Kings Dock

Blue Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock" movement from the start.

---

EfKD INTERVIEW WITH JOE ANDERSON, WEDNESDAY, 18th SEPTEMBER 2002.

At his invitation, an interview concerning the Kings Dock development with Joe Anderson, leader of Liverpool Labour group on Liverpool City Council in his office in Municipal Buildings at 6.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 18th September. Originally the meeting was scheduled to take between fifteen and twenty minutes. Actually it occupied nearly an hour despite other engagements by both sides.

"Sides" is the most apt description. This was an adversarial discussion, albeit in a relatively temperate atmosphere. It is unlikely the opposing views will ever coincide. But the session wasn't without humour, mainly courtesy of an Anderson family joke told against himself. There are always redeeming features in someone who has the courage to display a measure of self mockery. To his credit, he's a good deal more vulnerable than he looks and sounds. And he and his sons are avowed Evertonians. So the differences are not as clear cut as might be assumed. They never are.

When I arrived he had his head stuck in what looked like a cupboard of dusty archives and emerged for the greeting plainly with his mind elsewhere. While he concluded a meeting with two other visitors his PA engaged me in football conversation about Tottenham. And then accompanied me into the interview.

There was much talk but in the end, the bottom lines were these: (a) Joe Anderson will support the scheme if all the planning problems are satisfactorily resolved, and (b) Joe Anderson will not support the scheme until there is more private than public finance in the project. Therefore, (b) appears to preclude him from ever supporting it. There are obvious dichotomies in this position but we'll come to that later.

The interview centred around fourteen questions posed by me and other members of the Everton for Kings Dock group. Occasionally the focus drifted but it was usually brought back to the main concern in short order. We didn't much linger on details for reasons which will become obvious.

First, a précis of the main points, then a more detailed consideration.

My first question was this: "You became a board member of Liverpool Vision in July 2002. You attended a board meeting on 26th July. Four weeks later the Daily Post ran a front page story on 30th August on the Kings Dock project. Did you provide them with Liverpool Vision information for the story or were you interviewed in advance of its publication?"

In other words I was asking did he "leak" the story for his own advantage? Anderson categorically denied it. In effect he expressed contempt for the local press, particularly the Echo. This is a position many Evertonians can identify with. Of course, had he indeed leaked the story his recent position on the board would be untenable.

Again to his credit, he confirmed he will not vote at LV board meetings when the Kings Dock proposal is put to the vote.

Following this he also said in the clearest terms that he has never discussed the Kings Dock project with Peter Kilfoyle, MP for Walton, or Louise Ellman, MP for Riverside. The development is in the latter constituency and is fully supported by ms. Ellman. Kilfoyle is the originator of the Janus-faced Early Day Motion 923. Joe Anderson said he has no intention or wish to become a MP.

The formal policy of the city council Labour group will be adopted if and when the planning application is made. A party whip has not been imposed at present and a free vote is likely if the issue gets to the formal planning stage.

I pointed out that in the municipal election of 2nd May 2002 he received only 1001 votes, a mere 9.2% of the Abercromby electoral roll, that his party achieved only 26 seats on the city council, 26% of the total seats, and that his party's total vote was just over 32,000, less than 10% of the total electoral roll of our city. Our average gate was over 33,000. With those figures in mind, I asked, why should our fans not regard him as a mere political opportunist bent only on maximum publicity to increase his vote, or a Luddite in the worst sense of the word? All of which, as you would expect, brought the only genuine flash of bad temper of the whole interview.

In fact he had no clear answer to this, anymore than he did to a query as to why any Evertonian should vote for his party when he and some Labour councillors oppose the project. I reminded him there were two referenda for a move (he said he voted to move too), the last one a clear question of whether to move to the Kings Dock, a proposition which received over 15,000 votes in favour, or 85% of the votes cast. Anderson said the vote was "rigged" but didn't say how this was accomplished except in how the question was framed in the ballot paper.

