Liverpool 'rocking the boat' (From Daily Echo)

The way to deal with this is to offer a better product. Stamping feet and complaining that "it's not fair" - is childish and defeatist. Southampton better infrastructure today and will still have better infrastructure tomorrow - but if the city fails to capitalise on its advantage as it has done so many times in the last 50 years then in 10 years time the cruise industry will be gone just like the cross channel ferries, tourism and major industries have gone.
I hope Royston Smith is busy preparing a strategy for success rather than an excuse for failure.

It really is getting interesting ....... The natives of Liverpool are getting very excited today believing that they have been granted permission to become a turnaround port.
.
Just reading the Liverpool newspaper website the posters are celebrating believing that they have been granted this great accolade.
.
It will be interesting to see who really comes out on top here as there appears to be too much "claim and counter claim" in the war of words.

Of course this British government will always choose corporations, even foreign ones like ABP which pay no taxes in the UK, over British citizens need for jobs. Remember the City of Liverpool council is putting the interest of it's tax paying citizens front a formost. Jersey based Associated British Ports is purely and simply protecting a monopoly and it's profits.

As an aside: If someone, like myself, a UK born person who has made their fortune in North America should return home and pay off the EU grant for Liverpool, would your unidentified, likely Tory, "Hampshire MP" find another reason to object to protect a foreign domiciled corporation over British taxpayers?

Maybe my money would be better spent supporting his opposition in the next UK general election. Food for thought.

One question..........Wh
y is Alfred hitchcock in the picture????

Bwahahahahahahahahah
aha ;)

8------->

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
The way to deal with this is to offer a better product. Stamping feet and complaining that "it's not fair" - is childish and defeatist. Southampton better infrastructure today and will still have better infrastructure tomorrow - but if the city fails to capitalise on its advantage as it has done so many times in the last 50 years then in 10 years time the cruise industry will be gone just like the cross channel ferries, tourism and major industries have gone.
I hope Royston Smith is busy preparing a strategy for success rather than an excuse for failure.

I think Andy is right here. But I think Cllr Smith is incapable of dealing with the issue and will be more than likely be making up an excuse for failure. Liverpool have caught Southampton sleeping and for all of Cllr Smiths protestations he is behaving re-actively rather than proactively. Maybe there is a crucial election coming up. Who knows??

Room for both but Southampton will have make more effort to improve its welcoming infrastructure.

Sloyne wrote:
Of course this British government will always choose corporations, even foreign ones like ABP which pay no taxes in the UK, over British citizens need for jobs. Remember the City of Liverpool council is putting the interest of it's tax paying citizens front a formost. Jersey based Associated British Ports is purely and simply protecting a monopoly and it's profits.

How much are you going to pay then?
.
From what i can see Liverpool have not been given a figure.
.
So ...... Honest Joe is feeding the people of Liverpool a load of old cobblers.
.
Basically he is telling Porkies on the presented newspaper reports

J.K. wrote:
Room for both but Southampton will have make more effort to improve its welcoming infrastructure.

Agree, Money need’s to be invested. 2 rail links with no real platform for trains at 104-105 & a decent size platform at the Old Docks but this is nowhere like the old Ocean Terminal that was there, needs something like that to wow the Passengers as they board/disembark. There was talk of a Tram linking the Docks a couple of years ago also a Station near the Old Southampton Terminus (Properly a single platform actually on the Terminus site), such improvements would really bring the Docks up to date.

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
The way to deal with this is to offer a better product. Stamping feet and complaining that "it's not fair" - is childish and defeatist. Southampton better infrastructure today and will still have better infrastructure tomorrow - but if the city fails to capitalise on its advantage as it has done so many times in the last 50 years then in 10 years time the cruise industry will be gone just like the cross channel ferries, tourism and major industries have gone.
I hope Royston Smith is busy preparing a strategy for success rather than an excuse for failure.

I think Andy is right here. But I think Cllr Smith is incapable of dealing with the issue and will be more than likely be making up an excuse for failure. Liverpool have caught Southampton sleeping and for all of Cllr Smiths protestations he is behaving re-actively rather than proactively. Maybe there is a crucial election coming up. Who knows??

I agree with both of you.

From the time that Liverpool first showed an interest in attracting cruise ships, the odds were that they would be given the go-ahead.

The country is in a position where it wants to attract every penny possible, and Liverpool is just another opportunity. It is even possible that cruises that start there could call in here, or vice versa, so everyone would be happy.

Southampton has its attractions, and I am sure that there would be many customers who would want to see The Cavern Club and other places associated with the Beatles - the cruise customers are in that age group!

SOULJACKER wrote:
One question..........Wh

y is Alfred hitchcock in the picture????

Bwahahahahahahahahah

aha ;)

8------->

Grow up please. Do you want to enter into an adult conversation or not?

I feel there is room for both Southampton AND Liverpool. What does competition bring? Better service!

It may well be the kick up the backside Southampton needs, although recently we do appear to be making steps forward, poor Southampton has been neglected for years!

I recently visited Liverpool and despite it's reputation is far prettier than Southampton! We have WestQuay and an enclosed pedestrian area which is hard to walk through on a weekend.

Good luck to both Cities, there is room for two ;-)

IronLady2010 wrote:
I feel there is room for both Southampton AND Liverpool. What does competition bring? Better service!

It may well be the kick up the backside Southampton needs, although recently we do appear to be making steps forward, poor Southampton has been neglected for years!

I recently visited Liverpool and despite it's reputation is far prettier than Southampton! We have WestQuay and an enclosed pedestrian area which is hard to walk through on a weekend.

Good luck to both Cities, there is room for two ;-)

We agree with competition but not giving other citys huge advantages over a competitor.

Liverpool should pay all the money back but we have also got to get are arse in gear and hope the new peer gets sorted soon as and that site next to the walls.

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote: One question..........Wh y is Alfred hitchcock in the picture???? Bwahahahahahahahahah aha ;) 8------->

Grow up please. Do you want to enter into an adult conversation or not?

Oh dear, perhaps a humour transplant is required? Obviously some view humour as non adult! Shame that you have lost that side of your character....
It made me smile, and I class myself as a responsible adult.

IanRRR wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote: One question..........Wh y is Alfred hitchcock in the picture???? Bwahahahahahahahahah aha ;) 8------->

Grow up please. Do you want to enter into an adult conversation or not?

Oh dear, perhaps a humour transplant is required? Obviously some view humour as non adult! Shame that you have lost that side of your character....
It made me smile, and I class myself as a responsible adult.

I agree. Souljacker does need a humour transplant. What does Bwhahahaha etc mean? maybe he can tell us both eh, IanRRR?

The Liverpool leader, Joe Anderson, has stated that Liverpool will pay whatever the independent adjudicator comes up with. Have you all got that!
Tied into paying this amount, the only other salient point is that the No-turnaround prohibition is a UK RESTRICTION. Please see the consultation document. These are the FACTS folks.
This has NEVER been about grants, ABP does not want to lose ALL cruise passengers north of Birmingham. They know the number of Pax they handle from that huge swathe of the UK.
This is turning into a classic North South question. We will all see how this country leans in the next few weeks.
BTW, Liverpool's plans are very modest. In 2013 only Fred Olsen will operate. So Liverpool will be getting the traffic it lost, due to the safety issue at Langton dock, and NO MORE.
I am sure this will lead to mass lay-offs and cruise cancellations from Southampton.
It is high time you all started talking sense, instead of nonsense.

Like many Liverpudlians & Sotonians I have been keeping close watch on this situation from day 1.
I have sailed from Southampton on several occasions, each time losing up to two days' expensive travel, taxis & hotels.
Looking at most of the correspondence, the general perception is every cruise liner is about to pull out of Southampton & berth here.
Not so.
Liverpool could not handle the volume of leisure shipping Southampton has, besides,
Fred Olsen and Cruise & Maritime will probably be our best customers.

