Friday, March 16, 2007

The Guardian sells its soul to Rachmanism in Liverpool, by Simon Jenkins

Once they called it Rachmanism. Now it's being done with taxpayers' money.

This newspaper (The Guardian) has been drawn into a ministerial spat over a regeneration project that became a bonanza for developers

Simon Jenkins
Friday March 16, 2007






Sensitive readers may avert their eyes, for this column concerns this newspaper and its relations with the Blair government and, dare I say it, money.
On Wednesday they may have noticed a special section called Promised Lands. The Observer writer Will Hutton gazed from its masthead, and the lead story was by the distinguished urbanologist Tony Travers.
Other big names were promised inside, including the housing minister, Yvette Cooper, though readers were saved from her famous prose style by a sweetheart interview.
The section ominously carried no advertising, but was not headed "advertising supplement". Yet it was paid for by the government's Housing Market Renewal Partnerships - which agreed the synopsis - to boost the controversial Pathfinder housing policy.
In return for a large sum of money, the agency was offered pre-sight of the copy to "correct inaccuracies". In effect, it secured sympathetic coverage. None of the writers (nor the Guardian's readers) was told of this, or that their fees were being paid, in effect, by the Blair government. Some were given to understand that they were writing for the Observer.
The supplement was laudatory of the nine Pathfinder housing clearance projects in the Midlands and north.
This potential honeypot of £5bn of public money (half an Olympics) was launched in 2003 to "kick-start" the renewal of down-at-heel cities. This admirable ambition was vitiated by the method chosen, to assemble and demolish Victorian inner-city neighbourhoods for sale to private architect/developers.
The option of using the money to give repair grants to residents, or confront the horror of clearing postwar housing estates, was not pursued. Developers demand cleared sites, as with the green belt. The Pathfinders' job was to find and clear them.
This was understandably controversial. Such policies were thought defunct at the end of the 70s.
It was known that this kind of comprehensive redevelopment instantly blights a neighbourhood. Once the red line is drawn, services vanish, vandalism and crime increase, values collapse, and residents who would once have fought to stay become desperate to leave.
Tenants are offered £1,000 to get out, while owners have been receiving, on Rowntree Foundation figures, some £35,000 less than the market value prior to the clearance decision. This technique, known in the 60s as "winkling", was once performed by the likes of Rachman. It is now being performed by the state. Hutton describes it as "regeneration as a holistic intervention". I can see why this passed the inaccuracy test.
I remember the citizens of Moss Side placed in the same miserable bind before their enforced removal to Skelmersdale in the 1970s (later bitterly regretted). Yet many residents, for instance round Welsh Streets in Liverpool and in Burnley and Blackburn, occupy sound Victorian terraces that, in the south, would be restored without argument. They found lawyers, surveyors and lobbyists to oppose Pathfinder compulsory purchase, and have been involved in six cases, some still pending - winning one in Liverpool's Edge Hill. But they lack the funds of a government that has spent £163m on consultants for a policy that the free market in most run-down world historic cities eventually achieves.
A spate of investigative activity followed the launch of Pathfinder in 2003. The BBC's File on Four spoke in 2005 to groups of residents enraged at their prospective eviction. ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald showed that a Liverpool house could be more cheaply restored than demolished. The conservation group Save championed the cause of the northern terrace house in an exhibition and campaigning booklet. Jane Kennedy, a Liverpool MP, accused Pathfinder of "social cleansing". None of them appeared in the supplement. Nor did the separate consultants working in Blackburn's Darwen, who were found to have altered "fit" to "unfit" in their surveys a week after the council announced it wanted particular streets for a lucrative Blair academy project. Here Pathfinder was being used as cover for old-fashioned urban slash and burn.
The truth is that the northern property market is "renewing itself" ahead of Pathfinder. Central Liverpool is now experiencing a property boom, and areas such as Welsh Streets, were they to benefit from renovation grants, would achieve market regeneration without clearance. Even hard-to-let tower blocks in central Liverpool are being sold to new residents through private developers with no Pathfinder help. In Kelvin Grove, houses the government wants to demolish are now valued at £145,000. Brian Clancy, of the Institute of Structural Engineers, told Darwen residents (86% of whose houses had been declared "unfit") that their houses were perfectly good and required no more than an average of £5,000 of renovation to be worth £60,000-£80,000 on the market.
Nick Johnson, of the developers Urban Splash, has been a cuckoo in the Pathfinder nest by securing funds to restore rather than demolish a grid of derelict streets at Langworthy in Salford. He regards the popularity of the British urban terrace as rooted in "the incredibly robust houses, in their ability to be transformed and reworked to each generation". He did not feature in the supplement, and he must labour under the handicap of Cooper's requirement that he pay 17.5% VAT on terrace renovation, while clear-and-rebuild is zero-rated. Perhaps he should christen his estate Olympics Street.
The developers boast that the government's £5bn will attract £20bn of private money. But so might a few million spent on restoration grants and publicity. The government is trapped by putting itself in the pocket of developers' interests, backed by the House Builders Federation - which is potent in Downing Street. These interests are in danger of losing both Cooper's gushing consultancy fees and her actual subsidies. Already some 57,000 houses are scheduled for demolition, and there was once talk in Whitehall of a staggering toll of 400,000 Victorian properties coming down.
The plethora of local and national headlines about "the return of the 60s" has bolstered the Treasury worry that Pathfinder's market renewal has already been worked out of a mission. The market waits for no man, and certainly not a government department. Hence the drift of the Guardian supplement, aimed less at its local enemies (none of whom was offered space) than at the Treasury. The section's "editorial" pleaded with the Treasury that it was "crunch time" for Pathfinder in the spring comprehensive spending review. Developers and architects were reported to be desperate that the "revival will stutter if we do not continue to receive the resources we need". The we, of course, is they. Gordon Brown might reasonably argue that, as of yesterday, he has a far more immediate call on his wasted consultancy budget: the Olympics.
Cooper's agents have already been "buying" interviews on local radio stations to exclude local protesters. They have now bought a national newspaper. That taxpayers' money is used to further the interests of private developers against local homeowners is bad enough. That such money should be spent inducing newspapers to dress public relations as journalism in a ministerial spat with the Treasury is close to sleaze.
Another battle will be joined next week in a Guardian supplement paid for by the pro-sprawl government planners of the Commission for Rural Communities. I guarantee that no contribution from the Campaign to Protect Rural England will be included. I wonder why.
simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

