to say that they unwittingly played into the hands of the right wind press thus allowing a caricature of Liverpool to gain prominence which didn't do the city any favours.

I think that we live in interesting times. Liverpool is in a much better position to move forward than it was just 5 years ago but there is still a lot of work to do. It's not just local/national politicians that will shape the city's future, it's inhabitants need to take their responsibility, too. This will mean tens of thousands educating themselves and getting off the arses sitting around waiting for happy days to return. At the moment we have the city we deserve. If we don't like some aspects of it then it's up to us to do something.

The idea that Liverpool's problems are merely a consequence of 'bad politics' and 'poor leaders' seems to be wanting to have your cake and eat it. Having argued against Liverpool exceptionalism you are now making a case for it! It's all the fault of exceptionally bad politicians in the city!


Fair point, although I don't want to get into semantics. Let's just say in economic-history (pre 1970s) terms Liverpool hasn't been greatly exceptional, but yes, you could argue it has been in terms of its politics. Actually, forget "exceptional", the term is too confusing.

I think that we live in interesting times. Liverpool is in a much better position to move forward than it was just 5 years ago but there is still a lot of work to do. It's not just local/national politicians that will shape the city's future, it's inhabitants need to take their responsibility, too. This will mean tens of thousands educating themselves and getting off the arses sitting around waiting for happy days to return. At the moment we have the city we deserve. If we don't like some aspects of it then it's up to us to do something.

Very well said indeed, I hope it happens.

I've put you on ignore. Don't waste your time responding to me any further.

Inane, inaccurate, opinionated, factless babble has to be countered. I will respond.

Let's just say in economic-history (pre 1970s) terms Liverpool hasn't been greatly exceptional,


It was the second richest city in the world at one point. It was still a rich city up to the early 1960s, with the port in full flow and new industries arriving.


but yes, you could argue it has been in terms of its politics. Actually, forget "exceptional", the term is too confusing.


Liverpool exceptional in its politics? Where? The right wing media castigated a council who fought back, making them out to be demons, when they were more saviours than anything else, as without them we would have been like Preston. But the hard of thinking sucked it in and blew it out, as they are doing with the MPs expenses, when it is a minor issue, which is being sorted, with more important things to focus on.

Some knowledgeable people are easily led.

Fair point, although I don't want to get into semantics. Let's just say in economic-history (pre 1970s) terms Liverpool hasn't been greatly exceptional, but yes, you could argue it has been in terms of its politics. Actually, forget "exceptional", the term is too confusing.



Very well said indeed, I hope it happens.

Liverpool's history from the end of the 1st WW to the 1970s shares a lot in common with major cities in Empires on the skids throughout history, especially once the Empire goes tits up.

Beatles, LFC (and EFC) and superlambananas apart - the idea we have of ourselves as Liverpudlians (being part of a city that is something special) perversely survives in us as a result of what Liverpool achieved in C19 - it really was a world city but it was also a city that was run according to the interests of its mercantile class and this had massive consequences for how the city developed and ultimately floundered as John points out above.

Some vague statements there and probably some dubious "facts", but anyway.

The here and now, and the future, is what counts most of all, and as you say, a lot of people need to change and start aspiring if the city they inhabit is to prosper. From a leadership point of view, a mayor could work well, providing they are business minded (preferably a business person), have excellent connections, and love the place they are serving. Also, wouldn't it need to be a city regional, rather than just a city, mayor? I can see the same old grudges and parochialism surfacing unfortunately.

I think for city regions like Liverpool's to really work, the core city needs to be prosperous, and to be seen as prosperous. It is then only a matter of time before neighbours want to join in and be associated with something good. So, how does Liverpool get prosperous.. (see above?)

Tony, thinks the Labour party did it all - mystifying. Unions were an understandable symptom of the problems not the cause. People were not going to lay down and be rolled over so organised - at work and at the town hall. People were not going to move to alien towns and cities receiving disproportional investment, away from their families and friends because some dork said "get on your bikes". Of course it is natural to fight back, and they did.

Unlike you John, I have tried to provide a narrative, a chronology, make a non partisan fist of the major issues that have contributed to the city's decline, which essentially started toward the end of the 19thC. What I've said about post war nationalisation was that stripped the last vestigages of a slowly declining city (London, NYC and Chicago surplanting Liverpool in many areas that Liverpool used to dominate). On top of all the damage inflicted on the city and its assets it left the city unable to undertake anything much, as far as funding its own regeneration, which it regularly did do before the war.

So, I appreciate that Liverpool's problems where long drawn out, included all sorts of things, from Chicago becoming the world's futures centre, to the much derided (on here) 'regional agenda. YOU say it is all down to 'Maggie'.

Where did you get all that crap about ship owners and slavers? Do you just make stuff up? Liverpool chamber of commerce actually led the development of Kirkby industrial estate in the 30s'. Ironically, its placement in Kirkby caused many companies relocated there to go bust... but the ship owners did not kill of industry, what bit developed in the city did very well. Food, sugar, pottery etc.

As for the future. One thing we should not do is try to emulate Manchester.. we need to try something else, leapfrog the national infrastructure and get involved with the wider world, somehow.


