A good day to recycle bad news, maybe?
WHO said Liverpool council was rubbish at recycling?
In recent weeks, the authority has been trashed for sending far too much of the city's waste to landfill rather than send it off to be put to good use once again.
Such a sore point, it would appear, that two Labour councillors put down a motion calling for a special panel to look into the problem and were slapped down by the chief whip, Cllr Alan Dean, apparently with the blessing of the Infallible Pope Joe XXIII.
But the council should look to their dear leader for guidance, for he has proven himself to be capable when it comes to a spot of recycling.
For at last week's meeting of the full council, Mayor Anderson, in a lengthy presidential 'state of the nation'-type address (which was largely very well delivered and to the point), couldn't help himself but deviate from his statement of affairs to spend a few moments indulging his other favourite pastime, criticising the media.
He expressed his frustration at the good ladies and gentlemen of Her Majesty's Press's predilection (not the Mayor's word) for reporting "every missed bin or road closure".
Rewind to earlier this week, and Mayor Anderson is once again unhappy with the Press, this time for reporting the contents of a bumper internal audit report which points out some systemic failings within the council. Unfortunately, Mayor Anderson did not feel it fit to share with the public all the things the council was doing to put the problems right, and so instead put his statement on the internal intranet (only to be promptly leaked).
And, surprise surprise, what should he tell his flock but that: "This cynical, negative attitude (of the media) is all too typical of coverage of the city council, where ... every missed bin or road closure is reported in a negative way!"
Now that's recycling.
STRANGE that in Mayor Anderson's statement to council staff he should claim that the Press chose not to include the information about how the authority was dealing with the problems identified by the internal audit report.
Strange because the information was not made available to the Press, and in fact only surfaced on the day the story of the report went into print. Perhaps if Mayor Anderson had responded to the two approaches for a comment it would have assisted those reptiles of the media!
A RATHER amusing war of words broke out between city Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Richard Kemp and Labour's Cllr Patrick Hurley.
It began with a claim by Cllr Hurley that the Press was a more effective opposition than the Lib Dems, and ended with Cllr Kemp calling Cllr Hurley a "muppet" who merely "crawls" to Mayor Anderson.
What possible evidence could Cllr Kemp have for such a claim?
Perhaps Cllr Hurley's tweet of last week could shed some light on the issue.
"I wanted a city mayor so Liverpool would have a powerful figure leading it. So I'm glad @joeforliverpool is proving himself up to the job."
Makes you want to hurley, doesn't it?
27 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
I am not sure anyone has fully grasped waht the position of mayor is supposed to be. A mayor does not have to be of any political party and, had a non politico gained the post, would all Lib Dems and all the Labour councilors then see themselves as the opposition ?
In the interests of democracy is it not time to cut Joe loose ? Let him run with what he wants as mayor and for Labour-without-Joe to make up their own minds on each issue.
It is becoming more obvious that Joe is not reflecting the views of the Labour group but rather instructing them to back his and woe betide anyone who does not say 'how high' quick enough.
I suspect that when they thought up the elected mayor = strong governance = good idea proposal, the Tories were actually thinking of local authorities where no single party has a big majority. In that kind of situation, the idea of a single figure with a personal mandate is appealing - the reason why Bristol actually decided they would have one, in their referendum.
But in a situation like ours, it is already clear that it was a mistake - very early days, and Labour councillors have already been reduced to dealing with constituent's problems and rubber stamping every single mayoral proposal.
As for the views of the Labour group - I cannot believe that refusing to delegate anything to anyone, and making everyone toe the line to the degree that the Mayor requires are actually Labour views at all.
Given the biased and inaccurate piece of spin masquerading as advice from the Chief Executive that was used to convince the Labour group to go straight to an elected mayor, it's not hard to deduce where all these mayoral ideas are actually coming from. Elected people should be deciding on strategy and policy, with officers advising and implementing. What we seem to have is the other way round - with the Mayor as legitimising mouthpiece.
'katie54' has managed a comment without mentioning LDL. I conclude, therefore, that it cannot possibly be her.
Sorry to disappoint you, "Wonders will never cease", but actually, I thought it was obvious that I was indeed referring to my favourite company. Where do you think the ideas are coming from? Fitzgerald is a director of LDL, his Policy & Partnerships is practically a branch of LDL.
