Kings Dock - Kilfoyle 02/02

Kings Dock

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

About one year ago we asked Peter Kilfoyle for his support for our proposed project at Kings Dock. Subsequently, we posed a question on this site: IS PETER KILFOYLE MP TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR KINGS DOCK BID?

You can read his initial response to our earlier request for support here. You can also read his response to our subsequent question here. We invite you to make up your own mind as to his real intentions. Other members of the Everton for Kings Dock Group (EfKD) mailed him separately, as did individual fans. To our knowledge nobody received a clear statement of his position on the issue.

In the light of recent events, particularly the February 19th issue of the local Daily Post, we now pose the same question.

Since our first question Kilfoyle has appeared in, for instance, The Guardian, the local press, and on CNN, during the course of which our Kings Dock bid has been steadily undermined by suggesting a relocation away from Walton will, his words, "tear the heart out of the community." He and other Labour local politicians have suggested the Kings Dock project will absorb much-needed European funds by giving, his words again, "funds to a private company." We will answer each of these and other points later in this piece.

His efforts came to its most recent head with front page treatment in the local Daily Post on Tuesday, 19th February. The third paragraph of the front page article read:

"The Liverpool MP has also spoken of his bitter opposition to the bid to put tens of millions of pounds of European aid toward a new stadium for Everton FC at Kings Dock."

We ask you to compare this to his early statements to us and draw your own conclusions.

He also claims that he had to go to Brussels to find out what was happening with Merseyside's European funding because he couldn't find out here.

We have spoken to the two journalists who wrote the piece, Tariq Tahir and Andy Kelly. Tariq confirmed from his interview audio tapes that Kilfoyle is opposed to the Kings Dock project if the Walton constituency does not receive adequate European funding to compensate for our club's relocation. He disputed only the use of the word "bitter" in the article. It therefore appears that this word was added by Daily Post editorial staff. Once again we ask you to draw your own conclusions on the latter point.

Neverthless, Kilfoyle's intentions appear to us to be clear-cut. In our opinion it appears that the Kings Dock project is being used as a political football instead of being considered on its overall merits and the advantages it provides for our city and Everton Football Club.

WE SUPPORT FULL AND PROPER USE OF AVAILABLE EUROPEAN FUNDS IN THOSE AREAS OF OUR CITY IN MOST NEED. THIS INCLUDES THE WALTON CONSTITUENCY. ANY OTHER STANCE WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. OBSTRUCTING AN EXCELLENT, MUCH-NEEDED PROJECT WOULD BE JUST AS IRRESPONSIBLE.

The distribution and use of these funds is the responsibility of designated agencies and local and national politicians, including but not limited to Peter Kilfoyle. As you may or may not be aware, Kilfoyle was a junior minister in the previous Labour government until he resigned. Therefore he was in a perfect position to know precisely what was going on at local and national level.

We doubt if there is an individual in our city or in the Merseyside region who would dissent from the above opinion. We are all too well aware of the devastating affect of precipitous economic decline in our region during the last generation. It has touched all our personal experience. We do not need a politician to tell us the facts. And it has happened during the watch of every political party. No politician is exempt from criticism, including, perhaps especially, Peter Kilfoyle. He cannot plead ignorance of events or the process of obtaining grant money.

Strange too that he "had to go to Brussels." All we had to do was use the telephone and speak to various individuals in informed positions before writing this article. It isn't rocket science. He could, for instance, have telephoned the government Office of the North West, Manchester office, at 0161-952-4000. They would have provided him with the same information which forms the generality of the European funds references herein.

So why has he left it until recent months to raise the issue of European funding and link it to the Kings Dock project? In our opinion this amounts to cynical political opportunism of the type rightly denigrated by ordinary voters. This dissatisfaction is demonstrated by consistently lower voting turnouts at local and national elections.

Our position is that the Kings Dock project can proceed and Walton can also obtain the necessary funding to aid regeneration. We can have both. There is enough grant money to go around. All it needs is good will and application by all parties.

BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO HOLD THE KINGS DOCK PROJECT TO CYNICAL RANSOM.

European funding (referred to as Objective 1 grant) has been available to Merseyside in two tranches, or amounts. The first covered the period 1994 through 1999. The second covers the period 2000 through 2006. The first tranche was massively underspent and caused immense frustration in the region. At the present rate, even if the Kings Dock project is included in the overall calculation, WE ARE HEADED FOR AN UNDERSPEND OF 25%. You would be right to ask who bears responsibility for this.

Furthermore, using a conservative estimate of total available funds, the amount on offer comprises roughly £700 million from the European Commission plus £700 million from national government and/or private sector sources. Thus the total available is £1400 million. Some estimates have even placed it as high as £2 billion.

