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 ...
 
#153 ·
Interesting conversation lads.

Thought I'd add my two penneth...

In my opinion - any 'democracy' (see Iraq) has to evolve from the bottom up, i.e. any political institutions MUST be formed with the will of the people.

In Iraq we've failed, we imposed a form of democracy as opposed to it evolving over time.

Look how many centuaries our current democracy in this country took to develop - including many many civil wars.

Now, you are wondering what on earth this has to do with a 'Liverpool City Region' (or for that matter any other city region).

From the position I am seeing from people in positions of power (or public influence) in your area I do not see this 'Liverpool ciy region' evolving. The only way I can see what many on here seem to desire (which I will point out is not a very representative proportion of society) would be for a 'solution' to be forced on the area (Iraq style).

As far as I can tell, from an ousiders point of view, there doesn't seem to be any great desire for a Liverpool City region by those that are not in the urban core of the city (I do NOT mean LCC here).

Contrast this to the evolution over the last 10 years or so over here, with the branding of the area for tourism and business investment as Manchester (see many oficial Greater Manchester agency web sites that only use the name 'Manchester').

Also, there is the formal organisation of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, each council chooses to join this organisation, so much so, that not only are the 10 Greater Manchester boroughs members, but Blackburn & Darwin along with Blackpool are associate members also.

This is the evolution I suspect that needs to happen in Liverpool - it needs to be bottom up rather than top down as some on here are advocating.

Just my thoughts.
 
#154 · (Edited)
Lad from Salford said:
Interesting conversation lads.

Thought I'd add my two penneth...

In my opinion - any 'democracy' (see Iraq) has to evolve from the bottom up, i.e. any political institutions MUST be formed with the will of the people.

In Iraq we've failed, we imposed a form of democracy as opposed to it evolving over time.

Look how many centuaries our current democracy in this country took to develop - including many many civil wars.

Now, you are wondering what on earth this has to do with a 'Liverpool City Region' (or for that matter any other city region).

From the position I am seeing from people in positions of power (or public influence) in your area I do not see this 'Liverpool ciy region' evolving. The only way I can see what many on here seem to desire (which I will point out is not a very representative proportion of society) would be for a 'solution' to be forced on the area (Iraq style).

As far as I can tell, from an ousiders point of view, there doesn't seem to be any great desire for a Liverpool City region by those that are not in the urban core of the city (I do NOT mean LCC here).

Contrast this to the evolution over the last 10 years or so over here, with the branding of the area for tourism and business investment as Manchester (see many oficial Greater Manchester agency web sites that only use the name 'Manchester').

Also, there is the formal organisation of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, each council chooses to join this organisation, so much so, that not only are the 10 Greater Manchester boroughs members, but Blackburn & Darwin along with Blackpool are associate members also.

This is the evolution I suspect that needs to happen in Liverpool - it needs to be bottom up rather than top down as some on here are advocating.

Just my thoughts.
Manchester is light years ahead of Liverpool in this respect with the "branding of the region". notice how Tameside calls itself a Manchester council (quite rightly). this would never happen here. can you imagine Knowsley or Sefton council calling itself a Liverpool council!? haha.never gonna happen am afraid. they are more interested in poaching the remaining 450,000 Liverpudlian residents from what i can see. They seem to distance themselves from Liverpool at every opportunity (using the get out clause "Merseyside" on their addresses, rather than the official Liverpool postal address) and basically be a thorn in Liverpool's side in whatever way they can.

although, i am encouraged by the way the unitary Halton borough council has brought itself voluntarily into the Liverpool city region sphere. it does offer hope that there are other councils that will recognise that they lie very much in the Liverpool economic and cultural sphere of influence.
 
#155 ·
Liverpool8 said:
You might want to point out that the majority of people listening to Radio Merseyside consider themselves to be Liverpudlian and don't like this remaining unacknowledged. The BBC should be concerned about what the majority think, and survey after survey indicates that Merseyside is not a name that finds favour with many people in the region. The BBC's approach in this respect seems a bit dated...

not unlike Radio Merseyside's
I did mention that the name Merseyside was becoming less and less popular with people but they(Radio M) seem set in their ways.
 
#156 ·
Awayo said:
The Maritime Museum carried the name Merseyside for one reason, it was founded by when the city's museums came under Merseyside County Council, rather than LCC. So it actually was Merseyside's maritime museum, rather than Liverpool's. Not true now, of course.

