News Review RSS Feed


Could Liverpool be cruising for a bruising?

Could Liverpool be cruising for a bruising? Could Liverpool be cruising for a bruising?

Southampton has been my home for all 60 years of my life, and like so many other local people I have enormous pride in the city’s unique heritage, which will always be inextricably linked with ships and seafarers.

The recent spat between my home city and Liverpool, over the northerners’ use of many millions of pounds of “state aid’’ to back plans to become a turnaround port for cruise ships, has been particularly galling.

To make matters worse it now seems likely Southampton’s rival will get its way, but only after the Minister of Shipping appears to have caved in and let Liverpool off paying back the full £21m it was originally handed to build a waterfront berth.

This cannot be fair and I have great difficulty in understanding the claim by Southampton City Council this disappointing outcome is somehow a “victory’’ for us in Hampshire.

It has taken years of hard work, together with the investment of huge sums of private money, to make Southampton what it is today. Now Liverpool, for decades a comparative backwater as far as the international cruising industry was concerned, wants to greedily piggy-back on our hard-earned success.

Southampton can rightly claim to have been a major contributor in building up the UK’s extremely healthy cruising industry to the dizzy heights it now enjoys. Liverpool, whose heyday as a centre for passenger liners remains in the past, cannot make any such claim.

I don’t think for one minute the northern port has the ability, facilities and expertise to make any sizeable dent in our city’s cruise trade, but that is not the point.

Government permission should have only been granted if Liverpool stumped-up every penny of its free handout. Instead its looks as if the pay-back is only going to be a fraction of the original amount and then handed over in dribs and drabs.

This is no victory for Southampton. Fiscal rules should be adhered to, and, whatever way you look at it, Liver-pool, now anticipating a nod of approval from the Government, has twisted and turned these regulations for its own ends.

Perhaps Liverpool will attract some cruise ships, although these are likely to be operated by only smaller companies, but it is going to be a hard, uphill task to tempt the major lines away from Southampton.

This is not complacency, but hard facts.

Southampton has four, soon to be five, purpose-built passenger terminals, capable of handling thousands of passengers in a day.

Liverpool has one small terminal on a floating pontoon.

Southampton can easily accommodate large numbers of trucks bringing stores and supplies on the dockside, right next to the ships.

Liverpool, at present, cannot.

Southampton has a highly skilled workforce, which knows, and understands, the complexities of handling the biggest cruise ships in the world.

Liverpool does not.

Southampton expects to see more than one million cruise passengers use the port in 2011.

Liverpool has no such expectations.

A number of ships do already visit Liverpool, mostly for passengers to take shore excursions, and it has to be said, the city’s waterfront, with its “Three Graces’’ and Liver Bird, is a remarkable backdrop for a port-of-call during a voyage.

Southampton, on the other hand, cannot boast of such imposing buildings, although the view would be greatly improved if the charred remains of the old Royal Pier were cleaned up, but that is another story.

Healthy competition keeps everybody on their toes, and a monopoly in any business is bad for all concerned, but all the players need equal opportunities.

Obviously, no ship will ever set sail on a “level playing field’’, but this is what should have happened in this tussle between north and south.

Comments(25)

saints4eva12 says...
12:37pm Sun 3 Apr 11

the northerns proberly paid the gov to get there own way SOUTHAMPTON will always be the first and last stop for passengers end of story
sw quite app soft talk

Scrutinizer says...
3:50pm Sun 3 Apr 11

I went to Liverpool once, years ago...yeah, to visit me hubcaps.

frisbydyke says...
5:33pm Sun 3 Apr 11

Why should people from the North of England and Scotland have to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to Southampton for a cruise?
Why should Southampton enjoy its cushy monopoly?
There is no sense in that when Liverpool offers an alternative port that is far more convenient, at the centre of Britain, with a stunning waterfront that few cities can match.
If the financial situation can be resolved, then I am sure Liverpool will do very well out cruise liners and both cities can enjoy the benefits of the cruising boom.

MerseyMart says...
5:39pm Sun 3 Apr 11

You can't help but admit that Liverpool has an uphill struggle to take on the might of Southampton but remember one thing. Liverpool is the most central of British cities and counts the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands within two hour road and rail distance.

We have a market for cruising that has been largely untapped - many people in the north of England wanting to go on a cruise would rather fly to an overseas cruise liner port than travel to the remote south coast.

