It is becoming more and more difficult to keep track of the many failings of Liverpool City Council (LCC) over recent years. Quite apart from a now widespread understanding that many millions have been lost to council coffers, the devil is most certainly in the details – details which are now in danger of being overlooked or forgotten. I was reminded of this when I read that Banksy’s “Rat” – which once adorned the side of the White House pub in Duke Street – was up for auction in the Netherlands. How? Its recent history and whereabouts has been clouded in mystery since the White House fell into the hands of developers, the Ascot Group.
I confess to have forgotten about this; but who now remembers the deliberate destruction of a listed building in Wolstenholme Square by developers the Lawless Group? A council spokesman said at the time that it was a “criminal” act but that the council would be taking no action against the developers. We can refer to so-called developments galore, to exemplify the failure of LCC to secure on these projects, Section 106 monies which developers were obligated to pay the council for general environmental improvements. One can only hope that these issues and many others will be pursued under Operation Aloft. Although there are too many to itemise here, each one deserves to be investigated.
Nevertheless, the council ploughs on in its own way, with the same people, by and large. At least, the city solicitor is going, reportedly of her own volition. She will have a substantial pay-off and a secure pension, despite having been responsible for signing off so many of the council’s deals now under investigation. She will not be a loss to the council’s senior officer corps. Incidentally, speaking of pensions, during 2019, I raised twice in my blog concerns which had been raised about the conduct of the Merseyside Pension Fund (MPF), then chaired by Wirral councillor, Paul Doughty. It now appears that the transfer of the ownership of the Cunard Building – now owned by LCC – cost the MPF million of pounds in losses. Perhaps that is yet another deal which requires closer consideration.
Speaking of deals, we know that Merseyside Police were well aware of the conflicts of interests involving those who ran two of the match day car parks via the Beautiful Ideas Company. The internal council report on this, compiled by Councillor Kushner, highlighted the involvement of Councillor O’Byrne in this matter, and the role of her daughter, a former councillor. However, it was extremely sketchy about the biggest cash cow – the Priory Road car park – which was run for some years by the Flanagan Group.
Is it not, to say the least, curious that the same names repeatedly occur in so many of these sorry tales? Much has been made of late of the involvement of Councillor Anderson’s son, David, in the award of controversial contracts to a firm which he owned. Little has been said of the ex-mayor’s daughter, Councillor Joanne Calvert. She, like many of her council colleagues, hastily updated her register of interests when her father was arrested. On this, she was shown to be an “administrator” for a company called Bike2Work Scheme, Ltd. Coincidentally, one of that company’s directors resigned as a director at the same time. His name? Derek Hatton. It is important to note that the company had received a £500,000 grant from LCC courtesy of then Mayor Anderson.
Predictably, none of this will figure in any way in the Labour Party’s inquiry into itself. The Labour Party will concern itself solely with constitutional issues and failings. The logic is that they must not look at or do anything which might in any way undermine or prejudice the police inquiries and potential prosecutions. It is reasonable, therefore, to wonder what effect the Labour Party Inquiry Team can have on the wider problems afflicting a Labour-dominated city like Liverpool.
On an equally sombre note, I read with sincere sadness of the death of veteran GMB Branch 5 leader, Ian Lowes. I was always of the belief that he had seen Militant Tendency for what it was. He remained committed, however, to giving the best possible service to his union members. Sometimes, he got it right, and sometimes he got it wrong, just like the rest of us. I bumped into him on occasion in our local supermarket, and, as an ex-chef, he would volunteer advice on the best meat to buy. Fancying himself as something of a wine buff, he would also recommend a nice (cheap!) red to go with it. Not for Ian the trade union career path: he left that for other contemporaries who, to this day, too often give trade unionism a bad name.