Politics, the future

One major problem is that the false memory that Liverpool is a traditional labour supporting city has stuck.

All things change eventually it takes a long time but I sense that things may flip over in the next few years, the eighties are now a generation away (boy do I feel it) so it is only a matter of time.

Fear of paragraphing is a big issue.

TalisMax said:

Are politics changing in this city? What would be the chances that a conservative administration could eventually run this city.
Not such a wayward prospect. Socialists have run this city since the 1950's

Click to expand...

Tories mainly ran the city until the 1960s, then they changed from red and blue. The Liberals (Lib-Dems) made great gains in the 1970s and have mainly held that grip since.

God forbid a Tory council.

I struggle to see any of the main parties as being good for the long-term interests of the city. Whatever power base the Tories might have had in the past, it's hard to see how they could ever re-establish it in the city. Labour in Liverpool is all about how to manage state aid in the context of a declining city and the Lib Dems are tied into the regionalist status quo that is against Liverpool's long-term interests - whatever Liverpool might become it will be framed within that context.

A rock and a hard place?

Babaloo said:

I struggle to see any of the main parties as being good for the long-term interests of the city.

Click to expand...

What the city needs is the national economy in good shape. Gordon did that over the past 12 years and the city prospered, and that can be clearly seen. It is up to the city to take advantage, which the city is not very good at. You talk as if you want hand-outs.

There was more of a hint in government circles wanting Liverpool to get CofC.

Liverpool Playboy said:

What the city needs is the national economy in good shape. Gordon did that over the past 12 years and the city prospered, and that can be clearly seen. It is up to the city to take advantage, which the city is not very good at. You talk as if you want hand-outs.

There was more of a hint in government circles wanting Liverpool to get CofC.

Click to expand...

You made that up.

The government has continually placed high-powered jobs in Manchester over this period. Liverpool has prospered over this period because it was the last major city to 'regenerate' and this came about largely as a result of private money that had nothing to do with the government.

No one except you is talking about the city wanting handouts. Most people just object to the governmental handouts being given to Manchester on an ongoing basis by the Labour government.

There wasn't any governmental influence in terms of Liverpool winning CofC. It gained it on its own merit.

Babaloo said:

The government has continually placed high-powered jobs in Manchester over this period. Liverpool has prospered over this period because it was the last major city to 'regenerate' and this came about largely as a result of private money that had nothing to do with the government.

Click to expand...

The government laid down the economic base to prosper. Manchester sells itself better and get the jobs. Manchester is regarded as the best run council in the country - not a secret. The BBC went to Salford Quays. Why? Because it is an attractive place with good transport connections. They could have gone to the south end docks if the city have done something instead of rejecting world-class towers. The excavated Toxteth and Harrington Docks, maybe with attractive quay realignment would have been superb for the BBC. The BBC will take what is best for them and Liverpool had little to offer over Salford Quays, as the city was sitting on its hands as usual with all these water assets looking at them. Look at where the fault is...with the organisation in the city.

There wasn't any governmental influence in terms of Liverpool winning CofC. It gained it on its own merit.

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the PMs wife coming from the city? mmmmm

Nowhere in the 'rules' of Capital of Culture does it state that the government of the country who's turn it is to host Capital of Culture has invite bids from interested cities, and run a competition to find the Capital of Culture. Indeed, in previous years, the government in question has simply selected a city, with no competition at all. If the government wanted Liverpool to be Capital of Culture why go to the hassle and expense of setting up a tender process, a competition, a judging panel, and everything else they did before Liverpool was selected? They could have just selected Liverpool right off the bat if they had wanted the city to be Capital of Culture that badly. Babs is right. Liverpool became Capital of Culture on its own merits.

John, you're not dumb, so stop acting so by making mad claims about things of which you obviously do not know.

Have a try at outlining the regional agenda as it manifested int'noowerthwest' and let's see how far you get?

This is a core strategy of nulabour's economic and social policies. They leave Liverpool with no options and no handle on its own fate. And you talk about the tories smashing the city's destiny???

Tony Sebo said:

Have a try at outlining the regional agenda as it manifested int'noowerthwest' and let's see how far you get?

This is a core strategy of nulabour's economic and social policies. They leave Liverpool with no options and no handle on its own fate. And you talk about the tories smashing the city's destiny???

Click to expand...

Manchester is going places. Not a secret it is rising. They do not find that a North West authority hinders them. You are claiming the two are in the same bed and both ignore Liverpool.