Compare The GMex centre in Manchester - built when Greater Manchester Council still existed. I doubt that any new institution or building would be given the name of a met county rather than its core city nowadays.

Whilst we're on this subject, one boast Liverpudlians make, that their city has the only nationally-managed museums in the country, should be made less loudly.

Liverpool does have an especially excellent collection of museums and galleries, the best in England outside of London. However, the reason why this collection of institutions comes under the DCMS rather than Liverpool City Council is that when Merseyside County Council was abolished by the Tories in 1985, rather than let the museums return to city control, as happened to the museums in the other met county cities, the Government intervened and took them over. Their fear was that Hatton and his Militant posse would sell of the contents of these "elitist" institutions and use the proceeds to build more bungalows.

So, the historical curiosity of only Liverpool's museums being the responsibility of the government rather than the city has a lot more to do with the Liverpool's chaotic politics in the 80 than the museums' excellent collections.
Here's a reply I received from the Maritime Museum,although this was from the web team and not an individual,presumable a group of people sitting round a pc connected to the internet and waiting for queries.
In my query i called them the Mersey Maritime Museum and was left in no doubt as to their correct name.

Hello

Thanks for your email. The museum is actually called the Merseyside Maritime Museum. I’ll check with the keeper of the museum but I suspect the reason is that the museum looks at the history of the river and its people rather than just the city (and borough) of Liverpool. For example, most of the docks that you would consider Liverpool docks are actually in the borough of Sefton, and the shipbuilding side of things is centred on the Wirral side of the river – both of these boroughs, along with Liverpool, are part of Merseyside. So for the museum to properly cover the history of the river it needs to look beyond Liverpool to the other boroughs along this stretch of the river.

Hope this answers your question.

Yours truly,

The web team

I was a bit annoyed with this reply and said to them that the docks in Sefton could not be regarded as anything else but Liverpool.
But in any case those docks along with the docks in Wirral were and still are a part of the Port of Liverpool,not the Port of Merseyside.
Because of this the Maritime Museum should represent the history of that port and therefore would more correctly be called the Liverpool Maritime Museum.

No reply as yet.
 
#157 ·
Lad from Salford said:
From the position I am seeing from people in positions of power (or public influence) in your area I do not see this 'Liverpool ciy region' evolving.
Then impose it. Just like was done with other English metropolitan areas, Brum, Manc etc. or like was done here with Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough etc. We now have one metropolitan council where before we had a number, all duplicating services and all protecting their own little fifedoms.

The name Merseyside, as an identifiable geographic location, is redundant to all but locals and anyone who thinks otherwise is either dreaming in technicolour, has an agenda to promote/protect or is anti Liverpool.
 
#158 ·
sloyne - think you may miss the point.

In my opinion if such a situation arose - i.e. forcing a form of government on a people (such as a North West Assembley) that was not generally 'wanted' by the population as a whole then it is bound to failure.

I reckon unless the affected people as comfortable with any such proposal (in general obviously you'll never make everyone happy) then it is less likely to form a stable successful organisation than one where people are happy.

For example, should a 'Liverpool City Region' assembley be established, is it possible parties will be established (as has happened in Morley in Leeds where they were forced to join Leeds CC) that had one policy, that of independence from the 'core city'? Instead of working for the greater good, effort etc from councillors from places like Sefton could end up simply direct all their work at becoming independent.

What I am saying is you need 'buy in'.

With regards Manchester, Brum, etc, the current boundaries are very old and have evolved over time.

For example, the Irwell seperated Manchester from Salford, however, as time has progressed the councils (and populations) have evolved such that there is now a blief that working together under the 'Manchester' banner is benifical to all involved.

This was not dictated by Westminster, this evolved locally, the decision were made slowly, over time, locally - it makes for a stable successful situation with regards tourism, business investment etc all being under the Manchester banner.

In my opinion, if there was an attitude in Salford (or any of the other 9 boroughs) that they we're not confident and happy with the situation then the organisations that represent the area would be nothing like as successful.

As I say, could well be wrong, but I really think forcing anything like this on people is bound to fail.
 
#159 ·
I think we've got a good set up in Gtr Manchester with the local councils providing visible local democracy/accountabilty and services to each of the ten boroughs, and an umbrella organisation (AGMA) coordinating conurbation-wide strategy. Needless to say, the remit of AGMA could further be strengthened with increased power, over matters such as public transport for instance, in the form of an executive/mayor.

