SkyscraperCity Forum banner

LCR Combined Authority & Metro Mayor General Thread

599K views 5K replies 218 participants last post by  CarloAnchovie 
#1 ·
It would appear that Liverpool is not seen as a likely candidate to be amongst the first group of 'city regions'. For more info see this report in the Echo.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/...cy-of-storey-v-henshaw-battles-name_page.html

I'm hoping that the government will reject the recommendations suggested by the report and proceed anyway especially as the Storey / Henshaw debacle has been resolved.

If Liverpool loses out ...
 
#77 ·
Radley said:
for those people who, let's say, travel to work in manchester (trains and motorways both ways are packed every morning), but live in liverpool, visit rellies in wirral at the weekend, holiday in cumbria, walk in cheshire, or whatever, the north west is a very real, coherent place, and maybe they would appreciate something that links those things.

What about the people who commute to London,Leeds etc..?
 
#78 ·
Radley said:
gareth, as for 'can we take rotten veg to throw' at the paper's launch, does the veg have to be strictly homegrown as well?

Not sure about the homegrown veg but tokenism should always be acknowledged for the sham it is. Imagine a 'North West region' without Liverpool in it. Precisely, the nature and aspirations of the beast are glaringly obvious.
 
#79 ·
LoL! good one about the fruit.

If power and where it lies is of no importance, then why don't we just leave London looking after our interests. Calling for devolved powers never gets the retort of cockney hating does it!

You really think this one through. If the major levers of power, major institutions and 'regional' centres are in Manchester, what does that leave Liverpool to do in the world?

It goes against the grain as to how cities work.... the better brains in Mnac are also opposed to the stupid notion... why is that?

To see the argument as some sort of Royston Veysey plea is to utterly miss the point.

No... St Helen's does not identify as part of the great scouse culturopolis and neither does Southport... so why would they be forced into something they would not want... fair point... though they are perfectly happy being part of Merseyside.

Places like Widness, Ellesmere Port, Neston whixh are part of the city region, culturally as well as economiclly were not taken into the old metropolitan county construct.

Why it wasn't is another historically interesting point... the old metro counties seem to be Mancs net was cast as wide as poss (Wigan, part of GM?) whilst Liverpool was confined to as close to the city as poss... with the two above mentioned thrown in, with the reaction of Southport over the years (till Objective 1 trough came on tap to keep their snouts happy)... causing instability and ructions.

The issue has been covered on this thread loads of times... GM politicos are MUCH MORE savvy than the crapheads we afflict on ourselves over this end of the East Lancs!
 
#80 ·
Radley said:
for those people who, let's say, travel to work in manchester (trains and motorways both ways are packed every morning), but live in liverpool, visit rellies in wirral at the weekend, holiday in cumbria, walk in cheshire, or whatever, the north west is a very real, coherent place, and maybe they would appreciate something that links those things.

...the construct of a city region is possibly as daft as the wider regional concept if you ask me, do st helens people feel as affiliated with liverpool as the mersey partnership et al would have us believe?

by the way, brown's budget today has just commissioned another report into the state of UK cities, due out next year. latest one out this month on prescott's odpm website.

gareth, as for 'can we take rotten veg to throw' at the paper's launch, does the veg have to be strictly homegrown as well?
It's the North West agenda that's fostering parochialism.Liverpool should be aspiring to restore itself to the world stage.Not playing second fiddle to to Manchester as a sub-region in , er, "the north west"
 
#82 ·
Whaa underlies all of this is the state wasting peoples hard earned money on mis guided, or selfish ideas, dreamed up by narrow elites. All of the consultancy and research alone must have cost a fortune so far. How exactly will it benefit people in say Liverpool, or Runcorn or Chester to be governed as part of the North west from the so-called regional capital, Manchester? All this will do is cost a fortune, moving state institutions around, and ultimately creating winners and losers as the state does already.

