Now that a decision has been made about Everton’s proposed move to Kirkby, it is time to take stock of the area, and its relations with the two football clubs. 

Nowhere else are two premiership clubs in such close proximity to each other. They dominate the north end of the city; yet this area is recorded as the most disadvantaged in the country. Whilst the clubs themselves are not to blame for this, they are the key to the area’s regeneration. 

Indeed, it was hoped that regeneration would be launched with a new stadium built on part of Stanley Park. One half of the latter has been much improved, but there is little likelihood of Liverpool FC building a new stadium whilst the current owners are in place. 

Furthermore, Everton FC has discounted building anew on the Goodison Park site. Both clubs still avoid any serious discussion of a shared ground, quoting hostile fans as one barrier to such a way forward. In the meantime, despite pious pledges and weasel words, little or nothing is done to arrest the decline of areas like that around Rockfield Road. This state of affairs is a disgrace to the city, and underlines the lack of leadership on offer locally. 

I stress that this is a local dilemma, and underlines the failure of Liverpool City Council to use its muscle to influence events at our two iconic football clubs. Quite simply, it would not happen in Manchester. Their council leader and Chief Executive are pro-active in solving the challenges facing their city, for the good of all its citizens. They appear to be in charge of events. Our city leaders seem to be at the mercy of events. 

Until we get a clear vision and strong lead from our council, we will be "also-rans" in the competition between British cities.  

 

This showpiece not only perpetuates the illusion that the Queen literally “rules” the country – she is head of state, not head of government – but gives an insight to how those who actually control things, want the parliamentary circus to be seen.

 

Firstly, the event takes place in the House of Lords, not in the elected House of Commons.  Indeed, a little farce is played out when, replaying history, the senior official in the Lords comes to the Commons to summon the members to the Lords to hear the Queen.  So little regard there for an elected democracy.

 

Then we have the opposition leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, announcing that the Tories will scuttle in the Lords, any legislation coming from the Queen’s Speech.  What stupendous arrogance – an unelected Scottish peer telling the elected government of the day what it can and cannot do.

 

Surely this flags up the failure of Labour in government to abolish the outdated and obstructive House of Lords.  You can remove me from parliament by the use of your vote, but you have no say in who sits in the Lords, even in the case of a convicted criminal like Lord Archer.

 

The House of Lords is a repository for party financiers, clapped out politicians, and the London-based great and good.  I cannot think of any useful purpose it serves that an elected upper chamber could not do better – and yet be accountable to you.

 

16 November 2009

Few words can cause as much argument as regeneration. Not just what it means – we all have a rough idea of that – but where it is practised, and who is responsible. Housing regeneration is an obvious example, promoted by New Heartlands (a quango) in North Liverpool and elsewhere. 

 

Its aims are to make neighbourhoods more pleasant and attractive to house buyers. In the course of that regeneration, houses owned by social landlords (housing associations) are also to be upgraded. Yet it is not enough to just renew housing. Schools, medical facilities and shops are all part of the equation. The objective is that the whole neighbourhood, including parks and streets, are to be renewed. 

 

I know there are many parts of the Walton constituency crying out for such regeneration investment. Why, people rightly ask, do we not have expenditure in our area? The answer to such questions lies with the local council.  

 

The council often says it is hamstrung by the government, but I do not accept this. Government provides grants, and the council decides where it is spent. These grants are big. Take the Working Neighbourhoods Funds. Only Birmingham, a city twice our size, receives more than Liverpool - £115 million to £99 million. 

 

It should be spent in most parts of the Walton constituency, but we simply do not know if it is, nor on what it is spent. This is where one of the major problems over regeneration occurs. One community believes that they are being left out of the huge regeneration grants being spent, and ask why that is. 

 

The council should come clean, and spell out what is being spent and where, in the city, and why. People are generally patient in waiting their turn even for regeneration, but are angered when they feel ignored and by-passed.

 

9 November 2009

It is obvious that an election is not far away. The opposition have produced figures which show that Labour in government represents over 180 of the 200 constituencies with the highest rates of people on benefits. Number one on their list was Walton. 

 

This is a surprise – that those who get the least from our society vote Labour – or so it is alleged. Presumably, if it is the case, they do so because they believe that a Labour government, with all of its failings, is a better deal for the less affluent than a Conservative one would be. 

 

The implication is that those who receive benefits are feckless. Well, they would say that, especially as it appears that a Conservative government would slash expenditure on benefits as part of its policy to cut spending all round. By the way, this is despite the international consensus that the least favourable time for such cuts is in the middle of the present recession. 

 

The Conservative report doesn’t differentiate between benefits. They obviously believe in cutting the various tax credits. Despite the complications which some constituents have faced, many thousands of people on low wages have been helped into work by this means. Is it sensible to take away a positive incentive for people to work – and a more liveable income? 

 

One Conservative newspaper quoted me as if I wished to keep people on benefits for electoral purposes. They justified this because of my objection to some of the privatisation projects which are being pushed. I have said that these schemes, which pay by results, make government targets more important than the well-being of my constituents. I stand by that view.  

