Spare a thought for Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson. No, really, spare a thought for the guy. There he was just a week and a half ago with a warm, contented glow. He'd become Mayor Anderson on the vote of the people (let's leave aside the abysmally low turnout for a moment) & had just been the subject of a puff piece in the Oldham Echo, courtesy of our old friend Paddy Shennan (hello, Paddy!).
Paddy's fawning article (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/in-the-mix/2012/07/16/behind-the-scenes-joe-anderson-liverpool-s-first-elected-mayor-100252-31401115/ ) quoted Joe as declaring, "When I go to David Cameron's mayoral committee I can speak powerfully -- having been elected by the people with a thumping big majority.
"And if we show competence and confidence in what we do we will be able to negotiate more and more powers."
As I said, let's gloss over that turnout figure of 31.7%, although Paddy, to be fair, does give it a mention. Moreover, it does seem a rather quaint notion that if Joe & Co. implement enough Tory cuts they'll be rewarded with "more and more powers" from a ConDem government which is notable, inter alia, for its centralising impulses.
Joe also exhibited a refreshing degree of modesty when asked by Paddy about his legacy: "It won't be one individual issue. I want people to remember the rebirth of the city. We've got a great past but an even better future. We have got so much to look forward to and I want people to say of me, 'He was the catalyst for the rebirth of the city'. "
Got that? Joe doesn't want much in the way of adulation, he just wants to be known as the "catalyst" for Liverpool's renaissance.
With that in the bag Joe had every reason to think that he really had Oldham Hall Street in his pocket. Er, no, he hadn't.
A series of embarrassing stories began to appear in the Oldham Echo, much to Joe's chagrin & he made clear his unhappiness about it, as noted by David Bartlett (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/07/liverpool-mayor-joe-anderson-h.html ).
It wasn't meant to be like this for Joe. He needed the best possible spin as he implemented the Tory cuts he insisted he himself loathed. Anything rather than the reality of a future for cities like Liverpool which holds out the demeaning prospect of hand-outs at food banks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/food-banks-on-hand-outs ).
Joe's mood wouldn't have been lightened by the revelation that security for the Mathew Street Festival will be supplied by those reliable chaps at G4S (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/07/19/olympic-security-fiasco-firm-g4s-will-provide-crowd-control-at-mathew-street-festival-100252-31425415/ ).
Perhaps it was the Olympic link, allied to a sense of grievance which prompted Joe to tweet a little message in the direction of the capital earlier today. Realising that it didn't exactly reflect well on both his office of mayor & the city he likes to champion to a wider audience, Joe deleted it. Ah, but wait. The web can be an unforgiving place. Deleted tweets can return to haunt you just when you think all is well & said tweet has now been preserved for less than noble posterity. Warning: it does contain a good old Anglo-Saxon term as well as a piece of shoddy grammar: https://p.twimg.com/Ayz-UY8CYAEOYLX.jpg .
It isn't clear what Joe was referring to when expressing the hope that London didn't, well, make a mess of things. However, it could be a reference to culture year, something Joe & his cohorts have always insisted was an unalloyed success. Or perhaps it could be a reference to the civic disfigurement of Liverpool's waterfront that Joe has shamelessly championed.
Whatever it refers to, one thing is certain: Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson has said far more about himself in one deleted tweet than in a whole series of sycophantic pieces in the Oldham Echo.
21.10 UPDATE: David Bartlett is reporting that a member of staff in Joe Anderson's office has been suspended over the deleted tweet (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/07/liverpool-council-employee-sus.html ).
If someone else did, ahem, compose the offending tweet, it would certainly explain matters. However, it does raise the question of online authorship. Does Mayor Anderson always instruct his staff to tweet in his name? If so, it still reflects badly on the mayor. Twitter, like Facebook, is supposed to be about self-expression & openness, not PR.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment