Liverpool's mayor Joe Anderson tells Southampton to back off in cruise terminal row

Daily Echo: Back off: Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson Back off: Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson

THE MAYOR of Liverpool has told Southampton to back off in the bitter row over cruise funding.

Southampton leaders are furious that Liverpool is already operating lucrative 'turnaround' cruises at its publicly funded £21m terminal despite the issue of state aid it received yet to be settled.

But Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson promised to tell European competition authorities about Southampton’s own public funding and told the Daily Echo: “We won't be dictated to.”

Southampton council leader Richard Williams accused him of unhelpful “megaphone diplomacy” and said Southampton would continue to fight for fairness.

The Merseysiders have pledged to pay back £8.9 million - but no money has been handed over so far and ministers recently criticised Liverpool for not making any move to settle the bill.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has yet to decide whether the arrangement complies with competition laws. And there has been no offer from Liverpool to repay £8.6 million of EU funds it received.

Speaking at the Labour Party conference in Manchester, Mr Anderson told the Daily Echo he was waiting for the Government to tell him which department to give the cash to.

He said: “We are co-operating with the European Commission. They are talking to us.

“Whatever they say, we will abide by it. We will do nothing illegal.”

The cash will be paid as an up-front payment rather than £12.6 million in instalments, he confirmed.

He added: “I get a little bit frustrated with Southampton and other ports, which have had millions of pounds of subsidy from the EU to support their port and improve access.”

Asked whether it was unfair that turnaround cruises had restarted with the matter still to be resolved, Mr Anderson said: “Why shouldn’t we? If the UK Government sees no issue with us, we’re not going to be told by Southampton that we can’t do it.

“We will be told by the people who make laws in that regard. We won’t be dictated to by anyone.”

Cllr Williams said: “In Southampton we follow the rule of law and will continue to do so. I don’t think megaphone diplomacy works. There will have to be a fair outcome of this and I think he’s wrong.”

He added: “We are standing up for fairness and the people of Southampton and objecting to what is demonstrably unfair state aid and will continue to do so.”

Jimmy Chestnutt, chairman of the UK Cruise Port Alliance and chief executive of the Hampshire Chamber, added: “Cllr Anderson knows that he has to pay back and should pay back the monies if he wants those restrictions lifted and in our view he has got off lightly having had the money for some time and not having had to pay interest and not yet paid back the subsidy from Europe.”

“Our issue has always been one of unfair subsidy and not competition.”

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:32am Thu 4 Oct 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)
Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;) Portswoodfoke

9:10am Thu 4 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)
What an obscene post! I don't agree with Liverpools behaviour in this situation but I cannot accept absolute crass statements like that
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)[/p][/quote]What an obscene post! I don't agree with Liverpools behaviour in this situation but I cannot accept absolute crass statements like that loosehead

9:17am Thu 4 Oct 12

sarfhamton says...

loosehead wrote:
Portswoodfoke wrote:
Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)
What an obscene post! I don't agree with Liverpools behaviour in this situation but I cannot accept absolute crass statements like that
Okay Okay, Kaalm Kaalm down
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)[/p][/quote]What an obscene post! I don't agree with Liverpools behaviour in this situation but I cannot accept absolute crass statements like that[/p][/quote]Okay Okay, Kaalm Kaalm down sarfhamton

9:42am Thu 4 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

When they start playing by the rules,following regulations and completing the pledge to pay back the money, then they should have a voice. Until then, BACK OFF. Or words to that effect.
When they start playing by the rules,following regulations and completing the pledge to pay back the money, then they should have a voice. Until then, BACK OFF. Or words to that effect. hulla baloo

10:10am Thu 4 Oct 12

peenut81 says...

If it wasn't for the unhelpful spin put on this story by the Echo over the period concerned, clearly acting on behalf of their paymasters at APB, another way to look at it would be, at least somewhere in the UK got some value back from the E.U for a change.
Small minded easily led bigots, fail to see what is good for Liverpool is good for Britain, we are at opposite ends of the country for a start. There are enough pensioners spanking money on self indulgent cruises to go around.
If it wasn't for the unhelpful spin put on this story by the Echo over the period concerned, clearly acting on behalf of their paymasters at APB, another way to look at it would be, at least somewhere in the UK got some value back from the E.U for a change. Small minded easily led bigots, fail to see what is good for Liverpool is good for Britain, we are at opposite ends of the country for a start. There are enough pensioners spanking money on self indulgent cruises to go around. peenut81

10:12am Thu 4 Oct 12

peenut81 says...

@portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype.
@portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype. peenut81

10:20am Thu 4 Oct 12

sotonboy84 says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)
ha-ha
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Careful Soton you know what Liverpudlians are like...they will cut you ;)[/p][/quote]ha-ha sotonboy84

10:48am Thu 4 Oct 12

rich the stitch says...

peenut81 wrote:
@portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype.
I agree, these people are idiots. I don't why they do it...but dey do dough, don't dey dough.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: @portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype.[/p][/quote]I agree, these people are idiots. I don't why they do it...but dey do dough, don't dey dough. rich the stitch

10:58am Thu 4 Oct 12

Brizzler says...

peenut81 wrote:
If it wasn't for the unhelpful spin put on this story by the Echo over the period concerned, clearly acting on behalf of their paymasters at APB, another way to look at it would be, at least somewhere in the UK got some value back from the E.U for a change.
Small minded easily led bigots, fail to see what is good for Liverpool is good for Britain, we are at opposite ends of the country for a start. There are enough pensioners spanking money on self indulgent cruises to go around.
Or the proper way to look at it is that one city lied in order to gain a commercial advantage over other ports.

If you followed the story, this has never been about getting "pensioners spanking money" in. The EU money was never there to enable any port to create a turnaround cruise area. This is the problem. The government agrees and sounds like the EU probably will too.

As Jimmy Chestnutt says “ issue has always been one of unfair subsidy and not competition.”

Competition in any industry is always good, it improves services and drives down prices\raises value.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: If it wasn't for the unhelpful spin put on this story by the Echo over the period concerned, clearly acting on behalf of their paymasters at APB, another way to look at it would be, at least somewhere in the UK got some value back from the E.U for a change. Small minded easily led bigots, fail to see what is good for Liverpool is good for Britain, we are at opposite ends of the country for a start. There are enough pensioners spanking money on self indulgent cruises to go around.[/p][/quote]Or the proper way to look at it is that one city lied in order to gain a commercial advantage over other ports. If you followed the story, this has never been about getting "pensioners spanking money" in. The EU money was never there to enable any port to create a turnaround cruise area. This is the problem. The government agrees and sounds like the EU probably will too. As Jimmy Chestnutt says “[Our] issue has always been one of unfair subsidy and not competition.” Competition in any industry is always good, it improves services and drives down prices\raises value. Brizzler

11:04am Thu 4 Oct 12

Rockhopper says...

The fact is Liverpool having a cruise terminal offers customers more choice.
Southampton have plenty of business already from the cruise companies.
Time to move on from this argument and ensure both destinations are developed for the benefit of everyone.
The fact is Liverpool having a cruise terminal offers customers more choice. Southampton have plenty of business already from the cruise companies. Time to move on from this argument and ensure both destinations are developed for the benefit of everyone. Rockhopper

11:32am Thu 4 Oct 12

Linesman says...

Having read comments on the subject in The Echo for a year or so, I think that it is a case of, 'The pot calling the kettle black' when Councillor Williams accuses Liverpool of Megaphone Diplomacy.

Interested parties in Southampton have not been shrinking violets when it comes to making their voices heard.
Having read comments on the subject in The Echo for a year or so, I think that it is a case of, 'The pot calling the kettle black' when Councillor Williams accuses Liverpool of Megaphone Diplomacy. Interested parties in Southampton have not been shrinking violets when it comes to making their voices heard. Linesman

12:13pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

Thought this topic had been put to bed. If you read The Mayor of Liverpools comments you will see that the Government have not told Liverpool how to repay the money as yet, so how can it be paid, also the EU money is under discussion with them, and will be repaid in full, IF THEY DEMAND IT, but Joe Anderson is right, this must be discussed taking into consideration Southamptons grants from that source.
Also to date not one cruise has started from Liverpool that didn't already sail from here, albeit from Langton Dock in the past, I believe some may start from next May that will be new to Liverpool.
As previous posters have said its about time that this stupiduty and crass comments stopped, Liverpool has been voted for the 2nd. year running by the tourist industry, the city that people most want to visit in the UK. Surely we must be getting something right.
Thought this topic had been put to bed. If you read The Mayor of Liverpools comments you will see that the Government have not told Liverpool how to repay the money as yet, so how can it be paid, also the EU money is under discussion with them, and will be repaid in full, IF THEY DEMAND IT, but Joe Anderson is right, this must be discussed taking into consideration Southamptons grants from that source. Also to date not one cruise has started from Liverpool that didn't already sail from here, albeit from Langton Dock in the past, I believe some may start from next May that will be new to Liverpool. As previous posters have said its about time that this stupiduty and crass comments stopped, Liverpool has been voted for the 2nd. year running by the tourist industry, the city that people most want to visit in the UK. Surely we must be getting something right. Tom Liverpool

12:14pm Thu 4 Oct 12

loosehead says...

If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool? loosehead

12:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12

peenut81 says...

@Brizzler, competition, hahahahahahaha
hahahahahhahahahahah
ahahaha
hahahahaah

A defunct economic theory still wheeled out by those seeking the most protectionism and special interest whilst attempting to build what every capitalist outfit seeks, a monopoly.
Competition did not help utility bills in water, gas, electric, digital tv, Britains arms industry, financial services industry or airline industry nor will it in port infrastructure anymore than the NHS privatisation going through as we speak.
@Brizzler, competition, hahahahahahaha hahahahahhahahahahah ahahaha hahahahaah A defunct economic theory still wheeled out by those seeking the most protectionism and special interest whilst attempting to build what every capitalist outfit seeks, a monopoly. Competition did not help utility bills in water, gas, electric, digital tv, Britains arms industry, financial services industry or airline industry nor will it in port infrastructure anymore than the NHS privatisation going through as we speak. peenut81

12:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12

sarfhamton says...

rich the stitch wrote:
peenut81 wrote:
@portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype.
I agree, these people are idiots. I don't why they do it...but dey do dough, don't dey dough.
I don't think i was being offensive i was trying to diffuse an argument with a joker.