The logic is clear - if you want to keep hold of the golden goose, you've got to avoid real scrutiny and prevent proper governance. And if you can get to influence strategy, too, all the better.
Joe Anderson didn't seem to mind the 'cynical' press coverage in the run up to the mayoral election when he was never off the front page.
As LDL developed, especially given the controlling tendencies of certain senior officers at the time, I always had a paranoid suspicion (my default setting according to some of my Executive Board colleagues) that the subtext of what was being done was the gradual transfer of the locus of power from elected members to a parallel organisation which would become a PPP alternative Council. That would certainly have chimed with New Labour policy mindset for local government dovetailed with its slavish belief in the supremacy of private sector provision.
It would seem that process is still ongoing .....
Sorry, but is ".... given the controlling tendencies of certain senior officers at the time....." meant to be funny?
The current ones aren't controlling??
It wasn't just a New Labour mindset. You and your LibDem colleagues inflicted this one on us.
You followed all the New Labour advice when you set up LDL, checks and balances, etc. etc. .... but then allowed McElhinney to run roughshod over the lot of you. The rules were all there, but you never ever enforced them. Not any of them. So we've had year after year of leaks, suppressed reports, scandals.
What a pity none of you would ever admit you got anything wrong. Even when asked about this during the Mayoral debate, your colleague Richard Kemp would not admit the LibDems had got anything wrong about LDL, but merely winged that people needed to remember how awful things were before it was established.
Gutless.
By the time you started tackling the mess properly - in response to another predictably damning external report - and set up the Dolan and Cosgrove review and the LDL Scrutiny panel, it was too late. They actually developed a proper ICT Strategy which would finally start to rein in LDL and its truly appalling governance.
But by then it was 2009, and as we all remember, Labour decided(why???) to get rid of Hilton straight after the 2010 election, appoint McElhinney, and then allow him to purge every single one of the officers who had been working on all this. And bin the strategy, governance and everything else.
The LibDems are not responsible for the lies that LCC now trots out in its response to FOI requests about LDL, or for the muzzling of scrutiny - that's down to Joe Anderson. But they are for everything else.
About time you all admit this - and start making amends. Because it is now clear that things are going to get a lot worse if something doesn't change.
Katie's mention of the doctor getting rid of Dolan and Cosgrove for the sin of having sight of a report saying that all was not well with the council's relationship with LDL and then Joe Anderson's actions in empowering the said doctor to 'make them both an offer they could not refuse' means that no matter what Joe Anderson goes on to do, the big question mark is for ever going to hang over him while the doctor is there but is he bothered by question marks is an even bigger question.
He isn't bothered at all, is he?
Far more worried about appearances than reality - hence the reaction to that silly Twitter comment, but no reaction whatsover to gross misrepresentation, if not worse, to select committees etc. I think he thinks he's been elected to be some kind of PR figure - soundbites, walkabouts and general blather.
Even more disappointing - none of the Labour group appear to be bothered about this either.
They all, presumably, think this is going to go away. It won't.
Truth is, I actually think that the reason Cosgrove in particular was got rid of so quickly and aggressively (accusation of misconduct) was not so much to rubbish the report (although that will have been useful), but to stop implementation of the strategy and governance reform in their tracks. And bury them.
Because as we all know, McElhinney and LDL have brazened out several highly critical reports. But this was actually far more threatening - a proper and serious change for the better, proper best practice, approved by the full Council and by the District Auditor. Hence the need to purge everyone involved.
To state the obvious and try to clarify my previous, the governance of Councils always pivots around the struggle between the members who think they are running things and the officers who actually are running things. The art of local political leadership in my view is primarily about devising stratagems which ensure officers have no choice but to do (pretty much) what you want them to do to deliver your political aims and also recognising those odd occasions when it is best to do nothing.
I was on the LDL scrutiny panel and I am well aware that there were problems which the LD Council leadership did not do enough to stop developing (give them an inch ...). However the fact is that LDL (and the OSS system) actually did deliver a vastly superior service to people than was in place before. When I recall the scale of dysfunction we inherited in 1998 I can understand how some of my colleagues were persuaded to give the benefit of the doubt and allow those inches to be taken.