Perhaps it might not be to Merseyside's/Greater Liverpool's detriment to have different councils and a conurbation-wide framework?
 
#160 ·
Lad from Salford said:
In my opinion, if there was an attitude in Salford (or any of the other 9 boroughs) that they we're not confident and happy with the situation then the organisations that represent the area would be nothing like as successful.
But I have never met anyone from Wigan who agrees they are Mancunian (Greater or lessor) and feel the imposition of, not just Westminster, but also the City of Manchester yet they are still a part of a metropolitan area they wish no part of. Similar with a lot of folks I know from Bury and Rochdale, who do not wish to be part of Metro Manchester. I know there will always be those, no matter what the circumstances, who will oppose amalgamation but, it is usually those with something to lose (power, financial, prestige) that balk the most.

Just an aside: A neighbour in Florida who was born and raised in Bootle considers people from the south end of Liverpool as less Scouse than those from the north end of the city. I point out to him that Toxteth, Smithdown, Allerton, Woolton, Gateacre, Speke, Garston, Mossley Hill, Grassendale etc., are located in Liverpool, Bootle is not. Here is someone who dearly wishes to be a Liverpolitan and I suspect would most of his fellow Bootleites, also most Knowsleyite would wish for the same. It is my contention that the biggest oppostion to amalgamating the neighbouring boroughs is from vested interests and snots, who I know to be a minority.
 
#161 ·
I currently reside in the golden triangle of Wigan/Bolton/Salford and there are a good few people left who reject the idea of being Mancunian. Just as there are people in St Helens/Wirral/Southport who don't regard themselves as Liverpudlian.

However, they nevertheless tend to work/play/shop in other parts of the conurbation, and need to be catered for as such on a conurbation-wide level.
 
#162 ·
But I have never met anyone from Wigan who agrees they are Mancunian (Greater or lessor) and feel the imposition of, not just Westminster, but also the City of Manchester yet they are still a part of a metropolitan area they wish no part of.
City of Manchester have no more say in who is in the AGMA than any of the other boroughs - it is totally voluntary.

As is using the www.visitmanchester.com and www.investinmanchester.com - the council and authorities of all 10 borough CHOOSE to take part in these organisations - there none of these are imposed on the Wigan (or any other authority).

The only authorities that they have that are statutary are GMPTE, GM Police and the fire service.

The point I make is even places like Wigan, Rochdale and Bolton CHOOSE to take part in these organisations. There is no outcry locally demanding that they are treated as independent areas (as happens with Morley in Leeds).

Could you see the Wirral and Sefton business investment agencies selling themselves under the Liverpool banner as Wigan etc have done in Manchester?

It's the matter of how you get to the final goal which will decide if it works or not in my opinion.

P.S. Are you telling me people in Tyldesley, Boothstown etc don't consider themselves as Mancunians? They may pay their tax to Wigan MBC, but they are certainly no where near the town of Wigan.
 
#164 ·
sloyne said:
But I have never met anyone from Wigan who agrees they are Mancunian (Greater or lessor) and feel the imposition of, not just Westminster, but also the City of Manchester yet they are still a part of a metropolitan area they wish no part of. Similar with a lot of folks I know from Bury and Rochdale, who do not wish to be part of Metro Manchester. I know there will always be those, no matter what the circumstances, who will oppose amalgamation but, it is usually those with something to lose (power, financial, prestige) that balk the most.

Just an aside: A neighbour in Florida who was born and raised in Bootle considers people from the south end of Liverpool as less Scouse than those from the north end of the city. I point out to him that Toxteth, Smithdown, Allerton, Woolton, Gateacre, Speke, Garston, Mossley Hill, Grassendale etc., are located in Liverpool, Bootle is not. Here is someone who dearly wishes to be a Liverpolitan and I suspect would most of his fellow Bootleites, also most Knowsleyite would wish for the same. It is my contention that the biggest oppostion to amalgamating the neighbouring boroughs is from vested interests and snots, who I know to be a minority.
well ur talking to a Bootle lad who wishes to become a part of the city of Liverpool (without having to move house half a mile or so!). these boundaries in both Liverpool and Manchester are absurd and are so out of date (neither have had their boundaries enlarged since the 1930's). both cities sprawl for miles beyond their current boundaries (Liverpool's suburbs goes 14 miles up the coast to Formby).

