The City Of Liverpool Cruise Liner Terminal

[aek-94]

Southampton council leader snubs face to face meeting with Liverpool leader Joe Anderson over River Mersey cruise plans
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Echo. Aug 27 2011


Rotterdam Cruise Ship

SOUTHAMPTON council leader Royston Smith has rejected a face to face meeting with Liverpool leader Joe Anderson to discuss the row over the city’s bid for cruise turnarounds.

Royston Smith said he saw no point in meeting Cllr Anderson because he thought it would just be used as a publicity stunt.

Today Cllr Anderson said he was disappointed the Southampton Tory leader had dismissed his offer of a meeting.

The two cities have clashed over Liverpool’s bid to use its Pier Head cruise terminal for “turnarounds” where ships can start and finish their journeys.


At present there is a ban on the use because of conditions attached to a £17.8m worth of grants used to build the terminal.

Southampton is demanding the repayment of all £17.8m of government and European grants set to fund the terminal. The city claims the cash should not be used for private enterprise.

Read More - Liverpool Echo

[MarineMan]

It seems the Soton Tories are running. When all the transport subsidies of Soton and the region are taken into account they have received a lot - which improved their cruise business enourmously.

Are they going to pay it back?

Why was this ridiculous condition put on Liverpool anyhow?

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by Richard_A

"Businesses in the city are gathering public support while ports across the country are uniting to stop Liverpool’s bid to muscle in on the lucrative trade."

"Muscle in"... incredible arrogance, isn't it.

Or perhaps,

"... stop attempts by one of the poorest areas in Europe to build an embrionic, sustainable future for itself, that may one day reduce the need for the very state aid to which Southampton, perversely, is encouraging its inhabitants to object against"

So which do you prefer Southampton? A small grant now, or much larger amounts of public money to alleviate the joblessness and poverty that history tells us will undoubtedly ensue?

[bmc9273]

Just a slight change of subject.....does anyone know if the visits of the Queen Elizabeth on the 8th & the Queen Mary 2 on the 15th are still on??

Many thanks!

[Paul D]

Yes they're still coming here as part of the Mersey River Festival.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-29174285/

[LiverOdysea]

Originally Posted by ramsbrook

Quite an organised approach by the local Southampton paper with quick links to the consultation, rejection petitions, template rejection letters, Facebook campaign.... are we quite so organised in our support?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/dist..._plans/?ref=mr

IMHO, No, We are not as organised as our Southampton counterparts. I'm toying with the idea of a kind of 'Liverpool Cruise Company' like the culture company.

In Southampton they have the 'cruisesouthampton' organisation which assists cruise passengers, and is popular on twitter. I think a 'Liverpool Cruise Company' like the former culture company could do a great deal in promotion of the cruise industry. I have made a twitter profile and facebook page, and may make a small website, mainly for cruise visitors, highlighting quick tours and taxi ranks etc!

It couldn't be a one man show however! So it would need the help of several people. Even if you just wrote an article for a blog, or suggested it to your friends. All ideas are welcome...even some off the wall one would be great!

You can email me on: Liverpool@crociere.co.uk (or message me on this!)
or follow 'Liverpool Cruise Company on Twitter & Facebook

[Rock Savage]

SOUTHAMPTON was today accused of “hypocrisy” after receiving £54m of public money to upgrade access to their port, while standing in the way of Liverpool’s cruise terminal ambitions.

Read More

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...#ixzz1Wma7uUKe

Hopefully part of a more structured fightback by our own Council.

[buggedboy]

Ridiculous how Royston starts his argument saying that it's state aid to a private business, then shifts it to one about changing the purpose of a facility.

It is either state aid or it's not Royston, the change of purpose has no bearing on that.

Your private companies have had plenty of state aid over the years. Plenty.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

SOUTHAMPTON was today accused of “hypocrisy” after receiving £54m of public money to upgrade access to their port, while standing in the way of Liverpool’s cruise terminal ambitions.

Read More

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...#ixzz1Wma7uUKe

Hopefully part of a more structured fightback by our own Council.

Southampton council leader Royston Smith said it was not fair to compare the two issues because ABP could have just carried on letting containers use road haulage instead of rail.

"could have just carried on letting containers use road haulage instead of rail." He must think we are all dumbos. Rail carries many times the volume of road and the roads are still there. Hypocritical bastards.