 

After all, most of those on benefits in Walton are on them for one reason – they are people in need. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The successful candidate will be chairman of the meetings of the twenty seven countries in the European Union.   He or she would not have command of an army or a diplomatic corps;  nor could he or she call on the European Commission bureaucracy as a civil service.    It is, in fact, more of a public relations role.  Why then, you might ask, did I oppose Tony Blair for the role?

 

Well, firstly, the role calls for a unifier to pull the European Union together in the eyes of the world.  Blair has shown himself to be a divisive man, as he divided Europe over the Iraq War.   The job also requires someone to speak to the rest of the world for Europe.   Yet he remains tainted by that Iraq War, and his subservience to the despised George Bush.

 

That is another side to Blair which concerns  many Europeans – including  Britons.  He always claimed to be a bridge between America and Europe; but, invariably, he backed America.   A president of any sort in Europe should represent European interests, as a British Prime Minister should represent British interest.  He has always given the impression of favouring American interests and his own ego.

 

 

Given that they are legal, the BBC’s own rules meant that, at some stage, the BNP had to be accorded the same opportunities for debate as is given to other political parties.    In my view, it was an opportunity to unmask them for the hate-filled fascists that they are.  Unfortunately, it was fluffed.

 

The appearance was given of a conspiracy by the BBC, the panel and the audience to gang up on the BNP leader, rather than to expose his appalling beliefs in debate.  As polls taken after the show illustrated, many viewers actually felt sorry for him, seeing him as a “victim” of bullying.

 

This is partly a British trait of always supporting the underdog; and partly a reflection on television shows which claim to be about current affairs.  In fact, they are more about entertaining viewers, rather than informing them of the serious issues which face us all.   The politics show which follows – “This Week” is a classic example.  It prefers to have show business celebrities to politicians although its subject matter is the week’s political events.

 

Whilst I realise that politicians do not help themselves with the likes of the expenses scandal, the issues facing us – recession, global warming, Afghanistan – are too serious to trivialise.  It suits those who have real power – the media moguls, the business chiefs, the Establishment generally – to undermine our democracy; and they do it incessantly.

 

Yet I believe that the British people want more than diversion and entertainment in public life.   They do still care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The kind of loyalty to which I refer reveals itself as consistency in politics.  That is because it is loyalty to the principles for which people are first selected by their electorate to vote for them.  The hard part, of course, is putting those principles into practice.

 

Believe me, it is not easy.  Loyalty to basic principles can easily bring an individual into conflict with his friends, colleagues and party.  In days gone by, it was known as having a conscience – a nagging voice in your head, telling you when you were heading in the wrong direction.

 

Today, it too often appears that leading politicians have no principles, nor a conscience.  Indeed, they seem to respond only to the latest opinion poll or focus group, telling them what must be done to win power.  There appears to be little room for the consistency that comes from a conscientious application of principles.

 

That is why it is of no surprise to me that so many people are cynical about politics and politicians.  It is not that they do not have strong views on issues – they do.  However, they have no faith in politicians who say whatever it takes to win votes.  Fundamental matters like whether something is inherently right or wrong, seems to pass so many of my colleagues by.

 

The answer?  Simple – vote out those you do not trust regardless of their party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My latest column on the matter is prompted by the public relations blitz recently by Liverpool’s new managing director, Christian Purslow.  Now I do not know Mr Purslow – I have never met him.  However, some of his comments on the current state of play at the club are cause for concern.

 

He has effectively written off a new stadium for the foreseeable future.  A former banker, no less, he says that only when the American ownership can borrow on their terms will the stadium be built.  This was not their claim when they bought the club; nor will it stop them selling, if the price is right.

 

That is the key to the current ownership.  They view the club as a business investment, and expect a return when they sell.  They have no concept of its place in, and effects on the local community.  Their passion is for the dollar, not the game; their focus is on the market, not the community.

 

In the interim, the Vernon Sangster Centre has gone to merge into the Anfield Youth Centre.  Houses remain blighted whilst a final decision is awaited about the club’s redevelopment; and funding earmarked for projects in the area, will be spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Conference is Brown’s last opportunity to pull his party together before the next election. There is no overwhelming love for the Tories in the country, but even less regard right now for the Brown Government. His failure this week could be a preview of failure at the general election next May, and for years of opposition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merseyside was extremely influential at the conference, with local leaders like Brendan Barber (TUC General Secretary); Tony Woodley (Unite General Secretary); John Hannett (USDAW General Secretary) and Bill Hayes (CWU General Secretary) – the latter two both from Walton constituency – in the thick of the conference action.

 

Some very serious issues were raised for both of the major parties as we approach the next general election.  As all of the party leaders – Brown of Labour, and Cameron of the Conservatives, together with Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems – try to outbid each other with promises of cuts in public expenditure, the unions gave a resounding “no” to any job cuts.

 

I believe that is sensible.  There are many ways in which savings can be made without any reduction in front line public service jobs.  We could begin with the £10 billion in tax relief given each year to the top one percent of earners, on £150,000 per year or more.  We could also cut wasteful programmes like the Trident weapons replacement – an obsolete and irrelevant proposal.

 

Cutting jobs causes misery.  It is also inefficient, as the unemployed would not pay tax, but would draw benefits.   That is costly to us all.   Already, about one in five of those between sixteen and twenty five are officially unemployed.  Last, but not least, let us remember who caused the problems which we now face.   It was not average or low paid workers; it was highly paid executives.  They should be first to feel any financial pain.

 

 

We are effectively entering a campaign for government now; with the start of the campaign season.  The TUC are setting the tone for the Labour government this week, right here in Liverpool.  Already, they have voiced real fears that the economic crisis could lead to public service job losses.

 

If that was the case, it would  be a real blow to Liverpool.  We have a higher dependency on public service jobs than does London or the south-east.   A big contraction in public spending could lead to those feared job cuts.

 

Trade unionists argue – rightly, in my view – that such a course of action would lead to lower tax receipts, lower spending, and a higher demand for benefit support.  Thus, quite apart from the moral position, it would be counter-productive economically to take that line.  Politically, it would also be disastrous.  It would simply be seen as aping the Tory policy of massive cuts.

 

The crisis was caused by the bankers within the financial services sector of the economy.  It seems reasonable to look to them to repay their debts to the wider economy.  Instead, it seems as if the bonus culture – greed on a large scale – is still uppermost in their minds.

 

Depressingly, the leaderships of both major parties are incapable of reflecting the public’s distaste for the avarice of the City.   They are loathe to tackle the very people who created the current recession.

 

My own view is that these  - and many others on fat cat salaries – are well able to pay their due share of the nation’s liabilities.  I can see no moral case against them being taxed more than they currently pay.  Having had many years of plenty – at the expense of the rest of us – they should now pay their dues.

 

 

It was, therefore, a blow to the Government generally, and to Prime Minister Brown – a fellow Scot – given his dogged defence to date of Government defence policy.  It was more acute given that Joyce is one of the few in the Parliamentary Labour Party to have served in the forces.  He was, therefore, assumed to be speaking on behalf of the army, who cannot speak out.

 

What is the position?  Well, we have been in Afghanistan for nearly eight years, with little apparent result.  We have been told that we are there for anti-terror reasons;  for anti-insurgency objectives;  because we are pro-democracy;  because our troops will stop the heroin trade and rebuild the country.  In short, there is total confusion as to what our objectives are.

 

The real objective is to keep NATO – and, by that, I mean the United States – happy.  Post 9/11, everyone was onside with America and happy to please them, including the attack on Afghanistan under the NATO umbrella.

 

Now the US Congress is asking the same question I have been asking for years – when will we know when we have accomplished our military task, and bring our troops home?  After all,  they have been there longer than we were in World War II.

 

Following the recent Afghan elections, where ballot boxes were stuffed and voters intimidated on a large scale, is it really right that British soldiers should be sacrificed to keep a corrupt president in power?

 

Such corruption brought the Taliban to power in the first place.

 

Presently, we are moving towards "city-regions". Ours will be Liverpool, not Merseyside. Few outside of the United Kingdom know where Merseyside is; everyone knows about Liverpool. Thus, we are all branded "Liverpool" although I do not know how this will go down with the snobs of Wirral or Southport! 

The problem is, who will run this entity? If the establishment has its way, it will be the council leaders and chief executives of the six local authorities involved. They have already formed a cosy club to run the city-region. The latter’s responsibilities have conveniently been divided into six areas – one for each council. 

Frankly, this is a joke. Whereas one or two local leaders might get their acts together, the danger is that (understandably) each council will look to its own narrow interest, to the detriment of the wider region. Some- like Liverpool City Council – are, in my view, incapable of playing a wider, constructive role. Institutionally, they are incapable of doing so. 

The only answer for me is an elected mayor of the Liverpool city-region, owing no allegiance to any local council. In London, the Mayor covers thirty two councils and seven million people. In New York, he covers five boroughs and an even bigger electorate. Why not Greater Liverpool with only about one and a half million? 

Manchester is making such plans now, far ahead of us. Are we to be left behind yet again in ambition? 

Whether we look at Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia – each a trouble spot – it is obvious that much of the hostility which is aimed towards the West revolves around this seemingly intractable dispute over the Holy Land. It is a place where three world religions try to share the holy places – that is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 

Yet, increasingly, fundamentalist strands of Judaism and Islam are threatening the peace of the region, and, consequently, the world. Although I fervently believe that religion and state should be kept rigorously apart, this is not the case in the Middle East. My views would be rejected by Israel and Iran, where religion determines the states response to so many issues. 

I am not a Jew nor am I a Muslim, although I can respect believers of both those religions. What I cannot accept is an attitude which says that my beliefs are at the expense of others who have different views. Moreover, I despise the politics of hate, which define one group by its hatred of another group. That is how totalitarian regimes – Fascist or Communist – prosper. 

I have tried to look at the Middle East objectively. In doing so, I deplore, for example, suicide bombers, and their attacks on innocent civilians. Yet, if I have to point a finger, it must be at Israel, and its refusal to make any concessions to international opinion. Its ruthless attack on Gaza, and its persistent planting of settlers on Arab land, show a cynical disregard for any peace process. It cannot go on. 

However, the premier symbol of the NHS is probably the hospital. Whether we talk about the Royal, Fazakerley of Broadgreen – or newer entities like the Walton Centre or the Women’s Hospital – we can mark the progress of the NHS by the investment in those institutions, and the great improvements in the services which they offer. 