Bootle and Salford are similar in many ways. they both had original boundaries that were dangerously close to their respective big brother cities, but somehow were never incorporated into them (the way Morley, Pudsey and Rothwell were merged into Leeds CC). they each shared the fire and police services (For Manchester and Salford police read Liverpool and Bootle police). both had populations of approaching 100,000 before in 1974 Bootle was incorporated into the utterly absurd man made Sefton council (which is a bit like the former Yugoslavia in its tensions with its sprawling north Liverpool suburbs running into Lancastrian Southport!) and Salford effectively became Manchester (west) taking over the districts of eccles, irlam, swinton, worsley, etc.
.

i just think its high time that both cities had all of their suburbs under the one council in the same way Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Sheffield, etc do. there has certainly been so much in house fighting that has kept Liverpool down over the 30 years. enough is enough.
 
#165 ·
Lad from Salford said:
City of Manchester have no more say in who is in the AGMA than any of the other boroughs - it is totally voluntary.

As is using the www.visitmanchester.com and www.investinmanchester.com - the council and authorities of all 10 borough CHOOSE to take part in these organisations - there none of these are imposed on the Wigan (or any other authority).

The only authorities that they have that are statutary are GMPTE, GM Police and the fire service.

The point I make is even places like Wigan, Rochdale and Bolton CHOOSE to take part in these organisations. There is no outcry locally demanding that they are treated as independent areas (as happens with Morley in Leeds).

Could you see the Wirral and Sefton business investment agencies selling themselves under the Liverpool banner as Wigan etc have done in Manchester?

It's the matter of how you get to the final goal which will decide if it works or not in my opinion.

P.S. Are you telling me people in Tyldesley, Boothstown etc don't consider themselves as Mancunians? They may pay their tax to Wigan MBC, but they are certainly no where near the town of Wigan.

Doesnt this just sum up these crazy boroughs that both cities have been subjected to. Its like wigan's official population is about 80,000 but its metroplitan borough is a whopping great 300,000. (3/4 the size of the official manchester's population!) that cant be right.
 
#167 ·
kebabmonster said:
I currently reside in the golden triangle of Wigan/Bolton/Salford and there are a good few people left who reject the idea of being Mancunian. Just as there are people in St Helens/Wirral/Southport who don't regard themselves as Liverpudlian
Yes and it is exactly what I am trying to say. Westminster is very domocratic, when it suites it, and also reserves the right to be very dictatorial whenever it want's to be.
 
#168 ·
sloyne - AGMA, MIDAS and Visit Manchester have NOTHING to do with Westminster - it is the local authorities that are CHOOSING to join these organisations, they are not being forced to by anyone.

If the authorities in Merseyside wanted to do similar they could if they wanted - it would have nothingto do with Westminster.
 
#169 · (Edited)
Gareth said:
Sefton's just stupid. I'd take out Southport and merge it with West Lancashire, too make a unitary authority, associated with Greater Liverpool, of course. The rst of Sefton is fine as it is in my opinion. Well it'd be less stupid than Knowsley is, that's for sure!
i can see the logic of Southport merging with west lancs (afterall a part of Southport - Scarisbrick is already in their), but am sorry i see the rest of Sefton and Knowsley as the missing parts of Liverpool north and east. (even after this amalgamation, we still wouldnt be on a par with most other northern cities in terms of size, but it would be a hell of an improvement).
 
#170 ·
Whats in a name

This issue has and will continue to go on ad nauseum. I spent a spell at the quango INWARD ( a predecessor to NWDA) in the 1990s and non of the councils including the Manchester ones would cooperate with eachother. I think Manchester at least outwardly seems to have done a better job of at least appearing to have a wider agenda but this gets really personally emotional for people whether its a CH vs L postcode (go see the play - Brick up the Kingsway Tunnel for a fair and very funny view and too close to the truth view of Wirral attitudes to Liverpool) or saying you live in 'Halewood Village' rather than Knowsley incase someone thinks youre from Kirkby.

The politicians will simply go with the flow on whatever they think will keep them voted in.

The very same issues are alive and well here in the Los Angeles area where the San Fernando Valley recently tried to cecede from the City of Los Angeles because of the 'stigma' They failed by the way but residents there will usually respond by saying they live 'In the Valley' rather than LA when asked.

Try annoying someone from the Czeck Republic by insisting on calling it Czechoslovakia !!

You simply cant impose the emotions of where you regard yourself from by a name change - Its what defines people, - eg I proudly regard myself as British, a scouser (from Liverpool) and a bluenose and always will even if I become a US citizen.
 