Some of you seem incredibly carefree about the effect this could have on the city and jobs.

Competition is fair enough. An unlevel playing field is not, and the use of tax payers money to give the usual advantage to the north over the south is not on.

"There is room for two" makes a great soundbite but actually doesn't hold water. Trans Atlantic crossings and cruises don't want to stop at two British ports, totally pointless.

Southampton has the advantage of being nearer to London but Liverpool is a much larger city with many great areas that are atmospheric with numerous great restaurants and evening entertainment areas catering for all.

I have often heard that each cruise ship is worth on average 2m to the city, if true be very careful about your complacency as this could have a massive knock on to local businesses and jobs from hotels, restaurants, taxis, retail etc.

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Some of you seem incredibly carefree about the effect this could have on the city and jobs.

Competition is fair enough. An unlevel playing field is not, and the use of tax payers money to give the usual advantage to the north over the south is not on.

"There is room for two" makes a great soundbite but actually doesn't hold water. Trans Atlantic crossings and cruises don't want to stop at two British ports, totally pointless.

Southampton has the advantage of being nearer to London but Liverpool is a much larger city with many great areas that are atmospheric with numerous great restaurants and evening entertainment areas catering for all.

I have often heard that each cruise ship is worth on average 2m to the city, if true be very careful about your complacency as this could have a massive knock on to local businesses and jobs from hotels, restaurants, taxis, retail etc.

Sorry Royston :-(

IronLady2010 wrote:

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote: Some of you seem incredibly carefree about the effect this could have on the city and jobs. Competition is fair enough. An unlevel playing field is not, and the use of tax payers money to give the usual advantage to the north over the south is not on. "There is room for two" makes a great soundbite but actually doesn't hold water. Trans Atlantic crossings and cruises don't want to stop at two British ports, totally pointless. Southampton has the advantage of being nearer to London but Liverpool is a much larger city with many great areas that are atmospheric with numerous great restaurants and evening entertainment areas catering for all. I have often heard that each cruise ship is worth on average 2m to the city, if true be very careful about your complacency as this could have a massive knock on to local businesses and jobs from hotels, restaurants, taxis, retail etc.

Sorry Royston :-(

I don't know if the cruise industry is expanding or not. If it is then maybe it can cover two ports. If it's not then any they get is a financial loss to Southampton.

Part of the problem is the way in which post war Southampton has been redeveloped. Piecemeal and lacking in an overall plan - presided over by many politicians from different political parties.

I've always been amazed that a stranger could spend a weekend in Southampton and not realise it's a coastal city. Everywhere else I've visited makes the sea the feature, even with working ports. The view from some corporate suites at St Mary's over the Itchen at work can be breathtaking in the right weather and time. Ikea shows a view too. I would have thought hotels, restaurants, bars etc should have been centred around this feature - I'm not too sure what others we have.

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
The way to deal with this is to offer a better product. Stamping feet and complaining that "it's not fair" - is childish and defeatist. Southampton better infrastructure today and will still have better infrastructure tomorrow - but if the city fails to capitalise on its advantage as it has done so many times in the last 50 years then in 10 years time the cruise industry will be gone just like the cross channel ferries, tourism and major industries have gone.
I hope Royston Smith is busy preparing a strategy for success rather than an excuse for failure.

I think Andy is right here. But I think Cllr Smith is incapable of dealing with the issue and will be more than likely be making up an excuse for failure. Liverpool have caught Southampton sleeping and for all of Cllr Smiths protestations he is behaving re-actively rather than proactively. Maybe there is a crucial election coming up. Who knows??

Surely on this Political allegiance should be put to one side & we the people of this city should be fighting(pulling) together to get the best deal for this city?
we haven't heard Williams ideas on this subject so I maybe stupidly thought this was a case of all fighting for this city I didn't realise it was a name blaming game?
As you've bought it into the argument how about telling us what the Labour party would do to save our cruise industry?
Or is an election due?

There is already plans for a 5th cruise terminal to be built in Southampton but it has been put on hold. There is no objection on competition but there would be an unfair advantage if this money came from tax payers money...whether ABP is based in Jersey or not it still provides a lot of jobs to British workers. It is still providing to the Economy of Southampton. Liverpool would be using money already taken from our tax payers pockets that is worse!

Liverpool arogantly assuming this is a done deal I hope comes back and bites them in the backside. Pay the money back and then move ahead with your plans and great!

Its clear Liverpool should pay back all of the money.

Well done to the council and politicians for insisting that Liverpool do the right thing.

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together wrote:
Its clear Liverpool should pay back all of the money.

Well done to the council and politicians for insisting that Liverpool do the right thing.

agreed, they need to pay back all the money. A lot of money from the EU went into improving the waterfront and regeneration of the waterfront. ABP (whatever I think of private profiteering we live in a capitalist society and they provide security and jobs). ABP invest in the port, not in 'prettying up' the Waterfront. Why have no councils in Southampton applied for similar moneys to 'regenerate' our waterfront? this is shortsightedness by subsequent councils (I believe). the fact that Liverpool attracted no private investment (after all ABP 'could' have invested if they thought it would give a good return). Now they are a more 'attractive' prospect after they have the input of these european funds. I don't think many object to a level playing field. However, this guy in L'pool could end up with egg on his face and jeopardising things by making 'premature announcements' (there's help for that lol).

This really does make me laugh, Do you know how hard it is to get a cruise ship into liverpool, they only have limited access due to tides and the depth of the mersey.
Fact !!
They dredge it but it doesn't work, can't see them being as operative as Southampton.
But true to Liverpudlians spirits, they always make the best of what they have, and do it with a smile. Not like you lot moaning and groaning all the blooming time.
Stick to the facts and shove your so called silly moaning principles, Southampton is not a vibrant city, no culture here, just drab and no where to visit with significance.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
The way to deal with this is to offer a better product. Stamping feet and complaining that "it's not fair" - is childish and defeatist. Southampton better infrastructure today and will still have better infrastructure tomorrow - but if the city fails to capitalise on its advantage as it has done so many times in the last 50 years then in 10 years time the cruise industry will be gone just like the cross channel ferries, tourism and major industries have gone.
I hope Royston Smith is busy preparing a strategy for success rather than an excuse for failure.

Very true Andy idoits like Smithy think the cruise industary will last for ever, don't realise its just a fad, and fads do change who knows what the next generation of holiday makers will want for a holiday, Branson is pumping in a lot of money into the Space Holiday break for people.

Liverpool only got to wait till the terms and conditions date runs out, which is not that long to wait, and they can do what ever they like with out paying any monies back.

Sloyne wrote:
As an aside: If someone, like myself, a UK born person who has made their fortune in North America should return home and pay off the EU grant for Liverpool, would your unidentified, likely Tory, "Hampshire MP" find another reason to object to protect a foreign domiciled corporation over British taxpayers?

Maybe my money would be better spent supporting his opposition in the next UK general election. Food for thought.

Try the TUSC

arizonan wrote:
The Liverpool leader, Joe Anderson, has stated that Liverpool will pay whatever the independent adjudicator comes up with. Have you all got that!
Tied into paying this amount, the only other salient point is that the No-turnaround prohibition is a UK RESTRICTION. Please see the consultation document. These are the FACTS folks.
This has NEVER been about grants, ABP does not want to lose ALL cruise passengers north of Birmingham. They know the number of Pax they handle from that huge swathe of the UK.
This is turning into a classic North South question. We will all see how this country leans in the next few weeks.
BTW, Liverpool's plans are very modest. In 2013 only Fred Olsen will operate. So Liverpool will be getting the traffic it lost, due to the safety issue at Langton dock, and NO MORE.
I am sure this will lead to mass lay-offs and cruise cancellations from Southampton.
It is high time you all started talking sense, instead of nonsense.