This much-disputed grant money went to pay for a floating landing stage - not lavish facilities for cruise passengers. That is something that you don't need at Southampton because you don't have the high tidal range of the Mersey.

I don't think that you have much to fear from Liverpool and the competition may well have the effect of expanding the market to Southampton's benefit. All the same, there is a certain complacency evident in this article that Liverpool could do well to take notice of.

StEmmosfire says...
5:49pm Sun 3 Apr 11

Is the Echo trying to stir up hatred between our 2 cities?

99wardlek says...
6:06pm Sun 3 Apr 11

The sense of bitterness in this article is slightly embarrassing. Southampton's legally enforced monopoly is the biggest joke regarding this story. That 'northern port' has a wealth of culture, world class architecture and incredibly welcoming people. I'm proud of the solent's role within cruising but we need to adapt. Competition will make us improve, I'm sure. You cannot quote the importance of private enterprise and squeal about the loss of a govermentally granted monopoly. Let's move on! Good luck Southampton and good luck liverpool. For everyone up there, we're not all bitter fools!

georgetheseventh says...
7:06pm Sun 3 Apr 11

I have read some of the posts..including the sarcastic ones referring to stolen hub-caps etc.
Maybe its time people realised a couple of points here. Firstly, as an 'offshore' company your port owners pay not a penny to the national purse. Secondly, recent funding from the governments TIF (transport initiative fund) resulted in a measly £1. 8 m (one point eight) compared to £100 million to Southampton and Felixstowe. I have friends and relatives in the Southampton area..(they dont do hub-caps) I like Southampton people (todate)...it would be awful sad if the two cities fell out, considering we are the historic home of the liner.

Condor Man says...
7:36pm Sun 3 Apr 11

Had Liverpool not received tax payers money to develop a terminal on the understanding that it would not be used for cruises there wouldn't be a problem. I wonder what the Shadow Trade Minister makes of it?

Scrutinizer says...
7:45pm Sun 3 Apr 11

georgetheseventh wrote:
I have read some of the posts..including the sarcastic ones referring to stolen hub-caps etc. Maybe its time people realised a couple of points here. Firstly, as an 'offshore' company your port owners pay not a penny to the national purse. Secondly, recent funding from the governments TIF (transport initiative fund) resulted in a measly £1. 8 m (one point eight) compared to £100 million to Southampton and Felixstowe. I have friends and relatives in the Southampton area..(they dont do hub-caps) I like Southampton people (todate)...it would be awful sad if the two cities fell out, considering we are the historic home of the liner.
Hey soft lad, don't be bein' like dat like! Achchally I've got loadso'mates from de 'pool. Oh aye. I'm goin' to visit one lata. Yeah, only ting is like, it's a bit of a pain when da guards insist on sirchin' me before I go in! Oh! How tickled I am! ;-)

The Watcher says...
8:16pm Sun 3 Apr 11

There is nothing wrong with competition. It is what keeps companies on their toes with regards price and service and the customer will always benefit from fair competition.
.
.
However, in this instance the competition is not fair and taxpayers monies have been used to subsidise a competitor whilst the other has ploughed millions of private investment in.
.
.
It is a national disgrace that the current Government, supposedly the champion of endeavour, investment and private enterprise have allowed this to happen. If you stifle free enterprise and undermine private investment, then don't be surprised if private investment dries up or goes elsewhere.
.
.
The local Labour MP's have been cold shouldered and of no use whatsoever in this charade (and are effectively neutered on this one), whilst the Local City Council have been as worthwhile as a chocolate tea pot.
.
.
A level playing is all that is required.

John Sydenham says...
8:30pm Sun 3 Apr 11

It seems odd to publish an opinion piece such as this without the author's name.

loosehead says...
9:23pm Sun 3 Apr 11

MerseyMart wrote:
You can't help but admit that Liverpool has an uphill struggle to take on the might of Southampton but remember one thing. Liverpool is the most central of British cities and counts the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands within two hour road and rail distance.

We have a market for cruising that has been largely untapped - many people in the north of England wanting to go on a cruise would rather fly to an overseas cruise liner port than travel to the remote south coast.

This much-disputed grant money went to pay for a floating landing stage - not lavish facilities for cruise passengers. That is something that you don't need at Southampton because you don't have the high tidal range of the Mersey.

