Liverpool 2026

The Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, announced yesterday that Liverpool intended to bid to host the Commonwealth Games in 2026.
---
This is a bold ambition, and as is to be expected the usual naysayers have already poured their cold water on the idea.
---
It will take determination, a lot of hard work and a little bit of luck to first of all persuade the UK government to give us the kind of financial backing that was given to London 2012, even though the sums involved are a fraction of those demanded by the Olympics; secondly to win the UK nomination, then to win the support of the Commonwealth nations to win the hosting rights, and finally to actually stage a successful games in ten years time.
---
Ambitious yes, but Liverpool has a history of taking ambitious leaps of faith to progress the city.
---
In 1709 the then Town Council mortgaged the entire town, everything, to build the world's first commercial dock. That was such a success that it led to us having the most extensive, and profitable dock system in the world, indeed such was Liverpool's success that at times during the 19th century our Custom House was the largest single contributer to the Exchequer, and Liverpool's wealth surpassed that of the capital.
---
In 1830 in order that the burgeoning port could have faster access to the industrial north west the world's first intercity railway was built to link Liverpool and Manchester.
---
The list of firsts includes the world's first School of Tropical Medicine; Britain's first municipal housing; the world's first overhead electric railway. In the 20th century we built Britain's largest cathedral, the world's longest underwater road tunnel (a record held for 40 years); the first port radar system. The list goes on!
---
In 2003 we beat 5 other cities to be named European Capital of Culture for 2008. Many scoffed, but it's widely acknowledged to have been the most successful ECoC programme ever delivered with 9.7m visitors to the city generating £754m for our economy.  The visitor/tourism economy now supports 43,000 jobs and generates £4bn annually.
---
More recently in 2014 one million people visited the city in one weekend to see "Memories of August 1914" as we launched our WW1 commemorations; and in 2015 1.2m people lined the banks of the Mersey as Cunard celebrated its 175th anniversary.
---
In 2014 and again this year the International Festival of Business has seen a total of over 100,000 delegates from 100 countries meet in Liverpool.
---
We can, and we do, host major national and international events, conferences and celebrations.  We can put on a successful 2026 Commonwealth Games and if our history is anything to go by, we will.

Immigration Debate

In my blog the other day I mentioned that those voting "Out" are doing so for different reasons and expect to see different outcomes than others.

During last night's (16 June) BBC Northwest Tonight programme Political Editor Arif Ansari spoke to two men in Preston about how they were voting. It illustrated my point well.

This is a transcript of the conversation:
Shane: Out
John: Out
AA: you're very clear about that, why is that?
S: because there's too many Polish
J: No, you can't say that
S: Who can't say it, of course I can say it, I'll say it as it comes, there's too many Polish
(AA voice-over: they say new immigrants have made life worse for people like them)
J: what do they do, you tell me what they do.
AA: well they do jobs don't they?
J: yes, jobs that we won't do
S: they do jobs that we won't do
AA: well that's quite important isn't it?
J: why?
S: it means that we're out of work
AA: don't you agree that there's a lot of people who won't do certain jobs that they are willing to do?
J: yes
S: yes, but would you get up at like 3 o'clock in morning, 4 o'clock, and work for like 6 quid an hour, cos I won't, I wouldn't even get out of...
AA: but someone has to
J: they will do a lot of crap things that we won't do

So you have to ask yourself what is it they want? They say they want to stop Polish workers coming here, to do jobs they admit they won't do, so who will do the work? The logical answer, and one which I'm sure Iain Duncan Smith would subscribe to is to stop their benefits so they have no option but to get up at 3 o'clock and work for 6 quid (actually £7.20 minimum wage), and as a taxpayer I'd be happy to see that too, but I'm not sure they know that that is what their vote may bring.

EU Referendum - 1 week to go

With a week to go until the 2016 EU referendum, it's still unclear which side will win, or indeed if either side will be able to say they've won. Neither side come out of this exercise with any glory, and both sides of the argument have made ridiculous claims about what will, would, could, may, or may not happen if they or the other side emerge victorious.