On the subject of Objective One funding he couldn't agree with the information I had from Government Office of the North West that the city centre allocation of about £35 million was a separate allocation to any Kings Dock application. His information is that there would be "some impact," though he couldn't define the level.

He also claimed some involvement in about a dozen projects in receipt of European funds, though once again the level of involvement was less clear.

He maintains he is not opposed to incoming jobs at Kings Dock or to the provision of a multi-purpose arena to better anything Manchester has to offer. But he had to be reminded that the project is for a multi-purpose arena NOT just a football stadium. Therein of course lies one of the main interpretive disputes. He avoids using the term "multi-purpose arena" though that is the main intention of the development. Football matches will only take up twenty-odd days per year.

He is in favour of an arena on the site, but not the Houston Securities proposal. Which of course undercuts a lot of his planning arguments.

Those are the bare bones. But of course, as usual, they get nowhere near the nuances of the arguments. What follows is a highly personal interpretation of the interview. Take it or leave it. Consider the following comments on the basis that I am fervently in favour and Joe Anderson fervently against. Never the twain shall meet. So be it.

But let's get this out of the way first: Joe Anderson loves his city and there can be no question at all of that, or that he loves Everton Football Club. There is no need to be sentimental over this (though that obviously enters into it) and there is no need to get yourself to the level of tabloid-manufactured hysteria. The question is why he is opposed to the project. He claims he is "objective" but I believe there is an element of unconscious self-deception in his opinion. Nobody is "objective" and that includes me and you. Joe Anderson is no different. People are people. Position only matters when it exercises authentic power.

Of course I cannot prove he is self deceptive because I can no more get inside his mind than he can mine. Like him, I have only my instincts. I go one way, obviously he goes the other. I say I am an optimist and he is a pessimist. You can argue the form of words ad infinitum. Just as, if you are so inclined, you can doubt someone's integrity on the basis of their appearance - both of which are irritating wastes of time.

My position is this: Our city NEEDS this project in every sense of the word. If it didn't, I wouldn't support it. Simple. The fact that our football club (one of few committed local organisations or firms) is involved makes it even more imperative. This combination of factors outweighs any number of current planning arguments you can raise. In any case the fact is that most of the so-called planning issues can be solved with genuine good will and determination. We either have the courage to go for it or we give up and settle for something a good deal less. There isn't a single advance in human history which didn't have a group of ne'er do wells on the periphery moaning about the difficulties. Success happens in spite of these individuals or groups, not because of them.

You can, for instance, argue (as did Joe Anderson) that the Kings Dock "doesn't stack up." Well, it does, actually - if everyone holds their nerve and delivers their share in accordance with the publicly announced formula. Sadly, fear is always a factor in this kind of situation. The question is: Who has less courage or, worse, more vested interest? The financing formula, unlikely as it is, will actually work if there are enough good men of honest intention in the right position. When you think about it, the money is relative peanuts compared to what has been dumped down the drain at Enron, Worldcom, Marconi and god knows who-else intent on carpet-bagging the system. The fact is, the Kings Dock is a public-private finance at 50-50 shares. Like it or not, what could be more in tune with the times?

Me, I hate the whole project method and have from day one. There has been far too much secrecy, a product of the classic English way of going about things. In my view the ideal is to have a state-of-the-art stadium/arena wholly publicly owned, as they used to be in Italy. If we can't have that, Everton should completely own their own ground. But the British public long ago disowned public ownership as a point of interest, let alone a matter of principle. And all football clubs are now in hock to the financial institutions anyway, and that includes Manchester United. That is the way of our limited democracy. Incredibly, Joe Anderson (a LABOUR politician) openly says there should be more "private" money than public in this venture. Whatever ones personal political views this can only be considered a complete abandonment of his party's founding principles, arguably reflected in decimation of the Labour vote in council elections.