I like federal systems and certain cities being city states - as in Germany. It works. It is up to Liverpool to advance and break away.

Liverpool Playboy said:

They do not find that a North West authority hinders them.

Click to expand...

But Manchester's relationship with the North West authorities (and the government that made them) is clearly not the same as Liverpool's. You imply a level playing field that simply doesn't exist and wouldn't no matter how well run Liverpool as a city was .

And your idea that Liverpool was ever in the running for the BBC relocation is laughable. To be frank, I think it was decided to be (Greater) Manchester at the earliest stage. Brunswick Tower would've made **** all of difference.

I agree with your last point though. We have to fight our corner for ourselves, because no one else is going to do it on our behalf.

Gareth said:

But Manchester's relationship with the North West authorities (and the government that made them) is clearly not the same as Liverpool's. You imply a level playing field that simply doesn't exist and wouldn't no matter how well run Liverpool as a city was .

Click to expand...

I think the playing is a lot more level than you think. Manchester takes advantage, Liverpool does not.

And your idea that Liverpool was ever in the running for the BBC relocation is laughable.

Click to expand...

I don't say it was. If Liverpool was more attractive with the dock areas ready, Liverpool maybe would have taken the BBC as they would have looked. They never considered as nothing was there.

I agree with your last point though. We have to fight our corner for ourselves, because no one else is going to do it on our behalf.

Click to expand...

The council lacks fighters. It is up to them to form links with the local MPs no matter what colour. They have a habit of rubbing people up and fighting between themselves.

No, John.

Andy Burnham was spouting the same nonsense last year - how much better Liverpool would be doing if it had a Labour council. Kinda let the cat out of the bag, except that he wasn't bright enough to realise that there's only one cake on the table and its portions have already been allocated.

Manchester was considered second in importance to Liverpool right up to the late 60's. Ever seen the Italian Job when Michael Caine refers to the three most important UK cities as London, Liverpool & Glasgow. My dad always used to say that this was the case when he was young in the 50's & 60's.
This begs the question of what went wrong and when.
This can be put firmly down to the politics of the city at the time, the city went too far to the left and this destroyed trade in the port and industry and commerce in this city, why, well as any potential employer will tell you and as any potential investor will tell you, they wouldn't touch the place with a bargepole. Even the government was put off. Crucially in the early 60's the gave regional television to Manchester, not just the BBC but ITV too. This heralded the turning point. From that point on Manchester's importance grew and Liverpool's declined ....never underestimate the power of the media.
This reversal between the two cities continued up until very recently (this decade) In this time we had had become a Joke (militant etc) crime soared and our reputation was damaged. In the 70's when the metropolitan counties came about Manchester wisely named their area Greater Manchester knowing that name gave their city (not to mention their population) a much greater profile. We named our Merseyside and it became a tag synonymous with failure.
Most of this could have been prevented with competent professional politicians in power during this time and I would say that the blame would have to been laid fairly and squarely at the the Labour party's door, in my opinion they destroyed the city, and they should not be allowed to darken the town hall door again.
For the future, if David Cameron says he will give Liverpool an elected Mayor then that's where I want it to go. A person with real power and someone who can grab the issues aforementioned in this thread by the bollocks and make it happen ...push themselves ahead of Manchester in the queue for everything that is up for grabs, a person of character and intelligence.
Then this city will rise again.

TalisMax said:

Manchester was considered second in importance to Liverpool right up to the late 60's. Ever seen the Italian Job when Michael Caine refers to the three most important UK cities as London, Liverpool & Glasgow. My dad always used to say that this was the case when he was young in the 50's & 60's.
This begs the question of what went wrong and when.
This can be put firmly down to the politics of the city at the time, the city went too far to the left

Click to expand...

So propaganda says. The problem was London and the south east . They wanted Liverpool out of the way as it was the only city that could economically rival London in the UK. Look at the money poured into Docklands, while Liverpool docks got sweet FA. London and the south east got bigger and richer and the rest grovelled.

For the future, if David Cameron says he will give Liverpool an elected Mayor then that's where I want it to go.

Click to expand...

You do? How foolish, when Labour has been the most successful government we have had in modern times? Wow! We need a mayor for Merseyside, not Liverpool, like London has.

The city will nor use under the Tories and never will. Neither will the country. An outdated asynchronism that should have disappeared long ago.

