LIVERPOOL is being held at the starting gate as the big cities of the north - especially Manchester- forge ahead in the race to lure money and jobs from the South East and overseas.
And according to the man drafted in by Neil Kinnock to rid Liverpool from MIlitant in the mid 1980s, the city needs to up its game if it doesn’t want to be seen as a party town that attracts no bigger players than the stag and hen sort.
As Manchester Airport continues to prosper, and attract huge Chinese investment – real money and actual building – Liverpool still awaits the promised investment in the illusory Liverpool Waters scheme
Through his established think-tank, ExUrbe, Peter Kilfoyle, the former Labour MP for Liverpool Walton delivers a scathing commentary that will make grim reading for local politicians and business leaders.
Comparing the two North West cities, Kilfoyle says that over the last 30 years, Manchester has had two council leaders and, for the bulk of the time, one chief executive, giving a “priceless continuity”.
“Over those 30 years, Liverpool has had at least eight council leaders (and a mayor) and five or six chief executives. The history of Liverpool’s relations with neighbouring councils has not been a happy one. Two of the original five boroughs of the old county still largely see themselves as cuckoos in a Liverpool City-Region nest. St Helens sees itself as a quite distinct Lancashire town, whilst Wirral cleaves to its old Cheshire identity. Even Southport has doubts about its inclusion.
“As Manchester Airport continues to prosper, and attract huge Chinese investment – real money and actual building – Liverpool still awaits the promised investment in the illusory Liverpool Waters scheme.”
In his report, Damage Limitation on Devolution, Kilfoyle pulls no punches: “Instead, it often looks as if Liverpool is content with its new label as a party town, a place where people go for a stag night or hen party. Whereas once it was a great and important commercial centre, it is now happy to build ever more apartments for transient investors, rather than create jobs and houses for its deprived communities.”
He added: “Critics will argue that this paints too stark a picture of the divide between the two cities; but, by most objective criteria, there is such divide. That gulf illustrates what needs to be done if the Liverpool City Region is to match Greater Manchester. And match it we must, as well as match other cities, if we are to have any hope of dragging in investment from the South East of England and from overseas.”
But the area has many strong cards to play according to Mr Kilfoyle, “Not least of which includes its rivers – Mersey and Dee – and its coastline. Its cultural reputation is excellent, and its architecture is outstanding. It remains a vibrant and exciting place to visitors, with its heritage and history. Top residential areas in Wirral and Sefton have their own attractions, whilst the actual working parts of the Mersey littoral retain huge potential. What appears to be missing is an agreed strategy, a coherent and cohesive plan of action to galvanise our city region, and progress it.”
Part of this is a leadership issue, he says. Calling for better accountability from decision makers, Kilfoyle says there are two bodies “guiding – or misguiding – the city region”.
“The first is the Local Enterprise Partnership. This consists of businessmen and the leaders of the respective local authorities. No one is elected to this body – they are appointed by government, and answer to no-one but themselves. They organise the allocation of government grant to various private companies. The chairman of the LEP is Robert Hough, a Manchester-based man whose career was with the Peel group of companies – itself a major beneficiary of government grant via the LEP.
“Smaller, genuinely local firms do not appear to get a look-in on this money, nor are they represented on the LEP board which doles it out.
“The second body governing the future of the city region is known as the
Combined Authority. Again, it consists of the six local authority leaders, none of whom is elected to the position, together with the ex-officio chairman of the LEP, the aforementioned Robert Hough.”
When the debate turned to future governance of the city region, Kilfoyle
recalls how it crystallised into disagreement, with Mayor Anderson wanting a
metro mayor.
“The way in which Liverpool’s elected mayor conducted himself publicly, did not help. He attacked the other council leaders repeatedly because they differed from him.”
Kilfoyle added. “Whilst wry comments are made about ‘one party states’…Liverpool has a virtual elected dictatorship. Everything is vested in the mayoralty, including appointments and finance. The mayor’s patronage is all-embracing. Even the council meetings (the mayor is not a councillor) are wholly dominated by the mayor.
“Other leaders in the LCR set themselves against the notion of an elected mayor. Perhaps, the combined authority can strike a modus vivendi whereby real progress can be made in bringing increased finance under local control.
“One can hope that the logjam might be broken after the forthcoming election. We do not know which party and which individuals will be in power after the May judgement day. What is certain is if there is to be a metro mayor for the LCR, it must be on the back of a referendum approving such a post. That post must in turn be fully accountable and transparent in a way which has hitherto not been the case with mayoralty in Liverpool.”