I confess to bias. Three years ago, I had a life-saving quadruple by-pass operation. Until then, I never understood how fantastic the acute hospital services were. Now I am a fanatical supporter of them – understandably you will agree! Each day there appear to be exciting new developments.  

The latest news involves radio therapy. Clatterbridge has been the regional centre for such treatment, but can be a difficult place to get to for many in North Liverpool. Over 90% of their patients travel there by car, taxi or ambulance. Yet the national objective is that no patient should travel longer than forty five minutes to access treatment. 

Now a satellite radiotherapy centre is being built next to the Walton Centre at Fazakerley. Clatterbridge is working with the Marina Dalglish Appeal to fund this vital project (it costs £17.3 million), and they are hopeful it will be open early in 2011. 

This will be a tremendous addition to the network of outreach clinics (there are presently seven) which provide radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments throughout Merseyside and Cheshire. It is a concrete sign of the commitment to provide the very best treatments, free at the point of need, for conditions once considered untreatable. 

The government pulled out all the stops to prevent our amendment from succeeding. They argued that, if we won, it would not only bring down the government, but the whole economy of the United Kingdom. This was nonsense, but some who had supported us chose to believe this gross exaggeration, and either vote with the government, or abstain.

I had the Prime Minister telephone me twice on the day of the vote, as well as the Chief Whip. I did not give way to them. I was never elected to penalise the working poor – that is, those on the lowest wages. The idle rich is one thing, but people on the minimum wage? Never!

I expected widespread condemnation of the government over this, but the headlines suddenly veered towards a different story. Harold Wilson once remarked that a week was a long time in politics. How right he was, because now it was the Conservative Party under pressure because of its chief spin-doctor, Andrew Coulson.

Ironically, the press was under the cosh over the "News of the World" tapping into people’s telephones. The very people who had led the charge over MPs’ indiscretions now found themselves charged with the criminal act of phone tapping in pursuit of lurid headlines.

I suspect that this is typical of Whitehall, taking pre-emptive steps to save their well-paid and powerful jobs whilst preparing to chop the legs of those lower down the civil service ladder who do the actual work.

The senior Civil Service, to whom I refer, are a remarkably resilient breed, typified by Sir Humphrey of "Yes Minister". They are superb at protecting themselves and each other, avoiding any responsibility for mismanagement, or squandering taxpayers’ money.

Traditionally, the argument has been that the senior Civil Service provides continuity from government to government, with professional and astute advice to ministers. Nonsense, says I. Try to get them to make a decision, and they will recommend bringing in costly consultants, or creating another useless quango.

These mandarins are never sacked – at worst, they are moved sideways. At the highest level, they end up with a knighthood. Most importantly, many of them leave the Civil Service to become important figures on quangos, or consultants for the very firms which they brought into lucrative government contracts.

When an American President takes office, he appoints around five thousand people to senior jobs alongside the career administrators in various departments. In the last twelve years, I can think of only three people in the most senior post – permanent secretary – who have been brought into the Civil Service from outside.

Many commentators argue that Westminster should be cleared out of many people implicated in the expenses scandal. Perhaps we should purge Whitehall, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought it might be helpful to explain as simply as possible the five areas of allowances which are being debated.

 

Firstly, there is a communications allowances. This pays for such things as an MP’s annual report and website. The process is simple. The MP organises it, gets invoices, sends them to the Commons authorities – known as the Fees Office – and they pay the bills.

 

Secondly, there is an allowance to cover office costs – rent, rates, telephones, electricity, paper and the like. This is paid for in exactly the same way, with invoices sent to the Fees Office for them to pay.

 

Thirdly, there is a staffing allowance. This pays for staff wages and their national insurance. Once again, these payments are between the Fees Office and employed staff on a PAYE basis.

 

Fourthly, there is a travel allowance. This covers travel on parliamentary business. MPs are issued with a travel card (it looks and works like a credit card), but once again, all monies are handled by the Fees Office.

 

The final allowance – and the controversial one – is called the living out allowance. Its intention was to enable ordinary men or women to afford a second home in London whilst they were in Parliament. Again, I had always understand that evidence of expenditure had to be submitted before payments were received. In many cases, it appears this was not the case; or that claims were not checked. Unlike the other allowances, cash did change hands.

 

This is where the police are now looking. Why were Members paid money to which they were clearly not entitled?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, he claimed that I had attacked journalists over parliamentary allowances. Half right. I put to those of them working for the BBC – and hence, wholly paid by the tax payer like MPs – that they might publish their expenses. I also took issue with their outrageous attacks on Michael Martin, the Speaker.

 

He has been under assault ever since he was first elected. It was pure snobbery from the Establishment, who would not accept a working-class Glasgow man as Speaker. Ultimately, he was forced out as a scapegoat for the Long-standing failures of the parliamentary system.

 

The second challenge against me was a simplistic analysis of what my complainant considered a failure to vote in a number of Commons votes on expenses. His information came from a website which claims to monitor MPs. Of course, it fails to point out that Members abstain from votes on many occasions for a wide range of reasons. Any vote in Parliament can present tricky choices.

 

Finally, from this same website, he claims to have calculated my expenses differently from those I published. Well, mine are those published by the House of Commons, and trawled over by the Daily Telegraph, without any comment. It shows that if someone wants to believe the worst, they shall.

 

Perhaps now the media will move on from their current obsession with trying to tar everyone in Parliament because of those who have done wrong, and who ought to face punishment. That is not the majority, however. Believe me, most are honest and hard working.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also lost all of our Labour-controlled county councils – critical for Brown’s position. More Cabinet members stood down – Hutton and Hoon – along with junior ministers like Beverley Hughes and Tom Watson. Finally, Europe Minister, Caroline Flint, appeared to have a hissy fit when she was not promoted. Her resignation came with a personal attack on the Prime Minister.

 

Finally, on Sunday, the European election results came in, showing record losses for Labour, and success for fringe parties like UKIP and the BNP. Does that mean that it is all over for Labour as a party in government? Not necessarily.

 

The Liverpool voting figures were interesting. Labour had more votes than the Tories and Lib Dems combined. Then again, we always seem to go against the national trend. Still, we need to look more closely at those results to understand what the political shifts are.

 

For example, there is no doubt that the expenses scandal was an issue. The party of government – at this time, Labour – takes the major hit for such matters. Then there is the recession. Government certainly carries the can for this, including the banking scandal. We expect government to put such things right, no matter how complex the problem. That is what we vote in governments to do.

 

There has also been a steady decline in support for Labour – only 35% at the 2005 general election – because "new" Labour was not delivering for its traditional supporters in the way in which they expected. "New" Labour was little different from "compassionate" Tories in many people’s eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has long been recognised that SMEs – small to medium sized enterprises – deliver jobs and growth in the economy. A similar result can be won within society if real power was devolved to real communities. Instead of quangos staffed by retired businessmen and civil servants, we should have community enterprises run by and for local communities.

 

I thought of this when I recently attended the opening of the Clock Community Centre, in St Domingo Road. The enthusiasm and commitment of local people just cannot be beaten. After all, they have a live interest in seeing the positive development of their community.

 

I recall well the arrogance of one quango chief when I pleaded for more money for around our football grounds. "I can spend it all in Alderley Edge if I wish". Alderley Edge is the poshest area in south Manchester, where its footballers live. Such a disregard for local communities is a common place for many of these placemen.

 

That does not mean there is no good work done by quangos – there is. It is simply that the principle ought to be that local – and small scale – is best in terms of results and value for money. Unfortunately, government is moving in the opposite direction, with Liverpool and its communities being shoe-horned into a grand masterplan for north –west England.

 

At the same time, a "cabinet" has been formed to cover the Liverpool city-region. You have no say on who is in that cabinet. It is carved up between six Merseyside council leaders, and the unelected chairman of the quango, The Mersey Partnership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let there be no doubt about it. Anyone who is guilty of fraud must face the full force of the law. That does not vary whether the person in question is a Cabinet member of a backbencher. Others will feel the fury of the electorate if they seek to stand again at the next election. There will be little sympathy for those who have played the system rather than applied common sense and decency.

 

Others will suffer because their real values will be open to public display. This was simply demonstrated by the woeful comments of former Liverpool Tory, Sir Anthony Steen, who apparently felt it was none of the electorate’s business what he spent tax payers’ money on!

 

Furthermore, all politicians are now tarred with the same brush – there are no exceptions. That is a shame – there are many decent, hardworking people in politics, whose only wish is to represent the best interests of their constituents. All are being caught in a tidal wave of public anger.

 

A danger in this is that political extremists might make inroads on the back of the electorate’s outrage. I do not believe that is in anyone’s interest, but it could occur as voters take their revenge on the mainstream parties. Of course, there is also a recession raging around us. Who is talking of that right now?

 

We must sort out the mess that is Parliament now – and get on with the real challenges of the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, it is clear to all and sundry that anyone – Member of Parliament, or in the House of Lords – who is suspected of fraud, ought to face the courts and, if found guilty, be given the severest of punishments under the law.

 

Secondly, the whole system of parliamentary pay and allowances must be overhauled; but, as the independent Commissioner for Standards, Sir Christopher Kelly, has pointed out, knee-jerk responses may make the situation worse, rather than better. It needs a well thought out approach to change, and that is what he is doing.

 

I must also point out that the wholly unsatisfactory system of MPs voting on these matters must end. However, it is the case that Members have voted regularly to end this system, only for governments to veto change! This started under Jim Callaghan. The reason for this was that the body which recommends change – the Senior Salaries Review Body – has consistently said that, as part of the reform of Parliament, salaries should be reviewed alongside allowances. None of the recent governments, under Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown, would agree, for fear of being seen by voters as giving MPs a pay rise.

 

The result is the terrible mess Parliament is in today. Some constituents have joined in the chorus for the Speaker to go. This is a mere difficult question, giving the sustained attacks on him ever since he was elected. Much of this was pure snobbery. Many Members will be reluctant to give way to the campaigns of the editors of the Tory-leaning newspapers against Speaker Martin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, the Lord Mayor is a councillor within my constituency – Cllr. Steve Rotheram, who represents Fazakerley ward. It was fitting that his fellow ward councillors were also present, as was his wife, Sandra, the Lady Mayoress, and their family. It is gratifying to see the marvellous Town Hall used by the regular citizens of our city, and this event was in that vein.

 

There was, however, a cross-section of Liverpool’s "great and good" as well – people who helped in the fundraising for charitable causes. Thus, Roger Phillips of Radio Merseyside, and Dean Sullivan, of Radio City (Jimmy Corkhill, of Brookside) were both there, along with the creator of Brookside, Grange Hill and Hollyoaks, Phil Redmond, and Cllr. Joe Anderson. Well-known city solicitor, Rex Makin, attended, along with Big Brother winner, Craig Phillips, Ian Pollitt, of Liverpool docks owners, Peel Holdings, and Gerry Marsden.

 

As the Lord Mayor said, the real stars of the fundraising "show" were the people of Liverpool, who have been unstinting in their support. Mind you, I believe that the Lord Mayor undertakes his own role, and that of his wife, the Lady Mayoress. Despite the huge pressures during the capital of culture year – he did twice the normal number of engagements – he has already raised over £150,000 each for his four nominated charities.

 

It was an honour and a pleasure to attend such an event – it beat anything London has to offer!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the interim, Gordon Brown has suffered two more parliamentary setbacks. Firstly, there was the debacle over the Ghurkhas’ right to settle in the United Kingdom. I had supported their original petition seeking a fair deal. After all, if one is good enough to die for the country, surely one is good enough to live here. The moral case was unarguable.

 

Nevertheless, the government did argue the case, and lost – both in the court of public opinion and in Parliament. Some Labour members voted with the opposition; a large number – including me – abstained, ensuring that the vote went in favour of these ex-soldiers.

 

The very next day, the government was forced to retreat on Gordon Brown’s claim that he would pay Members a daily allowance rather than continue with the existing system. Many had objected to this, it was akin to paying Members extra simply for turning up. Ultimately, of course, it will be decided by the inquiry already instituted by Sir Christopher Kelly, the Commissioner for Standards.

 

All in all, a bad week for the Prime Minister. However, there are some rays of light for him with regard to the economy. He knows that for him to remain Prime Minister, he must demonstrate economic recovery. He must also convince an extremely sceptical electorate that he is the man to bring the country through these hard times, rather than David Cameron.

 

These are very perilous times for a beleaguered Prime Minister. He desperately needs some big wins, and he needs them very soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already there are those screaming that a 50% tax rate for those on over £150,000 per year, will drive those people away. For goodness sake, we have already been lectured that these same people need cheap labour in London to cater for their needs (that means, cleaners and nannies!). They also apparently needed their non-dom status whereby they paid less tax than someone on £20,000 per annum.

 

Well, for what it is worth, I believe they can well afford to pay the extra tax. Many of the people in that tax bracket work in the City and in financial services. These are among the people who have brought us to the sorry state we find ourselves in. It is a bit rich for them to shriek when they have to pay a little more in after their years of raking it in. Who do they expect to pay for our recovery – people on a minimum wage?

 

I do not recall these commentators commiserating with those flung on the scrap heap in the early ‘80s. We were told then that it was a price which had to be paid "for the sake of the country". Do you remember the then Chancellor’s report on our city which was titled "The Managed Decline of Liverpool"?

 

It is now the south-east which is feeling the most pain, and, true to form, they demand special treatment. For my money, manufacturing is where the most help is needed, not the forever whingeing City of London.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an indicator of the uncertainty of the times. There are rumours and counter rumours, undermining viable businesses and racking employees with fear of losing their jobs. This is not helped by those companies using the "global recession" as a smokescreen for closures and sackings.

 

Indeed, photographs published last week graphically illustrated the crisis of confidence gripping individuals. On the one hand, there were pictures of airports last Easter – crowded and chaotic. Pictures taken this year, showed relatively empty airports.

 

This is partly down to the expensive euro, but it also reveals an uncertainty in people who in the past thought nothing of flying away for a winter break. Mind you, they have not given up on their holidays. They have simply switched to newly booming British resorts. Thursday’s crowded motorways were evidence of that boom

 

The truth is that most people, whilst fearful of the future, are as yet, relatively unscathed by the recession. Some sectors of the economy have been disproportionately hit – like financial services, or the building industry. We still have a way to go before we feel anything like the pain of the early eighties.

 

We must remember that the recession then was immeasurably worsened by the mistaken government belief that squeezing out jobs in many areas was medicinal for the economy. Government policy was intended to dose us with that medicine. Who can forget Sir Geoffrey Howe’s prescription for our city titled "The Managed Decline of Liverpool"?

 

Today’s approach is to fight recession, not give in to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used to complain about the arrangements for spending of Objective One money from Europe. At least, there were local representatives on the committee which doled out the cash. Now, all European funding will come via the Development Agency. The trouble with that is that it is accountable to no one in the north-west of England. It is only accountable to Ministers in London.

 

To make things worse, Merseyside will have to compete for cash with Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, and our old rivals, Manchester. How do these areas compare in need? Who will speak for Merseyside?

 

Well, that leads to our second problem. "Merseyside" is now the "Liverpool City-Region". It has a cabinet, believe it or not, which consists of six council leaders – Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Halton – together with the (unelected) chairman of the local business group, the Mersey Partnership.

 

My view is that this "cabinet" will not be directly answerable to the electorate, and may end up carving up its own little slice of the north-west region, according to their individual political needs rather than the wider needs of the area. It would not be human to do otherwise. After all, if I represented, say, Sefton on this cabinet, it will have been Sefton voters who put me there and keep me there. It would make sense to look after their interests above all others.

 

Perhaps the time has come for an elected mayor for Merseyside/Liverpool City-Region. After all, a huge city like New York has five boroughs with one mayor. Cannot we do the same?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are the families of people who have died as a result of criminal violence – an all too frequent occurrence in our communities, as any day’s newscast will illustrate. Local families of Andrew Jones, Liam Culshaw and Ryan Dugdale – all decent local lads brutally killed – were there.

 

What is that they ask? Very simply, justice. It galls them when the weasel words of lawyers are used to excuse their crimes, or when judges place the villain’s interests before those of the victim and their families. They look for government to make the punishment fit the crime, and rage at its failure to do so.

 

So often, they despair at the friends and families of the perpetrators of homicidal acts, when they seek to justify the unjustifiable. They are devastated by the failure of witnesses to have the courage of their convictions, and step forward to tell the truth. Where they rightly ask, do these people hide their consciences?

 

We all have a role to play in ensuring that no more innocent young lives are wasted. As communities, we must demand the best of the courts, police, and government. But we must also expect the same of our family, friends and neighbours. The ability of anyone – young or old – to terrorise a neighbourhood must not be tolerated.

 

The next victim could be a member of your family, or a friend’s. Generally, the victims are decent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The killers generally have form. It isn’t rocket science to figure out what is necessary to end this mayhem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naturally, the British authorities insist that these figures were calculated before changes to the immigration rules which have made it far harder to enter this country legally. If that is the case, it will do nothing to prevent the dangerous BNP from exploiting people’s fears; nor does it say anything about illegal immigration.

 

Legal immigration is a fact of life, whether here, in the United States, Australia, or most other parts of the world which are described as "developed". Yet in every country, there are rules which cover legal immigration. Most try to be fair, particularly when it involves people suffering from persecution and seeking asylum.

 

Unfortunately, there are far too many cases where people enter the United Kingdom illegally, and then claim asylum. Because we bend over backwards to be fair, they are then able to use the courts – paid for by us – to challenge our right to determine who settles in our country. These are actually economic migrants, not legitimate asylum seekers.

 

There has been a tightening of the immigration rules; now there must be a tightening of the court procedures open to those who abuse those rules. That includes their legal representatives who find a lucrative source of income in these cases, knowing very often, that there is no hope for their clients.

 

The British people have always been fair-minded but do not like to be taken for a ride. During tough economic times, the government must put the interests of our own people before those of economic migrants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, there will be individual cases where homeowners are finding it ever more difficult to sell. However, the biggest falls in prices have been in those areas which had the biggest increases in recent years – East Anglia, South East England, and South West England. Remember, when you look at the figures in the papers, you are looking at the national averages. They reflect the big differences in different parts of the country.

 

No, I know it is biting by the fear which people are expressing to me about their job security. Many of us recall similar episodes to have hit Liverpool, wondering where and when job losses would end. That fear is increasingly widespread today.

 

People are also puzzled as well as fearful. They see billions being pumped into failed banks, yet wonder why Woolworth is allowed to fold, and why the car industry appears to be in dire straits. I share their bafflement over the banks in the sense that I cannot understand the reluctance of government to be more proactive in those they own – RBS, Lloyds HBOS, and Northern Rock.

 

Naturally, there will be the danger of failing managements to look for government bail-out when it is not deserved. Why should the taxpayer support, say, a foreign-owned multi-national which turns out products or services which no-one wants?

 

I do not object to such bail-outs if the taxpayer’s investment is guaranteed. After all, there are jobs at stake. But there can be no more buckshee handouts for any company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where the differences appear is in how to meet these demands for change and investment. The government itself is divided on this, with one half chanting the old mantra of "privatisation" with the others opposed. The major opposition parties – Conservative and Liberal Democrat – both want to bring in the private sector. Their votes will swing behind the official government line.

 

Yet I and others believe that privatisation will not deliver the promised improvements any more than it did with the railways, buses, water, electricity or gas. I believe them all to have been more expensive and wasteful than public enterprises. Private train operators now receive more subsidy than British Rail ever did, despite huge fare increases. United Utilities are about to charge us for the rain which runs off our property, whether bought or rented.

 

Of course, it is true there needs to be change at Royal Mail, but remember it is in the jam it is in because investment has not been made, and the management has been inept. Even their pension problems are due to the previous Conservative government taking a contributions "holiday" for years, running down their pension fund.

 

We do not need Dutch or German firms taking over Royal Mail, nor do we need another failed privatisation. We simply need sensible investment with sound management, in a publicly owned service. Not everything should be up for sale to the corrupt City sharks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish they were as responsive on the question of equal pay. The council has only seen fit to set up a team of three people (one of whom is part time) to deal with the backlog of over two thousand low paid workers due to have their money made up.

 

It turns out that there are some men caught up in this mess which affects mainly women in tough but low paid work like cleaning, home carers and catering assistants. It is telling that the Council should drag its heels on this whilst an increasing number of senior managers break through the £100,000 per year barrier. Indeed, the Chief Executive is due to crash the £200,000 per year mark.

 

I raise these issues because we will receive the usual bull shortly, justifying council tax increases. These will arrive as we fear tax increases in the budget in April. After all, someone will need to pay for the billions given to the banks to bail them out. It beggars belief that many of the sharks at a senior level in the banks who caused this chaos, are expecting bonuses!

 

Increasing unemployment, firms going bust, local government finance in a mess, taxes on the up – it is as if the eighties have never left us. This is partly true. The triumph of private greed, and the retreat on the rights of employees, have brought us to our present sorry state.

 

I just regret that Blair and Brown did not stand against it when they had the chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These controversies point up the perilous times which we are entering. Whilst there are fears of ever increasing numbers of unemployed people, one must question the motives of companies which bring in labour from overseas whilst British workers are available, willing, and qualified for the work involved.

 

Let us be frank. Employers have had the upper hand for thirty years, and STILL they complain about regulation. Yet it was the deregulation of the City of London which has led to the economic crisis we are in. The "light touch" regulation of the Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown governments has fed the arrogance of those employers and shareholders who see nothing but profit and greed. People? They have not entered into it.

 

This reckless and greedy pursuit of profit above all else, must cease. Other than for the selfish minority, it benefits no one. Ever more productivity from fewer workers means bigger share prices, but more people unemployed. Even those with work seem to be running to stand still. By the time travel and childcare expenses are met, many seem to work for very little.

 

You will be told that high share prices means higher pensions, and an overall healthier economy. Do not believe it. As we have seen with the banks, the stock market is just sophisticated gambling. You have as much chance with the lottery or down the betting shop. In the capitalist world we live in, those that have, get even more; the rest of us are left in an ever more uncertain world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One lady in the area is battling to support her family, and is managing to do so. However, her home is held jointly in the names of herself and her bankrupt, ex-husband. His creditors are trying to sell the house from under her, to pay off the man’s debts. No justice here for the woman and her children.

 

Another case involves the family court. Inside three months, the mother has been before five judges, none of whom appear to consider the needs of the infant child. The dysfunctional CAFCAS have not found time to speak with her yet, but now a judge has given them until July to do their statutory duty.

 

The family courts have a difficult job to do, but the overwhelming impression is of a service which operates to meet the interests of judges, lawyers, court staff, and other professionals, rather than parents, and, most importantly, children.

 

Key in all of this is the position of judges. These people are highly paid and highly privileged. However, they are accountable to no one. Rules and guidelines are set down for them, which some promptly ignore, knowing no-one can chastise them.

 

They are aided and abetted in this by the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Justice. In the recent Haase-Bennett case, criminals got their just deserts. What of the lawyers, judges, customs officers and civil servants complicity in their perversion of justice? The Justice Ministry resists any attempt to flush out the truth. What price justice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flashpoint was the award of oil giant Total of a contract to an Italian firm. It is specialist work requiring specialist workers, and the Italian firm brings its own workers with it. Total says these are extra jobs, and there is no threat to existing British employees. The latter argue that these jobs should go to Britons.

 

That supposes there are Britons with the appropriate skills willing to do the job. Remember, this so-called skills gap is why so many Scousers took the Tebbit Express to London for years, there are 100,000 Britons working in Dubai alone. It also explains why so many skilled people seek to emigrate.

 

What we must do is keep a sense of perspective. The Liverpool Walton constituency is over 97% white, working people. It is not like London, where a third of the population is from abroad. Nor does it have many people living here from among the two biggest immigrant communities – Americans and Australians.

 

I remember working in Scotland on the oil rig sites in 1974. When the Scots Nationalists won seats, they made a mighty fuss over English people in Scottish jobs. Many of us were sacked, despite having been recruited to fill a labour gap. I have had people complain to me about Mancunians or Yorkshire men working in Liverpool. Where does it end – barring people from Bootle or Knowsley from working in Liverpool. Clearly not – I hope!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I make two points about Obama. Firstly, he is American, not British. We are not subject to whatever he enacts, although in reality, we must recognise American superpower status. How I hope for a British foreign policy based on our interests rather than those of America, by the way.

 

Secondly, he has surrounded himself by the very Washington "insider" hacks he condemned during his campaign for change. Given that the biggest challenge he faces is the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, is it wise to have a former Israeli soldier as his chief of staff!

 

The truth is that we must wait and see what he actually achieves before we judge. He has unparalleled goodwill from the American people, but we should never underestimate either the forces of darkness lurking in the background, or the sheer unpredictability of events. In these turbulent times, who knows what is around the corner.

 

Similar hopes rested on John Kennedy until a sniper’s bullet cut him down. After Nixon and Vietnam, Jimmy Carter was a good man and President laid low by a revolution in far-off Iran. In short, there have been any number of false dawns down the years.

 

All that we can do is to watch, wait and worry that he might be overwhelmed by the tasks ahead. We hope not. We are heavily influenced by this leader of a distant land, and what he does.