Angry MP queries Merseyside deals (From Daily Echo)

Julian Lewis and many on here, I will Quote "before a state aid restriction on its operation is lifted."
Those restrictions comes to an end next year, so again every thing is above board, shame our city councillors can't be the same.

It's a great shame that Liverpool are threatening to take away (take back) some of our cruise trade but rather than vesting vasts amount of energy in undermining their bid why not look closer to home and make the Port of Southampton irresistable.

As a regular user of the cruise terminal I have to say the general environment at southampton is shabby (outside the immediate terminal building) with a very unattractive landsacpe between the docks and the city centre and very poor transport links between the two. Contrast to Liverpool where the moorings are in the heart of the city and within walking distance of all the attractions.

The cruise trade is growing rapidly and I have no doubt there is sufficient to sustain both ports. After all, who in their right mind would travel by choice to Liverpool to meet their boat when they live south of Birmingham anyway? But we do need inward investment in Southampton and by the Port Authority expecially.

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
It's a great shame that Liverpool are threatening to take away (take back) some of our cruise trade but rather than vesting vasts amount of energy in undermining their bid why not look closer to home and make the Port of Southampton irresistable.

As a regular user of the cruise terminal I have to say the general environment at southampton is shabby (outside the immediate terminal building) with a very unattractive landsacpe between the docks and the city centre and very poor transport links between the two. Contrast to Liverpool where the moorings are in the heart of the city and within walking distance of all the attractions.

The cruise trade is growing rapidly and I have no doubt there is sufficient to sustain both ports. After all, who in their right mind would travel by choice to Liverpool to meet their boat when they live south of Birmingham anyway? But we do need inward investment in Southampton and by the Port Authority expecially.

I absolutely agree with this post, I am sure that even some cosmetic improvements to the waterfront and the City approaches would create a better impression, and better use of the assets that we already have, i.e. the walls, and historic buildings which have been neglected for "financial" reasons of many years of Council apathy.

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
It's a great shame that Liverpool are threatening to take away (take back) some of our cruise trade but rather than vesting vasts amount of energy in undermining their bid why not look closer to home and make the Port of Southampton irresistable.

As a regular user of the cruise terminal I have to say the general environment at southampton is shabby (outside the immediate terminal building) with a very unattractive landsacpe between the docks and the city centre and very poor transport links between the two. Contrast to Liverpool where the moorings are in the heart of the city and within walking distance of all the attractions.

The cruise trade is growing rapidly and I have no doubt there is sufficient to sustain both ports. After all, who in their right mind would travel by choice to Liverpool to meet their boat when they live south of Birmingham anyway? But we do need inward investment in Southampton and by the Port Authority expecially.

Unless we put the central station in Mayflower park I don't understand this bit about transport links?
you can access the docks through dock gate 20 to get to the cruise terminals.
Unless we rip out the heart of that area we can't expand the roads into town I why would you need to go through town to get to the cruise terminals? also most of the historical buildings are in easy walking distance from the docks so what's the problem there?
I can see it know Liverpool gets it's wishes & has cruise ships with it's terminals right next to the town centre how long will it be before they have people complaining about the roads being full due to the port traffic?

loosehead wrote:

alan.of.eastleigh wrote: It's a great shame that Liverpool are threatening to take away (take back) some of our cruise trade but rather than vesting vasts amount of energy in undermining their bid why not look closer to home and make the Port of Southampton irresistable. As a regular user of the cruise terminal I have to say the general environment at southampton is shabby (outside the immediate terminal building) with a very unattractive landsacpe between the docks and the city centre and very poor transport links between the two. Contrast to Liverpool where the moorings are in the heart of the city and within walking distance of all the attractions. The cruise trade is growing rapidly and I have no doubt there is sufficient to sustain both ports. After all, who in their right mind would travel by choice to Liverpool to meet their boat when they live south of Birmingham anyway? But we do need inward investment in Southampton and by the Port Authority expecially.

Unless we put the central station in Mayflower park I don't understand this bit about transport links? you can access the docks through dock gate 20 to get to the cruise terminals. Unless we rip out the heart of that area we can't expand the roads into town I why would you need to go through town to get to the cruise terminals? also most of the historical buildings are in easy walking distance from the docks so what's the problem there? I can see it know Liverpool gets it's wishes & has cruise ships with it's terminals right next to the town centre how long will it be before they have people complaining about the roads being full due to the port traffic?

loosehead wrote:Unless we put the central station in Mayflower park I don't understand this bit about transport links?.