The LDL scrutiny panel did not meet during most of Labour's first year of office despite regular and forceful all party requests from the Finance and Resources select committee which I chaired in that year. I also read the report referred to in full twice over and discussed its contents at length on the scrutiny panel - as always I asked a lot of questions - and as with certain legal matters, just because you know something is not quite right doesn't mean you have any chance of proving it. In Scotland the equivalent verdict would have been "Not Proven" on some issues and "Not Guilty" on others.
It also has to be taken into account that the failure of Storey and Bradley to make sufficient financial planning provision beforehand for CoC 2008 (despite my persistent raising of the issue at the Exec Board briefings and in budget setting meetings from 2005 onwards) meant that we ended up having to ask LDL for a sub, which came with several strings attached and compounded matters. I wasn't happy with that but we had painted ourselves into a corner. Of course it didn't help that after having a £20 million capitalisation carrot dangled by the Labour government allegedly in exchange for changes to CoC governance, they eventually said no to that anyway, which meant there was no other option.
Just once in a while I would like to see someone acknowledge that despite the mistakes, the previous administration had some significant successes and made fit for purpose a Council whose services were appallingly bad from top to bottom and in some cases delivered services (e.g as you would expect me to say, Education) which went from being one of the worst in the country to one of the best in 4 years.
And despite what Ed Miliband and others seemed to imply at the 2011 Labour Conference it wasn't Labour locally who delivered the Arena and Liverpool One.
Fair comment - mostly.
I appreciate that it's easy to take pot shots from outside. And I think most people are aware that the previous administration did achieve a lot. For what it's worth, at the time (most of the time) I felt that the combination of a Labour government and a LibDem local council was great. The antics and posturing of Bradley were increasingly annoying, but would have been forgivable without the LDL mess.
I entirely accept that things were dreadful before - but to use that as justification for allowing LDL to ride roughshod over you is just not good enough. Like outsourcing school meals to Tesco and getting Value food at Finest prices.
Which was why I (and clearly a lot of other people) were really looking forward to a Labour administration, because we thought they would sort it out, once and for all. I still cannot quite believe how much worse they've made things.
About the LDL scrutiny panel - its de facto suspension after Labour came to power was utterly disgraceful. It only reconvened to rubber stamp what was clearly a done deal.
But I really cannot understand why you say that "just because you know something is not quite right doesn't mean you have any chance of proving it".
Did you not have access to the Joint Venture Agreement and other governing documents? Because they are absolutely clear and unequivocal about what the governance arrangements were supposed to be. And it was equally clear that they had never been implemented. We all know this now because the JVA etc. have been in the public domain, in unredacted form, for well over a year, and since then a series of FOI requests have established the non-compliance beyond doubt. But I don't understand how none of you appeared to be aware of any of this, or if you were aware, did not instruct the City Solicitor to get it sorted.
Fair comment - mostly. In always perfect hindsight, the starting point for the LDL scrutiny panel should have been the JVA and a subsequent objective examination of the degree of compliance or otherwise. In our defence, we did look at a lot of stuff and there are only so many hours in the day, plus we kept being told that the definitive report we had asked for was in the pipeline. It must have been a pipeline of trans-Siberian length.
In a way, Labour found themselves in a similar bind to the LDs. Coming to power and immediately being landed with swingeing cuts to the base budget which would of necessity require significant assistance from LDL to deliver must have given LDL major leverage which they obviously exercised.
In relation to things unproven, I was referring to some of the specific accusations stated or, more often, implied in the Cosgrove / Dolan report. It would seem perhaps we didn't ask all the right questions - but there were so many to ask.
You're right, hindsight is perfect - and people aren't. It is clear, though, that whatever the efforts of elected members to ensure proper scrutiny, officers were unable or unwilling to provide the information and support that was needed, and doing without a proper City Solicitor for 3 years won't have helped either. Of course, when a serious, well-qualified professional was finally appointed, Labour managed to lose him in the middle of the LDL negotiations. Probably jumped ship - what self-respecting professional would want to be part of what was actually being done?
But this problem is not a historical one - it is very much alive, with us, worse than ever.
It's too late to do anything about the overcharging, lack of proper accounting and other information, or about the determined and systematic avoidance of scrutiny of the past.
And we cannot unmake the contract refresh.