1... Liverpool say they will pay basck whatever money the adjudicator rules is suitable.
Fine in theory but then there is the proviso ...'out of revenues received'..
So a completely differtent business model from all other cruise ports who have to take a risk onn their capital outlay.
2...'Please see the (EU)Consultation document' (will be interested in the link so we can all determine the actual terms for the grant)
3.. 'This is turning into a classic North/South question'.. Really, so explain why Newcastle have been so vociferous in their opposition to Liverpool's plans. They are likely to be adversely affected by the Tax payers support of the Liverpool facility.
Just think also that this time last year over £500,000 of tax payers money went down the drain to support the failed Liverpool Boat Show

phil maccavity (EU)Consultation document is not the terms and conditions.
Newcastle had plans for them selfs.

southy wrote:

Sloyne wrote:
As an aside: If someone, like myself, a UK born person who has made their fortune in North America should return home and pay off the EU grant for Liverpool, would your unidentified, likely Tory, "Hampshire MP" find another reason to object to protect a foreign domiciled corporation over British taxpayers?

Maybe my money would be better spent supporting his opposition in the next UK general election. Food for thought.

Try the TUSC

Don't waste your vote.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together wrote:
Its clear Liverpool should pay back all of the money.

Well done to the council and politicians for insisting that Liverpool do the right thing.

agreed, they need to pay back all the money. A lot of money from the EU went into improving the waterfront and regeneration of the waterfront. ABP (whatever I think of private profiteering we live in a capitalist society and they provide security and jobs). ABP invest in the port, not in 'prettying up' the Waterfront. Why have no councils in Southampton applied for similar moneys to 'regenerate' our waterfront? this is shortsightedness by subsequent councils (I believe). the fact that Liverpool attracted no private investment (after all ABP 'could' have invested if they thought it would give a good return). Now they are a more 'attractive' prospect after they have the input of these european funds. I don't think many object to a level playing field. However, this guy in L'pool could end up with egg on his face and jeopardising things by making 'premature announcements' (there's help for that lol).

for once I agree with you.
I put to a Councillor they should be applying for grants to restore/open our historic buildings/ruins so tourists could visit them.
I was told they were looking at that avenue?

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Sloyne wrote:
As an aside: If someone, like myself, a UK born person who has made their fortune in North America should return home and pay off the EU grant for Liverpool, would your unidentified, likely Tory, "Hampshire MP" find another reason to object to protect a foreign domiciled corporation over British taxpayers?

Maybe my money would be better spent supporting his opposition in the next UK general election. Food for thought.

Try the TUSC

Don't waste your vote.

Better to vote for and support a party that will support the majority and not the few, so it would not be a wasted vote, but a step in the right direction.
A wasted vote is to vote for any 100% right wing party, that will only support those with a great deal of wealth.

Hey Phil, have you found your way around the Cheshire parliamentary map yet?.
The EU DID NOT impose restrictions on the ERDF grant.
What EU consultation document are you talking about?
The UK consultation, to which I referred is available on line at that DfT website.It states, very clearly, that the no-turnaround, is a UK stipulation.
Newcastle? One MEP fooled into supporting Southampton, when ABP have plans to really damage Newcastle by developing Hull as a turnaround facility.And they will announce these plans, once Liverpool is given turnaround status.
Interesting that you should mention the boat show. The exhibitors who pulled out, citing the 'economic situation' caused the organiser to cancel the show.
Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com gave this take on the news on the cancelling of the Liverpool Boat Show.
'It seems a great shame the show is not going ahead.
Boatshed.com had booked and paid for space at the show and we already had our exhibition plans in place.The excuse that this is all about economic slowdown is very surprising and completely goes against what we, as the World's biggest yacht brokerage business, are experiencing.'
He went,'Again, the industry seems to have misunderstood current market conditions, with new boats having been very weak for three years. This is not NEW news!.'His exclamation and emphasis.
'Boat shows, like any other trade show, need to innovate and re-invent themselves for the future if they are to survive; a reliance on what has happened in the past is only going to slow things for the future. Lets hope Liverpool can learn these lessons quickly and get things back on track for a show in the future.With its maritime tradition and great location, Liverpool is a superb venue for a successful nautical event
Finally, back to the turnaround situation all I can say is if Southampton still fears Liverpool, with their plans for 10 turnarounds in 2013, against Southampton's 370 or more, then Southampton must have an enormous inferiority complex.
It is also pretty novel, for an entity in the south, to be jealous of something in the north.

loosehead wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Sotonians_lets_pull_


together wrote:
Its clear Liverpool should pay back all of the money.

Well done to the council and politicians for insisting that Liverpool do the right thing.

agreed, they need to pay back all the money. A lot of money from the EU went into improving the waterfront and regeneration of the waterfront. ABP (whatever I think of private profiteering we live in a capitalist society and they provide security and jobs). ABP invest in the port, not in 'prettying up' the Waterfront. Why have no councils in Southampton applied for similar moneys to 'regenerate' our waterfront? this is shortsightedness by subsequent councils (I believe). the fact that Liverpool attracted no private investment (after all ABP 'could' have invested if they thought it would give a good return). Now they are a more 'attractive' prospect after they have the input of these european funds. I don't think many object to a level playing field. However, this guy in L'pool could end up with egg on his face and jeopardising things by making 'premature announcements' (there's help for that lol).

for once I agree with you.
I put to a Councillor they should be applying for grants to restore/open our historic buildings/ruins so tourists could visit them.
I was told they were looking at that avenue?

Couldn't agree more, go for grants from the regional development fund and good luck to you, I really hope you get them.
BUT watch the complaints from all over the UK, Southampton has opened a can of worms over this issue that won't go away for decades.

This is not surprising. The cruise industry is struggling to meet growth targets. Someone has seen that some growwth might be possible from the economy-end of the business. Hence Liverpool fits the bill. The cumbersome turn around of the liners has not been predicted as a particular problem in Liverpool. Large Northern conurbations, with millions of lowly-paid workers, may prove to be a temporary source of new enthusiastic cruisers. However the operators should beware that they are not destroying the industry for good, by cheapening customer standards still further.

Bingo from Sholing wrote:
This is not surprising. The cruise industry is struggling to meet growth targets. Someone has seen that some growwth might be possible from the economy-end of the business. Hence Liverpool fits the bill. The cumbersome turn around of the liners has not been predicted as a particular problem in Liverpool. Large Northern conurbations, with millions of lowly-paid workers, may prove to be a temporary source of new enthusiastic cruisers. However the operators should beware that they are not destroying the industry for good, by cheapening customer standards still further.

The idea that everybody in the north is low paid and unskilled is so far from the truth, the demographics in the North West show this to be a false assumption. The Middle Class professionals in the North are alive and well. Just like in the South West.

Tom Liverpool wrote:

Bingo from Sholing wrote:
This is not surprising. The cruise industry is struggling to meet growth targets. Someone has seen that some growwth might be possible from the economy-end of the business. Hence Liverpool fits the bill. The cumbersome turn around of the liners has not been predicted as a particular problem in Liverpool. Large Northern conurbations, with millions of lowly-paid workers, may prove to be a temporary source of new enthusiastic cruisers. However the operators should beware that they are not destroying the industry for good, by cheapening customer standards still further.

The idea that everybody in the north is low paid and unskilled is so far from the truth, the demographics in the North West show this to be a false assumption. The Middle Class professionals in the North are alive and well. Just like in the South West.

Just like a true Northerner. Make any debate into a class war. I was making a socio-economic argument, and made no comment on class. The fact is, the products offered by the cruise industry are not meeting customer expectations. Their solution is to go down market still further. What I am saying is that going down market will destroy the industry and possibly beggar the cruise operators at the same time because they will be unable to pay for their investment on a number of reltively expensive new cruise ships.