The question still stands, "why was such a ridiculous contractual restriction put on Liverpool in the first place?"

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

Southampton council leader Royston Smith said it was not fair to compare the two issues because ABP could have just carried on letting containers use road haulage instead of rail.

"could have just carried on letting containers use road haulage instead of rail." He must think we are all dumbos. Rail carries many times the volume of road and the roads are still there. Hypocritical bastards.

The question still stands, "why was such a ridiculous contractual restriction put on Liverpool in the first place?"

Naivety, incompetence. Call it what you will, but we are where we are -- so all we can do is deal with the situation as it stands and make sure such a thing does not happen in the future.

[ill tonkso]

But the Rail Upgrade for the Port of Southampton has sod all to do with Southamptons cruise industry and was intended to benefit the entire country by removing freight from the Motorway Network :\

If Liverpool wants to fund turnaround facilities then it should fund it itself, as Southampton (and earlier this year, Portsmouth) did. Upgrades to national rail infrastructure have nothing to do with it, should Manchester be forced to pay for the Northern Hub? That only benefits the north.

[Scarecrow]

Did it also have sod all to do with its freight industry?

[ill tonkso]

It did yes, but this is a dispute over the Cruise Industry. It is a completely different matter.

[Scarecrow]

Not really. Both support jobs. Both involve ships. That's like saying jam on toast is an entirely different concept to marmite on toast.

[ill tonkso]

Both support jobs and both involve ships?

First of all, the jobs were already there in Southampton, this wasn't a job creation thing, it was about getting freight of the NATIONAL road network.

Yes, both involve ships but Cruise and Container are a different industry entirely. Saying they are the same is like saying the Ferry across the Mersey is the same thing as the Warships sat in Portsmouth right now.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

But the Rail Upgrade for the Port of Southampton has sod all to do with Southamptons cruise industry and was intended to benefit the entire country by removing freight from the Motorway Network :\

If Liverpool wants to fund turnaround facilities then it should fund it itself, as Southampton (and earlier this year, Portsmouth) did. Upgrades to national rail infrastructure have nothing to do with it, should Manchester be forced to pay for the Northern Hub? That only benefits the north.

Accepted that this has nothing to do with the cruise industry but it does disprove the idea that Southampton's wealth is based solely on private investment. Generally, if a town or city can get a grant for some improvement then it will go after it and Liverpool should not be seen as being unusual in that respect.

Liverpool has proposed a pay-back scheme for the part of the grant that was subject to that condition and, if the government accepts it, that should be the end of the matter.

As for the gauge improvement works being in the national interest - that is a matter of semantics. The London Olympics are sold to us as being in the national interest but, generally, improvements in the north of England are said to be in the regional interest only.

How can you honestly say that the development of cruise liner facilities at Liverpool are not in the 'national interest'? It will put many millions of people within two hours drive or train journey from a cruise liner port and enhance the UK cruise industry.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

Both support jobs and both involve ships?

First of all, the jobs were already there in Southampton, this wasn't a job creation thing.

It was a job retention thing. The South stripped the North over decades and wanted to keep the booty.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Accepted that this has nothing to do with the cruise industry

It has!!! And the container industry - again stripping Liverpool. It promotes both.

but it does disprove the idea that Southampton's wealth is based solely on private investment.

Sense at last.

[ramsbrook]

Having read the consultation letter I am confident the result will be a positive one for Liverpool. Quite impressed that it sets out a fair and sensible suggestion and compromise covering the key opposition points. Only if ports can prove it will have a negative impact on jobs on a mass scale elsewhere - which it certainly will not - would there be any real grounds for objection. Hence why I suppose Southampton now throwing in that their proposed new terminal may not go ahead if lpool gets the nod. Maybe there will be some further tinkering with the proposed amount to be repaid. I'd say there's a few more twists and turns to this story - but I'd say 90:10 the governments response following consultation will be to support it. Does anyone know 1) after the consultation closes timescales to publish the outcome? 2) possible next steps for those opposing it and timescales - can others call for a judicial review ? My view is it's certainly going to happen..... I'm more concerned how long others can drag this on for

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by ramsbrook

Only if ports can prove it will have a negative impact on jobs on a mass scale elsewhere - which it certainly will not - would there be any real grounds for objection.

Good point. Soton will not lose jobs. They are planning for a monopoly on the business - monopolies should be resisted at all cost.