But surely we can learn from the mistakes. It is positively grotesque for the influence of LDL to not only continue, but be extended. In two years, what corporate governance that existed by the end of 2009 has been comprehensively trashed, marketing jargon and PR has replaced proper professional expertise and rigour. Involving people in deciding where to make the cuts?? A cynical and manipulative joke, which left out whole categories of unaccountable corporate expenditure, including LDL and its brilliant ideas. Drastic cuts in some areas, and unquestioned and unmonitored spending in others.
LDL were (and maybe still are) unable to come up with a list of all the ICT equipment in use throughout the council - but they have found the time to ensure that every single document produced by the council has "Liverpool Direct Limited" listed as the company that generated it (Doc Properties). So not only are they running things, they are running things openly, with the blessing and the approval of Ged Fitzgerald and Joe Anderson.
This is why I keep ranting.
I keep hoping that local politicians will actually do something about this, before someone else - the District Auditor, or central government, does. If (or when) that happens, the whole city - and its elected politicians, both Labour and LibDem - will look stupid and inept. Much better to try and do something about it ourselves.
Sadly having read the posts by Katie and Paul Clein they seem to have rewritten history and have completely ignored the work done by Colin Hilton, Ben Dolan, Peter Cosgrove and myself in attempting to unpick the LDL contract which I understand was in the words of Henshaw, McElhinney and BT water tight. For the record, following my appointment as Leader I upheld the report from the DA regarding David McElhinney and his role, with Colin Hilton's support LDL became an arms length organisation with a true client function put in place to ensure at least some probity around additional services. Further, I am still in possession of an investigative report, written prior to my appointment as the Leader, regarding the procurement process for the 08 Place amongst other things. I was the person who requested Merseyside Police to investigate this report. It is a matter of public record that I instigated KPMG to evaluate the JV's that the City Council had with particular emphasis on LDL; the subsequent report forming the basis of the Ben Dolan/Peter Cosgrove report that has been rubbished by many, but actually if implemented would have allowed for the City Council to either regain control of the contract or go out to the market for a new partner. This was a conclusion of the KPMG report, a copy of which I also have. I understand David McElhinney saw the writing on the wall and subsequently made friends with Mayor Anderson and Labour, as did Mr Halsall, who was the County Treasurer in Lancashire at the time. I could write a book about the City Council, my time as the Leader and the reports and information I was party to, LDL would play a part in the book! In conclusion can I ask if comments are to be posted, they are accurate and don't attempt to rewrite history!
Warren, no-one is re-writing history. Read the posts again. We are all aware that efforts were made in 2006-2009 to sort things out. And we can work out that this was under your leadership. But unfortunately, they failed, didn't they?
And yes, you're absolutely right about McElhinney and his successful strategy of gaining influence over Anderson and, presumably, other Labour figures. The complete Macchiavelli (required reading for all politicians, I would have thought).
And about Halsall, too - as you will know he's now CEO of Lancashire. The latest round of musical chairs among BT sponsored local authorities.
Henshaw/McElhinney set up LDL
Fitzgerald set up LDL clone in Rotherham, then another LDL clone in Lancashire, then back to Liverpool to dismantle all the work done by Hilton, Cosgrove et al to sort things out, and make sure the corporate nose remained firmly in the public purse trough. Especially as they lost one of these troughs last year, when Rotherham politicians with more guts than anyone here actually called BT's bluff and cancelled the contract. The sky has not yet fallen on their heads.
But surely you can now see that the problem is that no-one called McElhinney's bluff.
Why didn't you?
Why did you take their word for it that the contract was "watertight" - whatever that means? The man's the consummate blagger - a doctorate in marketing (sorry, "product placement"), for God's sake. You certainly let him place plenty of products, didn't you?
Why commission not one but TWO external reports, and then not release them?
Or get some proper legal advice?
Why didn'y you report the fact that McElhinney started working for BT in 2006 (while remaining on secondment from LCC at the same time) to the District Auditor?
I'll repeat (yet again) - the means to get control of LDL is all in the joint venture agreement. None of you appear to have even looked at it. If you had, you would have seen that McElhinney and LDL were in breach from the very beginning. And you would have also seen that there are mechanisms to enforce compliance, and penalties if they don't comply. But someone's actually got to read it, and do it.