I was 9 years old when we entered the then EEC, and have always accepted membership of it, and the later EU, as a fact of life, in the same way that my city is in the UK, or the UK is in NATO and the UN.  I look around the world and see different systems of government, but I accept that the UK has a parliamentary monarchy, it's neither better or worse than other systems, it's just what we have.

For a number of years, some, mainly on the right have argued that anyone of my generation and younger have not had a say in being in the EU.  I have never understood that argument as my generation, and others, have never been asked do we want to be in the UK, or do we want the UK to be in the UN, or whether we should have a monarchy.  Perhaps we should be like Switzerland and have referenda about everything, but we don't and I accept that as a fact of life.  We elect a government every few years and that government makes the decisions, be they good or bad, and at the end of their term of office we renew their mandate or choose a different path.  Sometimes we agree with the outcome, and sometimes we don't.  And on the whole the system works, albeit sometimes we need to use a little direct action or lawful disobedience to keep the government in check.

But for a number of reasons, here we are, about to make a decision which will set our country on a course for the foreseeable future.

The question on the ballot paper is a clear In or Out, whereas I suspect most people's views are more nuanced. There are some who want to remain In the EU despite what direction it takes, and some, a larger number I think, who want to come Out, and will never change their minds on that.  Most people, again I suspect, are in between.   

Myself I'm "in between", but with a marked leaning to In.  I see the advantages the EU has brought, and shake my head at some of the things it gets wrong.  Like any organisation it has rules and procedures which appear pointless and wasteful, but the same applies to the UK government, the monarchy, even our own city council.

The world is a very different place to the one we inhabited in 1973, and almost every aspect of our lives has changed. One of the arguments in this campaign is whether the EU has been a cause or effect of those changes.

One of the charges laid against the EU locally is that as the Port of Liverpool lies on the "wrong" side of the country, membership of the EU led to the demise of the port. This is untrue.  The decline in the port came about due to changes in world trade, and particularly containerisation.  In latter years the amount of cargo being handled by the port has risen back to and beyond that handled prior to our entry into the EU, but of course with automation needs far fewer workers.  This would have happened with or without the EU.

Our hinterland of Lancashire suffered from changes to world trade, particularly the manufacturing of clothing and again new trades have eventually replaced the old, and again this was a global change which would have happened anyway.

Because of the seismic shift in those trading patterns, Liverpool suffered more than most places as business relocated away from the port it no longer needed, indeed an option put to the then Thatcher government was to allow the city to go into "managed decline", instead of attempting to attract new business, it should encourage the workforce to move to where the jobs where, which in a way makes sense, its how the city grew in the first place by people following the work. The problem of course is what do you leave behind.  However some, notably Michael Heseltine and some of our more progressive local politicians, saw an alternative and kick-started the reinvention of the city particularly into the cultural and knowledge sectors.  EU, and UK, grants have been instrumental in providing investment into the infrastructure of the city to underpin those and other sectors.

Another argument against the EU at this point is that the money we get back is merely money which came from the UK in the first place, and yes, this is true, however the question is would the city have received that funding from Whitehall alone.  The answer is, in my opinion, no, it would not.  An example here is the Cruise Terminal.  Built at a cost of £21m, it required grants from the EU and UK of approx. £8.5m each.  However when because of the success of the terminal ship operators wanted to not only call here but start cruises from the port, the UK grant had to be repaid, as it had "port call only"conditions attached which the EU one did not.  There are many other examples of UK funding being given but only to match what the EU had provided and not instead of such assistance.