So even if the project was requesting £80 million it would amount to around 5.5% of the total, probably much less. This hardly amounts to a major subtraction from available money. Thus the Kings Dock project offers all the material gains of a major project, to say nothing of a long overdue lift in regional morale. It is an added bonus that it is also a magnificent architectural concept.

Furthermore, if the underspend continues at present levels the region will not qualify for ADDITIONAL money through the Performance Reserve. This money only becomes available if spending is on target at the looming Mid Term Review. It could be as much as 4% of the total, perhaps £40 million. This amount more than covers the requested amount for Kings Dock. In other words, pushing Kings Dock through could actually help INCREASE the available sums from Europe. But of course this point depends heavily on everyone getting their act together to ensure the full grant is spent. Which means people like Peter Kilfoyle have to stop bickering and get down to some serious work.

On the issue of, his words again, "private company" ownership, Kilfoyle must surely be aware the development will be owned by a consortium. This comprises 51% public sector ownership and 49% Everton FC ownership. The public ownership is divided between Liverpool City Council, North West Development Agency (NWDA) and English Partnerships, the latter being a government agency in all but formal title. If he does not know this, constituents are entitled to ask how much attention he pays to important detail. He doesn't have an argument on this point. It collapses of its own weight.

In any case, private companies such as Jaguar and Vauxhall have been the recipient of European funding and Kilfoyle was not heard to voice loud objections then. Nor has he said much about threatened loss of jobs at both of these subsidised developments. Nor has he noted that the Kings Dock development is promoted by one of our city's long enduring and much loved institutions, Everton Football Club, who wish to remain in our city and help promote regeneration. The same cannot be said for either Jaguar or Vauxhall. If either of these large employers relocate it will likely be to the Continent. So Peter Kilfoyle has made a bad mistake in picking the wrong target.

The issue of economic affects on Walton is a serious one. But the idea that relocation of the club will "tear the heart out of the community" is nothing more than deliberately emotive nonsense with hardly any empirical evidence to support it. The area will remain there long after Everton FC and Peter Kilfoyle have left the scene.

Properly considered, Walton will survive relocation and may even improve because of it. An important site will become available for much-needed regeneration of the area. Proper use of European funds will improve the environment. Everton can re-employ many of its local employees at Kings Dock for it is a mere thirty minutes away by public transport. Immediate economic loss will be limited to increased takings on about twenty-five days per year in local outlets. The latter being the case, politicians and businessmen would be better employed solving the question of how the local economy allegedly became so dependent. Actually, we doubt the level is anywhere near as intense as Kilfoyle claims, except perhaps in a few pubs and fast food chains. No, Walton's problems are much more serious and deep rooted than relocation of our club. As we are all aware, these problems apply to most of the rest of the country. And it is simply ludicrous to expect Everton Football Club to solve them at a local level.

We maintain it is the job of people like Peter Kilfoyle to not only help his constituents but also to have a wider view and understanding and not engage in the kind of Tammany Hall politics so rightly despised by so many of the electorate. Walton can obtain its fair share of European funding without the kind of gratuitous public brawl Peter Kilfoyle is apparently intent on, and without manufacturing an issue over Kings Dock where one does not exist.

At times like this, the situation requires a properly considered exit strategy from Walton. This can only be achieved by rational thinking, maximum use of available finance and good will by everyone involved. Anything less is an insult to the citizens of our city and the supporters of our club. It is an obstruction to progress and regeneration.

In conclusion, in the past our city has gained an unfair reputation for fractious argument which allegedly prevented our regeneration. The European funds underspend of 1994-1999 now looks as though it will be supplemented by similar inaction for the period 2000-2006. In each case this can only help reinforce the false stereotype. When a major scheme like Kings Dock comes along one of its benefits is to help break this unwelcome cycle. It is a long-awaited flagship development which can only bring benefit to our city, our region and of course Everton Football Club. We badly need it as a catalyst, all of us. The message is not "no man is an island," but that we all live on the same island. We need to work together. Those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.

That is why we need the Kings Dock development and why we are entitled to ask our local politicians and media to engage in less cynical manipulation of the issues surrounding it. As a better politician and leader than Peter Kilfoyle once said, "You may fool some of the people some of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." And the Daily Post editor might care to tell us why he included the word "bitter" in his front page article.

The last thing our city needs during the regeneration process is unthinking and insensitive treatment of its citizens and their common sense. We need good men of good will. The evidence so far is that we are underspent on that capital too.
Mickey Blue Eyes. (21/02/02)