#171 ·
sloyne - if you want a good example of how local authorities in Manchester have chosen to work together under the Manchester umbrella, but the Liverpool one have not CHOSEN to have a look at the respective web sites for tourism.

www.visitmanchester.com - all 10 boroughs
www.visitliverpool.com - just LCC

this has nothing to do with Whitehall. In my opinon, if the authorities are not able to combine their efforts to work together on a simple thing like tourism, then it suggests forcing them to will not be a good idea.

For example, what would be your reaction if the government forced upon you something you weren't keen on? For example, do you think if the government forced a NW Assembley with Manchester as the capital it would work? No, it wouldn't because people and authorities would not want it.
 
#173 ·
Lad from Salford said:
it is the local authorities that are CHOOSING to join these organisations, they are not being forced to by anyone.
But they should be. Maybe not Bury, Rochdale, Wigan or Bolton but certainly those which abut Manchester directly, i.e. Oldham, Stockport, Salford etc. As too with Liverpool, Bootle, Knowsley, Birkenhead, Wallasey, etc. The political leaders in what is known as Greater Manchester are far more sensible than those in the councils within the Liverpool City region, they do a great diservice to their electorate but, if we get the government we deserve then the people in the Liverpool suburban boroughs are getting everything they asked for.

If "Merseyside" is not to be taken as a political slap in the face for Liverpool then how can Southport be a part of the river centred region yet communities on the banks of that same river not be? Ellesmere Port, Runcorn, Widnes and Warrington are an integral part of the Mersey basin cornurbation, Southport is not.
 
#174 ·
paulmac35 said:
i can see the logic of Southport merging with west lancs (afterall a part of Southport - Scarisbrick is already in their), but am sorry i see the rest of Sefton and Knowsley as the missing parts of Liverpool north and east. (even after this amalgamation, we still wouldnt be on a par with most other northern cities in terms of size, but it would be a hell of an improvement).
So you get a purple wheelybin, so what? I feel you desire to be incorporated into the city council merely to authenticate your scouse heritage. The boroughs too big as it is in my opinion. I believe local boroughs should be...er, 'local'. I agree with Sebo's earlier comments that a super council isn't the asnwer, where it encorporates just places like Huyton & Bootle, 'Merseyside' or even wider. A strong metropolitan council is what's needed for the important stuff.
 
#175 · (Edited)
LABlue said:
This issue has and will continue to go on ad nauseum. I spent a spell at the quango INWARD ( a predecessor to NWDA) in the 1990s and non of the councils including the Manchester ones would cooperate with eachother. I think Manchester at least outwardly seems to have done a better job of at least appearing to have a wider agenda but this gets really personally emotional for people whether its a CH vs L postcode (go see the play - Brick up the Kingsway Tunnel for a fair and very funny view and too close to the truth view of Wirral attitudes to Liverpool) or saying you live in 'Halewood Village' rather than Knowsley incase someone thinks youre from Kirkby.

The politicians will simply go with the flow on whatever they think will keep them voted in.

The very same issues are alive and well here in the Los Angeles area where the San Fernando Valley recently tried to cecede from the City of Los Angeles because of the 'stigma' They failed by the way but residents there will usually respond by saying they live 'In the Valley' rather than LA when asked.

Try annoying someone from the Czeck Republic by insisting on calling it Czechoslovakia !!

You simply cant impose the emotions of where you regard yourself from by a name change - Its what defines people, - eg I proudly regard myself as British, a scouser (from Liverpool) and a bluenose and always will even if I become a US citizen.
some great points. though i am told czechs are even more terrotorial about whether they are bohemiam or moravian (without even considering the 3.3 million germans ethnically clensed from the sudetenland in 1945!)

all i am adovocating is getting all of liverpool's suburbs under the one council (like in most other northern cities). my reasoning

1) it is logical.
2) less in house fighting (manchester is light years ahead in how all their councils work together these days. no such harmony exists here)
3) the environment. Liverpool, sefton and knowsley councils are selling off their land at an alarming rate to build mass housing projects. i was in kirkby working all last week and i must have counted about 15 different housing developments on mostly greenfield sites! A one council model would ensure that each council wouldnt be trying to poach residents from the other as is the case now with these mass housing projects.
4) Liverpool has lost about half its population in just over 60 years.in 1937 it stood at just under 900,000 (not including Bootle, Crosby, Huyton which were well on their way to being built) to about its present day 450,000. It has gone from being the 2nd city of the UK to the 6th (even below Bradford)
 
Top