If any scousers want to come on here and call us a bunch of farmers or compare us to cast members of Howard's Way then bring it on.

Its called banter!
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: @portswoodfoke, you are an idiot. Sarfhamton you are an even bigger idiot because you just jumped in and followed the first idiot with a crude out dated stereotype.[/p][/quote]I agree, these people are idiots. I don't why they do it...but dey do dough, don't dey dough.[/p][/quote]I don't think i was being offensive i was trying to diffuse an argument with a joker. If any scousers want to come on here and call us a bunch of farmers or compare us to cast members of Howard's Way then bring it on. Its called banter! sarfhamton

12:33pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress. Tom Liverpool

12:41pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Wow it was a joke, lighten up for christ sake.


Good luck to em' anyone that can get money OUT of the EU is doing well in my book. Maybe they can use their new found wealth for badly need education and diction lessons ;)
Wow it was a joke, lighten up for christ sake. Good luck to em' anyone that can get money OUT of the EU is doing well in my book. Maybe they can use their new found wealth for badly need education and diction lessons ;) Portswoodfoke

12:41pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Wow it was a joke, lighten up for christ sake.


Good luck to em' anyone that can get money OUT of the EU is doing well in my book. Maybe they can use their new found wealth for badly needed education and diction lessons ;)
Wow it was a joke, lighten up for christ sake. Good luck to em' anyone that can get money OUT of the EU is doing well in my book. Maybe they can use their new found wealth for badly needed education and diction lessons ;) Portswoodfoke

2:23pm Thu 4 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.
So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ?
Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.[/p][/quote]So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ? Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop? loosehead

3:47pm Thu 4 Oct 12

justmyopion says...

who has the cream of the fleet coming in every year southampton does u had one ship with your town name on it and it sank enough said your cursed
who has the cream of the fleet coming in every year southampton does u had one ship with your town name on it and it sank enough said your cursed justmyopion

7:16pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.
So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ?
Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?
If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.[/p][/quote]So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ? Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?[/p][/quote]If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward. Tom Liverpool

8:55pm Thu 4 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.
So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ?
Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?
If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward.
Why not approach the idiot who gave you permission?
Mike penning is his name isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.[/p][/quote]So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ? Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?[/p][/quote]If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward.[/p][/quote]Why not approach the idiot who gave you permission? Mike penning is his name isn't it? loosehead

1:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12

kingnotail says...

Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton. kingnotail

3:12pm Fri 5 Oct 12

arizonan says...

I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto
n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal???
I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0.
Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?
I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal??? I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0. Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think? arizonan

9:14pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine.
but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for,
They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything.
Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it?
Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines.
Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?
Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.
So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ?
Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?
If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward.
Why not approach the idiot who gave you permission?
Mike penning is his name isn't it?
Agreed, as I said "This government don't seem capable of getting anything right" and if that is the case, how can Liverpool and Southampton resolve this problem. They have more important things to deal with like the West Coast Rail Line were they have wasted £40,000,000 of tax payers money by their inefficiency, small beer compared to what Liverpool owes? (I think not). If we wait for DC and his posh mates the problem would go on forever. Don't forget it was the NWDA that made a mess of the whole thing in the first place, a central government Quango. Not Liverpool or Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If liverpool had used private money for their visiting facility & then wanted to change it to turnaround fine. but they didn't they approached the Government & the EU to get grants for a visiting facility with the full knowledge that wasn't what they wanted or would use it for, They lied to get the money at no time has Southampton lied to get anything. Southampton has said pay back all the monies & we're okay with it? Liverpool says it has loads of private interest? well use that interest to generate monies & pay back all grant money then it's a free market & the rest can go all out to undercut Liverpool unless they have new cruise lines. Belfast seems to love the income visiting tourists bring it so exactly what went wrong with Liverpool?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, as I've said to you before, all of this kicked off with a Liberal administration in Liverpool, The Labour group always said that it should be a turnaround facility. Having said that if the EU are still in discussion and this awful Government in the UK cant get anything right how can the money be repaid, and do we have to wait for years to make some progress.[/p][/quote]So has your Mayor attempted to pay it ? Tom we've had idiots on here from both cities slating each other but we've been constantly told there's private money waiting to be invested in Liverpool? if this is so why don't they pay off all grants & then any arguments against it will stop?[/p][/quote]If you are not told who to pay, how can you make that payment, the whole argument is futile. Get your MP's to raise it with David Cameron they may be able to move the process forward.[/p][/quote]Why not approach the idiot who gave you permission? Mike penning is his name isn't it?[/p][/quote]Agreed, as I said "This government don't seem capable of getting anything right" and if that is the case, how can Liverpool and Southampton resolve this problem. They have more important things to deal with like the West Coast Rail Line were they have wasted £40,000,000 of tax payers money by their inefficiency, small beer compared to what Liverpool owes? (I think not). If we wait for DC and his posh mates the problem would go on forever. Don't forget it was the NWDA that made a mess of the whole thing in the first place, a central government Quango. Not Liverpool or Southampton. Tom Liverpool

9:14pm Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto

n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal???
I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0.
Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?
Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal??? I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0. Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?[/p][/quote]Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements loosehead

9:19pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site. Tom Liverpool

9:27pm Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool?
Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims.
I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy.
We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool? Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims. I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy. We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures) loosehead

11:26pm Fri 5 Oct 12

arizonan says...

loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto


n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal???
I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0.
Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?
Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements
What, with a growing cruise industry!!!
Pull the other one sunshine, any loss of jobs are not connected with the cruise industry.
Tell me the latest number of cruise ships handled this year in Southampton and the passengers compared to 2011 and I think you will find the 2012 figures are higher in both cases.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal??? I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0. Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?[/p][/quote]Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements[/p][/quote]What, with a growing cruise industry!!! Pull the other one sunshine, any loss of jobs are not connected with the cruise industry. Tell me the latest number of cruise ships handled this year in Southampton and the passengers compared to 2011 and I think you will find the 2012 figures are higher in both cases. arizonan

6:53am Sat 6 Oct 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto



n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal???
I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0.
Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?
Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements
What, with a growing cruise industry!!!
Pull the other one sunshine, any loss of jobs are not connected with the cruise industry.
Tell me the latest number of cruise ships handled this year in Southampton and the passengers compared to 2011 and I think you will find the 2012 figures are higher in both cases.
Arizonan I have been attacked for asking exactly the same question as you've asked.
As far as I knew ( according to this paper) jobs were secure but a Dock Worker has attacked me for not knowing all the facts.
1/ 6months on 6 months off ( not all year working)
2/ DPWorld are building London Gateway & our looking to save money by cutting jobs in Southampton.
3/ most dock workers now are employed or sub contracted to ABP or to put it another way DPWorld.
I asked for proof & took a torrent of abuse as the person had just been made redundant/laid off.
I know no more than that & I'm not trying to pull you're leg
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: I wonder how may ships/jobs have been lost at Newcastle/Southampto n as a a consequence of turnaround cruises from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal??? I think you will find the answer is a big fat 0. Kinda makes ABP and their surrogates look slightly pathetic, don't you think?[/p][/quote]Arizonan DP World has announced job losses at Southampton so you ought to look into it before you make such statements[/p][/quote]What, with a growing cruise industry!!! Pull the other one sunshine, any loss of jobs are not connected with the cruise industry. Tell me the latest number of cruise ships handled this year in Southampton and the passengers compared to 2011 and I think you will find the 2012 figures are higher in both cases.[/p][/quote]Arizonan I have been attacked for asking exactly the same question as you've asked. As far as I knew ( according to this paper) jobs were secure but a Dock Worker has attacked me for not knowing all the facts. 1/ 6months on 6 months off ( not all year working) 2/ DPWorld are building London Gateway & our looking to save money by cutting jobs in Southampton. 3/ most dock workers now are employed or sub contracted to ABP or to put it another way DPWorld. I asked for proof & took a torrent of abuse as the person had just been made redundant/laid off. I know no more than that & I'm not trying to pull you're leg loosehead

10:43am Sat 6 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom
I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool.
The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds.
Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted.
Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism
The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised.
The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money.
Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year.
Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services.
The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer.
This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided.
btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc.
Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development
I
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool. The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds. Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted. Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised. The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money. Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year. Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services. The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer. This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided. btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc. Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development I phil maccavity

3:23pm Sat 6 Oct 12

arizonan says...

So Liverpool is the only City in the UK receiving UK/EU grant monies???
You keep mentioning the Boat Show, this was scuppered by the exhibitors who run their own rival boat shows in London/Southampton.
If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a great success, too many of these kind of events take place down south.
I think you will find that the Arena is very successful and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is the best in the country at the moment.
Who are these people in Liverpool who you quote as being against these developments?.
I have not seen any of these alternative points of view in the media.
I wonder why ABP, the cruise port alliance. Southampton Echo, M.P's, MEP's and the rest have mounted such a long, it is many years, campaign, to scupper the Liverpool Cruise Terminal, if it will never be successful?
So Liverpool is the only City in the UK receiving UK/EU grant monies??? You keep mentioning the Boat Show, this was scuppered by the exhibitors who run their own rival boat shows in London/Southampton. If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a great success, too many of these kind of events take place down south. I think you will find that the Arena is very successful and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is the best in the country at the moment. Who are these people in Liverpool who you quote as being against these developments?. I have not seen any of these alternative points of view in the media. I wonder why ABP, the cruise port alliance. Southampton Echo, M.P's, MEP's and the rest have mounted such a long, it is many years, campaign, to scupper the Liverpool Cruise Terminal, if it will never be successful? arizonan

5:53pm Sat 6 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient
2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan.
3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue.
It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money
I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!!
4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra
5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city.
The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace.
Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area.
A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco.
If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool.
The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority
1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient 2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan. 3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue. It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!! 4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra 5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city. The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace. Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area. A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco. If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool. The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority phil maccavity

5:55pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom
I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool.
The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds.
Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted.
Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism
The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised.
The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money.
Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year.
Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services.
The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer.
This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided.
btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc.
Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development
I
I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo
ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool. The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds. Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted. Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised. The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money. Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year. Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services. The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer. This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided. btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc. Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development I[/p][/quote]I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do. Tom Liverpool

6:03pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool?
Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims.
I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy.
We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)
Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool? Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims. I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy. We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)[/p][/quote]Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP Tom Liverpool