As for actual bomb damage, we have to explore why Liverpool's hammering had such a profoundly negative effect, whilst places like Hamburg and nagasaki where (obviously) much more damaged, but had recovered within a decade of teh end of WWII. Now, surely John, that wan't down to that woman, was it?

Unlike you John, I have tried to provide a narrative, a chronology, make a non partisan fist of the major issues that have contributed to the city's decline, which essentially started toward the end of the 19thC. What I've said about post war nationalisation was that stripped the last vestigages of a slowly declining city (London, NYC and Chicago surplanting Liverpool in many areas that Liverpool used to dominate). On top of all the damage inflicted on the city and its assets it left the city unable to undertake anything much, as far as funding its own regeneration, which it regularly did do before the war.

So, I appreciate that Liverpool's problems where long drawn out, included all sorts of things, from Chicago becoming the world's futures centre, to the much derided (on here) 'regional agenda. YOU say it is all down to 'Maggie'.

Tony, how you can conclude nationalisation was the death of the city is mystifying. Most of the industries nationalised were essential industries: gas, elec, water, phones, rail, etc, which were shambolic under private ownership and would have gone under. The coal industry was a joke, with many mines not even having pit-head showers, while owners lived on rolling estates in mansions - they would send kids up chimneys if they had their way. The utilities and rail are better run as a whole, and still are better run that way. Other non-transport/utility industries were just in tatters and many de-nationalised after. National Road transport was one.

When private companies failed - all too often - the gvmts came in to save jobs an key industries. Even the Tories nationalised BL and were going to nationalise Westland, which nearly got rid of the hag. Even Obama has nationalised GM.

I suppose you are going to say the NHS was a mistake too, and was instrumental in the demise of the city too - now the biggest employer in Europe.

Tony, read some modern UK history. How anyone can castigate the post war Labour gvmt is beyond me. Without them we would have been in further doo-doo. Pre-WW2, British industry was so behind the precision machine tools to make the RR Merlin Spitfire engines were made in the USA, we were so far behind. Private industry was stagnant, going nowhere or backwards.

From a leadership point of view, a mayor could work well, providing they are business minded (preferably a business person),

Business people do not make good politicians. Look at the many fleecing Tory politicians who were big businessmen - most useless.

If you don't understand economics, profit, reinvestment, jobs etc, then there is nothing I can add that will help.

Though, lets try just this one; How many jobs do do you think might have left Liverpool when all those things where nationalised (i.e taken off to London) 'for the common good'. Problem for you John is that you just can't think ourside of your dogmatically limiting little boxes you have built.

If you don't understand economics, profit, reinvestment, jobs etc, then there is nothing I can add that will help.


I fully understand that - believe me.


you just can't think ourside of your dogmatically limiting little boxes you have built.

I find that amazing coming from you.

Business people do not make good politicians. Look at the many fleecing Tory politicians who were big businessmen - most useless.


Derek Hatton fancied himself as a businessman didn't he? You are finally steering yourself on the right track. Keep it up!

Derek Hatton fancied himself as a businessman didn't he?

Great politician though.

^^
The worst we've ever had. If he was that great a politician why isn't he still one?

Not much of a businessman either, his Cyprus property development company having recently gone bust.

Suppose that's the fault of the Tories, Margaret Thatcher in particular.

The worst we've ever had. If he was that great a politician why isn't he still one?


Without him Liverpool would be a town.


Suppose that's the fault of the Tories, Margaret Thatcher in particular.

Yes. Ruined the UK and it took Blair many years to put right.

I suppose we just have to accept that if Labour put Osama bin Laden as it's candidate in LP's constituency, he would vote for him.

I leave the thread alone for 24 hrs and all hell breaks loose!

Playboy, it's that attitute of yours that sums up in a nutshell my point. Would I give you a job ...NO, would I invest in your business ...NO, would I give you the time of day ....NOOO !

There were thousands like you in the 70's, ignorant bullies. You weren't by any chance a shop steward on the docks were you?

Some nice responses though from Spendid, Sebo and others, I was interested in the comment about Tysons in the 70's. Greed and protectionism, exactly what was going on down the docks.
Containerisation was mentioned which came about in answer to the worldwide problem of pilferage during loading and unloading of ships cargo, in Liverpool the problem was rife and by the 70's was organised, those too honest were threatened and told to look away, management were scared to intervene for threat of strikes because the dockers were the leftest of the left. So it became a way of life, the ignorant docker whose view of the world did not extend past the pub had it in his power to destroy a port, of course his ignorance stopped him from realising this and eventually this is exactly what happened.
In the 80's I dealt with some of the senior managers at Mersey Docks and I also represented a number of shipping lines coming in to the port, I saw first hand shipping lines pulling out of Liverpool because of Pilferage, strikes and working practices. I knew many shipping clerks who lost their jobs when this happened, not to mention the hundreds employed in logistics and non dock workers who would be made redudant when a shipping line pulled out. These people didn't have a voice but they would have been shouted down anyway by the ignorant greedy bullies who caused the situation. I saw all this for myself and felt such an injustice that this was going on, yet the dockers were seen in many circles as working class heroes when they eventually got sacked in 1995. Now there are now many thriving and successful businesses on the port, by strange co-incidence.