MORE 'JOBS FOR THE BOYS' - NEW POST FOR PARKER THE SPIV...

OUR RESIDENT REGENERATION EXPERT WRITES:
English Partnerships has appointed cockney wide boy Charlie Parker as interim director of investment and performance.
Parker, who is being seconded from Enterprise plc, will work on the merger of English Partnerships with the HousingCorporation, announced in January.
This for the man who with his then mate, Sir Diddy (subsequently falling out over the split of the spoils) befriended all the Housing Associations in Liverpool and got them to board up tens of thousands of properties.
Parker, £150,000 a year Exec Director for Regeneration, gave Enterprise plc £180million worth of litter collecting and street sweeping contracts, before later joining them for a cushy job.
But while at Liverpool, Parker had first approved stopping litter collection and street sweeping in those same areas so that residents would be deliberately forced out by the deteriorating conditions, so that they would accept any old offer just to get out.
Parker then simultaneously struck deals with firms like Bellway and Gleesons to sell them the cleared sites for buttons - making them so happy that they all issued increased profit warnings to all their shareholders.
People are now really suffering as a result of his activities to get Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder in the city.
Demolition is everywhere - people are either affected directly or live very close to it. Others just drive through and wonder what the hell is going on.
All thanks to Parker, who was also instrumental in giving a job to the best friend of his second wife Ruth. Step forward the seriously incompetent Claire McColgan (for it is she, ed) who Parker gave a cushy job in Capital of Culture - to the utter astonishment and amusement of all his regeneration staff.
McColgan of course is now making a complete hash of being Robbing Archer's substitute.
Parker is famous for his spiv demeanour and deals - notably the disgraceful Beetham Tower deal. He was repeatedly outed on the now legendary Liverpool evil cabal blog, where dozens of people took the piss out of his crude cockney double-dealing. (I miss all those comments, ed)
Arrogant Parker is also known for his nauseating attitude towards women - he makes a crude habit of looking any woman up and down several times, before deigning to even speak to them.
Arrogant, rude, nauseatingly smug and infamous for talking regeneration gobbledegook which no normal person can understand.
He is a disgustingly selfish and nasty piece of work, without an ounce of honour or decency in his entire body.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