8:55pm Sat 6 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool?
Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims.
I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy.
We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)
Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP
My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there.
But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You,
In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area.
I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool? Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims. I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy. We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)[/p][/quote]Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP[/p][/quote]My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there. But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You, In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area. I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000 loosehead

3:31pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool?
Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims.
I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy.
We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)
Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP
My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there.
But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You,
In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area.
I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000
Loosehead, house prices vary significantly as you say:-
Two bed terraces in the city vary from £50K-£80K but at the lower end are very old.
In the suburbs they are £80K-£130K but are better stock,
In the outer suburbs Semi's and some bungalows even new build, seem to be £130K-£150K and above, up to K500K, or more, but I don't know how well-off you are.
As for the weather, don't forget the Gulf Stream significantly affects the Irish Sea, so it can be seriously cold at times, but we don't seem to suffer from ice and snow anywhere near as much as Lancashire and Cheshire.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool? Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims. I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy. We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)[/p][/quote]Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP[/p][/quote]My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there. But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You, In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area. I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000[/p][/quote]Loosehead, house prices vary significantly as you say:- Two bed terraces in the city vary from £50K-£80K but at the lower end are very old. In the suburbs they are £80K-£130K but are better stock, In the outer suburbs Semi's and some bungalows even new build, seem to be £130K-£150K and above, up to K500K, or more, but I don't know how well-off you are. As for the weather, don't forget the Gulf Stream significantly affects the Irish Sea, so it can be seriously cold at times, but we don't seem to suffer from ice and snow anywhere near as much as Lancashire and Cheshire. Tom Liverpool

3:48pm Sun 7 Oct 12

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient
2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan.
3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue.
It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money
I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!!
4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra
5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city.
The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace.
Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area.
A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco.
If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool.
The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority
1. LONDON gets the most money from UK taxpayers by far, give us some figures for that city.
2. Boat show sank by cartel running the London/Southampton shows.
3.Super successful venue and will be even more so when the exhibition hall is opened.
4.The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a success in part to having their own performance facility. This has to be maintained, improved etc. And no different to any other city in the UK with a major orchestra. But a massive plus to the city.
5.My family, friends and colleagues in the city have NOT expressed any negative comments re. any of the developments. On the contrary, they have a very positive view of them and are looking forward to the future developments that are planned.
Yes, some buildings have been demolished, but that is true of the UK as a whole, is it not.The demolition of the magnificent Custom House was an act of vandalism, but that was at least 60 years ago.
Outside the financial area there are areas of severe deprivation.Which city am I describing? Not Liverpool, but London.Even after gobbling up the majority of UK taxpayers money, that is the position today. The east end of London was even part of the bidding process for the London Olympic.
Give the Olympic games to London and it will re-generate the east end.
Has it, will it?We have not mentioned the cost have we? Perhaps you could give us these as you seem to have a talent for public finances.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: 1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient 2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan. 3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue. It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!! 4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra 5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city. The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace. Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area. A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco. If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool. The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority[/p][/quote]1. LONDON gets the most money from UK taxpayers by far, give us some figures for that city. 2. Boat show sank by cartel running the London/Southampton shows. 3.Super successful venue and will be even more so when the exhibition hall is opened. 4.The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a success in part to having their own performance facility. This has to be maintained, improved etc. And no different to any other city in the UK with a major orchestra. But a massive plus to the city. 5.My family, friends and colleagues in the city have NOT expressed any negative comments re. any of the developments. On the contrary, they have a very positive view of them and are looking forward to the future developments that are planned. Yes, some buildings have been demolished, but that is true of the UK as a whole, is it not.The demolition of the magnificent Custom House was an act of vandalism, but that was at least 60 years ago. Outside the financial area there are areas of severe deprivation.Which city am I describing? Not Liverpool, but London.Even after gobbling up the majority of UK taxpayers money, that is the position today. The east end of London was even part of the bidding process for the London Olympic. Give the Olympic games to London and it will re-generate the east end. Has it, will it?We have not mentioned the cost have we? Perhaps you could give us these as you seem to have a talent for public finances. arizonan

8:11pm Sun 7 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient
2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan.
3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue.
It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money
I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!!
4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra
5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city.
The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace.
Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area.
A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco.
If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool.
The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority
1. LONDON gets the most money from UK taxpayers by far, give us some figures for that city.
2. Boat show sank by cartel running the London/Southampton shows.
3.Super successful venue and will be even more so when the exhibition hall is opened.
4.The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a success in part to having their own performance facility. This has to be maintained, improved etc. And no different to any other city in the UK with a major orchestra. But a massive plus to the city.
5.My family, friends and colleagues in the city have NOT expressed any negative comments re. any of the developments. On the contrary, they have a very positive view of them and are looking forward to the future developments that are planned.
Yes, some buildings have been demolished, but that is true of the UK as a whole, is it not.The demolition of the magnificent Custom House was an act of vandalism, but that was at least 60 years ago.
Outside the financial area there are areas of severe deprivation.Which city am I describing? Not Liverpool, but London.Even after gobbling up the majority of UK taxpayers money, that is the position today. The east end of London was even part of the bidding process for the London Olympic.
Give the Olympic games to London and it will re-generate the east end.
Has it, will it?We have not mentioned the cost have we? Perhaps you could give us these as you seem to have a talent for public finances.
1. The Grant figures I have used are from EC/RDF figures.
Presumably you have the London figures to make the comparison
2. Nonsense. This was an excuse made up by the organisers of the event and conveniently taken on board by the Liverpool media.
3. Super successful no doubt. Most of us could run a successful facility when almost all the millions of capital cost has been provided by the tax payer.
4. Still struggling to understand the relevance of the LPO to this debate on the Cruise terminal and Grant issues!!
5. Fair enough. They obviously don't share the view of local campaigning group 'Regeneration Watch' who reckon that ' every promise of regeneration for more than 10 years has been broken, or hardly benefited the people of Liverpool
6. As you say The Customs House was demolished just after WW11 after suffering bomb damage. Not sure you can call this 'vandalism' and what has something which happened 60 years ago to do with this matter?
Just to reiterate, I have no objection in cities like Liverpool getting a helping hand from the EC or the UK Govt.
What I object to is public money being squandered, as has happened on Merseyside on a fairly large scale, on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may affect.my local community.
The dispute here, shared by other ports around the UK is that Liverpool Council obtained £17m of grant money under false pretences.
If LCC had asked for the cash to build a turnround facility they would have been turned down flat.
They chose to adopt a duplicitous path with you seem to be happy with.
Others I have personally spoken to from the business community in Liverpool, a relativel small sample I admit, feel this approach has harmed Liverpool's standing in the business world.
You may be aware that earlier this year the European Commission placed a temporary ban on all ERDF funding for Merseyside after an audit found 'irregularities;
At risk was £54m allocated to Merseyside (ie the final tranche of £250m pledged to the area for the period 2007-13)
I am not sure whether this money has been released yet but there is some suggestion that this awaits the final outcome off the EC's investigation into the £8.5m of EC grant to the Liverpool Cruise Terminal
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: 1. Liverpool is not the only UK city receiving grant aid but it has, by far, been the biggest recipient 2. The Boat Show. You can blame who you like but public money was wasted on supporting a private company who did not have a robust business plan. 3. I am sure the Arena is doing OK. I have been there and it is a great venue. It cost £164m and £159m of the capital cost was provided by public money I am sure the local politicians in this area would love this level of support!!! 4. Not sure what relevance the Liverpool Philharmonic has to do with this but they are a fine orchestra 5. I actually speak to people in Liverpool on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them would rather have seen the £2billion of grant money spread around the city than concentrated on grandiose projects in the inner city. The demolition of fantastic Georgian housing stock, which could have been saved to the future benefit of the city and maintained the close knit communities in central Liverpool is looked upon by many as a disgrace. Outside the L1 post code are areas of severe deprivation which have been neglected as grant money has been squandered on projects to suit the whims of certain high profile individuals and the rose tinted agenda of those who no longer live in the area. A growing number of people I speak to on Merseyside are now embarrased by the cruise terminal fiasco. If Liverpool Council had been honest about their aspirations for turnround status they would not have received the £17m grant aid. Certain people at Liverpool Council tried to pull a fast one this and they have been found out. This has rebounded on the majority of honest peopll who live in Liverpool. The fact that Joe Anderson has not authorised repayment of one penny of the agreed capital may be seen by some as representing the 'Cheeky Scouser'. Others think it is demeans the honest majority[/p][/quote]1. LONDON gets the most money from UK taxpayers by far, give us some figures for that city. 2. Boat show sank by cartel running the London/Southampton shows. 3.Super successful venue and will be even more so when the exhibition hall is opened. 4.The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is a success in part to having their own performance facility. This has to be maintained, improved etc. And no different to any other city in the UK with a major orchestra. But a massive plus to the city. 5.My family, friends and colleagues in the city have NOT expressed any negative comments re. any of the developments. On the contrary, they have a very positive view of them and are looking forward to the future developments that are planned. Yes, some buildings have been demolished, but that is true of the UK as a whole, is it not.The demolition of the magnificent Custom House was an act of vandalism, but that was at least 60 years ago. Outside the financial area there are areas of severe deprivation.Which city am I describing? Not Liverpool, but London.Even after gobbling up the majority of UK taxpayers money, that is the position today. The east end of London was even part of the bidding process for the London Olympic. Give the Olympic games to London and it will re-generate the east end. Has it, will it?We have not mentioned the cost have we? Perhaps you could give us these as you seem to have a talent for public finances.[/p][/quote]1. The Grant figures I have used are from EC/RDF figures. Presumably you have the London figures to make the comparison 2. Nonsense. This was an excuse made up by the organisers of the event and conveniently taken on board by the Liverpool media. 3. Super successful no doubt. Most of us could run a successful facility when almost all the millions of capital cost has been provided by the tax payer. 4. Still struggling to understand the relevance of the LPO to this debate on the Cruise terminal and Grant issues!! 5. Fair enough. They obviously don't share the view of local campaigning group 'Regeneration Watch' who reckon that ' every promise of regeneration for more than 10 years has been broken, or hardly benefited the people of Liverpool 6. As you say The Customs House was demolished just after WW11 after suffering bomb damage. Not sure you can call this 'vandalism' and what has something which happened 60 years ago to do with this matter? Just to reiterate, I have no objection in cities like Liverpool getting a helping hand from the EC or the UK Govt. What I object to is public money being squandered, as has happened on Merseyside on a fairly large scale, on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may affect.my local community. The dispute here, shared by other ports around the UK is that Liverpool Council obtained £17m of grant money under false pretences. If LCC had asked for the cash to build a turnround facility they would have been turned down flat. They chose to adopt a duplicitous path with you seem to be happy with. Others I have personally spoken to from the business community in Liverpool, a relativel small sample I admit, feel this approach has harmed Liverpool's standing in the business world. You may be aware that earlier this year the European Commission placed a temporary ban on all ERDF funding for Merseyside after an audit found 'irregularities; At risk was £54m allocated to Merseyside (ie the final tranche of £250m pledged to the area for the period 2007-13) I am not sure whether this money has been released yet but there is some suggestion that this awaits the final outcome off the EC's investigation into the £8.5m of EC grant to the Liverpool Cruise Terminal phil maccavity