In the meantime we are faced with the reality that too many areas of our city are desperately poor. Which is why we qualified for Objective One funding. There's no point being impotently chagrined about this. It is a measurable fact. Anger should be turned into action, not mere bureaucratic synthesis. It means getting something built which will be genuinely useful in the long term. Arguing about how many camels (or cars or tram systems) you can get through the eye of a needle might be useful as an esoteric exercise but it gets us nowhere near helping to solve the regeneration of our beloved city. Only PROJECTS can do that.

Nor does it make much common sense to argue the project into the ground over the job cost ratio, as does Joe Anderson. If the latter was applied ruthlessly to almost any scheme in our city it would probably mean abandoning most of them, as it would elsewhere in provincial Britain. Indeed if our financial establishment had their way entirely it is likely there would be no Objective One schemes at all. Short term accountancy methods (a socially murderous bane of this country since 1979) are the very last thing we need. We need 20-20 vision, not astigmatism.

The present Houston Securities scheme, details notwithstanding, is easily the best proposal received for the Kings Dock. Again to his credit Joe Anderson readily conceded as much. But still he would not reconsider the implications. In my opinion he is stuck in a rut of his own digging.

The fact is, again like it or not, almost any large scale development in our city is unlikely to be self-financing in the short term. If you want confirmation look no further than the Albert Dock rehabilitation, ironically initiated by a tory government terrified of spontaneous civil insurrection. Said development is actually a monumental economic failure if you use standard analysis methods. In fact there is much more in play. There always is in human society.

Which makes Joe Anderson's position so much more sad. When he argues the economics of the right ("more private money") he automatically abandons the social imperative of Labour's position. He has moved a long, long way from Nye Bevan's "social priorities" or even Harold Wilson's "moral crusade." In some ways his stance verges on the nihilist who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Does this mean the proposed Kings Dock proposal is squeaky clean? Absolutely not. There is far too much secrecy, long ago criticised by EfKD, long before Joe Anderson got into the public eye. In my opinion, almost certainly someone, somewhere, is ripping off the situation. I have a reasonable idea who it is but I can't prove it. If we lived in a perfect world we would stop the whole process. If we did that, believe me, it would stop every property deal everywhere overnight. That includes the pinkies scheme enveloping Stanley Park and a majority of the regeneration schemes in progress in our city. It also includes any proposal to redevelop Goodison Park. All it requires is a sense of healthy curiosity and the exercise of your common sense.

In this vein I asked Anderson where he thought Everton should relocate to. His replies included "Leeds Street" and "Edge Lane." Anybody even vaguely aware of our city's geography will know how ludicrous these locations are. He knows, as do we all, that our club has looked at at least twelve different locations. He has a letter from Philip Carter saying so, something which should create a few thoughtful expressions at Goodison Park. The fact is, any location will cause planning problems. The two he named cause EVEN WORSE and more expensive problems than Kings Dock. All of which gradually led me to believe that Joe Anderson doesn't have much command of the subject. There's next to no point arguing details in such circumstances.

And then you end up full circle. Why did he bother opposing the Kings Dock in the first place? After all, all his "planning arguments" against KD will apply anywhere else in the city. The only way they can be completely resolved is by building absolutely in the middle of nowhere, out of the city, a "solution" long ago abandoned by the most commercial pirates of all, the Americans. In Cleveland, USA, they have built not one, but three major sports developments, plus the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, basically backing onto waterside, all of them in much more restrictive circumstances than Kings Dock. They have all helped to regenerate a city formerly known as "The Mistake On The Lake."

Procedural difficulties there were much more formidable but they were all resolved through ACTION, including land acquisition and healthy regard for local voting requirements. The point is it all went ahead because there was enough drive and determination to make it work. This is the difference between Can Do versus Do Nothing But Argue Bureaucratic Points. It is the difference between trial law and theoretical law.

