Elected Mayor for Liverpool

[Dingle All The Way]

Some one on the poll on here has voted for that mulhearn fella. In the candidates booklet sent to all registered voters he is pictured proudly standing next to a city centre bungalow he helped build in the 80's. They wanted the city to become a village.

[aek-94]

Originally Posted by Dingle All The Way

Some one on the poll on here has voted for that mulhearn fella. In the candidates booklet sent to all registered voters he is pictured proudly standing next to a city centre bungalow he helped build in the 80's. They wanted the city to become a village.

A bungalow? They're for the suburbs, not the city centre and inner city.

[George Bramwell]

Originally Posted by Dingle All The Way

Thank you George. I suppose I am just concerned that on a larger level they might be a bit anti development.

I agree about the dog mess issue by the way. To be honest I'm not sure I know anyone that likes poo.

The Greens have this thing about recycling which came from Germany - they had control of the whole country. The Germans pushed the agenda onto the EU, ten onto us. That made sense then but not now.

Re-cycling is a total waste of time - I don't do it under protest. It takes
far more energy to collect and sort the stuff than to burn it and produce
needed electricity reducing oil imports or burning coal. Stack scrubbers are now very advanced. Even the Defra web site had the low emissions of the stacks stated, yet councils are forcing people to re-cycle or be fined and HMG is still pushing this recycling in order to get the "green" vote no doubt.

Most things can burn. Incendiary is iron and aluminium. 99% of all household waste can be safely burnt to create energy. The metals left in the ashes is then sorted and recycled. The reason re-cycling was introduced rather than burning was the toxic products of combustion of the burning waste. That is no longer the case.

The UK will run out of land fill. These land fills contaminate the land for many, many hundreds of years.

The Greens may not U turn on recycling to save face as they pushed it hard. That is my concern about them. The political stance then becomes solid.

Their policy on housing is obviously to develop brownfield sites first. Their land taxes will help there which I admire and they will help Liverpool greatly. But on a wider level only about 14% of needed housing in the UK can be obtained via brownfield. And should we not keep a lot of it open and green in urban areas? That creates a more attractive environment from the congested filth we had before. If so then that may be only 10% services by brownfield.

The Greens overall policy on land is still disappointing to me. It needs clarifying. We should be spreading into the country not barred out of it as we currently are by the planning act. Currently land prices are artificially ratcheted up in urban areas and makes homes smaller and poky and horrendously expensive.

[George Bramwell]

Originally Posted by aek-94

A bungalow? They're for the suburbs, not the city centre and inner city.

Now they look out of place. Look at the appalling state of Liverpool's housing stock pre the bungalows and after. The appalling dilapidated tenements. They did a good job. But they were not built in the right places.

[Louis1986]

Originally Posted by Dingle All The Way

Some one on the poll on here has voted for that mulhearn fella. In the candidates booklet sent to all registered voters he is pictured proudly standing next to a city centre bungalow he helped build in the 80's. They wanted the city to become a village.

anyone who even took part in the illegal budget should not even be considered for mayor or any political position for that matter

[buggedboy]

The main debate has been cancelled due to safety fears. The presence of the BNP and NF candidates have lead to threats of large scale protests and demos.

[George Bramwell]

Originally Posted by Louis1986

anyone who even took part in the illegal budget should not even be considered for mayor or any political position for that matter

I think they should be given the Freedom of the City. They fought back. Memories are short, Only last Christmas it "officially" announced was the Tory paper "Managing the Decline of Liverpool as major Metropolitan area". This paper was known shortly after it was written by leaks and these men thought otherwise and fought back.

From wiki......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-ca...verpool_budget

It wasn't just Liverpool:

Liverpool budget

Liverpool's adoption of a deficit budget for 1985/86 meant that the council quickly ran short of money. By September it was apparent that without a new source of funds, the council would be insolvent in December; as an employer it was therefore obliged to issue 90-day redundancy notices to its entire workforce. After this decision was announced on 6 September,[221] the council's joint shop stewards called for an indefinite strike,[222] and also occupied council buildings and prevented the council from holding a meeting to formally vote to issue the redundancy notices.[223] The national leaderships of the trade unions attempted to restrain their local branches from going ahead with the strike,[224] and when NALGO members voted against the strike by 7,284 to 8,152, it was called off.[225]

The redundancy notices were issued on 27 September, together with a letter from the council's leader and deputy leader (John Hamilton and Derek Hatton) explaining that there was no intention to make any employee redundant but that the notices were a legal requirement. With time running out, the council had to hire taxis to distribute the notices.[226] At the Labour Party conference the following week, David Blunkett agreed with Hatton that the GLC's Director-General Maurice Stonefrost could offer advice to Liverpool. Stonefrost suggested increasing rates by 15%, and cutting the housing programme.[227] The council's budget problems for the 1985-86 financial year were only solved when the council removed £23m from its capital budget to fund revenue spending, and borrowed £30m from Swiss banks to replenish the capital fund. The council also transferred £3m in loans which it had given to other Labour councils and found £3m of budget savings. The council's Finance Committee approved this plan on 26 November 1985.[228]

Reactions to Liverpool

Other commentators agreed that Liverpool's tactics had been successful: The Times printed a leader which began "Today in Liverpool municipal militancy is vindicated" and argued that the Government had subverted "its whole local government financial policy of the past four years; it issues an open invitation to councils to say the caps don't fit and they won't wear them".