Bingo you started this not me, The assumption that there is insufficient money in the north to support the cruise industry as it exists at present is quite silly, yes most Northern cities do have significant numbers of low paid workers, as do all cities in the UK. But also they support the areas around those cities that are prosperous, for example Cheshire just 25 miles south of Manchester and Liverpool probably the most prosperous area in the UK apart from a few places in the south east. And your argument flies in the face of your politicians and ABP who suggest if Liverpool gets the turnaround facility Southampton will be seriously affected with loss of business.

The cruise industry has been a mass market product for many years, even Cunard has bargain transatlantic fares at the moment.
It would be interesting to have the locations from whence the Port of Southampton's passengers originate.
ABP probably have these, and/or the DfT.

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Bingo you started this not me, The assumption that there is insufficient money in the north to support the cruise industry as it exists at present is quite silly, yes most Northern cities do have significant numbers of low paid workers, as do all cities in the UK. But also they support the areas around those cities that are prosperous, for example Cheshire just 25 miles south of Manchester and Liverpool probably the most prosperous area in the UK apart from a few places in the south east. And your argument flies in the face of your politicians and ABP who suggest if Liverpool gets the turnaround facility Southampton will be seriously affected with loss of business.

Tom if as many Liverpool posts have insisted the cruise industry is continuing to grow & there's plenty of work for every one why didn't the new Labour group talk to the major cruise ports & see if ( maybe a new cruise line) there was a possibility of a start finish facility(s) in Liverpool that wouldn't have an effect on existing ports?
I have put this forward & been slated by Scousers on these posts.
Surely if we went to say Manchester for it's backing to possibly take work from Liverpool wouldn't that get your backs up?
If you had hit your council tax payers ( like your council are saying they will) or found private financiers to build the facilities & we had got ours from grants would you be happy about it?
As you have said the previous council in Liverpool went about this totally wrong but the present council instead of doing it right have just carried on where the Liberals had left it.
Maybe when this is sorted the posts on here can become more friendly between the two cities?

arizonan wrote:
The cruise industry has been a mass market product for many years, even Cunard has bargain transatlantic fares at the moment.
It would be interesting to have the locations from whence the Port of Southampton's passengers originate.
ABP probably have these, and/or the DfT.

Actually these figures are available from the PSA and show a high ratio of cruise passengers from the north west.
Now this of course fuels your argument that there is a captured market for Liverpool
However it then begs the questions:
1. Why has Liverpool had to obtain £17m of grant aid to underwrite cruise facilities rather than operate under the same commercial parameters as all other Uk cruise ports?
If the pent up demand was there surely a suitable business case could have been made not reliant on taxpayers money.
No one would have, or could have complained.
2. Why is the ratio of cruise passengers to population so high in the North West when Merseyside, in particular, has been far and away the biggest recipient of UK and EU largesse of any region in the past 20 years? It belies the myth of poor northerners and rich southerners?
3. Why has so much of the £2 billion state aid granted to Merseyside been spent on activity funded in this region almost exclusively by private investment eg cruise and airport terminals, a failed boat show, an extension of the Leeds/Liverpool canal, museums, the Liverpool Arena, money for a new, as yet to be started stadium for Liverpool FC etc etc, when there remain swathes of the city which still seem to be in severe depravation.
I guess this does not really worry you personally as you now live down this way!!

Hello all youse, lets be straight with each other, you have one we have one, your down south we are upt north, the ship companies are going to decide where they berth based on cost, fees, and other financial considerations, ease of use, infrastructure etc etc which ever port they choose their decision will be based on those issues.

Once they have chosen a port the marketing people will sell the benefits, simple.

What our politicians, local councillors must do is discuss ways in which both ports can work together to secure business for us both, if both cities and ports are at each others throats then no one wins.

The shipping companies will play us both against each other, open up a dialouge you guys in charge otherwise you will not be able to make a profit and the terminals will both lose work and more importantly jobs.

Put aside your pettey squabbles and make us proud.

Ahoy der lar! wrote:
Hello all youse, lets be straight with each other, you have one we have one, your down south we are upt north, the ship companies are going to decide where they berth based on cost, fees, and other financial considerations, ease of use, infrastructure etc etc which ever port they choose their decision will be based on those issues.

Once they have chosen a port the marketing people will sell the benefits, simple.

What our politicians, local councillors must do is discuss ways in which both ports can work together to secure business for us both, if both cities and ports are at each others throats then no one wins.

The shipping companies will play us both against each other, open up a dialouge you guys in charge otherwise you will not be able to make a profit and the terminals will both lose work and more importantly jobs.

Put aside your pettey squabbles and make us proud.

Probably the most sensible posting I've seen regarding this issue. Straight to the point and no sniping in either direction.

loosehead wrote:

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Bingo you started this not me, The assumption that there is insufficient money in the north to support the cruise industry as it exists at present is quite silly, yes most Northern cities do have significant numbers of low paid workers, as do all cities in the UK. But also they support the areas around those cities that are prosperous, for example Cheshire just 25 miles south of Manchester and Liverpool probably the most prosperous area in the UK apart from a few places in the south east. And your argument flies in the face of your politicians and ABP who suggest if Liverpool gets the turnaround facility Southampton will be seriously affected with loss of business.

Tom if as many Liverpool posts have insisted the cruise industry is continuing to grow & there's plenty of work for every one why didn't the new Labour group talk to the major cruise ports & see if ( maybe a new cruise line) there was a possibility of a start finish facility(s) in Liverpool that wouldn't have an effect on existing ports?
I have put this forward & been slated by Scousers on these posts.
Surely if we went to say Manchester for it's backing to possibly take work from Liverpool wouldn't that get your backs up?
If you had hit your council tax payers ( like your council are saying they will) or found private financiers to build the facilities & we had got ours from grants would you be happy about it?
As you have said the previous council in Liverpool went about this totally wrong but the present council instead of doing it right have just carried on where the Liberals had left it.
Maybe when this is sorted the posts on here can become more friendly between the two cities?

Loosehead. I understand your frustration, as you most probably understand mine, the problem is that we approach it from different viewpoints. Liverpool had massive shipping movement to all over the world 40 years ago, and due to the advent of air travel that died very quickly and nobody locally or nationally did anything about it, and in the Thatcher years due to the Militant idiots who got control of our city, nothing was ever likely to happen, neither side would budge an inch, so Liverpool and Merseyside in general suffered virtually no investment at all. Then the great saviour arrived Micheal Heseltine and he took it upon himself to start the regeneration and was very successful, in fact he has been offered the freedom of the city in recognition of his work, and when a Tory minister is offered that in this city he must be well thought of.
From your point of you, you see Liverpool trying to steal Southampton's business and jobs, which I think is unlikely to happen, possibly some changes will have repercussions but not as bad as you think and also growth is also a distinct possibility which could increase your business. I hope that is the case.

Tom Liverpool wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Bingo you started this not me, The assumption that there is insufficient money in the north to support the cruise industry as it exists at present is quite silly, yes most Northern cities do have significant numbers of low paid workers, as do all cities in the UK. But also they support the areas around those cities that are prosperous, for example Cheshire just 25 miles south of Manchester and Liverpool probably the most prosperous area in the UK apart from a few places in the south east. And your argument flies in the face of your politicians and ABP who suggest if Liverpool gets the turnaround facility Southampton will be seriously affected with loss of business.

Tom if as many Liverpool posts have insisted the cruise industry is continuing to grow & there's plenty of work for every one why didn't the new Labour group talk to the major cruise ports & see if ( maybe a new cruise line) there was a possibility of a start finish facility(s) in Liverpool that wouldn't have an effect on existing ports?
I have put this forward & been slated by Scousers on these posts.
Surely if we went to say Manchester for it's backing to possibly take work from Liverpool wouldn't that get your backs up?
If you had hit your council tax payers ( like your council are saying they will) or found private financiers to build the facilities & we had got ours from grants would you be happy about it?
As you have said the previous council in Liverpool went about this totally wrong but the present council instead of doing it right have just carried on where the Liberals had left it.
Maybe when this is sorted the posts on here can become more friendly between the two cities?