In summary Liverpool was going through a rough patch at the time of accession to the EU, and has benefitted hugely from EU investment to become the thriving city it is today.  This however is in the past and the city will not receive such sums in the future, other cities, towns and areas in this and other countries will have a greater need for investment in the future.  And that is OK, its part of what being in a Union is about, be that the EU or the UK.  We invest in the weaker parts in order to increase their viability and allow them to stand on their own two feet.  Yes there are parts of the EU which require a great deal of investment, but as their economies grow the level of assistance they receive will reduce. An example here is Ireland, it's weaker economy required a great deal of investment but it eventually grew to become a net contributor to the Union.  Of course it was then dealt a heavy blow due to the economic crash but that was for different reasons, notably borrowing in a short period more than it could afford to repay, but the country's growth is now once again out performing other countries.

The country with the leading growth figure currently is Poland, and as her economy grows her population will be able to find better paid work within their own country, and the opportunities for people from other countries including the UK to do business there will increase.

Above all however the UK is a trading nation, we do business with the entire world, and despite what some think, ships still sail from Liverpool to the Americas, to Africa and beyond.  But we also trade with the largest single market in the world, the EU. Cutting ourselves off from that market, or having restrictions or costs imposed on trading with it, when we currently do so freely, makes no sense whatsoever.

The next point I want to address is sovereignty. Some see the EU as being a dictatorship which rules over us.  And yes on some issues the EU makes rules and regulations which we have to abide by, but that is no different to the UK parliament making rules or the UN making resolutions.  If we leave the EU it will continue to make rules, and in order to trade with the 27 other countries we'll still have to abide by those rules, the difference being we would no longer have any say, any influence or as a last resort, any veto over those rules.  We live in an interconnected and global world, a lot of the things which enable us to live in the modern age are decided in other capitals or indeed boardrooms around the world.  We have little say in how those things are decided.  So self governing sovereignty is one of those things that sounds noble but is pretty meaningless in the 21st century.

Lastly, what happens if we leave the EU.  It's pretty much accepted that there will be an economic shock, how long it lasts, and how severe it is, is pure guesswork.  What happens after that is unknown.  What I have observed however is those who plan to vote to leave are not only doing so for different reasons, but hope for vastly different outcomes.  Some are believers in small government, where you keep what you earn and look after yourself and will be only too happy to see most employment laws and the NHS consigned to the history books; others think that the money we currently give to the EU will instead be spent at home and that the NHS in particular will receive much more funding.  Well both can't be right and one end of that spectrum will be sadly disappointed in what transpires, and with the Leave campaign headed up by the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove I strongly suspect it will be the latter.

If the country does decide to leave the EU, then I think there will be a difficult period ahead, and a lot of people who can ill afford it will suffer hardship, in the short term at least.  But in the long term the country will adapt and survive, like it always has.

If we decide to remain then it is imperative that the UK Prime Minister, both present and future, uses the UK's power and economic might to assume a greater leadership role in the EU and ensure it continues to adapt to the challenges of the world we live in.

I firmly believe, however, that being a member of the European Union continues to be in the UK's best interests, and I will be voting to Remain next Thursday.

Alive

Yesterday's tragic news about Malachi Mitchell-Thomas was gut wrenching, I watched in awe last year as he took the Manx Grand Prix crown. A life so young, so full of promise, was taken in a split second.  Coming so soon after Billy Redmayne lost his life in Scarborough is a devastating blow to everyone in the racing family.
And yes in the immediate moments of hearing the news I had that thought of 'is this too dangerous, was his life taken unnecessarily'. And I understand those outside the sport who hold those views.
But you know, we are humans, and however you believe we came to be, we have senses and those senses need to be stimulated, it's what makes us feel alive, it's what makes us human.
Some feel alive racing a motorbike; some feel alive climbing a mountain, or swimming the sea; some feel alive through music or dance; some feel alive just sitting and seeing a stunning landscape. Some enjoy solitude, and some a boisterous crowd.
Our lives may be short or long, some babies may not live at all, but they are loved as much as a grandma who's seen a century.
So however you feel alive, do it. Enjoy it. Dream about it, and remember it. And when you've gone, those who love you will remember you always, that you were you, and that you were alive.

2016 Elections

The polls open in the morning with 4 votes in the City of Liverpool. Two for Mayor, and one each for local ward councillor and for the Police & Crime Commissioner.