I fully understand that - believe me.



I find that amazing coming from you.

I quite like Atlee, could you say the same of Thatcher.. go on, just try.

I leave the thread alone for 24 hrs and all hell breaks loose!

Playboy, it's that attitute of yours that sums up in a nutshell my point. Would I give you a job ...NO,


I would not work for the likes of you and you are not bright enough. Have you read post No. 20 yet?


would I invest in your business


You are not bright enough to know my business, never mind invest in it.


There were thousands like you in the 70's, ignorant bullies. You weren't by any chance a shop steward on the docks were you?


I have near two degrees and was not in such places.

He thinks the decline of Liverpool was becuase a few docker pocketed some cargo. That is sad. How sad.

I quite like Atlee, could you say the same of Thatcher.. go on, just try.

Tony, I know history and have brains. You know that. So why would I say anything good about the hag?

Thatcher and most of her cabinet held Liverpool in contempt,the exception being Heseltine who showed a modicum of compassion. On one of her rare flying visits to the city,to inspect the housing conditions in Everton,(the Radcliffe estate)she snidily remarked on the age of the estate ,inferring the residents were responsible for its state of dereliction....contrasted with Hesletine's visit on a similar mission when he was visibly brought to tears with the condition of the housing. One of Thatcher's cabinet commented to a foreign diplomat in the wake of the 81 riots...... "Liverpool wasn't an English city" maybe these sorts of things are still resonating in the city as regard the Tories and why they polled less than the fascists in the recent elections.Just to correct Tony's claim the city turned around the day Labour left office.....not true i'm afraid...1997-98 seen the largest net increase in employment for the at least the last 18 years, 17,000 jobs. One thing we can be sure of if the Tories are elected next year is no matter what assurances are being given, is that Health and Education spending will be less under the Tories than it would be if Labour are returned. Which will be a hammer blow to this city, the Lib-Dems have made great progress with educational achievement levels in the city recently. Maybe some of the Tories on here want to return to Thatcherite days of pensioners dying of hypothermia..remember Thatcher telling pensioners to buy hot water bottles? or hats to keep out the cold? nah....i'm no fan of New Labour but at least the taxes from the property boom and the casino were spent on provding a humane health and education system after nearly twenty years of underfunding under the Tories.

The Tory systematic rape of the city was successful Hesletine was shocked at how good they were. Hesletine did some window dressing that's all. The Hag's comments about the city summed up their ignorance and attitude. In the Hag's time, Welsh and Scottish nationalism became stronger, as all was dragged down south of the north-south divide and Little Middle England gained at the expense of the rest.

Surprisingly, and to the Tory disdain, the two football club's prospered during her reign, conquering all before them.

During the 1980s, the amount of people in Liverpool, mainly the Wirral in my experience, who would blame the people without jobs for not having one, was amazing. Anyone with half a brain could see there was no jobs - zero. Birkenhead was the poorest town in the country, yet that never made impact on them. The average person is gullible to media misinformation, with the media telling them they are all lazy - the recent Ghurka media frenzy proves that. Read the posts of some of the misguided here.

I find it amazing that some people see a problem maybe with a union and then vote Tory for some strange reason - cut off their own noses to spite their faces.

To be sure there will be great cutbacks with the Tories, if the nation is foolish enough to vote them back in. But with an older population who don't give a hoot about education we may end up with the Tories - yet the older you get the more you rely on the NHS. I noted Cameron is spouting his support for the NHS; I wonder why?

The Tories over the years have successfully convinced people that they represent patriotism and Labour is traitorous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In WW2, Labour was telling the nation to prepare for war and where prepared to fight, while Tory Lord Halifax was appeasing. Some veterans in France booed Gordon Brown, some because they perceived him not to be patriotic. Some great men dies on those beaches, it appears some who survived are a disgrace.

The Labour Party is best to adopt Land Value Tax, as the Greens and some Libs want, this will promote wealthy and cut back on the Tory funding from large parasitic landowners. It will promote the construction industry and people building larger higher quality homes and not through the large 20 construction companies.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/

Tony, I know history and have brains. You know that. So why would I say anything good about the hag?

Illustrates my point perfectly.

GV, if we insist on saying that all the city's woes are/where down to Thatcher, you do realise that will get us nowhere, as we will be ignoring many other causes that still need adressing?

Thatcher and most of her cabinet held Liverpool in contempt,the exception being Heseltine who showed a modicum of compassion.

Why are you going on and on about Thatcher and her cabinets!? She disappeared nearly 20 years ago for heavens sake, and you are referring to events nearly 30 years old. And also, why do you blame the government so much for how Liverpool faired in the 1980s? Is that really how peoples lives are defined, by what governments do?

I don't really blame those governments for holding Liverpool in contempt, assuming they did (how do we know the vague statements you have made are actually true, and not just the propaganda of some Old Labour activist?) A city riddled with union bullies and a loony council. No doubt you will have a very different perspective though. But why post on a thread about the future of politics and talk about really old, cold war politics?