I've been around a bit, self made and nobodies fool old son.
You must be one of the last people to harbour the delusion that THIS labour government has been successful, maybe it looked that way for a while because they loaded the public sector with highly paid civil servants and we all got good services but now the chickens have come home to roost, guess who pays for all these freeloading bastards who do not generate a single penny for the economy of this country, yes its fucking me! and others like me, trouble is there's not enough of us now. I can give you countless examples from someone in business who knows what they are talking about as to why this government has fucked up our country!

Liverpool Playboy said:

So propaganda says. The problem was London and the south east . They wanted Liverpool out of the way as it was the only city that could economically rival London in the UK. Look at the money poured into Docklands, while Liverpool docks got sweet FA. London and the south east got bigger and richer and the rest grovelled.



You do? How foolish, when Labour has been the most successful government we have had in modern times? Wow! We need a mayor for Merseyside, not Liverpool, like London has.

The city will nor use under the Tories and never will. Neither will the country. An outdated asynchronism that should have disappeared long ago.

Click to expand...

TalisMax said:

I've been around a bit, self made and nobodies fool old son.

Click to expand...

You are naive though. I know many self made people who are as thick as pig shit. Making some money = intelligence? Does not follow.

You must be one of the last people to harbour the delusion that THIS labour government has been successful

Click to expand...

I always find it amazing when I read this sort of stuff. I always think, where were they in the past 12 years? Selective amnesia clearly set in about anything pre-1997. And where were they in the years from 1997 to now.

FACTS.....

• 
  [*]The city of Liverpool has changed immeasurably in the past 12 years - but maybe those buildings are all cardboard cutouts.
  [*]Maybe the strongest economy in the world for 12 years, was a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the strongest currency in the world for around 12 years was a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the super low interest rates were a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the super low inflation rates were a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the longest ever economic growth in British history, under Blair/Brown was a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the boom and bust of the Thatcher/Major years, and absent under Labour were a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the near zero unemployment was a figment of our imaginations.
  [*]Maybe the economy so strong that we could absorb 1 million eastern Europeans was a lie - who were all those Polish fellas then?
  [*]Maybe the Brown G20 world-wide rescue plan was a lie - it is now being reported by a number of economists in a few countries, that the recession is now over.
  [*]In many respects a worse financial crash than 1929, but no soup lines, so well plugged, and no massive unemployment as was predicated 18 months ago.

I look at facts and results first. Look at the facts that matter to a country at large. The Labour government over the past 12 years has been the best in modern times. They plugged the C Crunch too - G20, etc, did you read the papers and watch TV?

The history over the past 100 years is enough to give the Tory Party a wide berth and cast to oblivion. In 1918 only 10% of men had the vote. The Lab and Lib enfranchised the working classes and full voting ensued. Then look at it over that past 30 years - disaster. Yet one generation does not learn from the previous and makes the same mistakes.

The Labour party introduced the housing policy for the soldiers coming back from the war. "Homes for the Heroes." The Liberal government however was a bit backwards, however brought in the national insurance act, employment, education and the first seeds of the NHS, with Labour fully implementing post WW2. People just forget the great achievement from the past. The Conservative Party, well what they have done during the past was clearly disastrous and giving them another chance to do so again? Grow up please. Don't you people learn from history.

The Tories have opposed most social reform, brought in little to none of it themselves, having repealed some of it at times. Most people in the UK are Lab or Lib and of total eligible to votes only about 20% go to the Tories, yet they get in far too regularly and ruin matters

The Tory Party has a naive Eton old school boy shadow cabinet. All old school chums - how cosy for them - all with silly those arrrcents. The sort of thing you see in third world countries. Mainly from the same school and unis and always have been. Only two unis matter to them, as the other 97 are dismissed as not being "the right type". Trust the economy with them? Are you serious?

World-wide, Liberal/Social Democrats improved the living standards and quality of life of people. In the 1950/60 the country was supposed to be economically contracting, yet living standards for the masses were rising. The poorer, the vast majority of the people, were getting more of the share. The rich were not as rich and said the country was going to the dogs. My Dad didn't give a toss about shedding an empire, all he was concerned about was the standard of living for his family, which was rising because of social justice.

Do not tell yourself lies and believe them. Look at facts.

I can give you countless examples from someone in business who knows what they are talking about as to why this government has fucked up our country!

Click to expand...

I can give you ten times as many who say the opposite. Those who you put forward will obviously be deluded and should not be in business.