Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Fiasco followed by farce Mersey sub regional shambles -the comrades fall out, again.


Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson is believed to be getting legal advice after he was left out of the vote for the leader of the new combined authority for the region.
Mr Anderson, along with the leader of Sefton Council, Peter Dowd, had not arrived at the meeting in time for the decision. Councillor Phil Davies from Wirral Council was elected as chair.

When I first heard of this omnishambles I thought it was an April fool's day stunt.

I always said this would end in tears. There is something approaching poetic justice that the Sefton Labour Boss turned up too late to vote for a Leader. Sefton Cabinet meetings are over in a blink of an eye now days and you could miss the entire meeting if you were slightly late-as my colleague Mike Booth has pointed out.

It was Labour incompetence that led to this structure in the first place. I am depressed to hear that the late arriving Sefton Boss would have voted for Joe Anderson. That would have confirm Liverpool dominance which would have been unhealthy.

First the name fiasco and now this farce. The only winners are M'learned friends.

The key economic drivers for Southport lie outside of this sub region. It has no answer to the infrastructure investment in road and rail to the north and east that we need, Potentially 2/3rds of our visitors are deterred from coming to our town because of the lousy road links to the motorway network and the state of the Southport -Manchester railway. Electrifying to rail to Manchester and restoring the curves at Burcough and thus opening up the route to Preston would transform our economy.

1 comment:

  1. Or could it have been that the two 'late' leaders knew they were going to lose the vote to install Cllr. Anderson so they arrived after the vote had been taken so they could call foul? If they had been there at the vote and lost, which it seems certain they would have, then to have had a moan would have looked like sour grapes. Not being there may have had its advantages?


I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.