The housing estate you referred to; why was it in such a state? How did things get broken? According to a Radio 4 programme I heard some time ago about the city's housing, in some estates the residents tore the tiles from the roofs to make the homes uninhabitable. Was that really a good idea? Maybe there were good reasons, but you can surely understand an outsider not understanding it. It certainly sounds odd to me. I have lived in council estates in different parts of the country and as long as the people living around you look after their patch then they are all right places to live.

Is the future of Liverpool's youngsters going to be defined by this obsession with what happened before, or at least, an interpretation of it? Take a lot of the young people on this forum; they have aspirations and want something better. A piece of the wealth and opportunities people get elsewhere.

The thing is, most people living in their own villages, towns and cities don't really give a shit about Liverpool's special and unfair circumstances. They have their own problems and loyalties, and I don't see why government should be expected to behave any differently.

It's like when most people walk through town and see a homeless person sat in a doorway. They may briefly feel a twang of concern, or they may not, but in any case, they will just continue on their way; they will go home, sit down in their comfortable warm living rooms and enjoy some television and good food. If the homeless man ever manages to get off his arse and make something of himself instead of expecting sympathy and pennies to be thrown to him, then one day he might earn the respect of those around him such that they will take an interest in all that went before. [some homesless people are mentally ill and are stuck in their circumstances, but I am using an analogy.]

In terms of the future, is Liverpool going to really benefit from a continuation of the recent past, with lazy, weak Labour MPs who take their positions for granted, and potentially a Labour Council with no good track record, when the government is probably going to be Conservative?

GV, if we insist on saying that all the city's woes are/where down to Thatcher, you do realise that will get us nowhere, as we will be ignoring many other causes that still need adressing?

Firstly, we all know it was many things and one was a systematic rape of the city over time by the south east power triangle. How does a commercial city with a mixed economy fall flat on its arse so quickly? There was clearly an element of pushing, without doubt. Nevertheless, Thatcher ground her heels in and completed the rout. Thatcher did sweet FA for the UK, never mind Liverpool. Those who shout he praises must be demented - no the UK did not need to be economically decimated to start again.

To the credit of the people of the UK they got around the damage the woman was doing.

The Radcliffe estate was a badly designed shithole, that was uninhabitable if you wher a human, right from the start, but!

This sort of illustrates the point. The failure of the Radcliffe estate was as much the responsibility of 'Thatcher' as the city's (continuing) freefall was.

Liverpool collapsed so profoundly during the two decades of the 70s' and 80s' because it failed to adress longer term problems and imbalances in its economic infrastructure. As long as blue collar 'jobs' wher being provided by other wealth generating countries and cities our leaders didn't care or understand. When the tories undid the Soviet this just compounded the massive closures of the branch plants that the city so depended on by then for the mass of jobs.

Another pont peope always ignore. The recession was global. Now, we can argue over how bad it would ahve been if other governments or policies where used, but. It is a bit like blaming Gordon Brown for the global meltdown we have just gone through.

My final point/plea. Liverpool will never recover whilst we insist that solutions to these things lie in the hands or control and diktat of government and their agents.

Many people chose to blame 'Thatcher' becasue it means they do not have to examine themselves.


John. I've just seen your last point. I agree that 'Thatcher' can be technically blamed for completing the rout, but this is fundamentally different to holding her account for everything. Is this not what I have always stated? I am not an apologist for Thatcher, but I have always understood the context of tory policy during the 80s'. Most of it had to be done in order to realign the country way from command and control and allow wealth cration to flower again. This worked exceedingly well.

My other point that you still have to disprove is this idea that the tories (Thatcher) systematically raped the city, as in purposely and specifically targeted the city, took things away and placed them elsewhere.

Some things did leave the city for 'greener pastrures' rather than close completely. The funy thing is that they usually found that after the fact (like Kraft and Nabisco) the Liverpool plants weren't too bad at all, in fact production fell in thier new plants, contrary to the popular assumption. Liverpool had a terrible reputation, but this wasn't created by the tories, it was already ingrained in the national psychie, paticularly within the industrial sectors. raft, Nabisco, Dunlop, Triumph, Meccano, Tates etc, were all private, commercial decisions, not government diktat. As I have said, the tories where busy rolling back the pwer of the state to control such things... and good on them for doing so!

splendidenough... I like your moxy, kid!

This man is unbelievably brainwashed. Amazing.

And also, why do you blame the government so much for how Liverpool faired in the 1980s?


Because they were in charge at the time? Like ignoring the city and pouring millions into Docklands.


I don't really blame those governments for holding Liverpool in contempt,


Should have have shot us on sight in the streets as well?


assuming they did (how do we know the vague statements you have made are actually true, and not just the propaganda of some Old Labour activist?)


Oh! The put down, it is not what is in his mind so can't be true.


A city riddled with union bullies and a loony council.


Oh this is it, hit the nail of the head here. The unions were to blame for everything, and all and sundry!! Wow!!! Cor! What a brilliant social historic analysis. A Council that fought back to preserve the city from being decimated is a bad thing to him. This is obviously a great analytical thinker. The unions were to blame for every effing thing. My oh my!!!!


