SkyscraperCity Forum banner

LCR Combined Authority & Metro Mayor General Thread

600K views 5K replies 218 participants last post by  Peace & Love 
#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 ...
 
#2 ·
The report quoted by the Echo article has been published by the IPPR, a think-tank, albeit an influential one.

The Government, which is reportedly contemplating some degree of devolution to "city regions" has not released its own promised report or given much of a clue about their likely plans for big city governance.

The IPPR report is not freely available on the Web, but its executive summary states that the Birmingham and Manchester city regions are England's "two biggest" (sic, where's London?) and should therefore be the first, with other cities following.

Flo Cluclas is being a mong again though, sadly. "We don't want these new fangled plans. The Greater Manchester local authorities already work together closely, so they should get it." God help us woman, what does that tell us that you should be doing with the other Merseyside authorities?
 
#7 ·
What I find amazing (according to the summary in the Echo) is that towards the end of the first decade of the twenty first century, Militant is still being dredged up as a reminder of what Liverpool can be like if left to its own devices! What the hell is that about? No one talks anymore about 'Red Ken's legacy' when London's economy is being discussed.
 
#9 ·
Same old story really. Over powerful Liverpool government means that a mere personal spat between two twatty individuals can end up ruining the city's image. This perceived image of political fracture will last for years to come. All it does is remind people of Hatton- when the council, still overly powerful then, was governed by other idiot personalities.

To some extent I suspect that the supposed 'findings' of this think-tank will conveniently agree with what central governemt wants anyway. To bolster the whole regionalism agenda, with increased focus being placed on the regional capitals. Sorry guys, but unless something extremely drastic is done then Liverpool will be a mere Sheffield for a long time to come. Sadly, this political weakness will affect the city's ability to lever in investment and grow. Unless of course big investors can be given real reasons to go over the heads of the regional (political) chosen ones and invest in Liverpool. Massively lowering regulation for a start would undermine the positions of Liverpool's more advantaged competitor cities.

Lowering the council's power in general would be ideal. But hey, with **** heads like Clucas, Munby and Storey (to name but a few) running affairs, this situation looks unlikely to change in a hurry. Incidentally, what was the turn-out in the last round of local government elections?
 
#10 ·
Blabber, we're fighting against the tide on this one. Liverpool needs a government executive to take over it regeneration, a sort of Liverpool Vision,only with power. Leave the councillors to setting the council tax and street cleansing etc. Only last week Storey stated that EFC'S new ground should stay in Liverpool and not move the whole 3 miles to Sefton. This is Storey's Liverpool, the municipal boundary. Most of Aintree Racecourse is in Sefton, but people don't say they're going to Sefton to watch the National. The parochialism in LCC is shocking,most of them can't see further than Dale st.
 
#12 ·
It's fair enough. Liverpool's politics have been too parochial and corrupt for too long, and that comes at a price. Cluclas is simply stating facts, the Greater Manchester local authorities have a better tradition of joint working, although to be fair to Liverpool, this is because they had proper boundaries when they were a Metroplitan County Council (and a lot of subsequent arrangements merely perpetuate activities that took place within the remit of the Met County, as was the case in Greater London post GLC but pre-GLA), whereas Liverpool Met was always underbounded, with Halton, Skem, Ormskirk, Ellesmere Port etc excluded, let alone the larger city region. So it was bound to be harder for Liverpool.

But Liverpool politicians and senior council officials have not shown much leadership or interest in playing a leadership role in the city region. Shame on them. Henshaw was no Bernstein - the former being a bossy parochial managerialist and control freak, the latter being a natural born leader, imperialist and salesman. (It's so fantastic Henshaw has gone, this is just one of many pieces of damage that can be traced back to his office door). But, remember, there are people who post here who seemed to think it odd when someone suggested that Tony's Society should meet in Birkenhead....It would not be odd for a Greater Manchester grouping to meet in Salford or Stockport. If people here can't be arsed going on a 3 minute shuttle train from James St to Hamilton Sq, or driving along a nice 1 mile road, or taking a nice ferry - why blame local politicians?