8:40pm Sun 7 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom
I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool.
The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds.
Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted.
Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism
The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised.
The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money.
Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year.
Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services.
The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer.
This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided.
btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc.
Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development
I
I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo

ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do.
Tom
I do hope the Liverpool Waters scheme works out well.
I very much doubt that you and I will be alive to see it finished as it has a 50 year horizon.
At a projected cost of £5.5b I believe Peel Holdings are hoping that Asian investors will put up the cash as Peel are nowhere big enough to capitalise it themselves having recently had to refinance their operation to pay for the new container expansion which itself is benefiting from a UK grant of £35m and a soft loan from the European Investment bank for half of the £300m cost.
All above board I should hasten to add but unfortunately such financial assistance is not available to businesses in this area
The plans look great but you do wonder what the affect an extra 23,000 apartments included within the scheme will have on the local housing market unless the economy in the NWest really does pick up.
There remain a large number of flats on the market in Liverpool with desperate Irish investors trying to get rid of their investment following their rush to buy when the Irish economy was booming
It also begs the question what will happen to the City Council Cruise Terminal when Peel build their proposed new build within Liverpool Waters.
I am sure LCC have a cunning plan
#btw I agree with you re London. I occasionally have to go there on business but like to get away asap.
Liverpool is a much friendlier place to visit
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool. The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds. Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted. Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised. The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money. Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year. Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services. The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer. This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided. btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc. Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development I[/p][/quote]I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do.[/p][/quote]Tom I do hope the Liverpool Waters scheme works out well. I very much doubt that you and I will be alive to see it finished as it has a 50 year horizon. At a projected cost of £5.5b I believe Peel Holdings are hoping that Asian investors will put up the cash as Peel are nowhere big enough to capitalise it themselves having recently had to refinance their operation to pay for the new container expansion which itself is benefiting from a UK grant of £35m and a soft loan from the European Investment bank for half of the £300m cost. All above board I should hasten to add but unfortunately such financial assistance is not available to businesses in this area The plans look great but you do wonder what the affect an extra 23,000 apartments included within the scheme will have on the local housing market unless the economy in the NWest really does pick up. There remain a large number of flats on the market in Liverpool with desperate Irish investors trying to get rid of their investment following their rush to buy when the Irish economy was booming It also begs the question what will happen to the City Council Cruise Terminal when Peel build their proposed new build within Liverpool Waters. I am sure LCC have a cunning plan #btw I agree with you re London. I occasionally have to go there on business but like to get away asap. Liverpool is a much friendlier place to visit phil maccavity

9:34pm Sun 7 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool?
Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims.
I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy.
We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)
Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP
My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there.
But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You,
In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area.
I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000
Loosehead, house prices vary significantly as you say:-
Two bed terraces in the city vary from £50K-£80K but at the lower end are very old.
In the suburbs they are £80K-£130K but are better stock,
In the outer suburbs Semi's and some bungalows even new build, seem to be £130K-£150K and above, up to K500K, or more, but I don't know how well-off you are.
As for the weather, don't forget the Gulf Stream significantly affects the Irish Sea, so it can be seriously cold at times, but we don't seem to suffer from ice and snow anywhere near as much as Lancashire and Cheshire.
Tom I live in a council estate ( mines private) in a two bedroomed mid terrace house & it's £145,000. My mortgage is £88,000 which I would love to get down.
my wife doesn't mind the rain as it keeps all forms of dust away but hates the cold.
The prices you've quoted are very good & if the older houses were in a respectable are this would leave me with next to no mortgage.
I still remember my dad telling me about his beloved Liverpool even though he came from Birkenhead he still said he was from Liverpool & was proud of it( supported Liverpool fc).
I have nothing against the city or it's people & would love to see it thrive but you're council Liberal/Labour have acted very badly over this & by you're Mayor coming out with statements like this it doesn't make him or you're city any friends
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom can I ask you the average price of a two bedroom semi in Liverpool? Now back to this.ABP announced the securing of jobs in Southampton Docks with the New Berths for the Largest Container Ships at the same time DP World were/are laying people off or so a worker claims. I having relations & through my father a spot in my heart for you're city I just can't believe the way your council have handled this & then to turn the vitriol onto this city is crazy. We get Southampton & areas local ITV news as well as Dovers local news & I can tell you all they're just as Anti this if not more so than Southampton.( my wife wants to move but she thinks it might be too cold up there but please give me some figures)[/p][/quote]Loosehead I'll look up the house situation for you but the prices vary significantly depending on the location. It can be cold here but I'm sure not that different to Hampshire. I'll post ASAP[/p][/quote]My wife's Thai & think's it's cold here at 13-16% but she suggested liverpool as maybe a possibility as she wants me to move to Thailand & she knows I hate it there. But I would be grateful for those prices Thank You, In Southampton a Semi goes from £150,000 upwards to ? it all depends on what area. I know of three bedroomed Terrace houses on a council estate going for £175,000[/p][/quote]Loosehead, house prices vary significantly as you say:- Two bed terraces in the city vary from £50K-£80K but at the lower end are very old. In the suburbs they are £80K-£130K but are better stock, In the outer suburbs Semi's and some bungalows even new build, seem to be £130K-£150K and above, up to K500K, or more, but I don't know how well-off you are. As for the weather, don't forget the Gulf Stream significantly affects the Irish Sea, so it can be seriously cold at times, but we don't seem to suffer from ice and snow anywhere near as much as Lancashire and Cheshire.[/p][/quote]Tom I live in a council estate ( mines private) in a two bedroomed mid terrace house & it's £145,000. My mortgage is £88,000 which I would love to get down. my wife doesn't mind the rain as it keeps all forms of dust away but hates the cold. The prices you've quoted are very good & if the older houses were in a respectable are this would leave me with next to no mortgage. I still remember my dad telling me about his beloved Liverpool even though he came from Birkenhead he still said he was from Liverpool & was proud of it( supported Liverpool fc). I have nothing against the city or it's people & would love to see it thrive but you're council Liberal/Labour have acted very badly over this & by you're Mayor coming out with statements like this it doesn't make him or you're city any friends loosehead

6:56am Mon 8 Oct 12

arizonan says...

1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool??? arizonan

7:57am Mon 8 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
Let me paint this scenario for you.
A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles.
TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening..
However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility.
In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react.
I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: 1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???[/p][/quote]Let me paint this scenario for you. A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles. TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening.. However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility. In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react. I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale. phil maccavity

8:39am Mon 8 Oct 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships. Proud from LIVERPOOL

8:57am Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot loosehead

10:36am Mon 8 Oct 12

Who's laughing now says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Liverpool wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.
The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.
Tom
I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool.
The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds.
Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted.
Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism
The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised.
The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money.
Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year.
Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services.
The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer.
This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided.
btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc.
Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development
I
I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo


ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do.
Tom
I do hope the Liverpool Waters scheme works out well.
I very much doubt that you and I will be alive to see it finished as it has a 50 year horizon.
At a projected cost of £5.5b I believe Peel Holdings are hoping that Asian investors will put up the cash as Peel are nowhere big enough to capitalise it themselves having recently had to refinance their operation to pay for the new container expansion which itself is benefiting from a UK grant of £35m and a soft loan from the European Investment bank for half of the £300m cost.
All above board I should hasten to add but unfortunately such financial assistance is not available to businesses in this area
The plans look great but you do wonder what the affect an extra 23,000 apartments included within the scheme will have on the local housing market unless the economy in the NWest really does pick up.
There remain a large number of flats on the market in Liverpool with desperate Irish investors trying to get rid of their investment following their rush to buy when the Irish economy was booming
It also begs the question what will happen to the City Council Cruise Terminal when Peel build their proposed new build within Liverpool Waters.
I am sure LCC have a cunning plan
#btw I agree with you re London. I occasionally have to go there on business but like to get away asap.
Liverpool is a much friendlier place to visit
Liverpool and Wirral Waters are both 30 year projects in all, one's already approved by the Government and one's just gone in.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree that 95% of its populace are whinging sentimentalists, culturally Liverpool is 30 years ahead of Southampton.[/p][/quote]The days of whinging scousers are long gone, 25/30 years ago you were probably right, but not now, the majority of the population are forward looking and quite dynamic. Something that seems to be lacking with the posters on this site.[/p][/quote]Tom I think, if nothing else, there is now a sense of realism shown by a growing number of people in Liverpool. The Merseyside area has been awash with grant funded money for 20 odd years and the area no doubt needed some pump priming funds. Some of this has been used to good effect (and for the purpose intended) and some has been wasted. Recent stories of grant aid being given to the Mersey Ferry terminal (£3.8m) which has just posted an annual loss of £1m reflect a lack of commercial realism The Matthew Street festival which obtained an annual £400k subsidy from the EC is anothe example. Supposedly it brought in £200m(!!) to the local economy but when Liverpooll businesses were asked to provide support a paltry £40k was raised. The failed Boat Show was another waste of public money. Liverpool City Council faces a £50m budget black hole this year and over £70m next year. Fortunately there are people in Liverpool now questioning whether money should be spent on grandiose schemes, which would have no commercial relevance, or concentrating on essential services. The cruise terminal never did and never will make any commercial sense and will continue to be supported by the taxpayer. This would probably have gone on unnoticed until Mr Anderson and Co thought they could get away with changing the specific terms on which the initial grant money was provided. btw I would say that, culturally, Liverpool is light years away from Southampton (not just 30 yrs) but a good deal of this is due to the EC./UK Govt funding of the many fine Museums/Liverpool Arena/Philharmonic Hall etc. Personally I have no problem with this, provided the money is used wisely and without affecting other areas, but until quite recently it was the Business Tax payer in the south who was saw their Business rates disproportionately moved into Regional Development areas to assist their cutural and economic development I[/p][/quote]I personally believe a lot of your comments (and many from this end also) are based on misinformation, in newspapers , lots of private money has been spent in Liverpool and Merseyside in general over the past 15 years (agreed, originally motivated by grant aid from the EU and UK governments),Liverpo ol One shopping centre is an example funded by The Duke of Westminster's company £1.8 billion, but don't forget that because of the Militant/Thatcher era this city was deliberately starved of funds to feed Manchesters growth. But that is water under the bridge and Liverpool is now well capable of standing on it's own with any other city in the UK outside London which gets 70% of all UK government grants, I believe, (and where I wouldn't live under any circumstances.), Please note the £5.5 billion north Liverpool development went forward for government approval yesterday, ALL PRIVATE MONEY not taking anything from the south. I just hope DC and Pickles sort it out quickly and don;t prevaricate as they usually do.[/p][/quote]Tom I do hope the Liverpool Waters scheme works out well. I very much doubt that you and I will be alive to see it finished as it has a 50 year horizon. At a projected cost of £5.5b I believe Peel Holdings are hoping that Asian investors will put up the cash as Peel are nowhere big enough to capitalise it themselves having recently had to refinance their operation to pay for the new container expansion which itself is benefiting from a UK grant of £35m and a soft loan from the European Investment bank for half of the £300m cost. All above board I should hasten to add but unfortunately such financial assistance is not available to businesses in this area The plans look great but you do wonder what the affect an extra 23,000 apartments included within the scheme will have on the local housing market unless the economy in the NWest really does pick up. There remain a large number of flats on the market in Liverpool with desperate Irish investors trying to get rid of their investment following their rush to buy when the Irish economy was booming It also begs the question what will happen to the City Council Cruise Terminal when Peel build their proposed new build within Liverpool Waters. I am sure LCC have a cunning plan #btw I agree with you re London. I occasionally have to go there on business but like to get away asap. Liverpool is a much friendlier place to visit[/p][/quote]Liverpool and Wirral Waters are both 30 year projects in all, one's already approved by the Government and one's just gone in. Who's laughing now