I don't think that you have much to fear from Liverpool and the competition may well have the effect of expanding the market to Southampton's benefit. All the same, there is a certain complacency evident in this article that Liverpool could do well to take notice of.
Merseymart we have had several posts on this & I've wished Liverpool luck but you say people would rather fly to a foreign port than come to a remote southern port ! this makes you no better than the people who characterise all scousers as thieves & shows that you & the people have got a huge chip on your shoulders about southerners.if I could get a flight from Liverpool/Manchester or France I personally would travel up north rather go twenty to eighty miles to France one reason I would want to keep jobs in this country & the second reason is because even though it's a lot closer I'm to in love with the French I wish Liverpool hadn't been so deceitful about this.I have no hatred towards Portsmouth that's foot fans but there is a lot of animosity between the two cities so when you ( liverpool)after lying to get the grant went & asked Pompey to back you that was like waving a red flag to a bull & now you're getting the venom that's usually reserved for Pompey fans you(Liverpool docks) need to talk & come to a compromise with all the major ports or maybe in the way of the free market they price you out of the market it's now time to play fair & be honest & take no notice of idiots

Ben Doone says...
10:13am Mon 4 Apr 11

99wardlek wrote:
The sense of bitterness in this article is slightly embarrassing. Southampton's legally enforced monopoly is the biggest joke regarding this story. That 'northern port' has a wealth of culture, world class architecture and incredibly welcoming people. I'm proud of the solent's role within cruising but we need to adapt. Competition will make us improve, I'm sure. You cannot quote the importance of private enterprise and squeal about the loss of a govermentally granted monopoly. Let's move on! Good luck Southampton and good luck liverpool. For everyone up there, we're not all bitter fools!
What on earth is a 'legally enforced monopoly'?
Port of Soton has been in private ownership since 1982 and since then has spent millions in developing the cruise trade without any state aid'
All other UK ports have developed their cruise trade without grant funding, apart from Liverpool

Ben Doone says...
10:23am Mon 4 Apr 11

georgetheseventh wrote:
I have read some of the posts..including the sarcastic ones referring to stolen hub-caps etc. Maybe its time people realised a couple of points here. Firstly, as an 'offshore' company your port owners pay not a penny to the national purse. Secondly, recent funding from the governments TIF (transport initiative fund) resulted in a measly £1. 8 m (one point eight) compared to £100 million to Southampton and Felixstowe. I have friends and relatives in the Southampton area..(they dont do hub-caps) I like Southampton people (todate)...it would be awful sad if the two cities fell out, considering we are the historic home of the liner.
George
Have a look where John Whittaker, owner of Peel Ports (and ultimate owner of Liverpoool Docks lives)
and see how much tax he and his company pay from the 'offshore domain' that is the Isle of Man!!!
Re the TIF funding how many of the 5 or 6 schemes allowed in 2007 involved contributions from the ports concerned?
I think you will find that Soton Port had to contribute aprrx 12% of the cost of the track upgrade to carry higher cube containers.
You might wish to compare this to the almost £1billion Merseyside has received from the EU and the NWDA

georgetheseventh says...
10:51am Mon 4 Apr 11

Sorry Ben..I would question your statistics regarding the 12% . Peels owner lives in the I.O.M true and pays no 'personal' taxes to our government. The company is based in Manchester and registered in Manchester..plus it is only part owned by Whittaker (46%) same as his airport business. Its where the company is registered that counts. As for your calculation of our EU funding etc..I dont doubt it...but hasnt Southampton..Felixst
owe etc received similar funding ??

BrixtonSaint says...
11:07am Mon 4 Apr 11

For such a personal piece as highlighted in the first para, I find it a bit galling that such a provocative piece has no byline.
Competition huh, it's a wonderful thing. If Southampton CC and ABP are forced to stimulate the shoreline by upgrading the Royal Pier etc, all's good in my eyes, though it'll never compete with Liverpool's architectural assets, but we can thank Hitler and successive CC councils and misguided past ABP execs for that.
Oh for the original Ocean Terminal to be still standing, can you imagine how different the water side could have been if that was still around?