I was only talking about links for cruise passengers to access the city centre. It takes about 20 minutes to walk to the dock gates from the boats. The average age of the passengers means they simply won't do that and will opt for the organised tours further afield with limited financial benefit to the city. A light transit solution would return the investment in no time.

Making political points or wanting the best for the area? Whose side are you on?

IT IS NOT 21M.
The UK grant was 9.04m, Liverpool payback is 5.30m.
So 3.74m is the sum that is between Liverpool and turnaround status.
Remember, the DfT is ONLY dealing with the UK grant.
All these figures are published in the DfT consultation paper.
Mike Penning, wasn't he the Minister who said,' get cruise ships back to the Mersey, where they belong'?.

On the TV last Sunday,( probably only in the North West), Joe Anderson and Royston Smith came over as small children fighting over a toy, not a good advert for either city, in fact quite pathetic. Surely the government should make a quick decision so that this pathetic arguement can be put to bed once and for all and the two cities can move forward sensibly.
Also whoever said Liverpool would have the same traffic problems does not know the city at all, as the route to the cruise liner terminal is excellent and does not reguire passing through the city centre.

I agree totally with Alan of Eastleigh. At the end of the day, what has Southampton got to gain from endlessly seeking to put obstacles in the way of Liverpool's bid?
We have the spectacle of a British MEP trying to get Europe to take back money from Britain and, in so doing, damage the UK cruise industry - is that what she was elected for?
At the end of the day, a compromise is going to be reached. It will probably end up with Liverpool paying more money back to the DfT than we would want and less than Southampton would want us to pay.

Liverpool (as with other cities) is facing major cutbacks in government funding and the additional money will have to come at the expense of something else - but Joe Anderson was elected on the promise of developing the turnaround facility and few would say that the city doesn't need it.

As for Alan's last point, I doubt very much that people south of Birmingham are going to want to use Liverpool in preference to Southampton but the converse is also true, why should people from the north of Birmingham want to use Southampton in preference to Liverpool?

To add to my earlier posting, This ongoing argument will not be resolved by argument, compromise is the only way. But I get the distinct impression that Southamptons politicians will not be satisfied until the Liverpool terminal is dismantled and started again from scratch with the total waste of resources that this will entail.
But be sure when Peels £5.3billion development gets under-way in the derelict North Docks a terminal will be built, with excellent modern facilities and hopefully you will then realise that your prevarication has only hardened the resolve of Liverpool to have a facility that Southampton will have difficulty matching.
Finally the thing that seems to have been overlooked by Southampton is that many older people from the North find the journey to Southampton difficult and expensive to say the least, surely they have a right to cruise if they wish on the same terms as people south of Birmingham, as some of your postings imply.

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:

loosehead wrote:

alan.of.eastleigh wrote: It's a great shame that Liverpool are threatening to take away (take back) some of our cruise trade but rather than vesting vasts amount of energy in undermining their bid why not look closer to home and make the Port of Southampton irresistable. As a regular user of the cruise terminal I have to say the general environment at southampton is shabby (outside the immediate terminal building) with a very unattractive landsacpe between the docks and the city centre and very poor transport links between the two. Contrast to Liverpool where the moorings are in the heart of the city and within walking distance of all the attractions. The cruise trade is growing rapidly and I have no doubt there is sufficient to sustain both ports. After all, who in their right mind would travel by choice to Liverpool to meet their boat when they live south of Birmingham anyway? But we do need inward investment in Southampton and by the Port Authority expecially.

Unless we put the central station in Mayflower park I don't understand this bit about transport links? you can access the docks through dock gate 20 to get to the cruise terminals. Unless we rip out the heart of that area we can't expand the roads into town I why would you need to go through town to get to the cruise terminals? also most of the historical buildings are in easy walking distance from the docks so what's the problem there? I can see it know Liverpool gets it's wishes & has cruise ships with it's terminals right next to the town centre how long will it be before they have people complaining about the roads being full due to the port traffic?

loosehead wrote:Unless we put the central station in Mayflower park I don't understand this bit about transport links?.

I was only talking about links for cruise passengers to access the city centre. It takes about 20 minutes to walk to the dock gates from the boats. The average age of the passengers means they simply won't do that and will opt for the organised tours further afield with limited financial benefit to the city. A light transit solution would return the investment in no time.