I'd like to see less governance full stop. People don't need to be shown the way all the time by people whose only known achievements consist of being elected in political elections- and we all know the kinds of personal characteristics that aid in achievements like this.- half of the time it certainly doesn't rerquire any brains.

I'd like to see the UK follow a pattern more like that of Germany. A watered-down federal setup based on individual city regions. The morons in this country have ASSUMED, for various reasons, that there needs to be a northern capital (Leeds-Manchester) and a southern capital. But the experience in Germany is different- there, we see very powerful medium-sized cities. Hamburg is the richest city in Europe and is not the largest by any means- nor has been the subject of some arbitrary scheme to make it more powerful (as per Manc and North West, and Manc-Leeds "corridor".)

This whole regionalist agenda just stinks, and forces many people to think and be against their naturally evolved inclinations. I remember being at my Mum and Dad's recently and on the North West news the back ground was of Manchester city centre. I remember my Mum asking where it was. She has grown up, lived and worked in the Liverpool city region all her life- Liverpool, Runcorn and Wales. She's never even been to Manchester- just because her life path has never required she does so. I myself am much more mobile than my Mother, yet I have only been to Manchester twice or three times, and one of those times was only to change trains.

It only takes a bit of maturity and brain power, even for people affiliated with the regional chosen one, to understand that people have their own localities that they love and are proud of and actually MEAN SOMETHING to them. They don't dislike other people or places, but either do not understand, or oppose the fact that some politicians have decreed that from now on their own attachments and places should be slowly eroded as part of some grand and psychotic scheme that doesn't even make any sense- or even been rationally explained/justified.

The whole North West agenda, and focus on Manchester and Leeds is fucking stupid, and I've yet to see a singly person persuade me otherwise.
 
#83 · (Edited)
I have said this all along. I live about half a mile from the "official Liverpool boundary" in Bootle. i have a Liverpool postcode and phone number. And yet my council authority (Sefton MBC) extends to 20 miles up the coast to Southport (a totally different type of town!). Who the hell thought up this authority? It must be the most artificial local authority in the country! Have you ever seen the shape of it on a map! It comprises working class scouse speaking districts in the south (Bootle, Seaforth, Netherton, etc) middle class Liverpool suburbs in the middle (Maghull, Crosby, Hightown, etc) and a rather posh Lancastrian seaside retirement town in the north (Southport). and the name Sefton? what the hell does that mean? It is a tiny village in north Liverpool in reality.

Similarly Knowsley is a village on the eastern Liverpool sprawl. The whole of Knowsley is effectively Liverpool overspill. The people are even more scouse than in Liverpool itself! (as befits there central inner city Liverpool origins) The only part that had a Lancastrian (wolley-back!) identity was Prescot and Whiston, but even this is changing. If you listen to the accents in the schools in the area, it is decidely scouse nowadays. Only the old people still maintain the Lancastrian twang.

Coming back to the thread. Taking Saint Helens borough, on the whole, i would imagine that they are not totally thrilled by the prospect of joining a Liverpool city region (they didnt exactly welcome joining Merseyside). But even in this borough there are many Liverpudlian overspill areas, eg. Rainford, Rainhill, Billinge, Sherdley Park etc. So i think on the whole it is more drawn to a Liverpool region rather than a Manchester one.

The Wirral (including Ellesmere Port and Neston) is firmly nailed to the Liverpool city region both culturally and industry wise.

Halton borough (Widnes and Runcorn) and the southern half of West Lancs borough (Ormskirk and Skem) are more bankers.

I could go further and argue that the western half of Warrington (Sankey, Penketh) be included as this was a designated Liverpool newtown in 1968. and that parts of north wales be included, but i guess you have to draw the line somewhere.


kung_fuzi said:
As has been mentioned before this is all to do with self preservation.
To hell with the fact that there is duplication of councils,committees etc..lets save our jobs.
How anyone can explain the utter illogicality of Liverpool,Bootle & Huyton having three separate councils is beyond me. :cheers:
 
#84 ·
Merseyside versus Liverpool againAug 22 2006


By Bill Gleeson, Daily Post



THE chief executive of BusinessLiverpool has re-ignited the debate over whether Liverpool or Merseyside should be the region's main brand for inward investment drives.