Ben Doone says...
1:54pm Mon 4 Apr 11

georgetheseventh wrote:
Sorry Ben..I would question your statistics regarding the 12% . Peels owner lives in the I.O.M true and pays no 'personal' taxes to our government. The company is based in Manchester and registered in Manchester..plus it is only part owned by Whittaker (46%) same as his airport business. Its where the company is registered that counts. As for your calculation of our EU funding etc..I dont doubt it...but hasnt Southampton..Felixst owe etc received similar funding ??
George
I will check but my 12% figure was based on a £6m contribution from the Soton Container Terminal owners for the rail upgrade against a capital sum of £48m
I dont think either Felixstowe or Soton have received a penny from EU grants.
Understand that Soton may have received a sum of approx £1m for a small rail upgrade about 5 yrs ago from SEEDA but this is small beer compared to the largesse Liverpool received from the EU Merseyside One funding and the NWDA
In essence I personally dont have too much of an issue with grant Funding as look as it does not put other areas at a direct competitive disadvantage (and then they subsequently try to change the rules!!)

arizonan says...
4:01pm Mon 4 Apr 11

The article continues the theme that has permeated this newspapers coverage of this story.
That is, stealing business, tempting the big cruise lines away from Southampton, etc.
The article contradicts itself also by stating that no damage will result to Southampton as a result of this change.
As I have said before, if BA started flying long haul routes from say, Birmingham, would that lead to job losses at Heathrow?.

georgetheseventh says...
5:28pm Mon 4 Apr 11

Arizonan..But wouldnt the people of Brum..the Midlands..Wales..NE.
.NW England Scotland and the Outer Hebrides be very happy. We cant just go on providing jobs in the south ..no wonder all our 'talented' youngsters leave..you keep telling us to getta job..ok..STOP trying to STUNT our development..competi
tion is good for customers.

MerseyMart says...
7:47pm Mon 4 Apr 11

loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: You can't help but admit that Liverpool has an uphill struggle to take on the might of Southampton but remember one thing. Liverpool is the most central of British cities and counts the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands within two hour road and rail distance. We have a market for cruising that has been largely untapped - many people in the north of England wanting to go on a cruise would rather fly to an overseas cruise liner port than travel to the remote south coast. This much-disputed grant money went to pay for a floating landing stage - not lavish facilities for cruise passengers. That is something that you don't need at Southampton because you don't have the high tidal range of the Mersey. I don't think that you have much to fear from Liverpool and the competition may well have the effect of expanding the market to Southampton's benefit. All the same, there is a certain complacency evident in this article that Liverpool could do well to take notice of.
Merseymart we have had several posts on this & I've wished Liverpool luck but you say people would rather fly to a foreign port than come to a remote southern port ! this makes you no better than the people who characterise all scousers as thieves & shows that you & the people have got a huge chip on your shoulders about southerners.if I could get a flight from Liverpool/Manchester or France I personally would travel up north rather go twenty to eighty miles to France one reason I would want to keep jobs in this country & the second reason is because even though it's a lot closer I'm to in love with the French I wish Liverpool hadn't been so deceitful about this.I have no hatred towards Portsmouth that's foot fans but there is a lot of animosity between the two cities so when you ( liverpool)after lying to get the grant went & asked Pompey to back you that was like waving a red flag to a bull & now you're getting the venom that's usually reserved for Pompey fans you(Liverpool docks) need to talk & come to a compromise with all the major ports or maybe in the way of the free market they price you out of the market it's now time to play fair & be honest & take no notice of idiots
To answer Loosehead's comments (can't seem to get the quote to work).

I don't know why my simple statement of fact about Liverpool cruise passengers wanting to use a foreign port should upset you so much.

From Liverpool it takes around five hours to drive to Soton and a similar time by train. In that time, we could fly to Barcelona or be over half way to Miami.

Its not that we have anything against Soton, it is just more convenient. People that concerned about spending money in this country would probably not take cruises at all.

Southampton is a great port for those living in the South of England but not for anywhere north of Birmingham.

I don't accept that Liverpool lied to get funding for our cruise liner terminal. Until 2008, any cruise ship arriving in the Mersey had to anchor in mid-river with tugs in attendance and tender vessels to ferry passengers to the landing stage.

The construction of the new terminal allowed cruise passengers direct access to the city and increased visits by cruise liners. It soon became apparent though that Liverpool needed to become a port of embarkation to maximise the throughput of passengers - hence the approach to government to see if the terms of the grant could be renegotiated.