The city council are looking for ideas to keep passengers in the city or to visit the city why not contact Jeremy Moulton & suggest a free shuttle service paid for by the docks & maybe the cruise lines into the city centre & back to the terminals?

Interesting that Dr Lewis is now arguing for the port and its business when he was leading the opposition to port expansion at Dibden Bay.

There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

Baybrit wrote:
There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

Hee hee love that word ;) (used to live in Spain).

Agree completely if Liverpool think it's fair then it's only fair Southampton should have the same input ;)

phil maccavity wrote:
Interesting that Dr Lewis is now arguing for the port and its business when he was leading the opposition to port expansion at Dibden Bay.

Totally agree with you

Baybrit wrote:
There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

Totally agree, possibly the best suggestion I've seen from the Southampton end. And I don't think there would be any objection from Liverpool. But it's still only £17.66Million.

Tom
Looking at other posts on the matter, I think what has happened here is that someone has taken the £17 odd million received from UK/EC grants added in an additional £2m which Liverpool Council directly contributed towards the initial build and also a further £2m from the cumulative operating losses on the calling cruise operation (note it was supposed to make a profit!!) which comes out of Liverpool rates.
I suppose the additional £4m can be argued from whichever way you see the allocation of taxpayers money bearing in mind Liverpool receives back more in local authority rates from the central pot than it puts in.

Baybrit wrote:
There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure. Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

This 'level playing field' seems to be the one that lets Southampton have four cruise liner terminals and Liverpool none.

Actually, the £18m went on a landing stage not, as misreported in this paper, a terminal. Southampton doesn't need such a facility because of its smaller tidal range. So, it has had the effect of making the playing field that bit more level.

Tom Liverpool wrote:

Baybrit wrote:
There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

Totally agree, possibly the best suggestion I've seen from the Southampton end. And I don't think there would be any objection from Liverpool. But it's still only £17.66Million.

Tom do you not feel that the council tax payers would have to subsidise this terminal as Cunard must want it as cheap as possible?
£17.66million wouldn't even scratch the surface of how much the port has paid for the terminals here.
Could you look forward & see a scenario of Liverpool building say 1-2 more terminals each would be subsidised to stave of competition & the cost to the people of Liverpool plus if your terminals are that close to the city centre could you see the traffic chaos that would bring?

phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Looking at other posts on the matter, I think what has happened here is that someone has taken the £17 odd million received from UK/EC grants added in an additional £2m which Liverpool Council directly contributed towards the initial build and also a further £2m from the cumulative operating losses on the calling cruise operation (note it was supposed to make a profit!!) which comes out of Liverpool rates. I suppose the additional £4m can be argued from whichever way you see the allocation of taxpayers money bearing in mind Liverpool receives back more in local authority rates from the central pot than it puts in.

Maybe Phil, but that isn't what this news article says is it? It says that the £21m came from the EU and the government and was to build the 'terminal'.

It seems that the same people who are accusing Liverpool C.C. of being deceitful are quite happy to repeat this error even when it has been pointed out to them time and time again.

MerseyMart wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Tom Looking at other posts on the matter, I think what has happened here is that someone has taken the £17 odd million received from UK/EC grants added in an additional £2m which Liverpool Council directly contributed towards the initial build and also a further £2m from the cumulative operating losses on the calling cruise operation (note it was supposed to make a profit!!) which comes out of Liverpool rates. I suppose the additional £4m can be argued from whichever way you see the allocation of taxpayers money bearing in mind Liverpool receives back more in local authority rates from the central pot than it puts in.

Maybe Phil, but that isn't what this news article says is it? It says that the £21m came from the EU and the government and was to build the 'terminal'.

It seems that the same people who are accusing Liverpool C.C. of being deceitful are quite happy to repeat this error even when it has been pointed out to them time and time again.

So what about the £30million to dredge the Mersey for the container port?

Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.

....and what about the £40 million gauge enhancement work that enables Southampton to trade well into Liverpool's hinterland?

Let's leave this container port issue for a future argument. No doubt Southampton will go on about 'level playing fields' but really all that the investment in Liverpool has done has been to enable us to compete on a more equal basis with the likes of Southampton.

What is fair about the fact that Southampton has two daily double tides or that it is closer to London and on the edge of the wealthiest part of the country and closer to the Mediterranean and other cruise destinations?