I think losing out is fair and right and probably a good thing. Perhaps it will make people realise that there is a price to pay for parochialism, and that will be the incentive to get people to start talking and working together. My only concern with all this is Warrington, and I will be very angry indeed if there is any attempt to place it in the Manc City Region without the Liverpool City Region having had time to form. That should be the bottom line on all this, in my opinion - the Mancs can go ahead, as long as they don't grab Warrington until the people of Warrington can choose between two fully functioning and viable City Regional authorities.

These IPPR people in the North are a funny lot, and I'd be amazed if their recommendations are enacted as written, although obviously they are flying a kite for Government and not giving voice to genuinely independent and original thinking. They are New Labour not New Ideas. I wonder if there is huge and genuine enthusiasm in Government for this, aside from geography and flighty "new ideas" anoraks? It's a terrible time to think of launching any structure with tax-raising powers, given that we are in the shit on public spending and taxation in the next few years. This would have been much better if it had been the policy instead of the catastrophic regional (assembly) agenda. There are reasons why it might be good not to be a pilot.

But hopefully the civic leaders in all the Liverpool City Region local authorities will observe what happens elsewhere, in quite similar city regions, and see that it's natural, logical and beneficial to work closely with those in the sub-region, and that it brings benefits. We have been saying that here for a long time, but the political class haven't quite got the message. Once a Manchester City Region authority is seen to have the ear of Whitehall and to be throwing its weight around NW and Northern Way structures, (ie more money for Manchester Airport, opposition to expansion of LJLA) I think we will see people start to wake up on what this is all about.

I'm pretty relaxed about this - it may not happen, but even if it does that is fine as long as Warrington is kept out of the frame. Liverpool can join in in a few years time: 2008 is only 2 years away, and I think that will help the hinterland reconnect with the city.
 
#13 ·
What happened with that guy who was fighting for a mayor for Liverpool? Did he get the necessary number of petitioners?

What exactly needs to be done to get a mayor?

Mind you, unless any would-be mayor had the right ideas it would probably end up causing more harm than good. What are the chances that those scousers who actually bother to vote would choose somebody who is pro-business and development? Much more likely to go with some soft socialist gob shite.
 
#15 ·
Accura said:
Why should they have to choose between Manchester or Liverpool? IMO, having Warrington in either 'city region' would be stupidly clutching at straws.
Yawn, there are dozens of posts on the Warrington issue, don't start all that again. Anyway, what happened to your name? You were better as Accura_Preston (annoying kid) rather than Accura (annoying young adult). And what happened to your "Preston is my Paris" signature? And your depressing photographs of motorways? It's all change, eh?
 
#16 ·
Let's be fair about this....the reason why Liverpool city region politics shows all the sickly signs of a premature political baby is because of the appalling mess Liverpool got itself into in the 70's, 80's, and that's not just a political mess but an economic/structural/pr mess as well. Why the hell would any self respecting politico from Wirral, Sefton, St Helens, Halton (never mind Warrington) go anywhere near that?

There is a lot of slagging off, of Storey et al here, and in circumstances some times justified, but that crap had to be sorted out at source and some impressive progress has been made. The huge task of turning around the highest council taxed authority in the country, getting some decent discipline into basic services and turning the tide of the city's terrible image is no overnight job. The idea, that while all this was going on, Storey and co. had a duty to sit down and cook up a mega city region ambition, is just laughable.

The Liverpool development cake is still in the oven. It's sad that ambition about city region politics is premature and talk of a city political mayor is nothing but a diversion.
 
#17 ·
To be fair (again). History suggests it was always thus regardless of how one perceives the 1980s and let's jets not pretend that the picture at that time was so black and white either. Examine the construction of the first Mersey tunnel and the resistance of various parties to having tram lines going through it, threats made by Birkenhead to withdraw if certain things were not agreed in its favour. Bootle's resistance to being incorporated into the city even though it has no separate identity whatsoever etc. Whilst this is natural, township politics, the idea that Liverpool has ever enjoyed a period of meaningful inter-regional solidarity seems to me like wishful thinking.

IMO this is because Liverpool is so much bigger than its neighbours on every scale in a way that Manchester is not. From almost everywhere on the North Wirral peninsula Liverpool's skyline looms at you, a real city, mean, moody and glorious dominating your little district. No escape. All there is is Liverpool. I'm not sure that if I lived there I might not grow to resent it the way one resents friends who are just a little bit more special than we are. Places like Bolton, Rochdale etc have always had their own confidence and Lowry was clear that he was painting pictures of Salford and not Manchester. There was a time when Birkenhead seemed to cut it. Impressive buildings around Hamilton Square, first municipal park in the world, copied by NYC (Central Park), a railway station (Woodside) which direct connections to most major centres south of the town. Where did it all go? And there was always Liverpool, demanding, needing to be resisted.