Remember also, that despite all the emotion generated on this subject, nobody seems to know just what terms have been agreed for the repayment of the loan - including the author of the above article.

loosehead says...
9:18pm Mon 4 Apr 11

MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: You can't help but admit that Liverpool has an uphill struggle to take on the might of Southampton but remember one thing. Liverpool is the most central of British cities and counts the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands within two hour road and rail distance. We have a market for cruising that has been largely untapped - many people in the north of England wanting to go on a cruise would rather fly to an overseas cruise liner port than travel to the remote south coast. This much-disputed grant money went to pay for a floating landing stage - not lavish facilities for cruise passengers. That is something that you don't need at Southampton because you don't have the high tidal range of the Mersey. I don't think that you have much to fear from Liverpool and the competition may well have the effect of expanding the market to Southampton's benefit. All the same, there is a certain complacency evident in this article that Liverpool could do well to take notice of.
Merseymart we have had several posts on this & I've wished Liverpool luck but you say people would rather fly to a foreign port than come to a remote southern port ! this makes you no better than the people who characterise all scousers as thieves & shows that you & the people have got a huge chip on your shoulders about southerners.if I could get a flight from Liverpool/Manchester or France I personally would travel up north rather go twenty to eighty miles to France one reason I would want to keep jobs in this country & the second reason is because even though it's a lot closer I'm to in love with the French I wish Liverpool hadn't been so deceitful about this.I have no hatred towards Portsmouth that's foot fans but there is a lot of animosity between the two cities so when you ( liverpool)after lying to get the grant went & asked Pompey to back you that was like waving a red flag to a bull & now you're getting the venom that's usually reserved for Pompey fans you(Liverpool docks) need to talk & come to a compromise with all the major ports or maybe in the way of the free market they price you out of the market it's now time to play fair & be honest & take no notice of idiots
To answer Loosehead's comments (can't seem to get the quote to work).

I don't know why my simple statement of fact about Liverpool cruise passengers wanting to use a foreign port should upset you so much.

From Liverpool it takes around five hours to drive to Soton and a similar time by train. In that time, we could fly to Barcelona or be over half way to Miami.

Its not that we have anything against Soton, it is just more convenient. People that concerned about spending money in this country would probably not take cruises at all.

Southampton is a great port for those living in the South of England but not for anywhere north of Birmingham.

I don't accept that Liverpool lied to get funding for our cruise liner terminal. Until 2008, any cruise ship arriving in the Mersey had to anchor in mid-river with tugs in attendance and tender vessels to ferry passengers to the landing stage.

The construction of the new terminal allowed cruise passengers direct access to the city and increased visits by cruise liners. It soon became apparent though that Liverpool needed to become a port of embarkation to maximise the throughput of passengers - hence the approach to government to see if the terms of the grant could be renegotiated.

Remember also, that despite all the emotion generated on this subject, nobody seems to know just what terms have been agreed for the repayment of the loan - including the author of the above article.
Merseymart don't you listen to your own people? in an interview the Labour council chief said that from the second they put in for the grant an application to change it was being prepared so to say & agree to one thing but all the time knowing that is not what you want but the end justifies the means & to ask for a grant for a new terminal for visiting passengers while already preparing for a change in usage is a lie what else could you call it? Unlike Georgetheseventh I would love to see full employment North & South.also if the rail improvement was totally government funded why is ABP putting a £3-00 surcharge on all containers to try & recoup the millions they spent on the project? How much did Liverpool contribute towards the new visitors terminal?

georgetheseventh says...
10:10pm Tue 5 Apr 11

loosehead..this is my final comment on this subject.Out of £43 mil of taxpayers money spent on your rail upgrade ..bridges.rivers re-routed..roads curved etc etc nothing too much for yon southerner your ABP paid a measly £6 mil probably out of his back pocket. e received £1 . 8 mi(point) to re-introduce a one mile rail curve for our freight. NOW, we have had cruise turnarounds for many years all we want is to use the 'pontoon' that SOUTHAMTON designed for us and that Southampton were paid handsomly for.END OF STORY. goodbye

georgetheseventh says...
10:13pm Tue 5 Apr 11

WE recieved £1.8 mil and that was IT

georgetheseventh says...
10:21pm Tue 5 Apr 11

Daily Echo..please check your reprint spellchecker and literacy encoder system..seems it cannot cope with slight variations in UK dialect..thank you and good night.