According to Mike Taylor, The Mersey Partnership is looking again at the issue and was in discussions with the area's local authorities about the matter.

TMP insists it has no plans to ditch Merseyside but said it was looking at new ideas.

Mr Taylor made his claim in a podcast interview with Daily Post business editor Bill Gleeson that can be heard at the paper's business website, thebusinessweek.co.uk

Mr Taylor said the area ought to revert to the Liverpool brand, even though such a proposal was turned down a couple of years ago. He said: "I definitely think it would be better.

"An indication of that came from the City Growth board, all of whom were private sector.

"One of the key findings and requests was the attack brand for Merseyside should recognise Liverpool as the only world class brand.

"Liverpool is a really strong brand.

"By adopting Liverpool City Region it's not in any way failing to recognise the vital contribution that the whole of Merseyside makes to the area.

"The Mersey Partnership already has more of the feel of the Liverpool City Region about it and the word Merseyside is not used any more.

"We have to go with the key marketing brand we have which is Liverpool and The Mersey Partnership will be looking at this again and what is the best way to market the region.

"The whole region benefits from good clear branding that attracts inward investment."

The issue of how best to market the region is a sensitive one. Some boroughs objected to the plan to use the word Liverpool rather than Merseyside in the past.
TMP chief executive Robert Crawford denied he has any plans to move away from the use of the word Merseyside in favour of Liverpool. He did however acknowledge he was drawing up proposals about the best way of promoting inward investment.

Mr Crawford said: "I'm working on a presentation to substantially upgrade our inward investment efforts, but the plans do not include dropping reference to Merseyside for Liverpool. I'm aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue."


Mr Taylor said he believed BusinessLiverpool had an important role to play in providing support services for local businesses. He said he believes that his organisation will survive the cull of support services advocated by the Chancellor in his last Budget.



This just goes on and on,no one seems capable of taking the idea forward.
 
#85 ·
kung_fuzi said:
Merseyside versus Liverpool againAug 22 2006
THE chief executive of BusinessLiverpool has re-ignited the debate over whether Liverpool or Merseyside should be the region's main brand for inward investment drives.
Liverpool Bay is the best name, as it is geographical. As a brand Liverpool is a powerful name, especially aboard. Wallasey, Birkenhead, Bootle, Halewood, Kirkby, Huyton, Crosby, etc, should be incorporated within the city of Liverpool. Then the city will pull one way. The Wirral towns are no examples of advancment that is for sure - in fact ir is dire with not one decent building on the whole peninsular (sorry one, St. George's solar heated school in Wallasey). Those who sneer Liverpool in Merseyside tend to be small minded Little Middle Englanders on the Wirral, who think they are "posh", so vote Tory and read the Daily Mail - little clones.

Everyone in Merseyside is within the socio/economic circle of Liverpool. Without Liverpool they would be living in small hamlets.

Merseyside should be renamed Liverpool Bay. The Mersey starts at Stockport, so should they be in Merseyside?
 
#86 ·
Constraints, constraints, constraints......

In fairness when `Merseyside County Council` was abolished for purely party politcal reasons (and when it was doing a very good job - politics aside) part of the mantle of regeneration fell to the replacement quango `Merseyside Development Corporation` which in turn when it was abolished fell to `The Merseyside Partnership` and across all of those years greater advancement would have been made if we had politicians of a better calibre and not all in their respective cabals, choice any colour you like.

To some degree the `quangos` broke loose of the politics and got on with the task as best they could.

Never let it be said in totallity that they could just get on with the job.

How often have we said we need a new politics?
 
#87 ·
Is it that we are a one city island?

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=377643

Looking at the investment that is currently going into London and to a degree correctly as a world city,

To quote: eXBbass

"People go to Tokyo to do business with Japan, they go to New York to do business with America, but they come to London to do business with the rest of the world."