COUNCIL LEADER BRADLEY AVOIDS ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TONY PARRISH INVESTIGATION

A KELLY WRITES.......

I WROTE A SECOND TIME IN JANUARY TO CURRENT COUNCIL LEADER WARREN BRADLEY REGARDING THE TONY PARRISH INVESTIGATION.

MY EMAIL IS IN RED BELOW.

I ATTACHED MY FIRST EMAIL SINCE COUNCILLOR BRADLEY HAD NOT RESPONDED AFTER MORE THAN A WEEK. THIS IS IN BLUE.

AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST, HIGHLIGHTED (IN PURPLE) YOU WILL SEE COUNCILLOR BRADLEY'S RATHER TETCHY EMAIL RESPONSE TO ME,VIA ACTING CITY SOLICITOR MICHAEL KENWORTHY (the bald legal eagle, ed).

PRESUMABLY HE THOUGHT THIS WOULD SCARE ME OFF ASKING ANY AWKWARD QUESTIONS....


SECOND EMAIL

From: a.kelly583@ntlworld.com a.kelly583@ntlworld.com

To: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council)

Sent: Wed Jan 31 13:30:43 2007

Subject: Tony Parrish investigation

Dear councillor,>

I have not yet received any reply to my email enquiry, which is enclosed below.

Inadvertently, I omitted Councillor Clark from the email although clearly he also has a strong interest and may be subject to any council investigation.>

I should be grateful if you could respond promptly. There are a number of other issues which I may need to raise with the appropriate bodies which govern the behaviour of councillors. I would appreciate a reponse before considering those further.>>

yours>>

A.Kelly > >> >

FIRST EMAIL

From: > > Date: 2007/01/19 Fri PM 03:33:18 GMT> ">a.kelly583@ntlworld.com>> > Date: 2007/01/19 Fri PM 03:33:18 GMT>

To: , >Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council);>">mike.storey@liverpool.gov.uk>>

Subject: Tony Parrish investigation> >> >

Dear Councillor,> >> >

Please find below a response I have received from the city council to my Freedom of Information request.> >> >
I had asked what questions Tony Parrish had asked the council and what the council's response had been.> >> >
As you will see from the reply, the council has been unable to respond with the information I requested.> >> >
In my view, there are three potential explanations for this:> >> >
1) The council's record-keeping systems and processes are so chaotic and disorganised that they simply do not know.> >> >
2) They are trying to frustrate my enquiry because it will produce information which will only embarrass them further by revealing their consistent and repeated failure to obey the law on Freedom of Information. (Presumably they don't want the council to appear in court again.)> >> >
3) They are trying to intimidate Mr Parrish with their 'ongoing investigation.' (It is also a convenient excuse for refusing to impart such information, isn't it?)> >> >
I doubt whether 3) will work.> >> >
However both you gentlemen should be aware of an apparent "ongoing investigation".> >
Who authorised this?> >
What is its justification?> >
How much has it cost?> >
Who does it involve?> >
What is its purpose?> >
When did it begin?> >
When will it be concluded?> >> >
I am sure that you may wish to put these and a number of other questions to the current chief executive. I should be interested in the answers.> >> >
As a council taxpayer, this seems to me yet more evidence of the unacceptable activities of an officer class within the city council, who are both out of control and unaccountable, as well as lacking in judgement and common sense. It also raises yet again the intriguing question of who is actually running the city council - democratically elected politicians, or unaccountable civil servants? I suspect the answer is fairly clear.> >> >
I can only presume that at the end of the day any "investigation" being conducted by the city council may eventually lead to councillors also being interviewed, leading to the possibility of further action.> >> >
I imagine there will be many people who will be willing to provide additional information. Perhaps you yourselves will be able to shed further light on all these matters in order to assist Mr Hilton in his enquiries.> >> >
In the meantime, I would like answers to my questions about Mr Parrish's questions - and the council's response.> >> >
Perhaps you can use whatever influence you may have to try and resolve this matter?> >> > regards,> >> >
AKelly