In effect, all Joe Anderson is left with is an insubstantial financial anti-argument based on guesswork. But he can no more make that "stack up" decisively than we can in favour. There are risks involved in any property development of any kind. For instance, the financial model at Cleveland was unacceptable and should never be used here. The point is, the schemes got built and have helped that city regain some of its social and civic pride and encouraged gradual economic revival in the vicinity. There isn't a citizen of our city who would not welcome a similar boost. Which is why I would also welcome with open arms a city-wide open debate and referendum on the issue. I haven't the slightest doubt that the vote would be overwhelmingly in favour of the project. And that allows for some of the inevitable football chauvinist nonsense which would attach to it, especially from die-hard pinkies.

Outside our city, particularly in Manchester, you can guarantee our city's enemies are quietly laughing up their sleeves at the present situation over King's Dock. All they have to do at cocktail parties in the corridors of power is nudge a minister or two and say, "Look, for all their vaunted local pride the only thing they can do is squabble amongst themselves. Why bother supporting anything they do?" Enough of that on a drip-feed and a hugely promising project goes the same route as Wembley and Picketts Lock. And guess who the main regional benefactor is?

In the meantime, a wonderful opportunity for a spectacular boost to morale and genuine economic gain slides away to the sound of muffled chortling from those who wish us nothing but ill will. And all for relative investment peanuts.

And lest anybody loses sight of what I said earlier, this does not imply support for any carpetbaggers who may or may not be attached to the scheme. If we had a better and more democratic system, if our beloved city was in more affluent shape, we wouldn't even be talking of compromise. But we're not in good shape and we certainly aren't in a position to cut off our nose to spite our face. Our regeneration so far is as fragile as it can be. It is like a foal staggering to its feet. It is easy to kick away unstable legs. It is much more difficult to nurture a foal through difficult moments. Destruction is always a whole lot easier than construction.

All of which leads me back to Joe Anderson's position.

There was an interesting moment when he said somewhat sadly, "If the project fails, I will get the blame." I tried to assure him this wasn't the case, that if it fails it will be due to the way the project was approached and set up. As EfKD have said right from the beginning, the whole method is a monument to the absurdity of English mean-spirited secrecy by a few people. Unfortunately for Anderson, he is merely a protesting adjunct to it, not the cause. He has not helped when he was in a very good position to do so, and as a result he should expect and get the criticism he is due. He has allied himself with negativity. In which case he has to accept the consequences.

It is marginal that he complains, not without justification, of internet terms like "fat bastard," "arse-hole" and "NIMBY." If he's half the scouser he says he is, and with the sense of humour he claims, then that sort of small-change should be water off a duck's back. The whole point of the internet is to allow free expression however crude. Anything else is mere pomposity, the very last thing you expect from a Labour councillor representing Abercromby.

He can't have it two ways………………claim "objectivity" ……………then rise so easily to the bait of pantomime name-calling………………then have no better alternative than the absurdity of sites at "Leeds Street" or "Edge Lane." There's too much at stake for our city. Failure at Kings Dock will set our city back at least four years and people like Joe Anderson will be partly not wholly to blame. When he could have helped, he didn't. That was his simple choice and he failed the challenge at a crucial moment. That's life.

I left the interview convinced of nothing more than his obduracy at a time when our city needs a good deal more, whatever his or anyone else's political persuasions. Similarly, any reading of Early Day Motion 923 would leave any open-minded citizen of our city in huge doubt about its author, Peter Kilfoyle MP, and its signatories and their Janus-faced intentions. We desperately need a good deal more than that kind of cheap, opportunist politicking.

I believe Joe Anderson is a good man with good democratic intentions. But I also believe he's painted himself into a corner and he doesn't have the nous how to get out of it. He's only got himself to blame.

In the meantime, whatever his position, whatever he may or may not be thinking about the planning application, the project will be probably be decided one way or the other during the next four weeks or so. That's the way power works in our system, like it or not. If it actually gets to the planning application stage we look forward to our organised opposition to whatever tactics he deploys. We want it built, and for all the right reasons. In which case we are completely confident of the outcome. If it gets to a planning argument, we will win. And so will our city. (22/09/02)

OUR CITY - OUR FUTURE - OUR CLUB
EVERTON FOR THE KINGS DOCK