Nothing, as far as I can see but there is not much that you can do about it.

However, you do what you can and allowing Liverpool to develop a cruise liner landing stage is one way of moving a little closer to that 'level playing field' and allowing people in the North West of England some of the access to cruise voyages that you enjoy in the South.

loosehead wrote:

Tom Liverpool wrote:

Baybrit wrote:
There is another solution........give Southampton a matching 21 million pounds to build up our cruise facilities and infrastructure.
Then let's see whether Liverpool has, as they say in Mexico, the cojones to compete on a level playing field.

Totally agree, possibly the best suggestion I've seen from the Southampton end. And I don't think there would be any objection from Liverpool. But it's still only £17.66Million.

Tom do you not feel that the council tax payers would have to subsidise this terminal as Cunard must want it as cheap as possible?
£17.66million wouldn't even scratch the surface of how much the port has paid for the terminals here.
Could you look forward & see a scenario of Liverpool building say 1-2 more terminals each would be subsidised to stave of competition & the cost to the people of Liverpool plus if your terminals are that close to the city centre could you see the traffic chaos that would bring?

Loosehead, The traffic problems would not occur, as the traffic to the terminal, even though it is close to the city centre does not have to travel through the centre, there are three 6 lane roads within two minutes driving which link to the motorway network, and an M62 link is under construction, which will bring traffic into the centre quickly and efficiently.
As to the subsidisation of the terminals I leave it to better informed people to make that decision.
Also the new terminal/s would be built and operated by Peel Holdings/Port of Liverpool, not thye city council.
Also read roon12's post today, I couldn't have put it more clearly or honestly.

Loosehead, The traffic problems would not occur, as the traffic to the terminal, even though it is close to the city centre does not have to travel through the centre, there are three 6 lane roads within two minutes driving which link to the motorway network, and an M62 link is under construction, which will bring traffic into the centre quickly and efficiently.
As to the subsidisation of the terminals I leave it to better informed people to make that decision.
Also the new terminal/s would be built and operated by Peel Holdings/Port of Liverpool, not thye city council.
Also read roon12's post today, I couldn't have put it more clearly or honestly.

Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.

ronn12 wrote:
Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.

Do you not also wonder with the amount of public money pumped into Liverpools regeneration, Money from the South. if that same amount of money had been pumped into this city what this city could look like?
Sorry but in the last year of the Labour Government £25million was held back from Southampton alone & given to the North so even that made it a very uneven playing field.
I would love to see full employment in Liverpool but I wish they would look for new business instead of trying to take it from other cities in this country& this counts for any city that tempts work from another city ( Portsmouth)

?From what i seen it was mostly all private investment from private investors, shops, resturants, hotels dont get built on public money?Liverpool is a very attractive city with alot to offer, and its building on that , its also is a world heritage site and i can see why.

ronn12 wrote:
?From what i seen it was mostly all private investment from private investors, shops, resturants, hotels dont get built on public money?Liverpool is a very attractive city with alot to offer, and its building on that , its also is a world heritage site and i can see why.

What in the word regeneration don't you understand?
An area needs sprucing up regenerate.
A shopping area is in decline & in tatters regenerate.
Are you that gullible as to think all this was done by private enterprise?
Under a Labour council the city was taxed to high heaven a Labour government stepped in & the only way without private money to repair the damage the loony left had caused ( no company was willing to take the risk) was to pump in Government money .
Labour being Labour decided to get this money from the so called affluent South so having city's with high unemployment like Southampton funding the rebuilding of city's like Liverpool it's in black & white so research & learn the truth before you post again

Loosehead, I'm sorry if Southampton doesn't get it's fair share from the grant system, but don't blame Liverpool, (London and the South East get more than anybody, but I don't hear you complaining about that) get rid of Royston Smith concentrate on your own city and maybe you'll move forward.
Regarding the re-development of Liverpool and the North in general, These areas were deliberately starved of funds in the Thatcher era to feed the South East (I accept not the South West), and just maybe, the balance is being restored.
To emphasise Roon12's point Most of the re-development in Liverpool is PRIVATE MONEY, the Central Government rules make sure of that, so instead of moaning at other places get your Council and MP's to do their jobs properly.