Loosehead. I understand your frustration, as you most probably understand mine, the problem is that we approach it from different viewpoints. Liverpool had massive shipping movement to all over the world 40 years ago, and due to the advent of air travel that died very quickly and nobody locally or nationally did anything about it, and in the Thatcher years due to the Militant idiots who got control of our city, nothing was ever likely to happen, neither side would budge an inch, so Liverpool and Merseyside in general suffered virtually no investment at all. Then the great saviour arrived Micheal Heseltine and he took it upon himself to start the regeneration and was very successful, in fact he has been offered the freedom of the city in recognition of his work, and when a Tory minister is offered that in this city he must be well thought of.
From your point of you, you see Liverpool trying to steal Southampton's business and jobs, which I think is unlikely to happen, possibly some changes will have repercussions but not as bad as you think and also growth is also a distinct possibility which could increase your business. I hope that is the case.

Tom so what did you think of Hatton saying he was doing right & Thatcher & the Tories ruined Liverpool?
I have had to take a certain stance which I understand people in Liverpool aren't going to accept.
When I was young ( 7-14) there was a part of the waterfront we could go to sit down have a picnic go into the water.then one year we couldn't get near it.
they were building the new container port as cruise ships ( Union Castle Line, UCL) were going container then we lost a wildlife haven to a new road for the docks.
All these type of things were accepted to keep the docks viable & we could see ( later) what Hatton was doing to Liverpool.
Gordan Brown gave the go ahead with EU money for Shellhaven to win London votes stuff the other container ports,
Then he refused you a change of use as I guess he thought he already had your votes.
But it would could have been so different as ABP has said time & time again you should have gone into talks with them & maybe a solution would have been found.But at this moment your own council are basically saying they're going to actively take our ( ships that visit) cruise industry so what reaction did they or the people of Liverpool expect to get from this city?
It was a Tory Government & a Tory Minister who have helped you out yet the empty rows of houses are Labours idea of helping Northern cities.
Maybe you all would have been better voting for a true Tory council/Government.I love my roots which are both Southampton & Liverpool

jazzi wrote:
This really does make me laugh, Do you know how hard it is to get a cruise ship into liverpool, they only have limited access due to tides and the depth of the mersey.
Fact !!
They dredge it but it doesn't work, can't see them being as operative as Southampton.
But true to Liverpudlians spirits, they always make the best of what they have, and do it with a smile. Not like you lot moaning and groaning all the blooming time.
Stick to the facts and shove your so called silly moaning principles, Southampton is not a vibrant city, no culture here, just drab and no where to visit with significance.

..and Liverpool is so vibrant in which way? Where would you take me there that would be of any interest ??

phil maccavity wrote:

arizonan wrote:
The cruise industry has been a mass market product for many years, even Cunard has bargain transatlantic fares at the moment.
It would be interesting to have the locations from whence the Port of Southampton's passengers originate.
ABP probably have these, and/or the DfT.

Actually these figures are available from the PSA and show a high ratio of cruise passengers from the north west.
Now this of course fuels your argument that there is a captured market for Liverpool
However it then begs the questions:
1. Why has Liverpool had to obtain £17m of grant aid to underwrite cruise facilities rather than operate under the same commercial parameters as all other Uk cruise ports?
If the pent up demand was there surely a suitable business case could have been made not reliant on taxpayers money.
No one would have, or could have complained.
2. Why is the ratio of cruise passengers to population so high in the North West when Merseyside, in particular, has been far and away the biggest recipient of UK and EU largesse of any region in the past 20 years? It belies the myth of poor northerners and rich southerners?
3. Why has so much of the £2 billion state aid granted to Merseyside been spent on activity funded in this region almost exclusively by private investment eg cruise and airport terminals, a failed boat show, an extension of the Leeds/Liverpool canal, museums, the Liverpool Arena, money for a new, as yet to be started stadium for Liverpool FC etc etc, when there remain swathes of the city which still seem to be in severe depravation.
I guess this does not really worry you personally as you now live down this way!!

Not only from the North West I bet, but the passengers who live within one and a half hours of Liverpool, a very sizeable population of some 20 million plus.
Now lets us look at which areas get the most from the EU and the UK.
A recent report stated that London gets an enormous share of the UK cake with regard to spending on transport infrastructure when compared with the rest of the UK.
Then we come to the LONDON Olympics. Did I see a figure of 24 BILLION the other day? This being 10 times over budget?
And which LONDON football team is going to inherit the Olympic Stadium?
If Liverpool, like other areas in Europe, qualify, they should get the funding.
You seem to have a problem with this. It is the UK getting some of its net contribution back from the EU, is it not?.
Your comments, re., 'Severe depravation,' only reinforce the case for EU funding, or are you arguing for the Thatcher and Howe solution of, 'Managed decline?.'
I would not make any comments re. my location, as you cannot read a Cheshire constituency map.

Actually I very much support deprived areas getting financial aid
Why is it though, despite the £2 BILLION of State/EU aid injected into Merseyside there remain several districts in Liverpool and Birkenhead which seem to remain severely blighted whilst there is a concentration of efforts in the City Centre?
And why has £17m plus a possible extra £9m have to be sourced out of grant aid and the public purse on a project that should, in your view, be able to stand on its own two feet commercially and compete on an equal footing with other similar schemes?
It distorts the market and is unfair especially in light of the deceipt involved in retropectively requesting a change of use from the initial grant aid application
As for bringing London into the equation what relevance has this to the argument over cruise terminals?
I doubt many of us like the situation there but this is something nearly all provincial areas have to live with in respect of capital cities.
At least the cruise terminal in Tilbury and the planned one near Greenwich don't require substantial state payouts

arizonan wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

arizonan wrote:
The cruise industry has been a mass market product for many years, even Cunard has bargain transatlantic fares at the moment.
It would be interesting to have the locations from whence the Port of Southampton's passengers originate.
ABP probably have these, and/or the DfT.

Actually these figures are available from the PSA and show a high ratio of cruise passengers from the north west.
Now this of course fuels your argument that there is a captured market for Liverpool
However it then begs the questions:
1. Why has Liverpool had to obtain £17m of grant aid to underwrite cruise facilities rather than operate under the same commercial parameters as all other Uk cruise ports?
If the pent up demand was there surely a suitable business case could have been made not reliant on taxpayers money.
No one would have, or could have complained.
2. Why is the ratio of cruise passengers to population so high in the North West when Merseyside, in particular, has been far and away the biggest recipient of UK and EU largesse of any region in the past 20 years? It belies the myth of poor northerners and rich southerners?
3. Why has so much of the £2 billion state aid granted to Merseyside been spent on activity funded in this region almost exclusively by private investment eg cruise and airport terminals, a failed boat show, an extension of the Leeds/Liverpool canal, museums, the Liverpool Arena, money for a new, as yet to be started stadium for Liverpool FC etc etc, when there remain swathes of the city which still seem to be in severe depravation.
I guess this does not really worry you personally as you now live down this way!!

Not only from the North West I bet, but the passengers who live within one and a half hours of Liverpool, a very sizeable population of some 20 million plus.
Now lets us look at which areas get the most from the EU and the UK.
A recent report stated that London gets an enormous share of the UK cake with regard to spending on transport infrastructure when compared with the rest of the UK.
Then we come to the LONDON Olympics. Did I see a figure of 24 BILLION the other day? This being 10 times over budget?
And which LONDON football team is going to inherit the Olympic Stadium?
If Liverpool, like other areas in Europe, qualify, they should get the funding.
You seem to have a problem with this. It is the UK getting some of its net contribution back from the EU, is it not?.
Your comments, re., 'Severe depravation,' only reinforce the case for EU funding, or are you arguing for the Thatcher and Howe solution of, 'Managed decline?.'
I would not make any comments re. my location, as you cannot read a Cheshire constituency map.