MerseyMart says...
11:24pm Tue 5 Apr 11

loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: You can't help but admit that Liverpool has an uphill struggle to take on the might of Southampton but remember one thing. Liverpool is the most central of British cities and counts the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands within two hour road and rail distance. We have a market for cruising that has been largely untapped - many people in the north of England wanting to go on a cruise would rather fly to an overseas cruise liner port than travel to the remote south coast. This much-disputed grant money went to pay for a floating landing stage - not lavish facilities for cruise passengers. That is something that you don't need at Southampton because you don't have the high tidal range of the Mersey. I don't think that you have much to fear from Liverpool and the competition may well have the effect of expanding the market to Southampton's benefit. All the same, there is a certain complacency evident in this article that Liverpool could do well to take notice of.
Merseymart we have had several posts on this & I've wished Liverpool luck but you say people would rather fly to a foreign port than come to a remote southern port ! this makes you no better than the people who characterise all scousers as thieves & shows that you & the people have got a huge chip on your shoulders about southerners.if I could get a flight from Liverpool/Manchester or France I personally would travel up north rather go twenty to eighty miles to France one reason I would want to keep jobs in this country & the second reason is because even though it's a lot closer I'm to in love with the French I wish Liverpool hadn't been so deceitful about this.I have no hatred towards Portsmouth that's foot fans but there is a lot of animosity between the two cities so when you ( liverpool)after lying to get the grant went & asked Pompey to back you that was like waving a red flag to a bull & now you're getting the venom that's usually reserved for Pompey fans you(Liverpool docks) need to talk & come to a compromise with all the major ports or maybe in the way of the free market they price you out of the market it's now time to play fair & be honest & take no notice of idiots
To answer Loosehead's comments (can't seem to get the quote to work). I don't know why my simple statement of fact about Liverpool cruise passengers wanting to use a foreign port should upset you so much. From Liverpool it takes around five hours to drive to Soton and a similar time by train. In that time, we could fly to Barcelona or be over half way to Miami. Its not that we have anything against Soton, it is just more convenient. People that concerned about spending money in this country would probably not take cruises at all. Southampton is a great port for those living in the South of England but not for anywhere north of Birmingham. I don't accept that Liverpool lied to get funding for our cruise liner terminal. Until 2008, any cruise ship arriving in the Mersey had to anchor in mid-river with tugs in attendance and tender vessels to ferry passengers to the landing stage. The construction of the new terminal allowed cruise passengers direct access to the city and increased visits by cruise liners. It soon became apparent though that Liverpool needed to become a port of embarkation to maximise the throughput of passengers - hence the approach to government to see if the terms of the grant could be renegotiated. Remember also, that despite all the emotion generated on this subject, nobody seems to know just what terms have been agreed for the repayment of the loan - including the author of the above article.
Merseymart don't you listen to your own people? in an interview the Labour council chief said that from the second they put in for the grant an application to change it was being prepared so to say & agree to one thing but all the time knowing that is not what you want but the end justifies the means & to ask for a grant for a new terminal for visiting passengers while already preparing for a change in usage is a lie what else could you call it? Unlike Georgetheseventh I would love to see full employment North & South.also if the rail improvement was totally government funded why is ABP putting a £3-00 surcharge on all containers to try & recoup the millions they spent on the project? How much did Liverpool contribute towards the new visitors terminal?
Loosehead,

I'm not a spokesman for Liverpool City Council but I am one of their council tax payers so maybe I'm biased but I can't see what this lie is meant to be.

At the time that the 'lie' was made the present council was not in power so were not a party to it. That is beside the point though. What appears to have happened is that Liverpool applied for grant money to build a landing stage but a condition was imposed on it by government that it could not be used for turnaround traffic. Those conditions were accepted and have been adhered to - to date, no passenger has joined or left a cruise at Liverpool.

Now, Liverpool needs to move on to the next stage, which is to become a turnaround facility. By the terms of the agreement, that can only happen if the grant is repaid. However, Liverpool, conscious of the tight financial situation, are investigating whether the government will agree to make a change in the conditions e.g. by reducing the amount to be repaid or spreading it over a longer period.

That is hardly dishonest and, at the end of the day, it is going to be government who decides. The Conservative party is seldom accused of major bias toward Liverpool so, perhaps you just have to accept that the government decision will be based on the employment benefits to Liverpool vs. any possible loss of business at other ports, including Southampton.

I don't blame Soton's elected leaders and media for putting the case against but please don't blame Liverpool's for putting the case for.

The article talks about Liverpool 'greedily piggy-backing on Soton's success'. Since we are trying to open one cruise terminal against Soton's five, that is rather exaggerating don't you think?

click2find

Most popular






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