As `Liverpool` is the second brand of `England` and that is being a bit shy,
How come, EH etc aren`t putting the blocks on the `view lines`, `WHS conflict`, `height constraints` in London that Liverpool has to endure and why is it that London politicians pull in every penny and Liverpools don`t......

An over simplication I know, but relevant nevertheless.

Is it that we are a one city island?
 
#88 ·
City on The Water said:
Liverpool Bay is the best name, as it is geographical. As a brand Liverpool is a powerful name, especially aboard. Wallasey, Birkenhead, Bootle, Halewood, Kirkby, Huyton, Crosby, etc, should be incorporated within the city of Liverpool. Then the city will pull one way. The Wirral towns are no examples of advancment that is for sure - in fact ir is dire with not one decent building on the whole peninsular (sorry one, St. George's solar heated school in Wallasey). Those who sneer Liverpool in Merseyside tend to be small minded Little Middle Englanders on the Wirral, who think they are "posh", so vote Tory and read the Daily Mail - little clones.

Everyone in Merseyside is within the socio/economic circle of Liverpool. Without Liverpool they would be living in small hamlets.

Merseyside should be renamed Liverpool Bay. The Mersey starts at Stockport, so should they be in Merseyside?

Would we want them? :)
 
#89 ·
pmsl

Yeah, I don't either.

But, if it did, could you imagine there would be Liverpool International Airport and Stocky International Airport within the same region! Having said that maybe we could rename both of them as Liverpool International Airport Central and Liverpool International Airport East.

:cheers:
 
#90 ·
bluesnapper said:
pmsl

Yeah, I don't either.

But, if it did, could you imagine there would be Liverpool International Airport and Stocky International Airport within the same region! Having said that maybe we could rename both of them as Liverpool International Airport Central and Liverpool International Airport East.

:cheers:

I always regard Ringy as our second airport anyway. :)
 
#92 ·
the term "merseyside" sends shivers down my spine. i loathe it. :bash: it surely has to be Liverpool City Region or Greater Liverpool. the mistakes of the local government shake up of the 1970s when Liverpool (and indeed Manchester) was kept small and insignificant in comparison with other northern cities (which were effectively made up into huge city regions) have to be put behind us once and for all.
 
#93 ·
kung_fuzi said:
I always regard Ringy as our second airport anyway. :)
Well I suppose `Liverpool Richard Starkey Airport (Ringo Starr Manchester)`

"We follow the drum beat"

Does have a certain `bounce` to it.
 
#94 ·
City on The Water said:
Merseyside should be renamed Liverpool Bay. The Mersey starts at Stockport, so should they be in Merseyside?
Indeed, most of Greater Manchester actually lies within the Mersey basin whereas half of Liverpool (the borough) doesn't. I've never liked the term "Merseyside" as a synonym for the Liverpool metropolitan area for similar reasons. "Liverpool Bay" would suffice, though to be honest I'm not that arsed as long as it isn't crap.
 
#95 ·
Can't decide from amongst the following:

New Liverpool
Seftonia
Bigger Bootle
Greater Wirral Region (abbreviated to GWR)
Gtr Kirkby, Gtr Speke - thinking 300 years ahead
Gtr Anything
River City
Liverpool Bay
Bay City

and

Liverpool City Region
 
#96 ·
The current offering at the Royal Court as well as the renewed interest from the Daily Post is highlighting the parochial, myopic views of many people in the region.

As a whole we have to looking globally and look at what works for all of us. Wirral will still be Wirral, Bootle will be Bootle, Knowlsey will become a village again rather than a name for suburban sprawl.

Call it whatever suits but get the mindset right first.
 
#97 ·
Toadboy said:
The current offering at the Royal Court as well as the renewed interest from the Daily Post is highlighting the parochial, myopic views of many people in the region.
As a whole we have to looking globally and look at what works for all of us. Wirral will still be Wirral, Bootle will be Bootle, Knowlsey will become a village again rather than a name for suburban sprawl.