That's funny when Tom has said that Labour militants( Hatton) bought about the decline of Liverpool & Heseltine( you know that Tory) started the regeneration of Liverpool.
Wasn't it the last Labour Government that set up an agency to clear out people from their homes that they wanted to live in right across the North to demolish them ( still haven't been demolished though) instead of modernising the houses people loved & wanted to stay in?
Shall we talk about transport? How much is the high speed rail link to birmingham & the North going to cost?
I have heard you rattle on about rail & road links being paid for by the Government down here but it will take someone from Leeds 1& a half hours to get to London by high speed train.
It's two hours from Southampton & many have to stand so where's our high speed train?
When the FA put in for the World cup they turned down our stadium.
The Olympic stadium would/should be leased to London Wasps this would be ideal the Athletic tracks would be okay in a Rugby stadium. What happened to the New stadium up North? oh yeah! Man. City play there now.
Arizonan don't equate the whole of the south as London.I/we don't think all Northerners come from Manchester so why do you bleat on about London?
Didn't you want the Olympics?

phil maccavity wrote:
Actually I very much support deprived areas getting financial aid
Why is it though, despite the £2 BILLION of State/EU aid injected into Merseyside there remain several districts in Liverpool and Birkenhead which seem to remain severely blighted whilst there is a concentration of efforts in the City Centre?
And why has £17m plus a possible extra £9m have to be sourced out of grant aid and the public purse on a project that should, in your view, be able to stand on its own two feet commercially and compete on an equal footing with other similar schemes?
It distorts the market and is unfair especially in light of the deceipt involved in retropectively requesting a change of use from the initial grant aid application
As for bringing London into the equation what relevance has this to the argument over cruise terminals?
I doubt many of us like the situation there but this is something nearly all provincial areas have to live with in respect of capital cities.
At least the cruise terminal in Tilbury and the planned one near Greenwich don't require substantial state payouts

Get real sunshine. London gets 24,000,000,000, Liverpool pays back all the UK grant that the UK government appointed adjudicator decides upon.And L.F.C. is not given a stadium, unlike a London football team.
What do you call a substantial amount?
The cost of the London Olympics, or an amount of 9m that is being repaid?
You make the argument for grants with your,'seem to remain severely blighted.'
The wording in the grants states, tourism and economic regeneration, so if your in depth analysis of Liverpool and Birkenhead is correct, that flies in the face of hounding Liverpool for repayment.
BTW, is everyone in Southampton happy with the new Secretary of State for Transport?.

arizonan wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Actually I very much support deprived areas getting financial aid
Why is it though, despite the £2 BILLION of State/EU aid injected into Merseyside there remain several districts in Liverpool and Birkenhead which seem to remain severely blighted whilst there is a concentration of efforts in the City Centre?
And why has £17m plus a possible extra £9m have to be sourced out of grant aid and the public purse on a project that should, in your view, be able to stand on its own two feet commercially and compete on an equal footing with other similar schemes?
It distorts the market and is unfair especially in light of the deceipt involved in retropectively requesting a change of use from the initial grant aid application
As for bringing London into the equation what relevance has this to the argument over cruise terminals?
I doubt many of us like the situation there but this is something nearly all provincial areas have to live with in respect of capital cities.
At least the cruise terminal in Tilbury and the planned one near Greenwich don't require substantial state payouts

Get real sunshine. London gets 24,000,000,000, Liverpool pays back all the UK grant that the UK government appointed adjudicator decides upon.And L.F.C. is not given a stadium, unlike a London football team.
What do you call a substantial amount?
The cost of the London Olympics, or an amount of 9m that is being repaid?
You make the argument for grants with your,'seem to remain severely blighted.'
The wording in the grants states, tourism and economic regeneration, so if your in depth analysis of Liverpool and Birkenhead is correct, that flies in the face of hounding Liverpool for repayment.
BTW, is everyone in Southampton happy with the new Secretary of State for Transport?.

We're unhappy with Mike Penning allowing you to reopen this after your beloved Labour refused you permission.
I hope all the millions you are going to attract from the Midlands enjoy their trip through spaghetti junction & they marvel at the destruction Hatton & his Labour party then & the last government have done to a once great city

Quote...'Liverpool pays back all the UK grant that the UK appointed adjudicator decides upon'....
Great headline but drill down into the detail and LCC say they will pay this amount out of revenue.
I wonder if any of the other UK cruise ports were able to negotiate such a wonderful risk free arrangement?
I very much doubt it!!
It will be interesting to see if the revenue per ship paid to LCC for ships using the new terminal ever gets published.
Bearing in mind there was a well documented spat in the Liverpool press a while ago with LCC bemoaning the high charges Peel Ports were raising for ships entering the Mersey, it is not too hard to see another fudge when further down the line the genial Mr Andersen says to the Uk Govt 'Sorry La can't pay you any more as Peel want too much of the cruise ship revenue cake'

Peel pays tax in England, with increased revenue from the Liverpool Cruise Terminal, could have repaid grants in part, or whole over time.
Contrast that to ABP's abode.

Some twenty years ago, I went to a summer school in Oxford on the subject of transport. Our lecturer was a great guy who hailed from Southampton and who had been the captain of a ship before taking up a career in education.

I remember him telling us about what happened to Southampton in the early 60s. Almost overnight the transatlantic liner trade died as passengers decided to take advantage of the much faster passenger jets such as the Boeing 707.

I guess it must have taken Southampton a long time to recover from that and there must remain a fear that something similar will happen again. The problem is that the cruise industry is by and large a provider of a luxury product and one that can be very sensitive to the economic climate.

The idea that the only way Southampton's future can be safeguarded is by preventing other ports from developing rival facilities is defeatist. No city can live forever on one industry. Liverpool recognises this and that is one reason that we are having this discussion.

If you are going to talk about 'level playing fields', perhaps you should wonder why it is that the 'level playing field' we enjoy at the moment leaves Southampton with a virtual monopoly of the cruise industry.

MerseyMart wrote:
Some twenty years ago, I went to a summer school in Oxford on the subject of transport. Our lecturer was a great guy who hailed from Southampton and who had been the captain of a ship before taking up a career in education.

I remember him telling us about what happened to Southampton in the early 60s. Almost overnight the transatlantic liner trade died as passengers decided to take advantage of the much faster passenger jets such as the Boeing 707.

I guess it must have taken Southampton a long time to recover from that and there must remain a fear that something similar will happen again. The problem is that the cruise industry is by and large a provider of a luxury product and one that can be very sensitive to the economic climate.

The idea that the only way Southampton's future can be safeguarded is by preventing other ports from developing rival facilities is defeatist. No city can live forever on one industry. Liverpool recognises this and that is one reason that we are having this discussion.

If you are going to talk about 'level playing fields', perhaps you should wonder why it is that the 'level playing field' we enjoy at the moment leaves Southampton with a virtual monopoly of the cruise industry.

Mersey mart you say a monopoly & diversify ?
What about Dover & Portsmouth & all the other cruise ports?
We gave up our sea front ( rivers) to build new container facilities only to see the Unions wreck it & felixstowe grabbing most of it.
Brown then decided he would rather win votes in London & get a Labour Mayor.
He refused you he didn't give a figs ear that there was enough port capacity to take all the container freight & then some,he didn't give a **** about any other port in the country.
But he did give a **** about getting Londoners on side so he allowed Shellhaven as of yet we haven't felt the effects of the largest port of it's kind in Europe but us & any container port is going to be hit & we did protest against it ( not ABP as they own it).
We had fag & alcohol factories which were high paid but the EU with Blairs blessing did away with the fags & Martini got a better deal in Europe.
Not one of our Labour MPs stood & fought for these well paid jobs.
You have Aintree you have a good tourist attraction in your 60's history you had /got turnaround facilities but your council lied & went after an industry that Southampton worked hard to build up what reaction did you think you would get honestly?