The point I'm making is that I believe explanations built around notions of Liverpool's incompetent politicos being responsible for such resistance is a bit surface level. There are other agendas in operation here which need to be named, understood and managed. Also, Liverpool's regional arrogance needs to be addressed as part of this process. The city does have 'attitude' towards its neighbours that can be just as counter-productive and economically sabotaging as the 'tude it gets back and as I said earlier this is nothing new.

Labour has been spectacularly unsuccessful in developing its 'democratic' regionalist agenda in England and my guess is that this will not change and there will not be any city regions for quite a while!
 
#18 ·
There is also the narrative around the historical relationship that Liverpool's rich, merchant class had with the city's underprivileged and their attempts to seek refuge in the Wirral from all that was dark and dangerous about the city! Imagine how that played in the psyche of our dear folk from Cheshire (as it was then).
 
#19 ·
Fitzroy said:
To be fair (again). History suggests it was always thus regardless of how one perceives the 1980s and let's jets not pretend that the picture at that time was so black and white either. Examine the construction of the first Mersey tunnel and the resistance of various parties to having tram lines going through it, threats made by Birkenhead to withdraw if certain things were not agreed in its favour. Bootle's resistance to being incorporated into the city even though it has no separate identity whatsoever etc. Whilst this is natural, township politics, the idea that Liverpool has ever enjoyed a period of meaningful inter-regional solidarity seems to me like wishful thinking.

IMO this is because Liverpool is so much bigger than its neighbours on every scale in a way that Manchester is not. From almost everywhere on the North Wirral peninsula Liverpool's skyline looms at you, a real city, mean, moody and glorious dominating your little district. No escape. All there is is Liverpool. I'm not sure that if I lived there I might not grow to resent it the way one resents friends who are just a little bit more special than we are. Places like Bolton, Rochdale etc have always had their own confidence and Lowry was clear that he was painting pictures of Salford and not Manchester. There was a time when Birkenhead seemed to cut it. Impressive buildings around Hamilton Square, first municipal park in the world, copied by NYC (Central Park), a railway station (Woodside) which direct connections to most major centres south of the town. Where did it all go? And there was always Liverpool, demanding, needing to be resisted.

The point I'm making is that I believe explanations built around notions of Liverpool's incompetent politicos being responsible for such resistance is a bit surface level. There are other agendas in operation here which need to be named, understood and managed. Also, Liverpool's regional arrogance needs to be addressed as part of this process. The city does have 'attitude' towards its neighbours that can be just as counter-productive and economically sabotaging as the 'tude it gets back and as I said earlier this is nothing new.

Labour has been spectacularly unsuccessful in developing its 'democratic' regionalist agenda in England and my guess is that this will not change and there will not be any city regions for quite a while!
Good points Fitzroy. But i think the parochial accusation is still valid.Take the new Runcorn bridge as an example.It should've been Liverpool council pressing for this,as a main arterial route into the city from the south,access to the port. LCC didn't come on board till very recently,it's inexcusable.
 
#20 ·
And sorry, Poli but if I lived in Warrington, I would not take too kindly to notions of being incorporated into either city region! I'm driving up to Liverpool from NW London in about 50 minutes and one of the things I have noticed driving along the M56 is how Warrington and Widnes and Runcorn seem to fit together quite well as a separate (enough) region. I think we need to think more critically about the downside of being incorporated into 'city regions' for places like Warrington-Halton, Chester etc. The regionalist agenda just seems to want to consume vast areas on the back of dodgy stats! Critical appraisal is needed.
 
#21 ·
the golden vision said:
Good points Fitzroy. But i think the parochial accusation is still valid.Take the new Runcorn bridge as an example.It should've been Liverpool council pressing for this,as a main arterial route into the city from the south,access to the port. LCC didn't come on board till very recently,it's inexcusable.
You're right. Liverpool can be very parochial. My argument is that the whole region around and including Liverpool needs to work together to disentagle the various layers of mistrust, contempt and sterotyping on both sides in order to move forwards together in partnership. Liverpool needs to be more aware of what is going on in the Wirral, Halton, Warrington, Chester, etc and not be so focussed on its own navel!
 
#24 ·
well do u guys not think that Liverpool is in a great position. it has been proved around the world that devolution to city regions like thinking can be very successfull in some cases but fair miserably in others.

birmingham and manchester will be the first (eventhough london has already got it) and well be the guinea pigs to see if cities this size can cope with it. if we dont we fail. if it works, then the ilkes of liverpool and leeds will soon to follow and see how its done well?¬?!?!?!?
 
#25 ·
Blabbernsmoke said:
What happened with that guy who was fighting for a mayor for Liverpool? Did he get the necessary number of petitioners?

What exactly needs to be done to get a mayor?

Mind you, unless any would-be mayor had the right ideas it would probably end up causing more harm than good. What are the chances that those scousers who actually bother to vote would choose somebody who is pro-business and development? Much more likely to go with some soft socialist gob shite.
Blabbernsmoke , Manchester has a Labour council.I regard myself as more left wing than Tony Blurt & co but i'm realistic enough to realise that at the municipal level you have to play the system.In Liverpool,it's not about left or right,it's about the calibre of the people that have been elected and are employed in critical positions.
 
#26 ·
Fitzroy said:
And sorry, Poli but if I lived in Warrington, I would not take too kindly to notions of being incorporated into either city region! I'm driving up to Liverpool from NW London in about 50 minutes and one of the things I have noticed driving along the M56 is how Warrington and Widnes and Runcorn seem to fit together quite well as a separate (enough) region. I think we need to think more critically about the downside of being incorporated into 'city regions' for places like Warrington-Halton, Chester etc. The regionalist agenda just seems to want to consume vast areas on the back of dodgy stats! Critical appraisal is needed.
I agree completely with some of the forummers on here. There is so much mistrust amongst the Merseyside boroughs probably becuase the likes of Wirral and Sefton are terrified of being tied to what is still, to some extent, perceived to be a basket case authority. The only way this kind of mistrust and fear can be reduced is if Liverpool, the core of the city region and county, can embark on several years of strong economic growth and political stability. The best way to achieve both of these things is to reduce the remit of the local authorities- an easy start would be to reduce taxing and spending powers vis a vis the private sector and to abolish this World Heritage bull shite.

Those localities that have tended to join Manchester have not done so becuase they are in love with the place- it is becuase they feel it is in their interests to get involved in the Manchester brand. If Liverpool wants to gain the same kind of appeal, the city will simply have to go back to basics and go back to what being a city is all about.-- Attracting money and people, and all of the other things that these engender. e.g. jobs, etc. Even then, a steady record over at least a decade will be necessary.

I have to disagree with Fitzroy. Runcorn, Widnes and Warrington do not form a convenient region actually. This is typical of what a Londoner would conclude after spending only 5 minutes in the area and driving past on the motorway. Roughly half of Widnes is more scouse than anything- and at least two thirds of Runcorn is so. The roots of these people and their sense of belonging is more to Liverpool than it is either to Halton-Warrington (Cheshire) or Manchester. Although this is probably being eroded as the years go by. As for Warrington- this place is more Manc than anything else. It's full of horrible Man Utd supporters and the kind of wannabe Manc you find in places like Burnley and Oldham. You'll seldom find a scouse-sounding acent in Warrington. Liverpool has fucked up for too long and probably scared the likes of Warrington away; becuase of its basket case political antics and shitty economy.

In any case. If there is no strong core in the Liverpool city-region, then we might as well stop wasting our time having political fantasies about Liverpool ruling over a strong and extensive city region. The city needs to sort its own shit out first- and massively developing its economy and sucking in as much money as possible is the best way to go about this. Like it or not, money talks. As soon as a plcae prospers economically then its image will be reversed very rapidly. Look at Manchester and Leeds. Leeds was nothing 20 years ago. Sorry to disappoint, but this is a simple and obvious fact. Perhaps we should spend some time discussing some of the ways that Liverpool can become rich again- all other things: architecture, culture, political clout, reputation, etc. stem from this basic achievement.
 
Top