As you may be aware, I was, until last autumn, a Labour party member, I’m no fan of Corbyn or his clique, so Labour's success or otherwise nationally is of little importance to me.  Of course not being a member any more means I no longer feel the need to be tribal about how I vote and I don't intend to be. 

We currently have a Labour Mayor in Joe Anderson and on the whole I think he has done a good job in the role.  He made 5 election promises 4 years ago and has delivered on them all.  As I have said previously I wish he’d be a bit more Mayoral like and drop the playground routine especially when dealing with opposition councillors.  But he has achieved a lot, especially considering the draconian cuts to the city’s grant support from central government.

His manifesto is bold and ambitious, whether it is all achievable only time will tell, and of course the unanswered question remains on what happens next year if, as he has made no secret of wishing, he is selected as the Labour candidate for Liverpool City Region Mayor.

His main rival is the Lib Dem’s Richard Kemp, he is an experienced councillor, but his manifesto lacks ambition, being first of all bogged down in procedure.  He doesn’t like the Mayoral model and seeks to abolish it.  He also wants to hand control of the city’s parks and open spaces to non-elected community groups.  There is nothing in his manifesto to grab my interest and continue the rebirth of Liverpool onto the world stage.  It is a local councillor mandate, when the city needs a leader, not a committee member.

All the other candidates I only know of from their page in the council’s election booklet, none have put any material through my letter box to explain why they want the job, or what they offer Liverpool.  The Independent Alan Hutchinson and Conservative Tony Caldeira make the right noises about being business friendly but don’t put any meat on the bones to say what they would actually do in office to attract businesses here.  The others offer either little (Greens), chaos (TUSC) or bigotry (English Democrats).

So Joe Anderson wins my support.  He has, as I say, an ambitious programme for the next 4 years, I hope if elected he, or whoever takes over from him in 2017, can deliver.  The voting system for Mayor gives two votes, and although I cannot really see anyone else beating Joe Anderson, to knock him out of the top two, I don’t like to waste a vote, so looking at the other candidates, I did lean towards Tony Caldeira, however when I tried to follow his links I found a twitter account which hasn't been used for 4 years and a dead website, hardly inspiring, therefore Alan Hutchinson gets my second vote.

For my local ward, County, I've only had an election address from the Labour Candidate Kay Davies, so she gets my vote by default, if the other candidates can't be bothered seeking my vote, I see no reason to give them it.

For Police and Crime Commissioner, the current Commissioner Jane Kennedy is standing again, and she seems to have done a decent enough job over the last 4 years.  However I'm also interested in what the LibDem candidate Chris Carubia has to say. I've dismissed the other candidates as the Greens seem to only interested in stopping people driving at over 20mph and the Conservative candidate has too much history inside the police force in my opinion to be a truly independent figure. I'd be happy for either Jane or Chris to be Commissioner, so my vote will go to whichever way my heart goes when I'm in the polling booth.

So to summarise, I'll be voting:
Mayor of Liverpool: 1st preference Joe Anderson; 2nd preference Alan Hutchinson.
City Councillor: Kay Davies.
PCC: either Jane Kennedy or Chris Carubia (to be decided).

Liverpool Mayoral Election - sifting the candidates

Nominations have closed and we have field of seven candidates to choose from in the election to be held on Thursday 5th May.

So who are they, let’s start by weeding out the no hopers:

Paul Rimmer, English Democrats. A man so homophobic and bigoted that even UKIP don’t want him. A vile character who deserves to play no part in public life.

Roger Bannister, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. TUSC aka Militant who spent the 1980s driving business away from the city and causing a generation to leave the city too.  Mr Bannister wants to stop any cuts to public services but can’t say who would pay the bill.

Next the thanks, but no thanks:

Tony Caldeira, Conservative. Mr Caldeira is a successful businessman, but I’m afraid his party is so far removed from public life in Liverpool that his candidacy is rather pointless.