I have lived in council estates in different parts of the country


A working class Tory, someone I have never understood. Johnny Speight wrote a TV comic character to ridicule this type, he called him Alf Garnet. Speight, said one working class man in the East End of London said to him, "I borrowed pair of boots and walked 5 miles to vote Tory". Speight was amazed at why these people would vote for a party that would keep them down and there was mass poverty around with the rich stinking rich. Hence the character Alf came along - the uneducated, dim, working class bigot.


The thing is, most people living in their own villages, towns and cities don't really give a shit about Liverpool's special and unfair circumstances. They have their own problems and loyalties, and I don't see why government should be expected to behave any differently.


But they still pour money into the south-east- Cross-Rail, while Liverpool's unused rail infrastructure lays idle.


It's like when most people walk through town and see a homeless person sat in a doorway. They may briefly feel a twang of concern, or they may not, but in any case, they will just continue on their way; they will go home, sit down in their comfortable warm living rooms and enjoy some television and good food. If the homeless man ever manages to get off his arse and make something of himself instead of expecting sympathy and pennies to be thrown to him, then one day he might earn the respect of those around him such that they will take an interest in all that went before.


I wonder what that inane babble is driving at?


In terms of the future, is Liverpool going to really benefit from a continuation of the recent past, with lazy, weak Labour MPs who take their positions for granted, and potentially a Labour Council with no good track record, when the government is probably going to be Conservative?

Liverpool is best to have a Labour council with a Labour government. It did wonders for Manchester. FACT

Why are you going on and on about Thatcher and her cabinets!? She disappeared nearly 20 years ago for heavens sake, and you are referring to events nearly 30 years old. And also, why do you blame the government so much for how Liverpool faired in the 1980s? Is that really how peoples lives are defined, by what governments do?

I don't really blame those governments for holding Liverpool in contempt, assuming they did (how do we know the vague statements you have made are actually true, and not just the propaganda of some Old Labour activist?) A city riddled with union bullies and a loony council. No doubt you will have a very different perspective though. But why post on a thread about the future of politics and talk about really old, cold war politics?

The housing estate you referred to; why was it in such a state? How did things get broken? According to a Radio 4 programme I heard some time ago about the city's housing, in some estates the residents tore the tiles from the roofs to make the homes uninhabitable. Was that really a good idea? Maybe there were good reasons, but you can surely understand an outsider not understanding it. It certainly sounds odd to me. I have lived in council estates in different parts of the country and as long as the people living around you look after their patch then they are all right places to live.

Is the future of Liverpool's youngsters going to be defined by this obsession with what happened before, or at least, an interpretation of it? Take a lot of the young people on this forum; they have aspirations and want something better. A piece of the wealth and opportunities people get elsewhere.

The thing is, most people living in their own villages, towns and cities don't really give a shit about Liverpool's special and unfair circumstances. They have their own problems and loyalties, and I don't see why government should be expected to behave any differently.

It's like when most people walk through town and see a homeless person sat in a doorway. They may briefly feel a twang of concern, or they may not, but in any case, they will just continue on their way; they will go home, sit down in their comfortable warm living rooms and enjoy some television and good food. If the homeless man ever manages to get off his arse and make something of himself instead of expecting sympathy and pennies to be thrown to him, then one day he might earn the respect of those around him such that they will take an interest in all that went before. [some homesless people are mentally ill and are stuck in their circumstances, but it is an analogy.]

In terms of the future, is Liverpool going to really benefit from a continuation of the recent past, with lazy, weak Labour MPs who take their positions for granted, and potentially a Labour Council with no good track record, when the government is probably going to be Conservative?

:lol: firstly how many aliases do you have? can't post under one name? your remark about LP could ony have come from someone who has been a regular contributor. Re: Thatcher, you're obviously not keeping up, Thatcher was being discussed. It could've been the case of courrse that the residents were to blame but it was not for someone without the facts to cast aspersions let alone a Prime Minsiter, mindset i'm afraid. I'm not going to engage in this parochial crap about Livepool council, the big picture is,as i've already stated national issues such as education and health and Labour are more likely to fund those adequately. OK:)

Who do you think it is GV? :)

I can't abide multiple identities. I hope he isn't one of them, as I quite liked his/her sentiments.

Who do you think it is GV? :)

I can't abide multiple identities. I hope he isn't one of them, as I quite liked his/her sentiments.

Haven't a clue Tony,he's splendidio though:lol:

:lol: firstly how many aliases do you have? can't post under one name?

I think you just lost the argument with that unnecessary personal attack. It's a shame, because I was interested in hearing what you had to say, whether I agreed or not. :ohno:

:cheers:




Bad analogy time!

Blaming 'Thatcher' for Liverpool's woes has always been like, taking a terrible and sustained hiding by a huge gang of thugs and no-marks and holding the person who spat in your face as they walked by after the event responsible for everything.

Hesiltine was a good man, who did some really good things in the city and tried to do more... was always a bit too pro-European for me like, but...... he could not have acted alone, someone/some group had to sanction his programme. All this talk of targetting and systematic rape is complete bollocks. That was the job of nulabour

I think you just lost the argument with that unnecessary personal attack. It's a shame, because I was interested in hearing what you had to say, whether I agreed or not. :ohno:

GV's a good forumer. If he has you wrong about using multiple identities then it is worth forgiving him! :)

I agre with what you stated below. The city needs to help lay the ground for wealth to be independently created as its economic policy priority, rather than all this garbage, failed garbage, about 'inward investment', which only ever provided a few blue collar jobs, and more recently some call centre shit ones.