Loosehead,

If I was going to reply in your style, I would point to the fact that a hundred years ago, one in seven of every ship in the world was registered in Liverpool, that the Cunard line started in Liverpool and that the first transatlantic steamship service started from Liverpool (read Charles Dicken's American Notes).

Our city has had its share of misfortunes and, like yours, often blames it on other people (with some justification). Whether you take Liverpool or Southampton as the underdog really depends on which set of facts or historic baseline you choose to take.

I'm sorry to hear about your fag factory being closed and I suppose it won't please you to know that as a result of Southhampton's hard work, Liverpool now has the Roy Castle lung cancer foundation (publicly funded too) - but there you go.

Is anyone ever going to provide any evidence to justify this oft-repeated assertion that Liverpool 'lied' to get funding for its floating landing stage?

All I know is that Liverpool agreed that a condition of the grant was that it be repaid should Liverpool decide to use the facility for turnaround facilities - the terms of which Liverpool has been negotiating and has now agreed to.

Presumably you have access to some official document that the rest of us haven't seen.

I was just reading in an engineering magazine today about the massive new Thamesport - one of the biggest construction projects in Europe. I expect that is a far greater threat to Southampton than our cruise liner aspirations.

We are dogs fighting over scraps from the master's table.

MerseyMart wrote:
Loosehead,

If I was going to reply in your style, I would point to the fact that a hundred years ago, one in seven of every ship in the world was registered in Liverpool, that the Cunard line started in Liverpool and that the first transatlantic steamship service started from Liverpool (read Charles Dicken's American Notes).

Our city has had its share of misfortunes and, like yours, often blames it on other people (with some justification). Whether you take Liverpool or Southampton as the underdog really depends on which set of facts or historic baseline you choose to take.

I'm sorry to hear about your fag factory being closed and I suppose it won't please you to know that as a result of Southhampton's hard work, Liverpool now has the Roy Castle lung cancer foundation (publicly funded too) - but there you go.

Is anyone ever going to provide any evidence to justify this oft-repeated assertion that Liverpool 'lied' to get funding for its floating landing stage?

All I know is that Liverpool agreed that a condition of the grant was that it be repaid should Liverpool decide to use the facility for turnaround facilities - the terms of which Liverpool has been negotiating and has now agreed to.

Presumably you have access to some official document that the rest of us haven't seen.

I was just reading in an engineering magazine today about the massive new Thamesport - one of the biggest construction projects in Europe. I expect that is a far greater threat to Southampton than our cruise liner aspirations.

We are dogs fighting over scraps from the master's table.

Merseymart.
An interview was done with the leader of your council who admitted that they applied for turnaround but even before they had put in the application for it they had the paperwork ready for a start finish change of use application.
If asking for one reason whilst not wanting it & wanting it for a reason you wouldn't get grants for isn't lying then what is?
If they(you) wanted start finish facilities why did you not apply for grants to do this?
Sorry in the mouth(words) of your leader you applied for money for a purpose you never wanted & it was definitely wanted for another purpose so sorry that's a lie

Loosehead: 'If asking for one reason whilst not wanting it & wanting it for a reason you wouldn't get grants for isn't lying then what is?'

Loosehead, what makes you think that we didn't want the floating landing stage for turn up and go facilities?

Of course we wanted it for that. The ships that call at Liverpool are full of tourists who have money to spend in our shops, restaurants and tourist attractions and the mere presence of the ships attracts people from far and wide who consider seeing a large passenger liner to be the main attraction of a day out in Liverpool.

So there was no deceit in going after a grant to allow those facilities to be put in, even though our long term wish was to have full turnaround facilities.

Why didn't we apply for a grant for full turnaround facilities when we clearly wanted them? Well, that's just economics isn't it?

The grant was only available for turn up and go facilities and would need to be repaid should turnaround facilities be permitted. So delaying the application for full turnaround facilities allowed the cost to be spread over a longer time period and allowed the development of Liverpool as a port of call in the interim.

Believe me, there was no secret of the fact that Liverpool wanted a full turnaround facility and, therefore, the idea that somehow the City Council would have promised that in no circumstances would they want to use the landing stage for turnarounds beggars belief. The agreement was that the grant must be repaid if such facilities were to be developed.

Of course, at one stage, Liverpool did seek to have the grant condition lifted free of charge but that is hardly deceitful - surely something that we would expect the custodians of the city's finances to do?

It is not altogether clear why the no turnaround condition was applied to the grant. After all, was it made a condition of the upgrading of Southampton's road and rail infrastructure that no cargoes previously handled by Liverpool should be touched? I doubt it.

All grants can be seen as giving the recipient an unfair advantage. Ironically, the grant condition meant that the landing stage only benefitted the Liverpool area whereas the lifting of the condition following the repayment will mean that it will benefit the whole of the north west, which presently does not have access to a cruise liner terminal.

MerseyMart wrote:
Loosehead: 'If asking for one reason whilst not wanting it & wanting it for a reason you wouldn't get grants for isn't lying then what is?'

Loosehead, what makes you think that we didn't want the floating landing stage for turn up and go facilities?

Of course we wanted it for that. The ships that call at Liverpool are full of tourists who have money to spend in our shops, restaurants and tourist attractions and the mere presence of the ships attracts people from far and wide who consider seeing a large passenger liner to be the main attraction of a day out in Liverpool.

So there was no deceit in going after a grant to allow those facilities to be put in, even though our long term wish was to have full turnaround facilities.

Why didn't we apply for a grant for full turnaround facilities when we clearly wanted them? Well, that's just economics isn't it?

The grant was only available for turn up and go facilities and would need to be repaid should turnaround facilities be permitted. So delaying the application for full turnaround facilities allowed the cost to be spread over a longer time period and allowed the development of Liverpool as a port of call in the interim.

Believe me, there was no secret of the fact that Liverpool wanted a full turnaround facility and, therefore, the idea that somehow the City Council would have promised that in no circumstances would they want to use the landing stage for turnarounds beggars belief. The agreement was that the grant must be repaid if such facilities were to be developed.

Of course, at one stage, Liverpool did seek to have the grant condition lifted free of charge but that is hardly deceitful - surely something that we would expect the custodians of the city's finances to do?

It is not altogether clear why the no turnaround condition was applied to the grant. After all, was it made a condition of the upgrading of Southampton's road and rail infrastructure that no cargoes previously handled by Liverpool should be touched? I doubt it.

All grants can be seen as giving the recipient an unfair advantage. Ironically, the grant condition meant that the landing stage only benefitted the Liverpool area whereas the lifting of the condition following the repayment will mean that it will benefit the whole of the north west, which presently does not have access to a cruise liner terminal.

You just don't get it!
Your council already had an application for change of use ready before they even applied for grants for turnaround facilities which makes the reason for the grants being granted was gained by a lie .
You must be able to see that?
If it wasn't & your council was on the level why didn't they come to Southampton,Dover or any other major cruise port?
Why did they go to Portsmouth who only have a small ship terminal & by the way are against you getting the stop start facilities now they have their terminal operational?

