The Thick of It ministerial visit to Liverpool
Minister Ian Pearson (on left) visiting Liverpool yesterday
Ever wondered how realistic the BBC TV show The Thick Of It It really is?
I'll let you make your own mind up after I've related the following story about the visit of treasury minister Ian Pearson to Liverpool yesterday.
The story starts in earnest on Monday when a press officer makes a call to the Post and Echo newsdesk. Let's call her A. So A rings to ask if we'll be sending anyone down to a housing market renewal project in Kensington. The call is put through to me and I say we'll try to get someone along. The purpose of the visit is obviously an attempt to get coverage ahead of the Pre-budget report next week.
Later in the day another call from A is put through to me, this time she had gone through to the business desk. Again I confirm that we'll try to send someone.
On Tuesday morning I am on the phone when another call comes through, probably from A but I'm not sure. A colleague takes a message that the time of the visit has been brought forward from 12.15 to noon.
So up I head to Kensington Square for noon.
I get there and spend the next part of an hour watching Mr Pearson being shown around the scheme, waiting for the five minutes I'll be given with him at the end of the visit. Present is one of the most senior press officers from the treasury, another aide, and a press officer from the Homes and Communties Agency (HCA).
Fairly soon after arriving the senior press officer from the treasury suggests a number of things I might ask as next week it's the Pre-budget report.
Later in the visit I ask the same man from the treasury whether he's got any type of release with the facts and figures about the housing scheme we are at. He says no HCA are "handling that". So I ask the woman from the HCA and her initial reply is: "I though treasury were handling that". I tell her what the man from the treasury said: "OK let me see what I can do, we'll get something to you" comes the reply.
Not that we always want a press release, but you can't help but feel that when you have called journalists to a publicity stunt you might want to supply them with some facts and figures.
It's worth pointing out that I was the only journalist there, the Post and Echo always try to staff events like this on the chance that there may be a good story in it, or the minister gives a good line on a local issue.
So eventually I get to speak to Mr Pearson, and he struck me as a decent personable man. He can't speak about the details of the PBR though, and proceeds to tell me how much the Government have helped the country throughout the recession with grants like the Kickstart Housing grant which has helped the Kensington Square project in Liverpool. "What about Merseytram?" I ask him. Can't comment on individual projects is the response, but the Government is committed to quality public transport. Oh, and it would be a disaster if the Tories got elected and started slashing spending.
So after the chat I drive back to the office and work on a couple of other stories before eventually filing seven paragraphs (159 words) on Mr Pearson's visit. When space is at a premium in papers the most interesting stories are given priority, and essentially there was nothing that interesting about the visit.
If you are wondering what happened to the fact sheet I was after, I came into the office this morning (Wednesday) to find an email had dropped in my inbox at 10.54pm on Tuesday night, complete with fact sheet and picture, an hour before the deadline and hours after I had left the office.
Older/Newer
« And it's Happy Christmas from Liverpool Direct Limited (LDL) | Conservatives to choose Liverpool candidates »
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Thick of It ministerial visit to Liverpool.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/171562
13 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
David Bartlett - City editor of the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs. He was previously chief reporter of the Daily Post and here he gives his insight into the workings of regional politics.
He needed a major policy initiative on housing - such as launching the National Spare Rooms Database. That would have grabbed your attention
If there was ever a blatant attempt to squeeze some cheap publicity and a photo op. from Labour, this was it - well, apart from Jane Kennedy's now famous "I declare this road open"... an event which seemed to have no apparent effect at all on the good people of Kensington. "Oh look", they were heard rejoicing, "we can drive from Edge Lane to Wavertree Road so much quicker now. New jobs must be just around the corner".
Speaking of which, where are all the happy Kensington residents coming out with open arms and cheery greetings to the Minister from the Treasury? Where indeed the prospective Labour candidates for the Wavertree seat? A golden [and missed]opportunity for Luciana to raise her profile.
Sadly, it looks like we'll have to put up with a good deal more of these self-seeking promotional flying visits from complete nonentities over the next couple of months. It's beginning to remind me very much of the fag-end days of the Major Government - nothing to offer, nothing to hope for but more of the same. God, who in their right mind would vote for this shower of incompetants now? Gordon would at least go down with some sense of dignity if he dissolved Parliament tomorrow, but we all know he won't, and Labour will get hammered come the General Election.
You should have asked how Pearson's brother is doing. Look up "Martin Pearson imprisoned".
Good to see Streetwise back again, thought you had lost your voice, since you had nothing to say or to comment about your mates in LDL. That's some real politics I thought you would be interested in.
As for any affects on the good people of Kensington....hmmmmm don't speak to soon Streetie.
Ali, thanks for your comments. To be honest, I don't have any mates in LDL, so can't share any news with you, political or otherwise. It shouldn't come any surprise to you that I'm more interested in what happens "on the ground" with real people and their everyday concerns than the rarified inner chambers of corporate life aka LDL. Maybe I should, but right now, I'd prefer to leave that to others who know more about it from their end.