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Loosehead, I'm sorry if Southampton doesn't get it's fair share from the grant system, but don't blame Liverpool, (London and the South East get more than anybody, but I don't hear you complaining about that) get rid of Royston Smith concentrate on your own city and maybe you'll move forward.
Regarding the re-development of Liverpool and the North in general, These areas were deliberately starved of funds in the Thatcher era to feed the South East (I accept not the South West), and just maybe, the balance is being restored.
To emphasise Roon12's point Most of the re-development in Liverpool is PRIVATE MONEY, the Central Government rules make sure of that, so instead of moaning at other places get your Council and MP's to do their jobs properly.

If you read the articles in the Southern Echo you would read of the redevelopment being done by Royston & his Tory council.
We have a brand new cultural sector a brand new arts centre & a brand new Titanic museum but the left are going mad over this it was a left wing Labour council that stopped any redevelopment work in this city so once again that's something you have to thank the left for ( both city's have suffered under Left wing councils)

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Loosehead, I'm sorry if Southampton doesn't get it's fair share from the grant system, but don't blame Liverpool, (London and the South East get more than anybody, but I don't hear you complaining about that) get rid of Royston Smith concentrate on your own city and maybe you'll move forward.
Regarding the re-development of Liverpool and the North in general, These areas were deliberately starved of funds in the Thatcher era to feed the South East (I accept not the South West), and just maybe, the balance is being restored.
To emphasise Roon12's point Most of the re-development in Liverpool is PRIVATE MONEY, the Central Government rules make sure of that, so instead of moaning at other places get your Council and MP's to do their jobs properly.

Tom
If you look at the grants from Europe and the UK (via Regional Development Agencies) Merseyside gets far more than any other region in the country
To be fair I dont think too many people see this as a major problem, even if part of the Business rates from this and other southern areas go towards subsidising areas in the North of England and Cornwall, if it truly helps the needy.
However a good deal of the Billions of Pounds of regeneration money has allowed Liverpool to build new roads (OK) refurbish its Museums (OK) finance a new Arena (not OK -should be privately financed), subsidise a failed Boat Show (not OK) extend the Leeds - Liverpool canal (not OK, whats the benefit?) subsidise a new football stadium for Liverpool FC (grant money paid out but stadium not started) etc etc etc etc
Amongst the latter is £17m -£21m of tax payers money to build a fully subsidised cruise terminal which competes with others in the UK (not just Soton) which have been built with private money.

phil maccavity wrote:

Tom Liverpool wrote: Loosehead, I'm sorry if Southampton doesn't get it's fair share from the grant system, but don't blame Liverpool, (London and the South East get more than anybody, but I don't hear you complaining about that) get rid of Royston Smith concentrate on your own city and maybe you'll move forward. Regarding the re-development of Liverpool and the North in general, These areas were deliberately starved of funds in the Thatcher era to feed the South East (I accept not the South West), and just maybe, the balance is being restored. To emphasise Roon12's point Most of the re-development in Liverpool is PRIVATE MONEY, the Central Government rules make sure of that, so instead of moaning at other places get your Council and MP's to do their jobs properly.

Tom If you look at the grants from Europe and the UK (via Regional Development Agencies) Merseyside gets far more than any other region in the country To be fair I dont think too many people see this as a major problem, even if part of the Business rates from this and other southern areas go towards subsidising areas in the North of England and Cornwall, if it truly helps the needy. However a good deal of the Billions of Pounds of regeneration money has allowed Liverpool to build new roads (OK) refurbish its Museums (OK) finance a new Arena (not OK -should be privately financed), subsidise a failed Boat Show (not OK) extend the Leeds - Liverpool canal (not OK, whats the benefit?) subsidise a new football stadium for Liverpool FC (grant money paid out but stadium not started) etc etc etc etc Amongst the latter is £17m -£21m of tax payers money to build a fully subsidised cruise terminal which competes with others in the UK (not just Soton) which have been built with private money.

Phil,

You talk about billions going towards Merseyside. I doubt in fact that we have had half the public money spent in our region as has been spent on the London Olympics.

Some of your facts are quite wrong too. We have not had any major spending on roads (since the mid-1990s), the money spent on the Anfield stadium was for regeneration of the local area, the failed boat show was mainly privately funded with some input from council tax and we have not had a cruise liner terminal provided for us - we have had a landing stage - something that you don't need at Southampton because of your lower tidal range.

You can single out Merseyside if you like (and of course it fits the purposes of your argument) but what about Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the North East and the South West - all of which have received development aid?In fact, you live in the one part of the country where you don't need aid.