BRADLEY'S RESPONSE







From: "Bradley, Warren \(Leader of the City Council\)" Warren.Bradley@liverpool.gov.uk


Date: 2007/01/31 Wed PM 01:48:17 GMT

To: a.kelly@ntlworld.com; "Kenworthy, Michael Michael.Kenworthy@liverpool.gov.uk

Subject:

Re: Tony Parrish investigation
-->

Michael,


I forwarded the original email to you for information and advice on a response.

Can you please advise as to what I should do as a form of response: you will notice that the email is written in a threatening and intrusive manner.

I would appreciate your response by return?

Regards
Warren

Warren Bradley
Leader of Liverpool City Council--------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Friday, March 09, 2007

SPEKE HAS SPOKEN: BRING ON THE MAY CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS!!!!!

OUR MAN AT THE COUNT WRITES.......

LABOUR stormed to a thumping by-election victory in Speke last night, overturning a Lib Dem majority of more than 800.
Colin Strickland swept to victory with a Labour majority of almost 800 - giving a huge smack in the face to the council's ruling Lib Dem administration.
The huge turnaround in Speke brought forecasts that Labour, led by no-nonsense Joe Anderson, could now take control of the council in 2008, Capital of Culture year (wouldn't that be sweet? ed)
It was a particularly sad night for Inspector Clueless, bumptious Councillor Richard Marbrow, the by-election campaign chief who masterminded the Lib Dem's stunning defeat (right)
Marbrow was last night celebrating his 73rd birthday (well he acts like an old git, ed) by bringing his shiny new birthday laptop to the count so that he could play at being a real-life election supremo (the pompous fool, ed).
Marbrow sat down with his lap top toy, while various impressionable Lib Dem types ran around trying to look like they knew what they were doing and fetching him pieces of paper.
Marbrow, whose seat in Kensington has already been abandoned in May by Lib Dem leader, Warren Bradley, got glummer and glummer on his birthday as the scale of the defeat sunk in.
Another of our favourite characters, Colin Cover Up read out the result (wonder if he also pocketed an extra £25,000 as returning officer, just like greedy Henshaw? ed) to victorious Labour cheers.
But the shocked and disappointed Fib Dems hurriedly escaped before they could be serenaded away by the triumphant Labour campaigners with a chorus of "Happy Birthday, dear Clueless..."
Now watch the in-fighting break out in public amongst the Lib Dems as they panic over which seats they will lose in May.
And keep an ear to the ground for signs of an early leadership challenge to Bradley.
(Tell me the old, old Storey, ed)

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

COUNCIL TO CUT CULTURE BY £21 MILLION - BUT WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE?