Liverpool did what Thatcher would approve. They turned to the private sector for loans.

"Give us back our £30 million" became the movement's rallying cry. An opinion poll in September 1985 showed that 60% - in a city of half a million - supported the demand for more money from central government. Only 24% disagreed. 74% told the same poll they were prepared to put up with disruption in services like schools, refuse collection etc. if council workers went on strike to support the council.

There was an hysterical scare campaign against the council. More than once Thatcher threatened to suspend local democracy and send in the army! Yet we won the hearts and minds of the city's working class.

THATCHER COULD not defeat us democratically. We won every election in that period. So the Liverpool 47 - the 47 Labour councillors who took the fight to the very end - had to be removed by a judicial coup in that relic of feudalism, the House of Lords!

They actually won:

We conducted a mass campaign. When Patrick Jenkin, the local government minister, came to Liverpool to see what was going on, we showed him all the city's dreadful housing conditions. This patrician Tory said he hadn't seen housing like that in his life.

He was compelled on that basis to negotiate a deal with us in 1984. We were the only council to get extra funding, £60 million, which allowed us to balance our budget and continue our policies.

[buggedboy]

You know something? I think Joe could be under threat for this race from Liam Fogherty. Having spoken to many who don't want to vote for Joe, most either want Liam or are prepared to vote Liam as their second preference vote. Very few of those who do not want Joe seem to be willing to vote for him as their second choice.

Joe will obviously get the most votes, but if he doesn't secure 50% of the vote first time around I can see Liam Fogherty potentially getting in via the second preference system. Lets say Joe gets 45% of the vote and Liam gets 20%. Richard Kemp I think will be getting third in this election (I think he'll get about 15%) and most of his supporters won't vote for Joe but look upon Liam quite favourably. Radford will get about 5%, John Coyne 2% and Tony Caldeira will get 3-5% too. Together that amounts too up to 25% of the vote going to Liam Fogherty under the 2nd preference system. If he gets those, he'll get 45% of the vote too, neck and neck with Joe.

Remember that the winning candidate doesn't need to get 50%, only the most votes after the 2nd preference is taken into account.


The biggest variable above is Richard Kemp's vote. It could be that the Lib Dem vote totally collapses. I'm not sure that many of those who might have voted for him end up voting for Joe.

Very interesting and it shows the need for candidates to appeal more broadly that what they are used to and not simply slag off the opposition, as they might need their supporters second preference votes to win.

[Dingle All The Way]

I think the green vote will be much higher than 2%. Closer to 6 or 8% is my guess.

[aek-94]

In case anybody is interested, here is the Liverpool mayoral debate from the other day;

http://www.baytvliverpool.co.uk/vod/...V4f9046f9dbd4e

Independent candidate Liam Fogarty won the debate, according to an exit poll. See here.

[buggedboy]

Originally Posted by Dingle All The Way

I think the green vote will be much higher than 2%. Closer to 6 or 8% is my guess.

Possibly. It's all conjecture on my part. Still, I think it could be closer than the bookies make out.

[Chris B]

Betting odds from William Hill, correct as of time/date of this post -

Next Mayor of Liverpool

Joe Anderson - Labour
1/10

Richard Kemp - Liberal Democrat
11/2

John Coyne - Green
10/1

Tony Caldeira - Conservative
16/1

Jeff Berman - Liverpool Independent Party
33/1

Liam Fogarty - Independent
Adam Heatherington - UKIP
Tony Mulhearn - Trade Union and Socialist Coalition
Steve Radford - Liberal
100/1

Mike Whitby - BNP
Paul Rimmer - English Democrats
Peter Tierney - National Front
200/1

From here - http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en...Liverpool.html

[Joe the red]

Caldeira 16/1....Fogerty 100/1... Makes no sense to me.

[macca_lad]

There are 17 turkeys voting for Anderson then? Good grief.

[Joe the red]

And keeping the bird theme going, a tit voting for whoever you're voting for.

[Paul D]

[macca_lad]

Back to the 80s with Joe, that's what you're voting for? Bribing students to vote for him with the promise of £30 ema? How will he pay for any of his commitments?

Homes he's paying developers £15k a pop for- won't these developers make more than enough money from selling them alone? Why does he need to subsidise them?

Signing a new Liverpool Direct contract last year, delaying until the last few months to pay back the funds to the government to resolve the impasse over the cruise terminal, the man is a walking disaster for this city.

[Khattab1]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

There are 17 turkeys voting for Anderson then? Good grief.

What is it with you and animals maybe the PETA forum would suit you better.

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by Khattab1

What is it with you and animals maybe the PETA forum would suit you better.

You're right I should have rephrased. 19 Khattab's voting for Joe Anderson.

[Khattab1]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

You're right I should have rephrased. 19 Khattab's voting for Joe Anderson.

Scouse vegan who hates the national and Joe Anderson still hurting is it?

Racecourse plans rejected!!!!
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...ze=25#comments