Tom Crone, Green Party.  If this was a rural parish council I could understand the Green’s points, but this is a modern growing city, which is totally at odds with the party’s offer.  The only city to have been run by the Greens was Brighton, and they made a right royal hash of it.

So we have three credible candidates left:

Richard Kemp, Liberal Democrats.  Mr Kemp has lots of council experience, and he talks sense on some issues, but I have a number of issues with his manifesto.  The first being that he doesn’t want the job.  The LibDems have consistently failed to see any benefit in having an elected Mayor.  My second issue is with handing control of the city’s parks to unelected “Community Groups”.  I’ve asked Mr Kemp to clarify who these groups would be, who selects them, who they are accountable to and how anyone with a counter argument on any given matter would have their voice heard.

Joe Anderson, Labour Party.  Mr Anderson is of course the current Mayor and on the whole has achieved his 2012 election promises. I wish Mr Anderson would act more Mayoral-like at times and stop the schoolboy politics.  He is a recognised figure both in the UK and abroad and one of the most powerful elected people in the country, and should act like it more.  He understands the need to work with government and businesses to bring more jobs and wealth to the city. An unanswered question to Mr Anderson is what happens next year if he is selected as Labour’s candidate for Liverpool City Region Mayor?

Alan Hutchinson, Independent.  I’ve only been aware of Mr Hutchinson in the past week and I don’t know that much about him, but the ideas I have read so far seem sound and sensible.  I need to look into his manifesto in more depth.

At the moment Mr Kemp, Mr Anderson and Mr Hutchinson are vying for my vote.  But I have still to make my final decision.  I’ll be watching them closely over the next three weeks.

The media, and especially the Liverpool Echo, need to allow a sensible platform for the voters to see who they are being asked to choose from, I hope they start taking the contest seriously, and quickly.

Mayor, for now

A simple tweet lead to an interesting revelation on the future (or not) of the next Mayor of Liverpool.

My tweet suggested that I was struggling to give my vote to either Joe Anderson, who wants to be Mayor of Liverpool City Region, or to Richard Kemp, who doesn’t like the Mayoral model of governance and wants the council to revert to the Leader model. i.e. neither of the two main candidates actually want the job.

Richard, to give him his due, replied and informed me that all parties on the Council are planning to vote in February 2017 to abolish the post of Mayor of Liverpool and revert to Leader, this to tie in with the election of a Mayor of Liverpool City Region. 

This makes sense as one of the benefits of a Mayor is having a figurehead recognisable to investors and the business community, and having a Mayor of Liverpool, a Mayor of Liverpool City Region, not to the mention the (ceremonial) Lord Mayor of Liverpool was just going to confuse everyone.

So let’s do some maths:
Liverpool City Council has 90 members, currently made up of 81 Labour, 4 Green, 2 Lib Dem, 2 Liberal and 1 Independent.

32 of those seats are up for election this year, currently held by Labour (29) with Green, Lib Dem, Liberal and Independent having one a piece.

So, even in the unlikely scenario of Labour losing every seat they contest, they would still be the largest group, and majority, on the council with 52 seats, with 38 councillors in opposition

We will also elect a Mayor.  However as mentioned, according to Richard Kemp, and nobody has denied this to be the case, the council is set to vote to abolish the post in February 2017, in which case the reintroduced role of Leader of the Council would go to… who? 

Not Richard Kemp, even if his Lib Dems win all 32 seats, this would only give him a total of 33 seats.

Not Joe Anderson, as if his role of Mayor is abolished he isn’t a councillor.

Not any other Mayoral candidate as the maths for the Lib Dems would apply to their parties’ too even if they win all contested seats.

The Leader of the Council would be whoever is the then leader of the Labour Group as they will remain the majority.

So in answer to my original tweet of struggling to know who to vote for, the answer is whoever you vote for, and whoever is elected, will only be Mayor for one year.

All the candidates need to give clarity around this.  And the Liverpool Echo who appear to have missed this scenario altogether, need to sit up and take notice of what’s happening at the Town Hall.