Liverpool city council is making cuts of £21million to Capital of Culture in 2008.
Liverpool's proud year is now set to be a penny-pinching damp squib because of the financial waste and neglect of the city council and Culture Company.
After frittering away a small fortune paying off first the greedy Henshaw (£340,000) and then Robbing Archer (£180,000), the Culture Company have squandered millions on Archer's creative team, an army of private consultants from outside the city and a string of public relations companies, lobbyists and designers, mostly from outside Liverpool. Their contribution to culture in Liverpool has been distinctly underwhelming - but it has cost council taxpayers a fortune.
Then there has been:
  • The millions disgracefully wasted on the rottweiller McElhinney's ruinous contracts with LDL
  • The £18,000 spent on a roof to keep the pigeon shit off Colin Cover Up's posh car
  • The private shower built for the evil rottweiller at MisadVenture Place
  • £377,000 spent on toy wheely bins, rubbers and 't' shirts
  • Council leader Bradley's all expenses paid trip with Cover Up to the south of France next week
  • The £3million which treasurer Phil Hasitall gave to his mate Chas Cole for the Summer Pops
  • The £25,000 spent to get Jayne Casey into bed (outrageous waste of money, ed)
  • Two all expenses paid trips by The Harbarrowboy to Los Angeles (that's a new one! ed)
  • Sending The Harbarrowboy back to school at Harvard (what's wrong with Anfield Comp? ed)
  • Posh champagne receptions for the great and the good in Liverpool and London
  • A huge hospitality budget for posh lunches, dinners and entertaining, courtesy of council tax payers
  • At least £1million paid out in Performance Related Pay to senior managers like Cover Up, the smiling assassin Hasitall and the rottweiller who have performed so badly the council now faces a huge financial crisis!
  • Cover Up's £210,000 a year salary. Hasitall's £200,000 a year salary. The Harbarrowboy's £185,000 a year salary, etc, etc, etc, etc.
All of this - and does anyone deny any of it? - adds up to a monumental waste of public money which has left the fat cats fatter and the city of Liverpool a whole lot poorer.
The city council is only now being forced to admit it is strapped for cash after trying to hush up the full scale of the mis-management. See The Echo story (amazingly, ed)
The Lib Dems had even intended to set an illegal budget which didn't balance the books, but their cover has been blown.
Now it has been revealed that within the next three months they are planning to renege on their promise to give £5.8 million to Capital of Culture for 2007/8.
Another £12million is being lopped off spending for Culture in 2008 itself.
And there is a shortage of almost £4million in sponsorship (
I thought the Harbarrowboy was responsible for bringing in sponsors? No wonder they are sending him back to school, ed)
The only conclusion to be drawn is that 2008 will now be a huge wasted opportunity and a massive disappointment to all those who hoped it would help change Liverpool for good.
The council and the Culture Company are directly responsible. They have bankrupted Liverpool's future.
But no-one from the council or the Culture Company has yet explained how they have spent the millions from the government and European Union which has already been handed over.
Can anyo
ne now trust any of these wasters with any more public money?
Make them pay.


Thursday, March 01, 2007

MORE PUBLIC MONEY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN (Part 4) - £377,000 SPENT ON MARKETING TOYS FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICIALS

LIVERPOOL city council has spent £377,000 on a massive advertising campaign...for re-cycling!
The council, which has one of the worst re-cycling records in the country, has forked out a small fortune on marketing gimmicks which cannot even be re-cycled!
Councillors were astonished this week to receive surprise 'goody bags' to their Town Hall post boxes.
The bags, hundreds of which were sent around the city, contained a Liverpool Recycles 't' shirt, a small plastic blue wheely bin, a pencil sharpener, a rubber, a notepad, a plastic biro and a plastic cup, along with all the usual PR bumpf.
These were the wonderful marketing gimmicks dreamt up by some PR company, as part of a £377,000 campaign which is aimed at promoting re-cycling in the city.
With such little goodies there is usually at least a 100 per cent mark-up involved for the PR company which arranges them.
But quite why all of the city's councillors need to be persuaded to start re-cycling is beyond us - since any councillor with half a brain should be at the forefront of the campaign anyway.
We wonder did councillors notice the amount of plastic used in manufacturing these expensive little toys?
But the little goodie bags also went to senior officers, including chief executive Colin 'Cover Up', who authorised the spending, and treasurer Phil Hasitall, aka the smiling assassin, who has just warned that the council is virtually bankrupt.
Neither of these men apparently questioned whether these marketing gimmicks were the best use of council taxpayers money.
A council spokesman angrily defended the use of council taxpayers money on such gimmicks.
He said: "If we want to waste thousands of pounds on little plastic wheely bins, pencil sharpeners and rubbers, then so what?
"That's nothing compared to the millions the city council has already wasted on contracts with McElhinney's Liverpool Direct, as the chief executive has so usefully pointed out in the past."