Call it whatever suits but get the mindset right first.

There was an article in yesterdays Daily Post which highlights that.
Mike taylor of Business Liverpool is all in favour of calling the region Liverpool.
Robert Crawford of The Mersey Partnership however was against the idea and said his group had no intention of dropping the word Merseyside.
The article went on to say that this idea had met with resistance in the past from the other Boroughs who were afraid of losing their identity.
I thought that was a bit rich really considering that when these Boroughs were created in the first place that led to many areas losing their identities.
Bootle,Huyton,Halewood,Birkenhead,wallasey,etc.etc.. all vanished as individual councils and were absorbed into the new boroughs.
The idea of Bootle being absorbed by Liverpool was described as unthinkable but then hey presto Bootle vanished into Sefton and that was deemed O.K.

There seems to be a school of thought that says any absorbtion of councils is ok as long as it isn't by Liverpool.

Why should this be?
 
#98 ·
The fact that the leader of Wirral Borough Council, while extolling the virtues of the Wirral, spoke about it being a great borough was the big give away.

Isn't it time we understood what boroughs are.

I still see 'Wirral' as a geographic entity in it's own right, but the whole Wirral and ultimately that's part of a greater area.
 
#99 ·
Toadboy said:
The fact that the leader of Wirral Borough Council, while extolling the virtues of the Wirral, spoke about it being a great borough was the big give away.

Isn't it time we understood what boroughs are.

I still see 'Wirral' as a geographic entity in it's own right, but the whole Wirral and ultimately that's part of a greater area.


The way I see it regarding our region is this.
I think that everyone would agree that Liverpool City Centre(Downtown Liverpool) is the centre of the region currently known as Merseyside,Geographically,Economically and Culturally.

Therefore it stands to reason that outlying districts whether it be Dingle or Bootle, Huyton or Heswall,Kirkby or Kirkdale etc. are suberbs of that centre.
If the centre is called Liverpool then those suberbs surely are part of a Greater Liverpool.
Or am i wrong in this thinking?
 
#100 ·
But this is the conceit, delusion... basically the lie, we allow to be perpetuated when we indulge this type of crap!

WHAT IDENTITY?

They have none, outseide Merseyside.... nobody will have heareed of them, it would not make the slightest difference to their 'standing' or grants, if they where Wirral, Knowsley - Liverpool, rather than " " Merseyside....
I think the debate needs to be raised and these assumptions put into their embarrasing perspective!



kung_fuzi said:
There was an article in yesterdays Daily Post which highlights that.
Mike taylor of Business Liverpool is all in favour of calling the region Liverpool.
Robert Crawford of The Mersey Partnership however was against the idea and said his group had no intention of dropping the word Merseyside.
The article went on to say that this idea had met with resistance in the past from the other Boroughs who were afraid of losing their identity.
I thought that was a bit rich really considering that when these Boroughs were created in the first place that led to many areas losing their identities.
Bootle,Huyton,Halewood,Birkenhead,wallasey,etc.etc.. all vanished as individual councils and were absorbed into the new boroughs.
The idea of Bootle being absorbed by Liverpool was described as unthinkable but then hey presto Bootle vanished into Sefton and that was deemed O.K.

There seems to be a school of thought that says any absorbtion of councils is ok as long as it isn't by Liverpool.

Why should this be?
 
#101 ·
Tony Sebo said:
But this is the conceit, delusion... basically the lie, we allow to be perpetuated when we indulge this type of crap!

WHAT IDENTITY?

They have none, outseide Merseyside.... nobody will have heareed of them, it would not make the slightest difference to their 'standing' or grants, if they where Wirral, Knowsley - Liverpool, rather than " " Merseyside....
I think the debate needs to be raised and these assumptions put into their embarrasing perspective!

That's right these councils would still exist because at the moment no one is talking about a takeover, merely the branding of the area to the outside world as Liverpool rather than Merseyside.
 
Top