But apart from that, what exactly did you do when you went to LDL board meetings? Did you bother finding out what directors of companies are actually supposed to do? Clearly not, or you would have realised that you were not getting the information you should have been getting. So how could you vote on resolutions, approve and countersign the accounts, etc. etc.?
It's all there on the Companies House website, clearly and simply explained. And it's not rocket science, it's common sense.
The shareholders appoint the board, and the board of directors makes decisions on behalf of the company. They are supposed to tell McElhinney what to do, to call him to account. He works for them - they're not supposed to just do his bidding, which is what appears to have happened - and what presumably still happens now we have the Labour Chief Whip as LCC director. Along with the totally impartial Ged Fitzgerald, of course.
If you want to be judged fairly, why don't admit you made some mistakes - albeit with the best of intentions. And then send everything you've got to the District Auditor and the Daily Post. You've got everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.
Truth is that it was indeed during Warren's tenure that the doctor was dismissed from the top table to go and live with LDL where it was perceived that his first loyalty lay. Truth is also that it was Joe Anderson and Joe Anderson alone who brought him back to the top table where his role was to remove from the council those who were critical of LDL which he did and then to remain as a member of the top table.
Katie, when people on the outside understand how difficult it is for a single person to turn the Queen Mary single handedly you will only begin to understand the task I had in attempting to cull the beast. LDL was given NO additional services under my leadership and had to provide significant savings. Government both local and national is brimming with unaccountable bureaucrats who know the system back to front, they ensure the i and t's are dotted/crossed on contracts to make it as difficult as possible to change. I tried to make LDL more accountable, latterly with the help of Flo Clucas, who will verify the difficulties we had. My attendance at the LDL board was to gain more information which was subsequently passed to Ben and Peter as part of their work. I understood what needed doing and had I been given the opportunity would have delivered on the contract. I was that well briefed on LDL this I believe led to much of my recent trouble which has come from those who know I know what's happening including those who now pull the strings. As for the DA I have offered numerous reports and information regarding LDL only for it to be blown out, my belief is the Audit Commission is just another group of bureaucrats justifying their existence, who don't really wish to rock the boat of the administrators! I admire your tenacity but take it from me those who you question will attempt to do you in. Despite what you may read in Post and Echo, I can assure you that's what happened to me. I thoroughly enjoyed my time leading this wonderful city, but because I dared to question bureaucracy and the ability of people, too many to mention, they worked to undermine me and ultimately to do me in! I would love the opportunity to meet you to discuss this further; because of this comment I will now probably face negative press from some who I am please to say I dealt with for the good of this city!
When I worked at Knowsley in the 1990's Dr LDL was my boss when he "sorted out" the Youth Service he took it out of education and into Leisure, "Flattened more buildings than the Luftwaffe" to quote a Knowsley councillor, witnessed the Huyton librarians crying when the Music Library was sold off, and had it on good authority he once said "The councillor are all stupid, the public are all stupid there's nothing we cant do here" If it was a a flim his eyes would have been glowing red at this point and Carl Orff soundtrack playing in the background had it been the Omen it beeen, I ended up clinically depressed thanks to his management style add left soon after, best thing I ever did. Big thank you to DM.
The main problem of our community seems to be plagiarism. In fact, I dislike plagiarized contents and use check for plagiarism everywhere.
You don’t need to mull over which company to choose for buying resume from now on. Best resume writers are are just a click away. Visit Prime-Resume page with the aim to check CV sample or order resume. Be convinced that you will receive customized resume writing tips.
Some students pass the duty to expert writers because they lack the talent to compose a satisfactory paper about this good topic in order that the argument why students need to use plagiarism check, but such guys like composer don't do that. Thank you very much for the knowledge
There are occasions where someone as the blogger will get something bad in your posts for example comments about writing service.
Check here when you need to purchase essay writing uk.
You are overloaded and have no idea how to create your Philosophy Essay, order it from the most trustful organization and you will never regret.
You don’t need to ponder over which company to choose for buying resume at all. Best resume writers are are just a click away. Check out Prime-Resume company in order to check cover letter samples or buy resume. Be sure that you will find premium help with resume writing.
As a rule, big amount of students don’t know how to compose Psychology Essay, but they are able to get considerable aid from top-level custom essay paper writing service.