I think you just lost the argument with that unnecessary personal attack. It's a shame, because I was interested in hearing what you had to say, whether I agreed or not. :ohno:

Ok apologies but the comment about LP made it appear you weren't "new" to the forum.:cheers:

Liverpool collapsed so profoundly during the two decades of the 70s' and 80s' because it failed to adress longer term problems and imbalances in its economic infrastructure.


By the mid 1970s Liverpool was a mixed economy with a mixture of commerce, transport, shipping and manufacturing.

OK, dock labourers were made redundant as the south docks closed and Central Docks ticked over. But the new Seaforth Container Dock was opened in 1971/72, balancing up somewhat. BTW, London Docks closed about the same time, and Manchester's in the late 70s effectively.

Why the massive collapse in the 1980s?

The old methods employed 1000s of people and the smaller ships required more people to maintain them. The slide was very quick. Poor management of the port certainly contributed that is for sure. Containerisation never came overnight. Since built in 1971 Seaforth Container terminal is only just being extended. The south end docks were deemed too small so closed down. The smaller Garston Docks, further up-river, through an expensive dredged channel, were viable, and are still operating.

Despite our anti-union, Alf Garnet type loony here, the days lost to industrial disputes at the worst was few in Liverpool. Liverpool never had the large factories and massed workforces of the industrial towns and cities, with organised labour a new thing to Liverpool. Despite myths, the hire by the ship casual labour dockers were not well organised at all.

The syphoning to London of banks, insurance companies, shipping lines, etc, did not help at all.


It is a bit like blaming Gordon Brown for the global meltdown we have just gone through.


Talk to the average loony in the pub. They think Brown did it all, as the Mail said so. I'm sure Alf Garnet here thinks that as well.


John. I've just seen your last point. I agree that 'Thatcher' can be technically blamed for completing the rout, but this is fundamentally different to holding her account for everything. Is this not what I have always stated? I am not an apologist for Thatcher, but I have always understood the context of tory policy during the 80s'. Most of it had to be done in order to realign the country way from command and control and allow wealth cration to flower again. This worked exceedingly well.


Tony, you are deluded. Thatcher did complete the rout and never did anything to help the city.

Thatcher did not create some wonderful free market wealth creation system. Everything she did she screwed up. She went from one mini wealth boom (knowing it would last months) before elections to another.

Manufacturing was only around 20% of the city's economy and employment. I recall the top man of Crawfords in Liverpool on TV when they closed down. He was a Scotsman and did not withhold his scorn at the media for the damage they had done to the city and blamed them for many of the company pull outs. Remember Thatcher gave gongs to the heads of P&O for no apparent reason, who miraculously relocated their ferry service from the Mersey to a village on the Dee - Mostyn. Of course it failed, and they grovelled and went back to the Mersey.

At the time Thatcher came to power in 1979 North Sea oil was just coming fully on tap. This was the greatest legacy the country had ever had. Instead of using it to prop up and modernise industries, create new industries, promote education and training, etc, to catapult the country forwards, they used it for unemployment benefits because their half-baked economic theories failed.

She did much damage. The UK is running out of gas and has to buy imported gas - hence massive crippling energy price hypes. To get rid of the coal industry, which the Tories despise, she allowed companies to use cheap North Sea gas to power electricity power stations instead of coal, of which the country has lots. She was told to preserve gas for primarily domestic consumption and use coal for electricity. We have few coal mines left in the country.

She squandered the income of North Sea oil on unemployment benefit, instead of investing the proceeds for the future: commerce, industry, education, etc.

Obsessions cloud reality and she had some obsessions OK. North Sea oil revenues were squandered. The greatest legacy the country ever had and she wasted it.


My other point that you still have to disprove is this idea that the tories (Thatcher) systematically raped the city, as in purposely and specifically targeted the city, took things away and placed them elsewhere.


As you noted, the Hag, dug her heels in, and completed the rout. She then left the city to rot and laughed. There is just too much circumstantial evidence to prove that Liverpool was raped. The suppression of the airport - run by the government until 1961, despite the city wanting it back after WW2. The finest airport in the country in 1945. Manchester took a massive lead which Liverpool could not catch. Manchester was manufacturing, Liverpool was transport. Common sense says when liners decline Liverpool's fantastic airport takes over. The air and sea ports could be linked. Not a bit of it.


Liverpool had a terrible reputation, but this wasn't created by the tories,


It was!!!! Them and their London based right-wing media. It still gioves us abad press.

:lol: firstly how many aliases do you have? can't post under one name? your remark about LP could ony have come from someone who has been a regular contributor.

Yep.

All this talk of targetting and systematic rape is complete bollocks. That was the job of nulabour

Tony, you have convinced me you are brainwashed. Look at post No. 20. What didn't you understand?

Jeezuz John. You compress everything that happened into a small period of tory domination. The airport, for example, was screwed for 50 years, since WWII. The government actually took the same attitude to it that they did to not handing back our brokerages. That was NOT Thatcher. How come Harold Wilson didn't sort out the airport 'anomoly'?

How come our shipping companies could not transfer from trans atlantic ship to trans atlantic planes, based in Liverpool? That's right, our command and control freaks said only national airlines could fly the routes, and they could only fly intercontinental from London's airports. So, they were left high and dry by our command economy, that had no place for a commerciall vibrant Liverpool. THEY decided what went where, from what city etc, not the market.

The old mantra that Liverpool was too dependent on its port was also a terrible error, made by those who only saw the port as the dockers jobs, rather than the incredibly sophisticated commercial, financial and insurance infrastructure associated with 'trade'... so we went and 'diversified'. If we hadbn't then we may have had more of a chance of being a mini Hong Kong or NYC, who's wealth is still somewhat related to what comes in and out of their ports. But I digress. We should not have 'diversified' into milltown factories, but concentrated on our commerce instead. If we had tried to do that then the systemic shortcomings (and some of the things that was responsible for this, like London leaching off elements) may have been identified and rectified.

Instead we went with the statist notions that you can shape an economy according to what some goon in a government research office reckons one SHOULD look like, screwing up our long term prospects.

imagine if London had done the same thing and allowed the City to wither on the vine?

Fucking stupid thing to do really, don't you agree?

Tony, you have convinced me you are brainwashed. Look at post No. 20. What didn't you understand?

you miss the point John, 'Thatcher' wasn't around dictating things at the end of the 19th C and for most of the 20th either.

You have never really considered the points I have raised before have you? If you do you may come to a more rounded opinion as to the causes of the city's decline and eventual destruction.. which had largely taken place by the time 'Thatcher' came on the scene in 79.

You have already made the concession that Thatcher completed the rout, so keep that now, do not row back away from this, as it begins to get to the reality of the city's demise. If you can build into your narrative the fact that Thatcher was not wholly responsible for the death of Liverpool the mighty global metropolis, then, one day, you may be able to analyse things more appropriately?

What was left of Liverpool for her to destroy by then. Liverpool 1907, Liverpool 1978, compare those two cities and tell me what elaments of Liverpool 07 there was for 'Thatcher' to destroy?

Jeezuz John. You compress everything that happened into a small period of tory domination. The airport, for example, was screwed for 50 years, since WWII. The government actually took the same attitude to it that they did to not handing back our brokerages. That was NOT Thatcher. How come Harold Wilson didn't sort out the airport 'anomoly'?


The airport was requisitioned in 1939 by the air ministry and given back in 1961. The council pleaded with them to give it back to counter the declining liner trade. Non-stop Trans-Atlantic jets were flying by 1958 and one stop over well before that. The first jet airliner, the Comet was in 1947. They only put runways lights in around 1960, having to use flares. The council immediately planned a new long runway for big jets. Manchester was too well established for Liverpool to make up the ground by the time the runways was opened in 1966.

You also have to think, why did the government keep the airport for so long and neglect it? It wasn't a military base. Also, the south-east power triangle will exploit anything irrespective of what government is in power.

Shipping companies transferring from trans-Atlantic ship to trans-Atlantic planes is massive phase shift. Another industry. Shipping lines did passenger and cargo so ships was No. 1. National airlines could fly from Manchester and did. Even BEA ran from Liverpool.

Liverpool was not too dependent on its port as new manufacturing industries came around and even the Giro Bank too.

Hong Kong and NYC, who's wealth is still somewhat related to what comes in and out of their ports, proves the port was important and still No. 1. It was poorly managed and dockers and unions were blamed. Flags of convenmience played a big part too.

Milltown factories mixed the economy, however the city should have aimed more at commerce, banks and insurance.

The city needed control of its own future - it should have been made a city state in 1945m, like Hamburg.

So what are we disagreeing about?

As I've always said on the 'Thatcher' issue, the truth is much more complex than the smelly old mantra that 'Maggie killed us'.

Why is all this relevant? Check out teh title of the thread.

If we can define the future that we want to explore this will imform the politics we need to establish.

One thing for sure is that we do not need to subscribe to national governments that control the economy, distribute strategic power to our competitor cities, or locally, have people who sit on their hands and do nothing, have no thought, no aspirations for Liverpool, who are happy to hold thier hands out and concentrate on other, ideological issues.

you miss the point John, 'Thatcher' wasn't around dictating things at the end of the 19th C and for most of the 20th either.


Tony, I did not blame Thatcher for all, and have said so a few times. She, as you noted, completed the rout, and laughed as the city after and did sweet FA. Hesseltine did nothing of merit - window dressing.

I have considered the points you have raised. The decline was many things, but most was systematic dismantling.

Look at the map of the UK in 1945. London was surrounded by market towns. A big city in a sea of fields. Between Acton and Heathrow was fields, now all urbanised.

The industry and innovation was primarily in the Midlands, north of England and part of Scotland. Manchester uni was instrumental in the first commercial computers, Liverpool in controlling malaria. Birmingham in radar, etc

Look at the map now. Did all these country bumpkins in the southern market towns all of a sudden become great innovative engineers? Their towns are now high-tech places. And the people who catapulted the world forwards like no other in history, in the industrial revolution, became stupid overnight and thre towns and cities slumped because they were so dim?