The fact is that the economic set-up means that money gravitates toward London and its hinterland - and, if we are discussing cruise liners, then we have to include Southampton in that area. A major reason that Southampton was able to 'muscle in' on Liverpool's liner traffic 100 years ago was because of its proximity to the wealth of London.

I don't know where you draw the line between what should be publicly funded and what privately and I don't think that we always get it right but I can't see anything about a landing stage that makes it cry out to be privately funded. Nowadays most buses are privatised but bus stops are still provided out of the public purse.

You mentioned the arena, which is only ten minutes walk from where I live. That was publicly funded and I have heard that the adjacent convention centre has paid for itself ten times over.

In the three years since it opened, we have had two major party conferences there,many minor conferences plus concerts, awards programmes and the X-Factor.

Now, if anything, people should get far more hot under the collar about a facility such as that being publicly funded. These city conference centres have attracted a lot of the business of traditional venues such as Blackpool and Brighton and I doubt very much that the number of conferences has increased in line with the opening of these new facilities.

There has been some grumbling but not on the scale of Soton's campaign against our cruise liner terminal. But, there is no evidence that Soton will suffer at all from a new cruise port hundreds of miles away and may well benefit as the general UK cruise liner market expands. Maybe this fury is being whipped up to sell newspapers.

MerseyMart wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

Tom Liverpool wrote: Loosehead, I'm sorry if Southampton doesn't get it's fair share from the grant system, but don't blame Liverpool, (London and the South East get more than anybody, but I don't hear you complaining about that) get rid of Royston Smith concentrate on your own city and maybe you'll move forward. Regarding the re-development of Liverpool and the North in general, These areas were deliberately starved of funds in the Thatcher era to feed the South East (I accept not the South West), and just maybe, the balance is being restored. To emphasise Roon12's point Most of the re-development in Liverpool is PRIVATE MONEY, the Central Government rules make sure of that, so instead of moaning at other places get your Council and MP's to do their jobs properly.

Tom If you look at the grants from Europe and the UK (via Regional Development Agencies) Merseyside gets far more than any other region in the country To be fair I dont think too many people see this as a major problem, even if part of the Business rates from this and other southern areas go towards subsidising areas in the North of England and Cornwall, if it truly helps the needy. However a good deal of the Billions of Pounds of regeneration money has allowed Liverpool to build new roads (OK) refurbish its Museums (OK) finance a new Arena (not OK -should be privately financed), subsidise a failed Boat Show (not OK) extend the Leeds - Liverpool canal (not OK, whats the benefit?) subsidise a new football stadium for Liverpool FC (grant money paid out but stadium not started) etc etc etc etc Amongst the latter is £17m -£21m of tax payers money to build a fully subsidised cruise terminal which competes with others in the UK (not just Soton) which have been built with private money.

Phil,

You talk about billions going towards Merseyside. I doubt in fact that we have had half the public money spent in our region as has been spent on the London Olympics.

Some of your facts are quite wrong too. We have not had any major spending on roads (since the mid-1990s), the money spent on the Anfield stadium was for regeneration of the local area, the failed boat show was mainly privately funded with some input from council tax and we have not had a cruise liner terminal provided for us - we have had a landing stage - something that you don't need at Southampton because of your lower tidal range.

You can single out Merseyside if you like (and of course it fits the purposes of your argument) but what about Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the North East and the South West - all of which have received development aid?In fact, you live in the one part of the country where you don't need aid.

The fact is that the economic set-up means that money gravitates toward London and its hinterland - and, if we are discussing cruise liners, then we have to include Southampton in that area. A major reason that Southampton was able to 'muscle in' on Liverpool's liner traffic 100 years ago was because of its proximity to the wealth of London.

I don't know where you draw the line between what should be publicly funded and what privately and I don't think that we always get it right but I can't see anything about a landing stage that makes it cry out to be privately funded. Nowadays most buses are privatised but bus stops are still provided out of the public purse.

You mentioned the arena, which is only ten minutes walk from where I live. That was publicly funded and I have heard that the adjacent convention centre has paid for itself ten times over.

In the three years since it opened, we have had two major party conferences there,many minor conferences plus concerts, awards programmes and the X-Factor.

Now, if anything, people should get far more hot under the collar about a facility such as that being publicly funded. These city conference centres have attracted a lot of the business of traditional venues such as Blackpool and Brighton and I doubt very much that the number of conferences has increased in line with the opening of these new facilities.

There has been some grumbling but not on the scale of Soton's campaign against our cruise liner terminal. But, there is no evidence that Soton will suffer at all from a new cruise port hundreds of miles away and may well benefit as the general UK cruise liner market expands. Maybe this fury is being whipped up to sell newspapers.

Sorry come to Southampton & then say we don't need the grants for regeneration on the scale of liverpool. at the moment we're becoming apartment city as if you need some work done you allow a block of flats to get other work done.
you never needed to do this my city has been decimated on dock expansion & homes being knocked down for flats to be built.
If only we had the grants you've had or even if our funding from Central Government hadn't been slashed but remained at the correct level if only labour hadn't wanted to buy votes up North?

This debate is going nowhere, people will not listen to facts.
1. Liverpool had the largest floating landing stage in the world with a floating road to serve it and a mainline railway station alongside to serve those ships, until 1981, when it was dismantled. it was built to accomodate Ocean going vessels from all over the world. With the advent of air travel, the need for such a terminal declined and consequently its fate was sealed when the remaining vessels moved to Southampton to accomodate the London market/passengers. The new landing stage is in exactly the same place, so it's not " new? " it's a replacement albeit 20 years late.
2 Liverpool has had a lot of grant aid from th EU and Central Government, but so has Manchester (Commonwealth Games), Leeds, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff and LONDON which has had by far the most (Olympics say no more £3Billion alone) to name just a few. So why pick out Merseyside/Liverpool
.
3. It has even been suggested in these postings that Liverpool owes Southampton a debt of gratitude because of the bombing during World War 2. I think everybody suffered at that time across the whole country

This debate is going nowhere, people will not listen to facts.
1. Liverpool had the largest floating landing stage in the world with a floating road to serve it and a mainline railway station alongside to serve those ships, until 1981, when it was dismantled. it was built to accomodate Ocean going vessels from all over the world. With the advent of air travel, the need for such a terminal declined and consequently its fate was sealed when the remaining vessels moved to Southampton to accomodate the London market/passengers. The new landing stage is in exactly the same place, so it's not " new? " it's a replacement albeit 20 years late.
2 Liverpool has had a lot of grant aid from th EU and Central Government, but so has Manchester (Commonwealth Games), Leeds, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff and LONDON which has had by far the most (Olympics say no more £3Billion alone) to name just a few. So why pick out Merseyside/Liverpool
.
3. It has even been suggested in these postings that Liverpool owes Southampton a debt of gratitude because of the bombing during World War 2. I think everybody suffered at that time across the whole country

This debate is going nowhere, people will not listen to facts.
1. Liverpool had the largest floating landing stage in the world with a floating road to serve it and a mainline railway station alongside to serve those ships, until 1981, when it was dismantled. it was built to accomodate three Ocean going vessels from all over the world. With the advent of air travel, the need for such a terminal declined and consequently its fate was sealed when the remaining vessels moved to Southampton to accomodate the London market/passengers. The new landing stage is in exactly the same place, so it's not " new? " it's a replacement albeit 20 years late.
2 Liverpool has had a lot of grant aid from th EU and Central Government, but so has Manchester (Commonwealth Games), Leeds, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff and LONDON which has had by far the most (Olympics say no more, £3Billion alone) to name just a few. So why pick out Merseyside/Liverpool
.
3. It has even been suggested in these postings that Liverpool owes Southampton a debt of gratitude because of the bombing during World War 2. I think everybody suffered at that time across the whole country and definitely the south coast, but outside of London, Liverpool/Merseyside was the most bombed location in the UK (531 air-raids in May 1941 alone). I know I was here, so this is not a tall story it is fact, and the Battle of the Atlantic was fought from Liverpool, the control centre is still there to be visited. Look up Captain Johnny Walker of Whisky fame to verify that.
4. Maybe Southampton should get more grant aid, but the lack of such aid is not the fault of Liverpool or anywhere else. I'm sure Southampton would grab it with open arms if it was offered. We in the North did not steal anything from the South and it is a sad reflection on modern society when envy distorts peoples views and thinking. This country at this time more than ever needs something of the wartime spirit to pull together instead of pitiful pathetic bickering.

Tom Liverpool wrote:
This debate is going nowhere, people will not listen to facts.
1. Liverpool had the largest floating landing stage in the world with a floating road to serve it and a mainline railway station alongside to serve those ships, until 1981, when it was dismantled. it was built to accomodate three Ocean going vessels from all over the world. With the advent of air travel, the need for such a terminal declined and consequently its fate was sealed when the remaining vessels moved to Southampton to accomodate the London market/passengers. The new landing stage is in exactly the same place, so it's not " new? " it's a replacement albeit 20 years late.
2 Liverpool has had a lot of grant aid from th EU and Central Government, but so has Manchester (Commonwealth Games), Leeds, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff and LONDON which has had by far the most (Olympics say no more, £3Billion alone) to name just a few. So why pick out Merseyside/Liverpool

.
3. It has even been suggested in these postings that Liverpool owes Southampton a debt of gratitude because of the bombing during World War 2. I think everybody suffered at that time across the whole country and definitely the south coast, but outside of London, Liverpool/Merseyside was the most bombed location in the UK (531 air-raids in May 1941 alone). I know I was here, so this is not a tall story it is fact, and the Battle of the Atlantic was fought from Liverpool, the control centre is still there to be visited. Look up Captain Johnny Walker of Whisky fame to verify that.
4. Maybe Southampton should get more grant aid, but the lack of such aid is not the fault of Liverpool or anywhere else. I'm sure Southampton would grab it with open arms if it was offered. We in the North did not steal anything from the South and it is a sad reflection on modern society when envy distorts peoples views and thinking. This country at this time more than ever needs something of the wartime spirit to pull together instead of pitiful pathetic bickering.

Tom the comments on here have been are being made about the reasons given to get the grants & at the same time knowing this was a false reason as they were ready at the time of applying for such grants to submit a change of use to a start finish facility this is what's got up peoples noses down here & then to rub salt into the wound we hear your getting even more money to dredge in an attempt to get container traffic from this port.
the people/body that stole money from here was the last Labour Government who slash the pay back/funding of southern councils to give to the North.
As for the Blitz all I've said & others is that Southampton was a Borough not a city & no where as large as what was Englands second largest city or as some know it The Capital of ireland or Liverpool.
therefore the are of our city per foot per mile had a much greater payload(bombs) dropped on it than larger city's even if the amount of bombs dropped on the larger city was greater the actual area was more spread out than Southamptons.
But that was only said as many pro-Scousers were trying to say why you needed so much money from the rich South as you had to rebuild.
Why isn't/didn't your city go into talks with the other ports on what possible part of the cruise industry/Niche they could go for with out opposition from the other ports? Surely that had to be the best approach?

Loosehead lets please get back to just the cruise liner terminal and use, which was the original debate. But before you do just look up The Liverpool Blitz on Wikipedia and compare to The Southamton Blitz on the same site, and then make a comparison even on size. It makes interesting reading.

Liverpool deaths in blitz 4000.I could not find the number for Southampton, but the Liverpool number was the highest in the UK after London.

Arizonan,
Southampton:-630 dead, 838 seriously injured.
Far too many, but I was just making a point, over a matter which really annoyed me as I lived through it, in the north of Liverpool, and it annoys me to think people believe the North did not suffer like everybody else in WW2.

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Arizonan,
Southampton:-630 dead, 838 seriously injured.
Far too many, but I was just making a point, over a matter which really annoyed me as I lived through it, in the north of Liverpool, and it annoys me to think people believe the North did not suffer like everybody else in WW2.

Did you also look into the population of both your city & Southampton Borough at that time?
Look Tom I'm very proud of my families roots & as my Father was from Liverpool & sailed the Russian convoys with the Merchant Navy & my older brothers & sisters were born in Liverpool I haven't got anything against the people of Liverpool.
I'm against the way your city council went about getting grants & I'm against the way that some people seem to think we've got all the work & have it easy down here.
to rent a pokey studio flat would cost you at least £500 where we have so many Polish & Eastern/ African immigrants flooding the city.
I just wish your Port Authority/Council could have gone into talks worked out a solution with the other ports & with all their backing then applied for the grants for the real reason it was being used for a start & finish facility.
All of this could/should have been avoided & I'm SORRY to mention the blitz & promise not to bring it up again

Loosehead, an apology was totally unnecessary, I just wanted to get over to you that Merseyside was the second most bombed location in the UK in WW2. A point Not lost on Winston Churchill.
I will never mention it again either.