MerseyMart
What Loosehead says explains the issues felt by many down here.
Competition is not the problem, after all there are a number of turnround ports in the UK
The terms on which Liverpool received the grant funding was quite specific. It was to provide for calling cruises only.
It is highly unlikely that the grant money would not have been forthcoming if there had been any hint of turnround activity.
Undoubtedly the other turnround ports would have challenged the Grant Aid funding.
Every one took Liverpool at their word but within a short time it became apparent that the real objective was to use the grant aided calling cruise terminal for turnrounds.
The Labour Govt, who had sanctioned the original UK Grant forn calling cruises, via good old Lord Prescott, turned down the application for change of status in 2009 ruling that it was unfair to allow one port to benefit from a publically funded development when competitors had to find private money to achieve the same objective.
Ironically it is the Tories, who are about as popular on Merseyside as The Sun, who now seem to be wavering.
Interstingly the EU, who provided approx 50% of the £17m) supposedly not to be pressing for a return of their share. This very much seems to be against their State Aid criteria, one of which is 'State Aid must not distort, or threaten to distort, competition.
Using State Aid to support a cruise terminal facility which is provided elsewhere in the UK by private finance, seems to be worthy of a challenge

Phil, Loosehead,

I think that we have got to the stage where this argument is best expressed in poetry so here goes:

A Liverpool Cruise Landing Stage
Puts all Southampton in a rage.
The Southern Echo dares to say it,
They’ve got a grant – they must repay it!

But Liverpool’s stout Uncle Joe
Fails to heed this tale of woe.
‘You took from us our great Cunard
To get it back we’ll work real hard.’

‘How can you justify your rants?
Has Soton had no transport grants?
The taxpayers of old Engerland
Have helped you trade in our own hinterland.’

‘Cruise capital you may boast
But you’re down on the south coast
And Northerners as a rule
Prefer to sail from Liverpool.’

‘You’ve got four berths, you needn’t panic
You even waved off our Titanic!
And if we still can’t make a deal
We’ll just rely on good old Peel.’

MerseyMart wrote:
Phil, Loosehead,

I think that we have got to the stage where this argument is best expressed in poetry so here goes:

A Liverpool Cruise Landing Stage
Puts all Southampton in a rage.
The Southern Echo dares to say it,
They’ve got a grant – they must repay it!

But Liverpool’s stout Uncle Joe
Fails to heed this tale of woe.
‘You took from us our great Cunard
To get it back we’ll work real hard.’

‘How can you justify your rants?
Has Soton had no transport grants?
The taxpayers of old Engerland
Have helped you trade in our own hinterland.’

‘Cruise capital you may boast
But you’re down on the south coast
And Northerners as a rule
Prefer to sail from Liverpool.’

‘You’ve got four berths, you needn’t panic
You even waved off our Titanic!
And if we still can’t make a deal
We’ll just rely on good old Peel.’

So let me give you some cold facts. not all Northerners want or would like to sail from Liverpool.Many Englanders like to come to the South a week in advance to take in the sun & do shopping & visit areas around this city.
So please don't talk for all Northerners & please we didn't take your ships you handed them to us lock stock & barrel.
My dad ( a scouse) told me about your unions he also sailed on most of the big ships in those days.he went on to sail on QE & QM originals & said even with Southamptons four tides it was the unions that lost you the ships so try remembering your true history

My efforts at humour pale into insignificance beside a true master.

loosehead wrote:

MerseyMart wrote: Phil, Loosehead, I think that we have got to the stage where this argument is best expressed in poetry so here goes: A Liverpool Cruise Landing Stage Puts all Southampton in a rage. The Southern Echo dares to say it, They’ve got a grant – they must repay it! But Liverpool’s stout Uncle Joe Fails to heed this tale of woe. ‘You took from us our great Cunard To get it back we’ll work real hard.’ ‘How can you justify your rants? Has Soton had no transport grants? The taxpayers of old Engerland Have helped you trade in our own hinterland.’ ‘Cruise capital you may boast But you’re down on the south coast And Northerners as a rule Prefer to sail from Liverpool.’ ‘You’ve got four berths, you needn’t panic You even waved off our Titanic! And if we still can’t make a deal We’ll just rely on good old Peel.’

So let me give you some cold facts. not all Northerners want or would like to sail from Liverpool.Many Englanders like to come to the South a week in advance to take in the sun & do shopping & visit areas around this city. So please don't talk for all Northerners & please we didn't take your ships you handed them to us lock stock & barrel. My dad ( a scouse) told me about your unions he also sailed on most of the big ships in those days.he went on to sail on QE & QM originals & said even with Southamptons four tides it was the unions that lost you the ships so try remembering your true history

Hi Loosehead,

OK I'll attempt a serious answer.

First our unions. According to your post of 10th February, it appears that you have problems with unions as well. Certainly there were big problems in Liverpool during the 60s and 70s, which were partly as a result of the massive reduction of dock labour brought about by containerisation and other bulk cargo handling techniques. However, by that time the ocean liner trade had been effectively killed off by competition from jet aircraft. The transfer of the liner trade from Liverpool to Southampton took place from before the First World War - as exemplified by the fact that Titanic, a Liverpool conceived and registered ship only stopped at Southampton on her maiden voyage.

As for Northerners not wanting to sail from Liverpool, I can't deny that there will be examples of that but it is a very weak argument. Nobody on the way to a sunshine cruise to the Med is going to stop off in Southampton unless they have a lot of time to spare. I might also ask you what happened to the road congestion in the Midlands, which you continually vaunt as being a major drawback for anyone wanting to use Liverpool? Does it only work in one direction?

MerseyMart wrote:

loosehead wrote:

MerseyMart wrote: Phil, Loosehead, I think that we have got to the stage where this argument is best expressed in poetry so here goes: A Liverpool Cruise Landing Stage Puts all Southampton in a rage. The Southern Echo dares to say it, They’ve got a grant – they must repay it! But Liverpool’s stout Uncle Joe Fails to heed this tale of woe. ‘You took from us our great Cunard To get it back we’ll work real hard.’ ‘How can you justify your rants? Has Soton had no transport grants? The taxpayers of old Engerland Have helped you trade in our own hinterland.’ ‘Cruise capital you may boast But you’re down on the south coast And Northerners as a rule Prefer to sail from Liverpool.’ ‘You’ve got four berths, you needn’t panic You even waved off our Titanic! And if we still can’t make a deal We’ll just rely on good old Peel.’

So let me give you some cold facts. not all Northerners want or would like to sail from Liverpool.Many Englanders like to come to the South a week in advance to take in the sun & do shopping & visit areas around this city. So please don't talk for all Northerners & please we didn't take your ships you handed them to us lock stock & barrel. My dad ( a scouse) told me about your unions he also sailed on most of the big ships in those days.he went on to sail on QE & QM originals & said even with Southamptons four tides it was the unions that lost you the ships so try remembering your true history

Hi Loosehead,

OK I'll attempt a serious answer.

First our unions. According to your post of 10th February, it appears that you have problems with unions as well. Certainly there were big problems in Liverpool during the 60s and 70s, which were partly as a result of the massive reduction of dock labour brought about by containerisation and other bulk cargo handling techniques. However, by that time the ocean liner trade had been effectively killed off by competition from jet aircraft. The transfer of the liner trade from Liverpool to Southampton took place from before the First World War - as exemplified by the fact that Titanic, a Liverpool conceived and registered ship only stopped at Southampton on her maiden voyage.

As for Northerners not wanting to sail from Liverpool, I can't deny that there will be examples of that but it is a very weak argument. Nobody on the way to a sunshine cruise to the Med is going to stop off in Southampton unless they have a lot of time to spare. I might also ask you what happened to the road congestion in the Midlands, which you continually vaunt as being a major drawback for anyone wanting to use Liverpool? Does it only work in one direction?

I know that many people in the North take advantage of cheapie flights to Southampton Airport with Flybe.
I talked to a Lady who works for Santander in Durham.
She came down a week early visited the motor museum in beaulie & several spots in the New Forest then spent a day shopping then boarded her ship.
She said if I went on holiday for a tan I could have saved my money by staying in Southampton where it was 35%
I admit I'm anti unions as I feel they have now & in the past gone further than they should.
they are not here to run the country & they have a political arm in the Labour party but even when that party was in control the unions went to far ( Winter of Discontent).
I will say this again I'm not anti Liverpool I'm very proud of my heritage on my fathers side of the family