The shift to the south-east was planned. It was no co-incidence. The power structure in the Oxbridge-London triangle is there.


What was left of Liverpool for her to destroy by then. Liverpool 1907, Liverpool 1978, compare those two cities and tell me what elaments of Liverpool 07 there was for 'Thatcher' to destroy?

Liverpool in 1978 was holding its own. It needed help and could easy re-adjust. The Merseyrail metro had just come on line, so superb infrastructure was there. Do not hold up Thatcher as blameless. That is pure stupidity to do so. Even Heseltine said, "Britain should be ashamed for allowing a city like Liverpool to go the way it did". The Hag didn't care.

One thing for sure is that we do not need to subscribe to national governments that control the economy, distribute strategic power to our competitor cities, or locally, have people who sit on their hands and do nothing, have no thought, no aspirations for Liverpool, who are happy to hold thier hands out and concentrate on other, ideological issues.

National governments need to control the economy as it is more interlinked world-wide than ever before. Brown stopped the boom & bust of the Thatcher eras.

You have a point about power. Liverpool needs its own power-base, with real power. Your darling Thatcher stripped all power and concentrated it in Westminster, leaving councils to empty the bins.

Liverpool council could and should have connected better with the local MPs, as they did in Manchester. A Labour council would have greatly benefited Liverpool, with both pulling the same way.

do you really mean control, or do you actually mean guide, or possibly contain (the excesses of etc) by taxation and regulation?


Just imagine if the government had handed back the airport in, er 1945, as they should have, and been a bit more nationally minded in their strategies for major transport infrastructure development?

Imagine if they had welcomed a market revival in transport, rather than seing these as competition to their nationally owned favourites. Imagine if they had let the market decide where people wanted to take their plane journeys from, rather than hogging everything for London's air link developments.

Imagine if they had even just given one or two nice slots to a restored (in 1945) airport, rather than hog everything for London?


You can go across the board with similar sorts of examples. Now, just imagine the economic fillip the city could have had, had they all been encourageed, rather than suppressed?

do you really mean control, or do you actually mean guide, or possibly contain (the excesses of etc) by taxation and regulation?


Guide and slight control when wandering off track.


Just imagine if the government had handed back the airport in, er 1945, as they should have, and been a bit more nationally minded in their strategies for major transport infrastructure development?


Plane travel was not a focused item in 1945. In the mid-1950s it was. The airport still stayed in gvmt hands.


Imagine if they had let the market decide where people wanted to take their plane journeys from, rather than hogging everything for London's air link developments.


Long haul jets were not just from London. Liverpool was suppressed and the airport is one of the glaring examples.

The in-law is an ex pilot, ex CAA, etc. He is all for London, coming from there of course. He says the air lines and people want to go to London, so the airports must be expanded. I tell him, that is because the system is designed that way and air-lines have no alternative. The connections at Heathrow is the attraction. Only about 20% of the people who use London's airports actual go to London. The CAA says Liverpool is the best airport in the country for ease of expansion because planes fly over the estuary and runways can go in the river.

Maglevs have been talked about between Liverpool and Mchr airports running on the ship canal wall. These could effectively make the two airports one. Check in at one, take the Maglev and 10 minutes later at the other to take off.

Link the airports and remote checking is possible. Link the cities and remote check-in is still possible. Check-in at B'ham city centre remote check-in and take a train at JLA. Maglevs can make the airports all one interconnected web.

Maglevs speed at over 300mph, which gives Liverpool London in approx 45 minutes. An interconnection at Heathrow can mean the passenger gets the Maglev to JLA and is there in 45 minutes and no need to touch the baggage.

That is what they should be doing, not building runways and unnecessary terminals in places where local people do not want them. It can be used for city centre to city centre as well, not just airport to airport. I doubt it will happen because it is too sensible a thing to do.

Originally Posted by jets9
Derek Hatton fancied himself as a businessman didn't he?


Great politician though.


Only in a demagogory hitler/mussolini sort of way. Whatever turns you on.

Only in a demagogory hitler/mussolini sort of way. Whatever turns you on.

If you say so. You are the one who is turned on by him.

If you say so. You are the one who is turned on by him.


Only in a snuf movie kind of way. What's your intellectual/academic/political excuse?

Only in a snuf movie kind of way. What's your intellectual/academic/political excuse?

Clipped sentences. Excuse for what?

Clipped sentences. Excuse for what?

For admiring a trotskyist nobhead, of course. A real enemy of the working class. A racist who used the black caucus (remember that) for political ends.
A wide boy who couldn't deliver meals on wheels services while preening himself as a TV star and wannabee capitalist businesman. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Have the courage of your convictions and offer an honest critique of Hattonism. You can go on admiring him while offering a deconstruction for the benefit of the revolution. :lol:

Is it not slighty incompatible to admire Militant and New Labour?

You cannot be a Trotskyite and a Neo liberal.

when they both throw out gormelss platitudes and groundless rhetoric to stir the masses then you can see how folk can get confused.