Fair enough Streetwise. Pleased to hear you don't have mates in LDL. You should keep it that way. I had mates in LDL although not the kind I was mistakenly suggesting you may have and really wouldn't wish it on anybody.
They were in the call centre and were reduced to tears on at least a weekly basis. These were no wimps, they were previously hard working people who actually enjoyed working with and helping the public.
But they found it hard to help with some manager screaming at them to end a public call as it was going over the time allowed. In one case when a person was feeling suicidal a manager cut the call.
So the thing is,the LDL story is about real people's everyday life and concerns and it is about things on the ground. The council may soon be making cuts in jobs and services while it is paying £70 Million a year to LDL and doesn't actually know what it is paying for and has never received a penny in profit from a company they part own, run by one of their own seconded staff who is their Chief Exec and who was in charge of putting all those council services in there.
If cuts are planned and million in profit should have been paid to the council that means those cuts may not be needed. It may well be the fault of the "rarified corporate chambers." But those chambers are run and those deals signed off by the Liberal Democrat administration.
I don't actually think Joe Anderson or the Labour mob could do much about it, as between them, Mike Storey, David Henshaw and David McIllhinney stitched the city up good and proper. Then Mr Hilton and Mr Bradley extended the disgrace for another five years. So maybe you don't have friends in LDL but some of your friends may well be responsible for LDL.
I don't think all Lib Dems are bad.
Anyway as a keen follower of this blog, I enjoy your contributions even if I don't always agree. But I also think somebody of your knowledge and passion for the issues being discussed, really should make it their business to add to the LDL debate. i don't think that if you support the administration, you can bury your head in the sand on this, as it impacts upon everything the council does. As you can hear, there is a deafening silence from the Lib dems. They may know more about it than you but I don't see anyone rushing to repudiate the comments above.
Anyway just my opinion, Cheers Streetwise
A very erudite post Ali. Dont expect any response off Streetie tho,like all LIB DEMS he is an LDL-denier
The fact that just to give one example the vulnerable people of this city are kept waiting at the now LDL run "care"line is a fact that should shame this city
fobbing people off re flytipping is one thing, not being able to get throug to report child protection concerns is quite another.
Far from being an "LDL-denier", I think it's about time it was subject to some deeper scrutiny. This would examine some of the best-value contractual issues which, I'm sure, haven't been in the best interests of the Council and, ultimately, the ratepayers.
Ok, Streetwise, not an 'LDL-denier' then. But utterly clueless all the same. You say "it's about time (LDL) was subject to deeper scrutiny". This would be 'deeper' than the scrutiny to which it is subject from the LibDem select committees & leadership. That goes without saying of course. But just how 'deep' the scrutiny in the wake of the £223,000 spent on consultants this year to probe LDL. Are you now saying that was public money wasted? And what about the damning report in 2008 from the IDeA that slated the lack of transparency & accountability in LDL's affairs? Was that not scrutiny deep enough to drive the message through the thickest LibDem skull? I suspect you'd like some more 'scrutiny' in order to let things tick along undisturbed. You LibDems remain in denial about LDL. And Liverpool remains in £120mill debt because of LibDem incompetent mismanagement.
Just a quick note to point out this was not a Labour Party visit, not a party political visit. This was a ministerial visit, organised by civil servants. If it had been a political visit, I would have been there to meet the minister like I was when John Healey came to Kensington Square. And may well have had some residents there too. Streetwise is not as wise as he might like us to think, he has just shown himself to be petty and small minded. Why not celebrate that our Government has paid several more millions for housing development in Kensington and Fairfield rather than be so bloody spiteful?
"This wasn't a Labour Party visit". So, Louise, which party does Ian Pearson belong to? "It wasn't a party political visit". Erm, same question given that there's a general election in a couple of months time. So let's blame the civil servants, shall we? And since we're on this, what's the difference between this and the Ministerial visit by David Miliband that you blogged about? Yes, you know...the one which was limited to Labour luvvies only? Still can't understand why Luciana wasn't there, though. Petty and small-minded? No, that particular prize goes to your erstwhile comrade, Ronnie. Or perhaps not given his "non-luvvie" status in your ranks.
I wasn't with Louise over the Miliband visit, but I'm totally with her on this. She is right - and Streetwise is a LibDem, hence wrong! I guess we both need to cut Streetwise a little slack though. He doesn't seem politically grown up yet, a bit slow all round. Being a LibDem, he'll not really understand how Ministers and Governments work. After all, it's been over 100 years since the LibDems or their predecessors had any Ministers. Poor Paddy Pantsdown thought he might become one under Blair, but alas his colleagues scuppered the idea. Parish pump politicians, that's all LibDems are - petty, spiteful, and vacuous in the main - the party of that citadel of public honour, Jeremy Thorpe; and that scion of trough-emptying, Lord Rennard
...looks like I've rattled Ronnie's cage a bit there, Louise. Any thoughts of putting your own nomination in to stop Luciana getting the Wavertree candidacy, by the way? I know you must be very tempted given the candidates you've got so far...you know, the ones who aren't as "politically grown-up" as you.