11:04am Mon 8 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

Liverpool Waters site says all complete by 2050
So bearing in mind it took 6 years to make the Planning stage and there is the possibility of Eric Pickles calling for a Public Enquiry on the Liverpool side, then there is the prospect of finding the money to proceed (Peel may find it difficult to finance both the Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters project simultaneously) it could be anything between 30-50 years before all done and dusted.
I wish the schemes evey success and hope they both turn out to be for the benefit of all on Merseyside
Liverpool Waters site says all complete by 2050 So bearing in mind it took 6 years to make the Planning stage and there is the possibility of Eric Pickles calling for a Public Enquiry on the Liverpool side, then there is the prospect of finding the money to proceed (Peel may find it difficult to finance both the Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters project simultaneously) it could be anything between 30-50 years before all done and dusted. I wish the schemes evey success and hope they both turn out to be for the benefit of all on Merseyside phil maccavity

12:17pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so. Proud from LIVERPOOL

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:40pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:41pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

12:41pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism? loosehead

2:32pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
Loosehead.

You have this ridiculous idea that only people from the north of the country will use Liverpool for starting their cruises.
I would suggest that you should in the nicest possible way, wake up to the fact that people from all over the world come to Liverpool as tourists, and a very large number visit from the south of the UK ( there isn't a border crossing at Birmingham that stops people in the south from visiting our part of the UK ).

You seem to think that only people travelling from the north to board a ship in the south would stay overnight in a hotel.

RUBBISH !!!!!!!


There is nothing to do in Southampton that's why cruise passengers don't boost your local economy.

When a city has all the attractions that Liverpool has, people travelling from the south, midlands and Scotland to board their cruise will want to stay for a few nights to really appreciate what we have to offer.

Believe me we will be upping our game and encouraging people to extend their time in our Great city.

I wish Southampton success in the future, but you will have to sort yourselves and your council out, or you will lose trade to up and coming competitors who offer more than just a boarding ramp onto the cruise ships.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?[/p][/quote]Loosehead. You have this ridiculous idea that only people from the north of the country will use Liverpool for starting their cruises. I would suggest that you should in the nicest possible way, wake up to the fact that people from all over the world come to Liverpool as tourists, and a very large number visit from the south of the UK ( there isn't a border crossing at Birmingham that stops people in the south from visiting our part of the UK ). You seem to think that only people travelling from the north to board a ship in the south would stay overnight in a hotel. RUBBISH !!!!!!! There is nothing to do in Southampton that's why cruise passengers don't boost your local economy. When a city has all the attractions that Liverpool has, people travelling from the south, midlands and Scotland to board their cruise will want to stay for a few nights to really appreciate what we have to offer. Believe me we will be upping our game and encouraging people to extend their time in our Great city. I wish Southampton success in the future, but you will have to sort yourselves and your council out, or you will lose trade to up and coming competitors who offer more than just a boarding ramp onto the cruise ships. Proud from LIVERPOOL

3:22pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Who's laughing now says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Liverpool Waters site says all complete by 2050
So bearing in mind it took 6 years to make the Planning stage and there is the possibility of Eric Pickles calling for a Public Enquiry on the Liverpool side, then there is the prospect of finding the money to proceed (Peel may find it difficult to finance both the Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters project simultaneously) it could be anything between 30-50 years before all done and dusted.
I wish the schemes evey success and hope they both turn out to be for the benefit of all on Merseyside
At least 30 years it is, it was originally that. It's been six already so if it gets approval, it'll probably be 30 from then. One building at a time, it's something for the future generations to enjoy and will be outstanding once finished. Once it gets going there will be no stopping it, regeneration always works like that.

http://www.peelwater
s.co.uk/
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Liverpool Waters site says all complete by 2050 So bearing in mind it took 6 years to make the Planning stage and there is the possibility of Eric Pickles calling for a Public Enquiry on the Liverpool side, then there is the prospect of finding the money to proceed (Peel may find it difficult to finance both the Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters project simultaneously) it could be anything between 30-50 years before all done and dusted. I wish the schemes evey success and hope they both turn out to be for the benefit of all on Merseyside[/p][/quote]At least 30 years it is, it was originally that. It's been six already so if it gets approval, it'll probably be 30 from then. One building at a time, it's something for the future generations to enjoy and will be outstanding once finished. Once it gets going there will be no stopping it, regeneration always works like that. http://www.peelwater s.co.uk/ Who's laughing now

3:41pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

" Liverpool Council pays off River
Mersey cruise terminal bill ".

LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal.

The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May.

The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton.

The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale.

"Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination.

"For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port."

"We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly.

"The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers."

The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m.

A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid.

A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage.

In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council."

A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015.

The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel.

I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers

Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill

The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.
You really are dreaming aren't you?
fills up hotels & restaurants?
Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off.
if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants?
Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole.
Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities.
If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot
No I am not dreaming Loosehead.

The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ).
It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath.
Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer.

By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines.
Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.
Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong.
in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right?
If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you?
if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?
Loosehead.

You have this ridiculous idea that only people from the north of the country will use Liverpool for starting their cruises.
I would suggest that you should in the nicest possible way, wake up to the fact that people from all over the world come to Liverpool as tourists, and a very large number visit from the south of the UK ( there isn't a border crossing at Birmingham that stops people in the south from visiting our part of the UK ).

You seem to think that only people travelling from the north to board a ship in the south would stay overnight in a hotel.

RUBBISH !!!!!!!


There is nothing to do in Southampton that's why cruise passengers don't boost your local economy.

When a city has all the attractions that Liverpool has, people travelling from the south, midlands and Scotland to board their cruise will want to stay for a few nights to really appreciate what we have to offer.

Believe me we will be upping our game and encouraging people to extend their time in our Great city.

