Public Money To Pay For Port's Plan

Raising my head above the parapet in the Liverpool-Southampton port wars (& still nursing a broken heart after David Bartlett dropped the link to this blog on his Dale Street Blues site, oh, how fickle & thin-skinned they are on Oldham Hall Street, you can forget about that Christmas card this year, David!), I see that local Hampshire MP & prominent Lib Dem Chris Huhne has written to the European Competition Commissioner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8335506.stm ).
As has been pointed out too many times for the liking of vested local interests, Southampton has a case for raising concerns about the cruise liner terminal. The BBC report that the government "must approve the plan because a £9m EU grant helped pay for Liverpool's £20m cruise liner terminal, whereas Southampton is commercially-funded."
Business being business, the notion that public money should subsidise nearly half the amount needed to fund such a development on the Mersey is risible. Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm no apologist for free market capitalism, but the inconvenient reality for the usual local suspects is that having established an operation under its own steam, so to speak, Southampton has every right to highlight this absurdity.
The report quotes Cllr Gary Millar, executive member on the city council for enterprise & tourism: "We believe that the creation of a full turnaround facility at Liverpool will benefit the cruise liner industry in the UK, as the city is uniquely positioned to attract business from outside of Europe.
"The application to the DfT [Department for Transport] has been made in response to calls from the industry and passengers and the city is keen to build on the success of the facility so far."
I recall Wayne pointing Cllr Millar out to me at the PR stunt for One Parked Here Without Our Say-So (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/hugs-from-mugs.html ). Pespiring visibly, Cllr Millar clasped a mobile in one hand while wearing what can be best described as a harrassed look on his face as the kids were bussed in for the photo-op; it's no surprise to observe that his attempts with syntax are as clumsy as his hamfisted PR technique.
The substance, if you can call it that, of Cllr Millar's puff-piece is more hole-ridden than Swiss cheese. Contending that a facility at Liverpool will "benefit the cruise liner industry in the UK" is arrant nonsense & an all too transparent bid to hoodwink a larger audience outside Merseyside. In addition, what's this garbage about Liverpool being "uniquely positioned" to capture & secure a non-Europen market? Is it merely because Liverpool is a westward-facing port? If so, you could make the same argument for Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff or Glasgow.
It is of no surprise that Oldham Hall Street hasn't yet formulated a response to latest developments (still waiting for a press release to be issued by Peel Holdings, I suspect). However, if --or when-- it does, will it also mention that Chris Huhne was once a humble scribe for the Daily Ghost?

Recriminations But No Regrets

No, just as I suspected, it was too much to hope that sanity would finally prevail over the Liverpool cruise terminal. Both the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo were at it again this morning. David Bartlett scratched around forlornly, half-heartedly sniffing at a scrap here, a bone there(http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/12/17/liverpool-city-leaders-continue-pier-head-cruise-terminal-ship-battle-100252-25411239/ ):
"One option may be to repay the £9m of public money which helped build the terminal and which has been judged an unfair advantage over competitors like Southampton.
"A private partner, such as a cruise company, could be sought to salvage the bid.
"It is understood the council may also seek clarification from European authorities about whether if the terminal were classed as a vital piece of transport infrastructure it could bypass competition rules."
Yes, I know, talk about clutching at straws. However, it's a theme on Oldham Hall Street, it appears, to talk up a scenario so improbable that you wonder if it had its genesis at the Christmas party after a few bevvies.
Bartlett's article quotes Joe Anderson, leader of the city's Labour group, declaring that the decision by government minister Paul Clark shows he's "living in 'cloud-cuckoo-land' ". Joe, I appreciate you want to displace a corrupt administration but siding with said characters, their friends in local commerce & Oldham Hall Street does you no credit whatsoever.
Bartlett's piece also contains this gem which only feeds into the self-pitying Scouse stereotype:
"Tourism leader Cllr Gary Millar said: 'My own view from a political point of view is that once again the Labour Government has snubbed Liverpool.'
"He said it was too early to start talking about a legal challenge to the Government's decision."
In other words, there are no grounds for a legal challenge & Cllr Millar's use of the "too early" to say argument unsuccessfully tries to disguise it. Then again, let us not forget that Cllr Millar has form when it comes to bombast, spin & chutzpah; some of us recall his worried, pespiring presence at the PR fiasco for One Parked Here Without Our Say-So(http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/hugs-from-mugs.html ).
The editorialising on Oldham Hall Street was in full cry, too, with the Oldham Echo leading the charge like a tired & emotional scally on Dale Street at 2am(http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2009/12/17/keep-liverpool-s-pier-head-cruise-liner-dreams-alive-100252-25410778/ ), vowing to anyone who wanted to know that the decision "should not be regarded as the end of the matter.
"We have been defeated, but we should remain defiant and keep afloat our long-term plans to further develop our much-envied, world-class waterfront."
Ah yes, "our much-envied, world-class waterfront" which has been hideously disfigured by the arrival of the eyesores, a development applauded at every stage by those on Oldham Hall Street whose parrot-like cries that more buildings, any buildings, no matter how they look, on the waterfront, equate "progress", making a mockery of the port's World Heritage Status; Big Al Machray & Bill Gleeson, both much loved & respected by their colleagues, I'm told, bear a fair deal of culpability for this act of civic vandalism.
Nowhere in the Echo's swaggering & defiant yell of resistance to reality is there even the hint of an acknowledgement that allowing £9m of European money to be used for an upgraded terminal would have been tantamount to an illegal subsidy.
The Daily Ghost's editorial, written by William Leece, strikes a less populist tone than that of its strident sibling. However, it's still in denial about the inherent flaws in the terminal plans. It concludes (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2009/12/17/comment-time-for-round-two-in-the-fight-to-upgrade-the-cruise-liner-terminal-92534-25410308/ ):
"Even if the worst comes to the worst, perhaps it may be still be best to repay the £9m in Euro-support and have done with it."
However, let's not end on such a dispirited note. Let's hear it from the Oldham Echo to bellow one last cry of parochial protest:
"No one can deny us our proud maritime history, and no one should underestimate our determination to bring back the glory days."
All together now, "In my Liverpool home, in my Liverpool home...."

Peel's Press Gang Plan

When someone is losing the argument & won't take no for an answer, despite logic & law being against them, they're usually advised to grow up, or leave the pub & sober up. Unfortunately, Peel Holdings has cast itself in the role of the recalcitrant reveller, adamant it's right & that it won't back down over its plan to use public money for a commercial development (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/19/liverpool-s-pier-head-could-become-a-base-for-cruise-liners-100252-26065361/ ).

Needless to say Warren Bradley & his merry men (they've been drinking in the same bar as Peel) & Oldham Hall Street are back on board, just as they were during their juvenile game of name-calling with Southampton (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/oldham-echo-fight-arranger.html & http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/10/oldham-echo-fight-arranger-round-two.html ).

When the appeal of "port wars" began to wane, accompanied by the heavy hangover reality of business as it is normally conducted (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/public-money-to-pay-for-ports-plan.html ) & the threadbare nature of Peel's case was exposed, the cheerleaders realised the game was up & silently peeled --pardon the pun-- away (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/12/oldham-echo-fight-arranger-licence.html ).

That said, however, I noted at the time: "It would be nice to think that sanity's finally prevailed. Don't hold your breath, though."

Well, the sanity's gone out of the window again & it's trebles all round at the bar for Peel & its acolytes; Peter Elson lost no time in the Oldham Echo to get the party resumed (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/22/shipping-lines-peel-floats-idea-of-transferring-cruise-turnarounds-to-temporary-pier-head-berth-100252-26081623/ ):

"Terrific news from Mersey Docks owner Peel and Liverpool City Council about transferring the turnaround cruises from Langton Dock to the Pier Head cruise liner stage on a temporary basis.

"This is bold new thinking from Peel which, by retaining the same number of cruises as at Langton, hopes not to antagonise rival Southampton port bosses' cries of foul over breaking EU caveats on grants used to fund the new stage. Vital, too, is the tag of it being temporary, while Peel reviews building its own stage to the north."

This "bold new thinking" could well be seen by some as a third-rate sleight-of-hand manoeuvre by Peel. It's intriguing, too, that Elson uses the word "reviews" about Peel's stage north of the Pier Head. That could be read as a non-committal stance by Peel on whether such a stage would ever be built.

Elson's piece quotes Cllr Gary Millar (yes, he's popped back into the bar, too), the council's executive member for local tourism & regeneration, & he further muddies the already brown waters surrounding the exotically-named Liverpool Waters project when he burbles that "it's a wonderful advance by Peel to test the waters. Once a temporary berth is established the public will have a perception that it shouldn't be taken away and hopefully that will focus efforts on finding a long term solution."

So, Peel is testing the waters with this plan, eh? Interesting phrase. It could be taken to mean that Peel is chancing its arm with this plan & that it could present both Southampton & the Department for Transport with a de facto, as opposed to a de jure, cruise liner development which would be sold as a fait accompli, regardless of anyone else's wishes. Moreover, I'm sure Oldham Hall Street will play its part in facilitating the public perception "that it shouldn't be taken away".

Nah, maybe I'm just being too cynical & Mark Thomas is right that this really is a "nasty & vindictive blog". Incidentally, I note from Elson's article that the first cruise liner that left the Langton Dock this week was named Boudicca, a tribute to the ancient leader whose war against Roman occupation of Britain ended in heroic failure, her corpse reportedly being buried on the site of one of the platforms at London's King's Cross station. I'm sure there aren't any parallels with Peel's prospects in its renewal of hostilities.

Yet it seems that Peel does inhabit a parallel universe in believing that if it can't convince government of their case, it'll continue with a crafty nod here, a surreptitious wink there & a rabble-rousing call to base parochialism, elbowing the famous Mersey ferries in the process, as Wayne noted last Friday (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/03/peel-holdings-want-pier-head-stinky-ink.html ).

This is the reality which neither the Daily Ghost nor the Oldham Echo won't even allude to, as outlined by the Southampton Daily Echo (yes, yes, I'm highly aware that Southampton has its own agenda, but its points on the use of public money for a commercial operation are unarguable):

"The Department for Transport (DfT) decided against relaxing its rules on publicly funded competition to allow a full turnaround facility at Liverpool's Cruise Terminal on the grounds that it would have an 'unfair and adverse effect' on the market.

"Now officials from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, owned by developer Peel, are again in discussions with the city council to transfer cruises from its existing turnaround facility, a tatty dock in Bootle, to Pier Head.

"Now, however, Peel says the move would just be temporary, while it presses ahead with ambitious plans to build its own cruise terminal as part of the £5.5 billion skyscraper Liverpool Water scheme. That scheme, the largest urban regeneration project in the UK, is likely to take years, with a planning application not due to be submitted until later this year.

"In a bid to appease concerned rivals they say the number of turnaround cruises would remain the same, but ABP [owner of Southampton docks] is unimpressed arguing if they had wanted better facilities 'they should have invested in them years ago' " (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/business/shipping/shippingnews/5077150._Port_wars__resume/ ).

Indeed. However, that won't stop Peel, Bradley's crew & those in an increasingly Mary Celeste-like Oldham Hall Street from filling up their tankards & demanding a resumption of Cruise Wars until EU rules are tossed overboard, the DfT is rammed & Peel's vessel rules the waves.

*Image courtesy of http://www.e-architect.co.uk/ .