I wish Southampton success in the future, but you will have to sort yourselves and your council out, or you will lose trade to up and coming competitors who offer more than just a boarding ramp onto the cruise ships.
You say people from the South visit Liverpool yet you & many other Liverpool posters say the only reason people visit our city from the North is because they have no other choice & you'll offer them that choice?
We are an ancient city we have castle walls & towers we have the place Henry the 5th stayed at we have his ship.we have King Canutes Palace plus the place where he tried stopping the water we ( Hamwic) was the capital of King Alfreds Wessex until it was moved to Winchester we have that ancient city 5 minutes drive we have Portsmouth 5 minutes drive we have the New Forest less than 5 minutes drive & the Isle of Wight.
yes you have a lot to offer but if you look for it so do we so to say we're an ugly city with nothing to do as most of the Liverpool posts on here say is so,so wrong
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers " Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill ". LIVERPOOL council has paid its £8.8m government bill over the River Mersey cruise terminal. The government lifted a ban on the Pier Head being used for "turnaround" cruises in May. The ban was lifted on the condition almost all the £9.2m Government grant which helped build the £20m waterfront facility was repaid. The move led to howls of protest from rival ports such as Southampton. The payment was made late last month after the Department for Communities and Local Government handed over details of the payment mechanism to city officials. Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: "Each ship brings in thousands of passengers, tourists and crew. These people fill up our hotels and restaurants and boost the economy on a massive scale. "Liverpool has an unrivalled maritime history and we are now on the way to restoring our reputation as a leading cruise destination. "For far too long holidaymakers in the north have had to travel to and from other places to start their journeys. This is helping to return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port." "We agreed to abide by the ruling of the independent arbiter and pay the money back,. And that is exactly what we have done. As soon as the Government gave us details of how they would like the payment to be made, we arranged for it to be settled promptly. "The cruise liner terminal is proving to be a huge success and we have had extremely positive feedback from operators and passengers." The council was given the option of phasing payments over 15 years. But it would have brought the total amount repaid to £12.6m. A row flared over the repayment in the summer when transport minister Mike Penning attacked the city for not having paid the money back. He claimed the city had not told him when the cash would be repaid. A leaked letter, sent by Mr Penning a month after his complaint, shows no mechanism for the repayment of the money had been made at that stage. In the letter Mr Penning wrote: "With regard to the timing of the agreed repayment of the UK grant money, it is my understanding that DCLG are actively considering a suitable mechanism for the process and timing of this repayment and will shortly be in touch with Liverpool council." A temporary customs and baggage building, parking and drop- off facilities are operating opposite the current facility on Princes Parade. It is being leased during the cruise season until 2015. The council has drawn up plans for a permanent facility – including a new hotel. I have posted the following news item which may be of interest to your readers Liverpool Council pays off River Mersey cruise terminal bill The terminal hosted around 30 vessels this year – a mixture of turnaround, day call and other ships.[/p][/quote]You really are dreaming aren't you? fills up hotels & restaurants? Cruise passengers from the North might stay in Southamptons hotels but mostly it's the coach drivers coming down to either pick them up or drop them off. if the Northern half of the country starts to use Liverpool why do they need to use you're hotels & restaurants? Most of the money is earn't by the port for berthing not the city as a whole. Belfast with it's visiting facilities get's more tourists than we do with Turnaround facilities. If Liverpool council think this will help end their woes on unemployment they've lost the plot[/p][/quote]No I am not dreaming Loosehead. The city of Liverpool is one of the top 3 tourist destinations in the UK ( check out the web if you don't believe me ). It has more fine architecture ( listed buildings etc ) than anywhere in the UK outside of London, and that includes the city of Bath. Many people who embark or disembark on their cruise are I am sure, going to add a few days to their holiday so that they can take in what Liverpool has to offer. By comparison there is nothing in Southampton except a commercial port ( I cannot for the life of me, find any tourist ranking for the city of Southampton ). No wonder the only people who make money from the cruise passengers are ABP and the cruise lines. Its about time Southamptons population demanded that their council did something to boost the local economy based on cruise passengers, instead of moaning when other ports do so.[/p][/quote]Look I congratulate Liverpool for paying one of the grants but to say this will increase tourism as your leader does is wrong. in your above post you say your one of the top tourist destinations.So if you live in the North you'll visit Liverpool right? If you get on board a ship you'll drive there board cruise get into you're car & go home won't you? if you had to travel South ( or you wanted to) you would stay in a hotel visit the area that wasn't in driving(easy) distance from you're home then board the ship wouldn't you so how's this going to increase your tourism?[/p][/quote]Loosehead. You have this ridiculous idea that only people from the north of the country will use Liverpool for starting their cruises. I would suggest that you should in the nicest possible way, wake up to the fact that people from all over the world come to Liverpool as tourists, and a very large number visit from the south of the UK ( there isn't a border crossing at Birmingham that stops people in the south from visiting our part of the UK ). You seem to think that only people travelling from the north to board a ship in the south would stay overnight in a hotel. RUBBISH !!!!!!! There is nothing to do in Southampton that's why cruise passengers don't boost your local economy. When a city has all the attractions that Liverpool has, people travelling from the south, midlands and Scotland to board their cruise will want to stay for a few nights to really appreciate what we have to offer. Believe me we will be upping our game and encouraging people to extend their time in our Great city. I wish Southampton success in the future, but you will have to sort yourselves and your council out, or you will lose trade to up and coming competitors who offer more than just a boarding ramp onto the cruise ships.[/p][/quote]You say people from the South visit Liverpool yet you & many other Liverpool posters say the only reason people visit our city from the North is because they have no other choice & you'll offer them that choice? We are an ancient city we have castle walls & towers we have the place Henry the 5th stayed at we have his ship.we have King Canutes Palace plus the place where he tried stopping the water we ( Hamwic) was the capital of King Alfreds Wessex until it was moved to Winchester we have that ancient city 5 minutes drive we have Portsmouth 5 minutes drive we have the New Forest less than 5 minutes drive & the Isle of Wight. yes you have a lot to offer but if you look for it so do we so to say we're an ugly city with nothing to do as most of the Liverpool posts on here say is so,so wrong loosehead

4:17pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Tom Liverpool says...

Loosehead, as I said in earlier postings, Liverpool has much more to it than people in the south seem to think. I recently helped an American couple with directions in the city centre, and they said that they had been strongly advised while in London of all places not to come here as the crime and grime would spoil their visit, they also stated that they were more than happy to be here and would advise their friends if they came to the UK to visit and possibly stay here.
Also go into the city centre any weekend and you will find German, Dutch, Spanish, Russian and many more visitors from all over Europe in large numbers, you may not believe me but I can assure it's true. Hotel occupancy in the city is very high and the number of hotels is really enormous mostly new, with more being built. So the cruise passengers at the moment would make little difference to that scenario.
I'm glad the £8.8Million has been paid, but I note the EU money is now the bone of contention. The EU themselves ,at the moment don't seem interested so what can Joe Anderson do about it, and if that is repaid it wont go to anywhere in the UK it will end up in Greece or Spain so no benefit to the UK at all, is that what you want.
Loosehead, as I said in earlier postings, Liverpool has much more to it than people in the south seem to think. I recently helped an American couple with directions in the city centre, and they said that they had been strongly advised while in London of all places not to come here as the crime and grime would spoil their visit, they also stated that they were more than happy to be here and would advise their friends if they came to the UK to visit and possibly stay here. Also go into the city centre any weekend and you will find German, Dutch, Spanish, Russian and many more visitors from all over Europe in large numbers, you may not believe me but I can assure it's true. Hotel occupancy in the city is very high and the number of hotels is really enormous mostly new, with more being built. So the cruise passengers at the moment would make little difference to that scenario. I'm glad the £8.8Million has been paid, but I note the EU money is now the bone of contention. The EU themselves ,at the moment don't seem interested so what can Joe Anderson do about it, and if that is repaid it wont go to anywhere in the UK it will end up in Greece or Spain so no benefit to the UK at all, is that what you want. Tom Liverpool

6:25pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

Loosehead said.,.........

You say people from the South visit Liverpool yet you & many other Liverpool posters say the only reason people visit our city from the North is because they have no other choice & you'll offer them that choice?
We are an ancient city we have castle walls & towers we have the place Henry the 5th stayed at we have his ship.we have King Canutes Palace plus the place where he tried stopping the water we ( Hamwic) was the capital of King Alfreds Wessex until it was moved to Winchester we have that ancient city 5 minutes drive we have Portsmouth 5 minutes drive we have the New Forest less than 5 minutes drive & the Isle of Wight.
yes you have a lot to offer but if you look for it so do we so to say we're an ugly city with nothing to do as most of the Liverpool posts on here say is so,so wrong.

....................
...................

I have never said that I regard Southampton as an ugly city, all I said was that your council do nothing to promote your city and that the vast majority of cruise passengers see Southampton purely as a boarding ramp onto a cruise ship.

I know from reading articles in this paper that the vast majority of people from Southampton have very strong opinions regarding the failure of your council to promote and market your city.
Loosehead said.,......... You say people from the South visit Liverpool yet you & many other Liverpool posters say the only reason people visit our city from the North is because they have no other choice & you'll offer them that choice? We are an ancient city we have castle walls & towers we have the place Henry the 5th stayed at we have his ship.we have King Canutes Palace plus the place where he tried stopping the water we ( Hamwic) was the capital of King Alfreds Wessex until it was moved to Winchester we have that ancient city 5 minutes drive we have Portsmouth 5 minutes drive we have the New Forest less than 5 minutes drive & the Isle of Wight. yes you have a lot to offer but if you look for it so do we so to say we're an ugly city with nothing to do as most of the Liverpool posts on here say is so,so wrong. .................... ................... I have never said that I regard Southampton as an ugly city, all I said was that your council do nothing to promote your city and that the vast majority of cruise passengers see Southampton purely as a boarding ramp onto a cruise ship. I know from reading articles in this paper that the vast majority of people from Southampton have very strong opinions regarding the failure of your council to promote and market your city. Proud from LIVERPOOL

7:03pm Mon 8 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

Proud
The three biggest UK cruise ports ie Southampton, Dover and Harwich are indeed primarily boarding ramps to cruise ships but have been relatively successful in their strategy.
However all three ports have invested their own risk capital on cruise facilities.
Liverpool has grudgingly stumped up a contribution but this will come out of the local tax payers purse so it is far short of 'fair competition'.
It is, of course, annoying to most people in this area to see all the impressive developments in Liverpool. However, as has been said before, a small (say)10% handout from the £2 billion given to Merseyside in the past 20 years would have paid for the development of the old Royal Pier site and transformed Soton's city's waterfront for future generations.
Unfortunately this so called 'prosperous' area has to rely on scraps at the table.
Genial Joe gets all the praise in your neck of the woods whilst our Council leaders have, until recently, seen 25% of their local business rates revenue go to help 'poorer' northern regions of which Merseyside is a major recipient.
I suppose, in an ideal world, we might all be happy if central Liverpool could be transported down here so the buildings and buzz could be united with more clement weather !!
Proud The three biggest UK cruise ports ie Southampton, Dover and Harwich are indeed primarily boarding ramps to cruise ships but have been relatively successful in their strategy. However all three ports have invested their own risk capital on cruise facilities. Liverpool has grudgingly stumped up a contribution but this will come out of the local tax payers purse so it is far short of 'fair competition'. It is, of course, annoying to most people in this area to see all the impressive developments in Liverpool. However, as has been said before, a small (say)10% handout from the £2 billion given to Merseyside in the past 20 years would have paid for the development of the old Royal Pier site and transformed Soton's city's waterfront for future generations. Unfortunately this so called 'prosperous' area has to rely on scraps at the table. Genial Joe gets all the praise in your neck of the woods whilst our Council leaders have, until recently, seen 25% of their local business rates revenue go to help 'poorer' northern regions of which Merseyside is a major recipient. I suppose, in an ideal world, we might all be happy if central Liverpool could be transported down here so the buildings and buzz could be united with more clement weather !! phil maccavity

8:11pm Mon 8 Oct 12

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
Let me paint this scenario for you.
A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles.
TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening..
However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility.
In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react.
I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.
No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: 1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???[/p][/quote]Let me paint this scenario for you. A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles. TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening.. However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility. In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react. I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.[/p][/quote]No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment. arizonan

9:22pm Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
Let me paint this scenario for you.
A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles.
TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening..
However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility.
In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react.
I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.
No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.
I actually wished Liverpool all the best until someone berated my city
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: 1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???[/p][/quote]Let me paint this scenario for you. A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles. TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening.. However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility. In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react. I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.[/p][/quote]No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.[/p][/quote]I actually wished Liverpool all the best until someone berated my city loosehead

11:37pm Mon 8 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
Let me paint this scenario for you.
A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles.
TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening..
However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility.
In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react.
I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.
No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.
I cant see what relevance London has to this argument.
An 'Off tangent' remark perhaps?
Actually the Cruise Terminal they have in Tilbury and planned for the Thames does not include any grant aid subsidy.
With regard to the public money wasted on the failed Liverpool Boat Show which you have consistently said was due to a Southampton based 'conspiracy',
Perhaps I can quote from 'Liverpool Event' magazine dated 12th July 2011
..'48 contracts were cancelled in one day because of poor business at sales earlier in the year'..
'Waterways World' of 14th Feb 2011 stated ..'Rob Mackenzie, MD of MIE cancelled the show due to the economic climate and poor take up of exhibitors'...
No mention of any 'conspiracy' there.
Of more interest and substance is the
'Boating Business' article on the subject which said (quote)...'The reasons behind its failure are still the subject of much debate.
The first reason for the cancellation was put out as the poor results at ExCel, experienced by many potential exhibitors. But this was soon seen to be Not a Good Idea and was changed to 'difficult market conditions'
Things came to a head as the weekend of February 12/13 approached.
Marine Industry Events had sent out the final invoices together with a reminder that exhibitors should have their hotels and resturants booked by then.
This, it seems, precipitated an avalanche of withdrawals.
James Gower said 12 companies cancelled over a two day period.
This took 48 boats out of the show. And, said Mr Gower, they had a number of other companies making cancellartion noises.
So the weekend of February 12/13 was a busy one as the MIE directors spoke with all interested parties.
Mr Mackenzie said every one of them backed the decision to cancel the show.
But why it got to that stage is the conundrum.
The local Liverpool Echo insisted the show was cancelled because a large number of major exhibitors pulled out.
So why did David Lewis of Sunseeker London actually put out a press release saying they were ready to go?
Nick Barke at Essex Boatyards also said that their Fairlines were all ready to go.
Similarly Chris Cleverly said Princess was all set to go.
And Nick Powell - also a member of the Steering Committee- said Sealine was all set to go.
And you can't get more major than those four.
We are left to consider the reason's we've been given (unquote)........
I am sure the fact that several hundred thousand pounds worth of Taxpayers money was provided for this non event by British Waterways is of little consequence to you.
Nor the fact that just a week or so before the plug was pulled, when a number of people close to the event knew the organisers were struggling financially, Liverpool Council decided to inject more public money into the pot.
The PR company working for MIE did a solid job with the local media to paint a rosy 'what if' and 'not me guv' scenario suggesting that outside interests had scuppered the event when that was not the case.
It was a combination of poor organisation and smaller than expected footfall through the London Boat Show a month or two earlier which were the main reasons.
btw I understand that the same PR company that handled MIE's account is promoting the economic benefits of the Liverpool Cruise terminal.to the media.
Guess where they are getting their core information from.?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: 1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???[/p][/quote]Let me paint this scenario for you. A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles. TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening.. However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility. In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react. I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.[/p][/quote]No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.[/p][/quote]I cant see what relevance London has to this argument. An 'Off tangent' remark perhaps? Actually the Cruise Terminal they have in Tilbury and planned for the Thames does not include any grant aid subsidy. With regard to the public money wasted on the failed Liverpool Boat Show which you have consistently said was due to a Southampton based 'conspiracy', Perhaps I can quote from 'Liverpool Event' magazine dated 12th July 2011 ..'48 contracts were cancelled in one day because of poor business at sales earlier in the year'.. 'Waterways World' of 14th Feb 2011 stated ..'Rob Mackenzie, MD of MIE cancelled the show due to the economic climate and poor take up of exhibitors'... No mention of any 'conspiracy' there. Of more interest and substance is the 'Boating Business' article on the subject which said (quote)...'The reasons behind its failure are still the subject of much debate. The first reason for the cancellation was put out as the poor results at ExCel, experienced by many potential exhibitors. But this was soon seen to be Not a Good Idea and was changed to 'difficult market conditions' Things came to a head as the weekend of February 12/13 approached. Marine Industry Events had sent out the final invoices together with a reminder that exhibitors should have their hotels and resturants booked by then. This, it seems, precipitated an avalanche of withdrawals. James Gower said 12 companies cancelled over a two day period. This took 48 boats out of the show. And, said Mr Gower, they had a number of other companies making cancellartion noises. So the weekend of February 12/13 was a busy one as the MIE directors spoke with all interested parties. Mr Mackenzie said every one of them backed the decision to cancel the show. But why it got to that stage is the conundrum. The local Liverpool Echo insisted the show was cancelled because a large number of major exhibitors pulled out. So why did David Lewis of Sunseeker London actually put out a press release saying they were ready to go? Nick Barke at Essex Boatyards also said that their Fairlines were all ready to go. Similarly Chris Cleverly said Princess was all set to go. And Nick Powell - also a member of the Steering Committee- said Sealine was all set to go. And you can't get more major than those four. We are left to consider the reason's we've been given (unquote)........ I am sure the fact that several hundred thousand pounds worth of Taxpayers money was provided for this non event by British Waterways is of little consequence to you. Nor the fact that just a week or so before the plug was pulled, when a number of people close to the event knew the organisers were struggling financially, Liverpool Council decided to inject more public money into the pot. The PR company working for MIE did a solid job with the local media to paint a rosy 'what if' and 'not me guv' scenario suggesting that outside interests had scuppered the event when that was not the case. It was a combination of poor organisation and smaller than expected footfall through the London Boat Show a month or two earlier which were the main reasons. btw I understand that the same PR company that handled MIE's account is promoting the economic benefits of the Liverpool Cruise terminal.to the media. Guess where they are getting their core information from.? phil maccavity

5:42am Tue 9 Oct 12

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!!
2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see.
3. Ditto London Olympics.
4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded.
5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics.
6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored.
Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know.
I will repeat your quote to me in your last post.
'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.'
Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country.
And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???
Let me paint this scenario for you.
A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles.
TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening..
However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility.
In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react.
I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.
No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.
I cant see what relevance London has to this argument.
An 'Off tangent' remark perhaps?
Actually the Cruise Terminal they have in Tilbury and planned for the Thames does not include any grant aid subsidy.
With regard to the public money wasted on the failed Liverpool Boat Show which you have consistently said was due to a Southampton based 'conspiracy',
Perhaps I can quote from 'Liverpool Event' magazine dated 12th July 2011
..'48 contracts were cancelled in one day because of poor business at sales earlier in the year'..
'Waterways World' of 14th Feb 2011 stated ..'Rob Mackenzie, MD of MIE cancelled the show due to the economic climate and poor take up of exhibitors'...
No mention of any 'conspiracy' there.
Of more interest and substance is the
'Boating Business' article on the subject which said (quote)...'The reasons behind its failure are still the subject of much debate.
The first reason for the cancellation was put out as the poor results at ExCel, experienced by many potential exhibitors. But this was soon seen to be Not a Good Idea and was changed to 'difficult market conditions'
Things came to a head as the weekend of February 12/13 approached.
Marine Industry Events had sent out the final invoices together with a reminder that exhibitors should have their hotels and resturants booked by then.
This, it seems, precipitated an avalanche of withdrawals.
James Gower said 12 companies cancelled over a two day period.
This took 48 boats out of the show. And, said Mr Gower, they had a number of other companies making cancellartion noises.
So the weekend of February 12/13 was a busy one as the MIE directors spoke with all interested parties.
Mr Mackenzie said every one of them backed the decision to cancel the show.
But why it got to that stage is the conundrum.
The local Liverpool Echo insisted the show was cancelled because a large number of major exhibitors pulled out.
So why did David Lewis of Sunseeker London actually put out a press release saying they were ready to go?
Nick Barke at Essex Boatyards also said that their Fairlines were all ready to go.
Similarly Chris Cleverly said Princess was all set to go.
And Nick Powell - also a member of the Steering Committee- said Sealine was all set to go.
And you can't get more major than those four.
We are left to consider the reason's we've been given (unquote)........
I am sure the fact that several hundred thousand pounds worth of Taxpayers money was provided for this non event by British Waterways is of little consequence to you.
Nor the fact that just a week or so before the plug was pulled, when a number of people close to the event knew the organisers were struggling financially, Liverpool Council decided to inject more public money into the pot.
The PR company working for MIE did a solid job with the local media to paint a rosy 'what if' and 'not me guv' scenario suggesting that outside interests had scuppered the event when that was not the case.
It was a combination of poor organisation and smaller than expected footfall through the London Boat Show a month or two earlier which were the main reasons.
btw I understand that the same PR company that handled MIE's account is promoting the economic benefits of the Liverpool Cruise terminal.to the media.
Guess where they are getting their core information from.?
When someone shows you that you have been hung out to dry by your own comments, the best thing to do is to keep quiet and accept that you have been shafted.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: 1.London Olympic games funding estimated at 14,500,000,000. And you are complaining about projects in Liverpool at 3.4m and 400k!!! 2.Organisers of the event spread these rumours and the Liverpool media took this up. So you have publication dates of this story I presume, which I would like to see. 3. Ditto London Olympics. 4. You first mentioned the Philharmonic Hall in your post on Saturday, re.EC/UK funding, so I responded. 5. I hope Regeneration Watch will watch with due diligence to see if the East end of London benefits from the Olympics. 6. I used the word vandalism because the Custom House should have been restored. Again, this was an example of the Georgian buildings being demolished in Liverpool that you mentioned in one of your posts.Why you mentioned this I do not know. I will repeat your quote to me in your last post. 'What I object to is public money being squandered on projects that have little or no economic benefit, especially when they may effect my local community.' Surely you can see your double standards here.Public money has been looted in a massive way to feed London's ego at a time of economic hardship for the country. And you come on here bleating about Liverpool???[/p][/quote]Let me paint this scenario for you. A local Council in this area asks for and receives a hefty Govt/EC funding to build a brand new factory specifically to produce commercial vehicles. TheIr ultimate aim is to build more profitable passenger cars but they know if they were upfront about it anti competition rules would prevent this happening.. However a year or so down the line, despite the grant rules being quite specific as to the nature of the work permitted at the grant funded factory,, they apply to the authorities for a change of use and there are rumours that approaches have been made to JLR and GM to transfer some of their production to the new facility. In such a circumstance it would be interesting to see how the workers at Halewood or Ellesmere Port, or indeed the Local paper and Civic leaders would react. I am sure, like your goodself, they would all be sporting enough to embrace the competition but they might well be a tad disappointed with the duplicity shown by those applying for the original grant and the possible affect on the economic well being of their own locale.[/p][/quote]No answer to the points I raised then in my post.Just the usual off at a tangent comment.[/p][/quote]I cant see what relevance London has to this argument. An 'Off tangent' remark perhaps? Actually the Cruise Terminal they have in Tilbury and planned for the Thames does not include any grant aid subsidy. With regard to the public money wasted on the failed Liverpool Boat Show which you have consistently said was due to a Southampton based 'conspiracy', Perhaps I can quote from 'Liverpool Event' magazine dated 12th July 2011 ..'48 contracts were cancelled in one day because of poor business at sales earlier in the year'.. 'Waterways World' of 14th Feb 2011 stated ..'Rob Mackenzie, MD of MIE cancelled the show due to the economic climate and poor take up of exhibitors'... No mention of any 'conspiracy' there. Of more interest and substance is the 'Boating Business' article on the subject which said (quote)...'The reasons behind its failure are still the subject of much debate. The first reason for the cancellation was put out as the poor results at ExCel, experienced by many potential exhibitors. But this was soon seen to be Not a Good Idea and was changed to 'difficult market conditions' Things came to a head as the weekend of February 12/13 approached. Marine Industry Events had sent out the final invoices together with a reminder that exhibitors should have their hotels and resturants booked by then. This, it seems, precipitated an avalanche of withdrawals. James Gower said 12 companies cancelled over a two day period. This took 48 boats out of the show. And, said Mr Gower, they had a number of other companies making cancellartion noises. So the weekend of February 12/13 was a busy one as the MIE directors spoke with all interested parties. Mr Mackenzie said every one of them backed the decision to cancel the show. But why it got to that stage is the conundrum. The local Liverpool Echo insisted the show was cancelled because a large number of major exhibitors pulled out. So why did David Lewis of Sunseeker London actually put out a press release saying they were ready to go? Nick Barke at Essex Boatyards also said that their Fairlines were all ready to go. Similarly Chris Cleverly said Princess was all set to go. And Nick Powell - also a member of the Steering Committee- said Sealine was all set to go. And you can't get more major than those four. We are left to consider the reason's we've been given (unquote)........ I am sure the fact that several hundred thousand pounds worth of Taxpayers money was provided for this non event by British Waterways is of little consequence to you. Nor the fact that just a week or so before the plug was pulled, when a number of people close to the event knew the organisers were struggling financially, Liverpool Council decided to inject more public money into the pot. The PR company working for MIE did a solid job with the local media to paint a rosy 'what if' and 'not me guv' scenario suggesting that outside interests had scuppered the event when that was not the case. It was a combination of poor organisation and smaller than expected footfall through the London Boat Show a month or two earlier which were the main reasons. btw I understand that the same PR company that handled MIE's account is promoting the economic benefits of the Liverpool Cruise terminal.to the media. Guess where they are getting their core information from.?[/p][/quote]When someone shows you that you have been hung out to dry by your own comments, the best thing to do is to keep quiet and accept that you have been shafted. arizonan

10:06am Tue 9 Oct 12

phil maccavity says...

Well done for your acceptance of the situation re the Boat Show fiasco.
At least this puts this argument to bed then!!
Well done for your acceptance of the situation re the Boat Show fiasco. At least this puts this argument to bed then!! phil maccavity

8:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Chris storey says...

Google " Labour 25". Fatty Anderson gets a mention in there, see what he is like.
Google " Labour 25". Fatty Anderson gets a mention in there, see what he is like. Chris storey

8:02pm Mon 22 Oct 12

ronn12 says...

You are confusing the point, it is not necessary for potential cruisers living (say) south of mid-English to southern counties of England to travel north to Liverpool, they have the cosy cartel-run port of Southampton.

Liverpool is the most logical port of departure not only for 'northerners,' by which I assume means residents of northern English regions, but also for residents living in north Wales, (including the Isle of Anglesey) Ireland, the Isle of Man and Scotland.

For generations, Liverpool (and Birkenhead) were/are Britain's main port for worldwide trading, and in fact still are major ports for both imports and exports from a western approach, and far beyond, though lack the assumed glamour and high profile of her southern counterpart.

The persistent whinge from the 'Southern Comfort' zone, was the contentious 'grant,' or 'protection money' award, which was intended to keep Liverpool 'in its place' as a northern backwater and to protect the financial interests of the port of Southampton.

Is it beginning to sound like a 1920's gangster movie of prohibition and protectionism?

It is unfair that the 'controlling families' of the port of Southampton, should dominate and monopolise a sole UK
turn- around facility to the detriment of fair competition from other venues.

The Sword of Damacles, (the UK grant) that threatened to impale Liverpool's survival, has been repaid.

Shylock's pound of flesh, (the European grant) has not yet been repaid, partly because the EU (mal) administration are inept at agreeing solutions to their own created problems, and because we have probably contributed many times the value of any grant received, into the EU 'slush-fund' managed by Frau Merkel, 'darling of the Greeks' ???

But I feel sure that the EU 'pound of flesh' repayment, will continue as a major bargaining chip by jealous operators, with vested interests, of the port of Southampton, to justify their monopoly, but more essentially, in an effort to avert competition by depriving the port of Liverpool's rightful inheritance as a world renowned major maritime port.

I welcome the astuteness of Liverpool Corporation in overcoming impediments to renewing its traditional role in Britain's list of major maritime infrastructure, and also to acknowledge the fact that intellect is not concentrated in any particular region of the United Kingdom.

But that's only my personal opinion.
You are confusing the point, it is not necessary for potential cruisers living (say) south of mid-English to southern counties of England to travel north to Liverpool, they have the cosy cartel-run port of Southampton. Liverpool is the most logical port of departure not only for 'northerners,' by which I assume means residents of northern English regions, but also for residents living in north Wales, (including the Isle of Anglesey) Ireland, the Isle of Man and Scotland. For generations, Liverpool (and Birkenhead) were/are Britain's main port for worldwide trading, and in fact still are major ports for both imports and exports from a western approach, and far beyond, though lack the assumed glamour and high profile of her southern counterpart. The persistent whinge from the 'Southern Comfort' zone, was the contentious 'grant,' or 'protection money' award, which was intended to keep Liverpool 'in its place' as a northern backwater and to protect the financial interests of the port of Southampton. Is it beginning to sound like a 1920's gangster movie of prohibition and protectionism? It is unfair that the 'controlling families' of the port of Southampton, should dominate and monopolise a sole UK turn- around facility to the detriment of fair competition from other venues. The Sword of Damacles, (the UK grant) that threatened to impale Liverpool's survival, has been repaid. Shylock's pound of flesh, (the European grant) has not yet been repaid, partly because the EU (mal) administration are inept at agreeing solutions to their own created problems, and because we have probably contributed many times the value of any grant received, into the EU 'slush-fund' managed by Frau Merkel, 'darling of the Greeks' ??? But I feel sure that the EU 'pound of flesh' repayment, will continue as a major bargaining chip by jealous operators, with vested interests, of the port of Southampton, to justify their monopoly, but more essentially, in an effort to avert competition by depriving the port of Liverpool's rightful inheritance as a world renowned major maritime port. I welcome the astuteness of Liverpool Corporation in overcoming impediments to renewing its traditional role in Britain's list of major maritime infrastructure, and also to acknowledge the fact that intellect is not concentrated in any particular region of the United Kingdom. But that's only my personal opinion. ronn12

7:16pm Tue 30 Oct 12

ronn12 says...

Liverpool is now one of the safest cities to live in.

After decades of gags about Scouse scallies, figures show that London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all have more burglaries and car crimes per person.

Among big cities in England only Newcastle is safer, according to the UK Statistics Authority.

The figures, disclosed by the government in response to a Parliamentary Question by Tory MP Philip Hollobone, show offences across all of England’s police forces.

They reveal that violent attacks are also twice as common in London than in the area patrolled by Merseyside police.

Geordies, Mancunians and Brumies are also much less likely to be assaulted than those living the capital.

Overall, just 10 people in a thousand on Merseyside were burgled in 2011/12, with six in a thousand the victim of car crime.

Londoners are 20% more likely to be burgled - and more then twice as likely to suffer from motor offences.

Greater Manchester also suffers 20% higher rates of burglary than in the Liverpool area - and a third higher reported “offences against vehicles”.

West Midlands Police, covering England’s second city Birmingham, also reports higher levels of burglary and car crime than Liverpool - with 10% more home break-ins per person and 50% more car crime.

West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Police, covering Leeds and Sheffield, also suffer in comparison to Merseyside.

In West Yorkshire 13 people in a thousand suffer burglaries - 30% higher than in the Liverpool area.

South Yorkshire residents meanwhile are 50% more likely to be broken into. Car crime in both areas is also higher.
Liverpool is now one of the safest cities to live in. After decades of gags about Scouse scallies, figures show that London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all have more burglaries and car crimes per person. Among big cities in England only Newcastle is safer, according to the UK Statistics Authority. The figures, disclosed by the government in response to a Parliamentary Question by Tory MP Philip Hollobone, show offences across all of England’s police forces. They reveal that violent attacks are also twice as common in London than in the area patrolled by Merseyside police. Geordies, Mancunians and Brumies are also much less likely to be assaulted than those living the capital. Overall, just 10 people in a thousand on Merseyside were burgled in 2011/12, with six in a thousand the victim of car crime. Londoners are 20% more likely to be burgled - and more then twice as likely to suffer from motor offences. Greater Manchester also suffers 20% higher rates of burglary than in the Liverpool area - and a third higher reported “offences against vehicles”. West Midlands Police, covering England’s second city Birmingham, also reports higher levels of burglary and car crime than Liverpool - with 10% more home break-ins per person and 50% more car crime. West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Police, covering Leeds and Sheffield, also suffer in comparison to Merseyside. In West Yorkshire 13 people in a thousand suffer burglaries - 30% higher than in the Liverpool area. South Yorkshire residents meanwhile are 50% more likely to be broken into. Car crime in both areas is also higher. ronn12

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree