David Cameron has been criticised for apparently backing a new £300m port in Liverpool which could take jobs and trade from Southampton

David Cameron has supported a new port in Liverpool that could hit Southampton's trade

David Cameron has supported a new port in Liverpool that could hit Southampton's trade

First published in Hampshire Business
Last updated
Andover Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

FIRST we had cruise wars, now a new front is opening in the war between Southampton and its port rival Liverpool.

Prime Minister David Cameron has sparked anger by supporting new £300 million container port facilities being built in the Merseyside city.

His comments have been attacked by opponents as suggesting that trade should switch from Southampton to Liverpool.

Andover Advertiser: Southampton Port.

The port of Southampton

The container trade supports 15,000 jobs in Southampton and the surrounding area.

It is the latest round in a series of controversies surrounding the two cities’ ports, following the bitter “cruise wars” dispute that rumbled on for five years over Liverpool’s cruise terminal.

It comes after a new report revealed the UK’s cruise industry supports 70,000 jobs and is worth £2.5 billion annually.

With the new container terminal also being built in the city, David Cameron spoke in support of the development at a business event in the city.

He said: “On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship.

“Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub.

“This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool.”

But his comments have been attacked by politicians in Southampton, which is set to be key battleground at next year’s general election.

Labour’s Southampton Itchen parliamentary candidate Rowenna Davis said: “The Prime Minister has no business saying that trade should switch from Southampton to Liverpool.

“Comments like this can put at risk future investment in the port and all of the trade and employment that goes with it.

“The people of Southampton deserve a Prime Minister that champions their city and their port and not one who plays one port off against another.”

Andover Advertiser: Rowenna Davis

Southampton Itchen parliamentary candidate Rowenna Davis

Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead accused Mr Cameron of “getting his facts rather skewed”.

Conservative Itchen candidate Royston Smith said: “The port of Liverpool is expanding and with it the ability to take larger container ships and turnaround cruises and this will have some impact on the port of Southampton.

“However, Southampton has pockets of significant deprivation in the otherwise relatively prosperous south east which can often be ignored by governments because of its location.

“My concern is the frequent mistake of not seeing Southampton in the same way as those cities in the north and north east that Government is trying to assist.”

Andover Advertiser: Southampton City Council leader Royston Smith and HMS Astute

Southampton Tory group leader Cllr Royston Smith

Associated British Ports, which runs Southampton’s port, declined to respond directly to Mr Cameron’s comments, but a spokesman said: “The Port of Southampton is Europe’s most efficient container port, offers minimum deviation from the main shipping lanes through the Channel and has excellent road and rail links to key markets in the UK.

“The Port of Southampton currently contributes £1 billion to the economy every year and supports 15,000 jobs, making ongoing investment in its future absolutely crucial.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53am Tue 17 Jun 14

aldermoorboy says...

Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 12

8:01am Tue 17 Jun 14

boilerman says...

Camoron is just trying to capitalize on Milliband's mistake of holding the Sun newspaper, by coming out with this.
Both Labour and the Tories our only interested in their own survival not democracy.
Camoron is just trying to capitalize on Milliband's mistake of holding the Sun newspaper, by coming out with this. Both Labour and the Tories our only interested in their own survival not democracy. boilerman
  • Score: 19

8:06am Tue 17 Jun 14

Solent Soul says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either! Solent Soul
  • Score: 4

8:06am Tue 17 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

gunning for votes - chuck them yet more hundreds of millions in Eu and government subsidies - maybe they will spend it on something decent this time and not on building restaurants and cinemas.
gunning for votes - chuck them yet more hundreds of millions in Eu and government subsidies - maybe they will spend it on something decent this time and not on building restaurants and cinemas. elvisimo
  • Score: -1

8:35am Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Liverpool already has a successful container port so why now this article?why now politicians drawing battle lines?
Why wasn't there a kick up when grant money was given to dredge the Mersey for larger containers?
It's very obvious the delivery of containers for the North is better through Liverpool rather than any Southern Port so why make out it's another war again?
Liverpool already has a successful container port so why now this article?why now politicians drawing battle lines? Why wasn't there a kick up when grant money was given to dredge the Mersey for larger containers? It's very obvious the delivery of containers for the North is better through Liverpool rather than any Southern Port so why make out it's another war again? loosehead
  • Score: 9

9:09am Tue 17 Jun 14

tootle says...

So what's new. Which Govt allowed Vospers to close, which G?ovt allowed shipbuilding in Portsmouth to end. Work and opportunities have been shifted North for more years than I have lived. The South is prosperous - just ignore the Cities is the mantra.
So what's new. Which Govt allowed Vospers to close, which G?ovt allowed shipbuilding in Portsmouth to end. Work and opportunities have been shifted North for more years than I have lived. The South is prosperous - just ignore the Cities is the mantra. tootle
  • Score: 2

9:56am Tue 17 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

The DE is just trying to fuel an argument.

Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news.

Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper.
The DE is just trying to fuel an argument. Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news. Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

10:00am Tue 17 Jun 14

Just another reader says...

I'm sure they're trying to turn Southampton into a ghost town. Great idea, let's offer the successful companies grants and subsidies to move to poorer areas or even up sticks to another country. There's a reason we're successful in DP World Southampton, hard work from the staff and PRIVATE investment in the right areas. Yet again the tory government are trying to gain votes with the north.
I'm sure they're trying to turn Southampton into a ghost town. Great idea, let's offer the successful companies grants and subsidies to move to poorer areas or even up sticks to another country. There's a reason we're successful in DP World Southampton, hard work from the staff and PRIVATE investment in the right areas. Yet again the tory government are trying to gain votes with the north. Just another reader
  • Score: 4

10:07am Tue 17 Jun 14

SNUGGLES 78 says...

the eu is not a fan of southampton.
the eu is not a fan of southampton. SNUGGLES 78
  • Score: 2

10:26am Tue 17 Jun 14

The Wickham Man says...

Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either!
It's just capacity SS - some shipping companies turned away from Southampton because there was not always a guaranteed berth. Ships don't wait around in Ryde roads any more - they keep going. I drove through Marchwood the other day and until you are adjacent to the Military port you wouldn't even know it was there, and it would be the same with any cargo port development including Dibden Bay. The only real oppostion to Dibden Bay was from pockets of residents in places like Hythe Marina Village and an outcrop in South Totton. Yet councillors like David Harrison though it was his job to chase away investment and the future jobs of others, including Waterside school leavers. Wow he's clever - He's never created a job in his life and still he thinks he's representing the interests of the people.
[quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either![/p][/quote]It's just capacity SS - some shipping companies turned away from Southampton because there was not always a guaranteed berth. Ships don't wait around in Ryde roads any more - they keep going. I drove through Marchwood the other day and until you are adjacent to the Military port you wouldn't even know it was there, and it would be the same with any cargo port development including Dibden Bay. The only real oppostion to Dibden Bay was from pockets of residents in places like Hythe Marina Village and an outcrop in South Totton. Yet councillors like David Harrison though it was his job to chase away investment and the future jobs of others, including Waterside school leavers. Wow he's clever - He's never created a job in his life and still he thinks he's representing the interests of the people. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 3

11:08am Tue 17 Jun 14

Beer Monster says...

Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it. Beer Monster
  • Score: 1

11:41am Tue 17 Jun 14

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Will it not create more work as a whole as building more container ports will kill off other industarys, dredging the River Test down to the level it is now is causing big problems up river, where there is nothing to hold the water back when tide is going down it is eroding the river bed and banks at a greater rate than it should be, where as before they dredge down to the depth they are now erosion use to be measured in 1'10th of inches a year now its is feet pre year, so how long can this carry on before the damage being done will cost the tax payers billions to put right.
Any way its not more berths we need its space where to lay up the containers. We have more than enough berths to cope with the number of Container ships we have now.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Will it not create more work as a whole as building more container ports will kill off other industarys, dredging the River Test down to the level it is now is causing big problems up river, where there is nothing to hold the water back when tide is going down it is eroding the river bed and banks at a greater rate than it should be, where as before they dredge down to the depth they are now erosion use to be measured in 1'10th of inches a year now its is feet pre year, so how long can this carry on before the damage being done will cost the tax payers billions to put right. Any way its not more berths we need its space where to lay up the containers. We have more than enough berths to cope with the number of Container ships we have now. southy
  • Score: -3

11:51am Tue 17 Jun 14

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Solent Soul wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either!
It's just capacity SS - some shipping companies turned away from Southampton because there was not always a guaranteed berth. Ships don't wait around in Ryde roads any more - they keep going. I drove through Marchwood the other day and until you are adjacent to the Military port you wouldn't even know it was there, and it would be the same with any cargo port development including Dibden Bay. The only real oppostion to Dibden Bay was from pockets of residents in places like Hythe Marina Village and an outcrop in South Totton. Yet councillors like David Harrison though it was his job to chase away investment and the future jobs of others, including Waterside school leavers. Wow he's clever - He's never created a job in his life and still he thinks he's representing the interests of the people.
The container port was all ways built in the wrong place, it should of been built down by the Hamble and come up river from there.
As for beths theres all ways been room for Container ships, the largest (longest) container ships pass southampton by any way as they can not guarantee the wind speed and direction when coming around the IofW as a cross wind will push the ship inshore (the stack up containers act like a sail).
Every port in the world has restictions of some sort, nature will give its limitations.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solent Soul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Although this plan would bring the container port a bit further up Southampton water, I'm not sure if would be worth while unless you are talking about developing Dibden Bay as well, which is a whole other can of worms waiting to be opened again.. I'm sure the Marchwood resident's wouldn't agree either![/p][/quote]It's just capacity SS - some shipping companies turned away from Southampton because there was not always a guaranteed berth. Ships don't wait around in Ryde roads any more - they keep going. I drove through Marchwood the other day and until you are adjacent to the Military port you wouldn't even know it was there, and it would be the same with any cargo port development including Dibden Bay. The only real oppostion to Dibden Bay was from pockets of residents in places like Hythe Marina Village and an outcrop in South Totton. Yet councillors like David Harrison though it was his job to chase away investment and the future jobs of others, including Waterside school leavers. Wow he's clever - He's never created a job in his life and still he thinks he's representing the interests of the people.[/p][/quote]The container port was all ways built in the wrong place, it should of been built down by the Hamble and come up river from there. As for beths theres all ways been room for Container ships, the largest (longest) container ships pass southampton by any way as they can not guarantee the wind speed and direction when coming around the IofW as a cross wind will push the ship inshore (the stack up containers act like a sail). Every port in the world has restictions of some sort, nature will give its limitations. southy
  • Score: 1

12:08pm Tue 17 Jun 14

aldermoorboy says...

I would love to see the whole area developed, this is the natural port for the UK.
That would create many long term jobs.
I would love to see the whole area developed, this is the natural port for the UK. That would create many long term jobs. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Bagamn says...

The last time that Liverpool had a go at being a container port was in the Seventies. They lost the contract because the dockers refused to handle the containers and blockaded the docks at Bootle. I was a driver that was turned away from those docks. The firm that had the contract was a very big haulage company who kept the contract but wouldn 't allow dockers on the berth after they tried to hold him to ransom over extra wages.
The last time that Liverpool had a go at being a container port was in the Seventies. They lost the contract because the dockers refused to handle the containers and blockaded the docks at Bootle. I was a driver that was turned away from those docks. The firm that had the contract was a very big haulage company who kept the contract but wouldn 't allow dockers on the berth after they tried to hold him to ransom over extra wages. Bagamn
  • Score: -5

12:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Zootopian says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
The DE is just trying to fuel an argument.

Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news.

Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper.
No, the Echo is standing up for the community it is part of. Cameron's comments actively show a willingness to take jobs from Southampton and out them in the north (what else do you think 'rebalancing the economy' means?).

As someone else said, the is Cameron's attempt in capitalising on Ed Milliband upsetting Liverpudlians with his Sun gaffe. Cameron is politicking with the livelihoods of people in this part of the world.

Perhaps if you understood that, you wouldn't be so blasé and would actually congratulate the Echo for trying to stand up for the community it's part of.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The DE is just trying to fuel an argument. Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news. Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper.[/p][/quote]No, the Echo is standing up for the community it is part of. Cameron's comments actively show a willingness to take jobs from Southampton and out them in the north (what else do you think 'rebalancing the economy' means?). As someone else said, the is Cameron's attempt in capitalising on Ed Milliband upsetting Liverpudlians with his Sun gaffe. Cameron is politicking with the livelihoods of people in this part of the world. Perhaps if you understood that, you wouldn't be so blasé and would actually congratulate the Echo for trying to stand up for the community it's part of. Zootopian
  • Score: -7

12:45pm Tue 17 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

It really is amazing what EU and Government Grants can actually do. I'm assuming that's how it's all being paid for yes? How did Liverpool pay for their cruise terminal? EU Grant. How did Liverpool pay for their waterfront arena? Grant money. Liverpool is also about to undergo a £1.5 billion redevelopment at Kings Dock. And yes, they are getting an ice rink out of it!
It really is amazing what EU and Government Grants can actually do. I'm assuming that's how it's all being paid for yes? How did Liverpool pay for their cruise terminal? EU Grant. How did Liverpool pay for their waterfront arena? Grant money. Liverpool is also about to undergo a £1.5 billion redevelopment at Kings Dock. And yes, they are getting an ice rink out of it! 03alpe01
  • Score: -5

1:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Ronnie G says...

Cameron is a Conservative supporting the expansion of a Port in the Labour run City of Liverpool..
How is he politicking with our livelihoods exactly?
What concerns me more is the politicking from our Southampton Labour Councillors.
If our Conservative Prime Minister has no business in supporting a successful Labour run City up North, where does that leave Ms Davis as a Labour supporter in general?
In fact where does that leave any of our Southampton Labour Councillors?
The people of Southampton deserve Councillors/Candidat
es that champion our City and Port, bringing everyone together.

Liverpool's Labour Council seem to manage it in Liverpool.
Cameron is a Conservative supporting the expansion of a Port in the Labour run City of Liverpool.. How is he politicking with our livelihoods exactly? What concerns me more is the politicking from our Southampton Labour Councillors. If our Conservative Prime Minister has no business in supporting a successful Labour run City up North, where does that leave Ms Davis as a Labour supporter in general? In fact where does that leave any of our Southampton Labour Councillors? The people of Southampton deserve Councillors/Candidat es that champion our City and Port, bringing everyone together. Liverpool's Labour Council seem to manage it in Liverpool. Ronnie G
  • Score: 7

2:04pm Tue 17 Jun 14

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
I would love to see the whole area developed, this is the natural port for the UK.
That would create many long term jobs.
People also need to think about if you grid lock the city because of dock traffic then other business will suffer and move away, need to find that balance between the two
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the whole area developed, this is the natural port for the UK. That would create many long term jobs.[/p][/quote]People also need to think about if you grid lock the city because of dock traffic then other business will suffer and move away, need to find that balance between the two southy
  • Score: -1

3:20pm Tue 17 Jun 14

ALDEBARAN says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !! ALDEBARAN
  • Score: 12

3:51pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
[quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about? loosehead
  • Score: -3

3:58pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

I dare any Labour supporter say the Milliband would say this development was wrong.
No political leader would say that & surely where as I don't agree with the way Liverpool got it's cruise terminal it was above board getting a grant to dredge the Mersey it applied for a grant to do it so ABP had no complaint.
Surely it's commonsense to say the North would be better served with containers being delivered to the North from a Northern port isn't it?
did Cameron just say rather than Southampton or did he name several ports?
Where was the kick up from Southampton Labour MP's when Brown broke competition rules & helped finance Shellhaven in an attempt to win London votes?
I dare any Labour supporter say the Milliband would say this development was wrong. No political leader would say that & surely where as I don't agree with the way Liverpool got it's cruise terminal it was above board getting a grant to dredge the Mersey it applied for a grant to do it so ABP had no complaint. Surely it's commonsense to say the North would be better served with containers being delivered to the North from a Northern port isn't it? did Cameron just say rather than Southampton or did he name several ports? Where was the kick up from Southampton Labour MP's when Brown broke competition rules & helped finance Shellhaven in an attempt to win London votes? loosehead
  • Score: 3

4:11pm Tue 17 Jun 14

drreece says...

i think people are missing the point, as the forces that shrank liverpools importance are reversing next year with the widening of the panama canal redirecting asia's trade from the suez canal. on top of that you have a stagnant euro zone. liverpools trade was always with the americas and east asia but the size of the modern con ships cut off asia for the city. even mersk the worlds largest container freight company just moved its uk head quarters to liverpool.
i think people are missing the point, as the forces that shrank liverpools importance are reversing next year with the widening of the panama canal redirecting asia's trade from the suez canal. on top of that you have a stagnant euro zone. liverpools trade was always with the americas and east asia but the size of the modern con ships cut off asia for the city. even mersk the worlds largest container freight company just moved its uk head quarters to liverpool. drreece
  • Score: 8

4:15pm Tue 17 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

Zootopian wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
The DE is just trying to fuel an argument.

Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news.

Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper.
No, the Echo is standing up for the community it is part of. Cameron's comments actively show a willingness to take jobs from Southampton and out them in the north (what else do you think 'rebalancing the economy' means?).

As someone else said, the is Cameron's attempt in capitalising on Ed Milliband upsetting Liverpudlians with his Sun gaffe. Cameron is politicking with the livelihoods of people in this part of the world.

Perhaps if you understood that, you wouldn't be so blasé and would actually congratulate the Echo for trying to stand up for the community it's part of.
The Echo isn't part of any community, what a joke! it has its own political agenda and uses it to sell news. If it was part of a "community" then why is the editor in chief Ian Murray using the Echo to promote his support for selling some of the city's art collection and why did the Echo run a campaign against the shops in Winchester when they refused to display their "Tigers" posters which were actually adverts for the Daily Echo? Just to name two recent examples of how their priority is to sell news, not to support the community.

David Cameron is Prime Minister of the country and as I said earlier, his job is to run the country, all of it. This supports my earlier statement and not your assumption that Cameron's actions are only to gain support in Liverpool. Please share your evidence to support your assumptions.
[quote][p][bold]Zootopian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: The DE is just trying to fuel an argument. Wherever any port development is, it's a Primie Minister's job to run the country and bring investment into the country - not engage in local rag's attempts to sell news. Southampton is a major passenger and cargo port and the city won't be losing this and I'm happy for the country as a whole to prosper.[/p][/quote]No, the Echo is standing up for the community it is part of. Cameron's comments actively show a willingness to take jobs from Southampton and out them in the north (what else do you think 'rebalancing the economy' means?). As someone else said, the is Cameron's attempt in capitalising on Ed Milliband upsetting Liverpudlians with his Sun gaffe. Cameron is politicking with the livelihoods of people in this part of the world. Perhaps if you understood that, you wouldn't be so blasé and would actually congratulate the Echo for trying to stand up for the community it's part of.[/p][/quote]The Echo isn't part of any community, what a joke! it has its own political agenda and uses it to sell news. If it was part of a "community" then why is the editor in chief Ian Murray using the Echo to promote his support for selling some of the city's art collection and why did the Echo run a campaign against the shops in Winchester when they refused to display their "Tigers" posters which were actually adverts for the Daily Echo? Just to name two recent examples of how their priority is to sell news, not to support the community. David Cameron is Prime Minister of the country and as I said earlier, his job is to run the country, all of it. This supports my earlier statement and not your assumption that Cameron's actions are only to gain support in Liverpool. Please share your evidence to support your assumptions. sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

5:02pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is. Linesman
  • Score: 3

5:15pm Tue 17 Jun 14

search for the truth says...

It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago.

It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago.

--------

10 Jun (7 days ago)

to Ian Murray


David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool


In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment.

The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”.

He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward.

“It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.”

Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. "

“Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship.

“Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub.

“This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool.

“What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future.

“I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”
It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago. It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago. -------- 10 Jun (7 days ago) to Ian Murray David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment. The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”. He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward. “It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.” Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. " “Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship. “Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub. “This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool. “What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future. “I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.” search for the truth
  • Score: 6

5:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

search for the truth wrote:
It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago.

It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago.

--------

10 Jun (7 days ago)

to Ian Murray


David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool


In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment.

The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”.

He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward.

“It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.”

Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. "

“Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship.

“Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub.

“This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool.

“What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future.

“I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”
which is what Southampton has been getting wrong all these years
[quote][p][bold]search for the truth[/bold] wrote: It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago. It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago. -------- 10 Jun (7 days ago) to Ian Murray David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment. The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”. He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward. “It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.” Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. " “Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship. “Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub. “This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool. “What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future. “I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”[/p][/quote]which is what Southampton has been getting wrong all these years 03alpe01
  • Score: 9

5:54pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Chris storey says...

Oh dear, more salt in the wound.

http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/news/live
rpool-news/shipping-
giant-atlantic-conta
iner-line-7282973
Oh dear, more salt in the wound. http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/shipping- giant-atlantic-conta iner-line-7282973 Chris storey
  • Score: 2

5:57pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

ALDEBARAN wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !!
If you think its that wonderful dont be afraid to go off and live there ...... Unless you already do which would explain your stupid comment
[quote][p][bold]ALDEBARAN[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !![/p][/quote]If you think its that wonderful dont be afraid to go off and live there ...... Unless you already do which would explain your stupid comment Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -5

9:06pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it.
Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.[/p][/quote]Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it. Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for the truth wrote:
It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago.

It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago.

--------

10 Jun (7 days ago)

to Ian Murray


David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool


In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment.

The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”.

He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward.

“It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.”

Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. "

“Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship.

“Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub.

“This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool.

“What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future.

“I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”
Was his speech in anyway detrimental just to Southampton?
As Labour here seems to think he was attacking our city & that Liverpool is getting our trade yet they never kicked up about the dredging of the Mersey?
I'd rather you got the containers than Shellhaven.
[quote][p][bold]search for the truth[/bold] wrote: It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago. It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago. -------- 10 Jun (7 days ago) to Ian Murray David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment. The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”. He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward. “It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.” Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. " “Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship. “Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub. “This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool. “What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future. “I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”[/p][/quote]Was his speech in anyway detrimental just to Southampton? As Labour here seems to think he was attacking our city & that Liverpool is getting our trade yet they never kicked up about the dredging of the Mersey? I'd rather you got the containers than Shellhaven. loosehead
  • Score: 1

9:27pm Tue 17 Jun 14

AlwynM says...

So the PM applauds a new facility. He's not allowed to do this because?
So the PM applauds a new facility. He's not allowed to do this because? AlwynM
  • Score: 4

10:32pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Chris storey says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
ALDEBARAN wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.
Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !!
If you think its that wonderful dont be afraid to go off and live there ...... Unless you already do which would explain your stupid comment
A rather childish comment.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ALDEBARAN[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop Southampton docks to Marchwood, improve rail,roads etc, continue to dredge Southampton water and we will create more work and proper employment.[/p][/quote]Why people living in Scotland, North England and Midlands have to travel to stinky, gridlocked Southampton for their cruise? Good luck to Liverpool !![/p][/quote]If you think its that wonderful dont be afraid to go off and live there ...... Unless you already do which would explain your stupid comment[/p][/quote]A rather childish comment. Chris storey
  • Score: -2

10:55pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it.
Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?
I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time.

I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here.

Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool.
.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.[/p][/quote]Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it. Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?[/p][/quote]I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time. I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here. Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool. . Linesman
  • Score: 1

11:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Chris storey says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it.
Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?
I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time.

I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here.

Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool.
.
But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.[/p][/quote]Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it. Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?[/p][/quote]I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time. I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here. Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool. .[/p][/quote]But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come. Chris storey
  • Score: -4

12:53am Wed 18 Jun 14

search for truth says...

Another milestone in the friendship between Liverpool and Chinese megacity Shanghai

• Jun 17, 2014 21:15
• By John Sutton

Memorandum of Understanding strengthens bonds between Merseyside and the Far east
Zhao Wen, Vice-Mayor of Shanghai, and Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson renew the memorandum of understanding between the two cities
The formal friendship between Liverpool and Shanghai was strengthened further this evening when leaders put pen to paper on a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cities.
Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson welcomed Vice Mayor of Shanghai Zhao Wen to the IFB Hub at Mann Island where the pair renewed the document first signed in 2007.
It means Liverpool and Shanghai - the world's largest city - are closely bonded, and pave the way opportunities to work together on projects that will be mutually beneficial to both parties.
Mayor Anderson said: “Shortly we will be celebrating China Week at IFB 2014 with several important events, working with our partners China Britain Business Council and United Kingdom Trade & Investment. Today though is the most important China event in Liverpool’s 2014 calendar.
“Signing the refreshed MoU with Shanghai is very significant and illustrates the ongoing and growing interest in developing mutually beneficial relationships with China in Business, Culture and Education.
“We are also very pleased to see the extent of Chinese engagement in IFB 2014 and the support from China Government officials, not least in taking part in the BT Global City Leaders’ summit.
“Already as a result of Chinese involvement in the festival deals are being done with Liverpool enterprises.”
Ms Zhao Wen is leading a delegation to the city as she takes part in the BT Global City Leaders’ summit at St George’s Hall tomorrow, one of the signature events of IFB 2014.
Another milestone in the friendship between Liverpool and Chinese megacity Shanghai • Jun 17, 2014 21:15 • By John Sutton Memorandum of Understanding strengthens bonds between Merseyside and the Far east Zhao Wen, Vice-Mayor of Shanghai, and Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson renew the memorandum of understanding between the two cities The formal friendship between Liverpool and Shanghai was strengthened further this evening when leaders put pen to paper on a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cities. Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson welcomed Vice Mayor of Shanghai Zhao Wen to the IFB Hub at Mann Island where the pair renewed the document first signed in 2007. It means Liverpool and Shanghai - the world's largest city - are closely bonded, and pave the way opportunities to work together on projects that will be mutually beneficial to both parties. Mayor Anderson said: “Shortly we will be celebrating China Week at IFB 2014 with several important events, working with our partners China Britain Business Council and United Kingdom Trade & Investment. Today though is the most important China event in Liverpool’s 2014 calendar. “Signing the refreshed MoU with Shanghai is very significant and illustrates the ongoing and growing interest in developing mutually beneficial relationships with China in Business, Culture and Education. “We are also very pleased to see the extent of Chinese engagement in IFB 2014 and the support from China Government officials, not least in taking part in the BT Global City Leaders’ summit. “Already as a result of Chinese involvement in the festival deals are being done with Liverpool enterprises.” Ms Zhao Wen is leading a delegation to the city as she takes part in the BT Global City Leaders’ summit at St George’s Hall tomorrow, one of the signature events of IFB 2014. search for truth
  • Score: 2

10:32am Wed 18 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Chris storey wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it.
Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?
I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time.

I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here.

Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool.
.
But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come.
....... Only to be exceeded by the worst PM aka Slippery Dave, that this country has ever had
.
[quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.[/p][/quote]Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it. Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?[/p][/quote]I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time. I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here. Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool. .[/p][/quote]But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come.[/p][/quote]....... Only to be exceeded by the worst PM aka Slippery Dave, that this country has ever had . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

12:29pm Wed 18 Jun 14

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
search for the truth wrote:
It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago.

It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago.

--------

10 Jun (7 days ago)

to Ian Murray


David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool


In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment.

The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”.

He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward.

“It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.”

Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. "

“Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship.

“Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub.

“This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool.

“What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future.

“I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”
Was his speech in anyway detrimental just to Southampton?
As Labour here seems to think he was attacking our city & that Liverpool is getting our trade yet they never kicked up about the dredging of the Mersey?
I'd rather you got the containers than Shellhaven.
Loose hve you ever bothered to read about the EU diretive on marine traffic, in there there is apart about the UK, there is to be 2 main container ports 1 on the east coast and 1 on the west coast, All the rest are to become coastal container ports, Liverpool is not fighting Southampton for this right they are taking on the ports and the new one that will be built on the River Severn, Southampton and Plymouth container ports will have the majority of English Channel container movements (don't knock it as this will still mean a lot of work) what you seeing going on with Southampton port is a test bed for shellheaven set up
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for the truth[/bold] wrote: It seems strange that the Southern Daily Echo should suddenly start to kick - off about a speech David Cameron made in Liverpool over seven days ago. It is even stranger when you realise that a friend of mine emailed Ian Murry the following article which appeared in the Liverpool Echo 7 days ago. -------- 10 Jun (7 days ago) to Ian Murray David Cameron opens International Festival of Business 2014 in Liverpool In the interview at St George’s Hall, Mr Cameron also praised the way the city had put together a huge programme of events to be staged as part of the IFB over the next 50 days that will promote trade and inward investment. The Prime Minister said the IFB had “come off brilliantly”. He added: “They have managed to attract great companies from around the country, huge numbers of international businesses. I think it’s going to put the whole city’s best foot forward. “It’s very good for the region, very good for Britain.” Asked what he thought Liverpool would look like in 10 years’ time, Mr Cameron said: “I think there’s some major investments going on in Liverpool that will make a big difference. I’ve just seen for myself at the Port of Liverpool the new container terminal and also what’s happening in terms of passenger ships. " “Those two things together are really important in terms of re-balancing the economy. On the passenger ships it means that cruises can start here in Liverpool with all the iconic brilliance of the city on show to people who want to go on a cruise ship. “Much more importantly the expansion of the Port of Liverpool being able to take the biggest container ships in the world, the ones that go through the widened Panama Canal – this is a massive re-balancing of the economy because instead of goods being imported in Southampton or Tilbury and then shipped on road and rail up to the North West, you know the North West will be the hub. “This is a really big re-balancing of the economy and I think that will be great for Liverpool. “What we’ve got to make sure is that our cities are brilliant places to live and work and that we make the most of our heritage and culture as well as all the investment in the future. “I feel that’s what Liverpool seems to be getting right.”[/p][/quote]Was his speech in anyway detrimental just to Southampton? As Labour here seems to think he was attacking our city & that Liverpool is getting our trade yet they never kicked up about the dredging of the Mersey? I'd rather you got the containers than Shellhaven.[/p][/quote]Loose hve you ever bothered to read about the EU diretive on marine traffic, in there there is apart about the UK, there is to be 2 main container ports 1 on the east coast and 1 on the west coast, All the rest are to become coastal container ports, Liverpool is not fighting Southampton for this right they are taking on the ports and the new one that will be built on the River Severn, Southampton and Plymouth container ports will have the majority of English Channel container movements (don't knock it as this will still mean a lot of work) what you seeing going on with Southampton port is a test bed for shellheaven set up southy
  • Score: 1

12:39pm Wed 18 Jun 14

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Beer Monster wrote:
Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.
Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?
I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority.

I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.
Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it.
Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?
I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time.

I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here.

Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool.
.
But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come.
....... Only to be exceeded by the worst PM aka Slippery Dave, that this country has ever had
.
We are still got the evil legacy of Thatcher who started us on this road of destuction
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Totally correct Wickham Man - I've been a resident of Hythe for the past 36 years, and would welcome the Dibden Bay project, as long as it was thought through and implemented correctly. I know many others who share these thoughts, and it just seems to be a few NIMBYs (most of whom are living on reclaimed land) that oppose it.[/p][/quote]Beer Monster when I said to Linesman many watersiders welcomed Dibden bay development he told me you were the minority & I didn't know what I was talking about?[/p][/quote]I know that this will come as a massive surprise to you, but in actual fact, one person does not make a majority. I suggest you stick to commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of. To date you have not shown what that is.[/p][/quote]Did you read his post or just attacked my post? He/she said MANY OTHERS so not just one person was it. Again you're so wrong & you're attempts to attack my posts are just becoming laughable so please say why Brown gave grants against EU competition rules to finance Shellhaven ?[/p][/quote]I have told you that there were Hundreds that attended a meeting in Holbury, and this was reported in The Echo at the time. I think that far more reliable than an anonymous post on here. Gordon Brown ceased to be Prime Minister four years ago, and has nothing to do with what Dodgy Dave has had to say about Liverpool. .[/p][/quote]But the legacy of that incompetent buffoon Brown and that of Tony B LIAR will haunt us for many more years to come.[/p][/quote]....... Only to be exceeded by the worst PM aka Slippery Dave, that this country has ever had .[/p][/quote]We are still got the evil legacy of Thatcher who started us on this road of destuction southy
  • Score: 2

8:15pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Ronnielpool says...

I can't believe you lot down there are still whingin .... Your paper is obsessed with a Liverpool .. Have you seen what is happen in Liverpool at the moment it is holding the International Business Festival on behalf of Great Britain , and your paper is going on about rubbish... Liverpool a has its mojo back and the rest of the country don't like that the place is buzzing
I can't believe you lot down there are still whingin .... Your paper is obsessed with a Liverpool .. Have you seen what is happen in Liverpool at the moment it is holding the International Business Festival on behalf of Great Britain , and your paper is going on about rubbish... Liverpool a has its mojo back and the rest of the country don't like that the place is buzzing Ronnielpool
  • Score: 11

9:00pm Wed 18 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Ronnielpool wrote:
I can't believe you lot down there are still whingin .... Your paper is obsessed with a Liverpool .. Have you seen what is happen in Liverpool at the moment it is holding the International Business Festival on behalf of Great Britain , and your paper is going on about rubbish... Liverpool a has its mojo back and the rest of the country don't like that the place is buzzing
Ronnie why is PEEL PORTS trying to lease a port next to Southampton Port?
A Port Southampton needs to expand?
I have nothing against Liverpool but this does give ammunition the the two cities Port War claims doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnielpool[/bold] wrote: I can't believe you lot down there are still whingin .... Your paper is obsessed with a Liverpool .. Have you seen what is happen in Liverpool at the moment it is holding the International Business Festival on behalf of Great Britain , and your paper is going on about rubbish... Liverpool a has its mojo back and the rest of the country don't like that the place is buzzing[/p][/quote]Ronnie why is PEEL PORTS trying to lease a port next to Southampton Port? A Port Southampton needs to expand? I have nothing against Liverpool but this does give ammunition the the two cities Port War claims doesn't it? loosehead
  • Score: -3

12:02am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ronnielpool says...

no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks
Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???
no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that??? Ronnielpool
  • Score: 7

12:05am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ronnielpool says...

blame your paper !!!!!!!!!! they invented War which i find really embarrassing ? people die in wars? grow up
blame your paper !!!!!!!!!! they invented War which i find really embarrassing ? people die in wars? grow up Ronnielpool
  • Score: 7

6:06am Thu 19 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Ronnielpool wrote:
no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks
Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???
So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port?
I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnielpool[/bold] wrote: no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???[/p][/quote]So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port? I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:06am Thu 19 Jun 14

search for truth says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnielpool wrote:
no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks
Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???
So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port?
I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire.
Loosehead

Why is it wrong for Peel Ports to move into YOUR area, when ABP run the port of Garston , which is in a suburb of Liverpool.

You seem to think it is OK for them to be in our area, but when we do the same thing it is totally unacceptable. You my friend are a Hypocrite and I agree with RONNIELPOOL your use of the word WAR is rather offensive.



If you want to worry about something, then the following item regarding Liverpool2 , which was raised in the Daily Echo the other day might give you cause for concern.
Before the Southern Daily Echo starts a " Containers War " with Liverpool, please note that this development is using private money.


http://container-mag
.com/30-zpmc-cranes-
for-liverpool2/
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnielpool[/bold] wrote: no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???[/p][/quote]So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port? I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Why is it wrong for Peel Ports to move into YOUR area, when ABP run the port of Garston , which is in a suburb of Liverpool. You seem to think it is OK for them to be in our area, but when we do the same thing it is totally unacceptable. You my friend are a Hypocrite and I agree with RONNIELPOOL your use of the word WAR is rather offensive. If you want to worry about something, then the following item regarding Liverpool2 , which was raised in the Daily Echo the other day might give you cause for concern. Before the Southern Daily Echo starts a " Containers War " with Liverpool, please note that this development is using private money. http://container-mag .com/30-zpmc-cranes- for-liverpool2/ search for truth
  • Score: 1

9:45am Thu 19 Jun 14

search for truth says...

Loosehead heres a little bit more news for you.

Peel Ports' £300m Liverpool2 back on schedule

International Festival of Biusiness being held in Liverpool debate hears of access concerns for enlarged Seaforth container terminal
Mark Whitworth, Peel Ports chief executive pictured at Seaforth container terminal
Peel Ports’ £300m Liverpool2 scheme is back on schedule – but the ports operator and one of its biggest customers have raised concerns over access issues linked to increased traffic flows.
Peel was part of an International Festival for Business debate on Liverpool and its future as a major port and maritime centre, this week.
The event, organised by Containerisation International and Lloyd’s List, featured Peel Ports chief executive Mark Whitworth and Atlantic Container Line (ACL) president and chief executive Andrew Abbott as its key speakers.
Mr Whitworth revealed that construction of the new container terminal at Seaforth is now back on schedule after winter storms had held up operations.
He said: “Liverpool2 is genuinely bang on time. We had one or two hairy moments in the winter, but we’re on plan.”
The facility is due to open towards the end of 2015.
But concerns have been raised about transport links to the terminal, which will be capable of handling the biggest container ships in the world.
Mr Whitworth said: “We have some medium-term concerns about access and we are lobbying now.
“If we don’t address that question it could be a limiting factor. There’s a lot of work to do, but we think we will find the answer.”
He added: “It is not just a port issue, it is a wider Liverpool access issue.”
Andrew Abbott said: “Are we going to have long gate queues? Right now it works perfectly. It’s just the unknown.”
However, fellow panellist Mike Garratt, founder of transport consultancy MDS Transmodal, said the issue is being addressed: “There are studies going on, on access to Seaforth.
“The Highways Agency is putting money into addressing the immediate concerns.”
He said there are likely to be road transport issues because capacity on the rail network is growing, but he said the Peel-owned Manchester Ship Canal linking Liverpool to Port Salford is a viable alternative: “I can’t see the Ship Canal becoming congested.”
Peel hopes to persuade shipping lines to use Liverpool2 to access markets north of Birmingham rather than moving goods by road up from ports in the South of England.
Mr Whitworth said: “The cost of a journey from southern ports to the North West is more than shipping a container half way around the world.”
Panellist Mark Copsey, general manager for shortsea operator MacAndrews, believes logistics operators will recognise the business case for Liverpool2. He said: “Trucking companies and trucking infrastructure will come with the customers. If the business goes from south to north, they will come.”
Andrew Abbott added: “Once this new terminal is put together I would not be surprised about how much more business will come.”
ACL has operated container ships out of Liverpool since it was founded in 1967 and earlier this month it signed a 10-year deal that will see five of the world’s biggest vessels using the Port of Liverpool as their UK port of call.
It is also expanding its Liverpool office, growing staff by more than 40% to a total of 180.
American-born Mr Abbott told the debate: “Liverpool is one of our best performing ports.
“The labour situation here is probably the best we have in all of Europe, and certainly better than North America.
“We are making Liverpool our back office operation for Europe and America. We did that because productivity was better than anywhere else, so they won it fair and square.
“Our operation in Liverpool is as smooth as silk and we never have a problem.”
He added: “We have been here since 1967, but it feels like home and we are going to be here for a few years.”
Loosehead heres a little bit more news for you. Peel Ports' £300m Liverpool2 back on schedule International Festival of Biusiness being held in Liverpool debate hears of access concerns for enlarged Seaforth container terminal Mark Whitworth, Peel Ports chief executive pictured at Seaforth container terminal Peel Ports’ £300m Liverpool2 scheme is back on schedule – but the ports operator and one of its biggest customers have raised concerns over access issues linked to increased traffic flows. Peel was part of an International Festival for Business debate on Liverpool and its future as a major port and maritime centre, this week. The event, organised by Containerisation International and Lloyd’s List, featured Peel Ports chief executive Mark Whitworth and Atlantic Container Line (ACL) president and chief executive Andrew Abbott as its key speakers. Mr Whitworth revealed that construction of the new container terminal at Seaforth is now back on schedule after winter storms had held up operations. He said: “Liverpool2 is genuinely bang on time. We had one or two hairy moments in the winter, but we’re on plan.” The facility is due to open towards the end of 2015. But concerns have been raised about transport links to the terminal, which will be capable of handling the biggest container ships in the world. Mr Whitworth said: “We have some medium-term concerns about access and we are lobbying now. “If we don’t address that question it could be a limiting factor. There’s a lot of work to do, but we think we will find the answer.” He added: “It is not just a port issue, it is a wider Liverpool access issue.” Andrew Abbott said: “Are we going to have long gate queues? Right now it works perfectly. It’s just the unknown.” However, fellow panellist Mike Garratt, founder of transport consultancy MDS Transmodal, said the issue is being addressed: “There are studies going on, on access to Seaforth. “The Highways Agency is putting money into addressing the immediate concerns.” He said there are likely to be road transport issues because capacity on the rail network is growing, but he said the Peel-owned Manchester Ship Canal linking Liverpool to Port Salford is a viable alternative: “I can’t see the Ship Canal becoming congested.” Peel hopes to persuade shipping lines to use Liverpool2 to access markets north of Birmingham rather than moving goods by road up from ports in the South of England. Mr Whitworth said: “The cost of a journey from southern ports to the North West is more than shipping a container half way around the world.” Panellist Mark Copsey, general manager for shortsea operator MacAndrews, believes logistics operators will recognise the business case for Liverpool2. He said: “Trucking companies and trucking infrastructure will come with the customers. If the business goes from south to north, they will come.” Andrew Abbott added: “Once this new terminal is put together I would not be surprised about how much more business will come.” ACL has operated container ships out of Liverpool since it was founded in 1967 and earlier this month it signed a 10-year deal that will see five of the world’s biggest vessels using the Port of Liverpool as their UK port of call. It is also expanding its Liverpool office, growing staff by more than 40% to a total of 180. American-born Mr Abbott told the debate: “Liverpool is one of our best performing ports. “The labour situation here is probably the best we have in all of Europe, and certainly better than North America. “We are making Liverpool our back office operation for Europe and America. We did that because productivity was better than anywhere else, so they won it fair and square. “Our operation in Liverpool is as smooth as silk and we never have a problem.” He added: “We have been here since 1967, but it feels like home and we are going to be here for a few years.” search for truth
  • Score: 9

3:22pm Thu 19 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnielpool wrote:
no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks
Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???
So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port?
I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire.
Loosehead

Why is it wrong for Peel Ports to move into YOUR area, when ABP run the port of Garston , which is in a suburb of Liverpool.

You seem to think it is OK for them to be in our area, but when we do the same thing it is totally unacceptable. You my friend are a Hypocrite and I agree with RONNIELPOOL your use of the word WAR is rather offensive.



If you want to worry about something, then the following item regarding Liverpool2 , which was raised in the Daily Echo the other day might give you cause for concern.
Before the Southern Daily Echo starts a " Containers War " with Liverpool, please note that this development is using private money.


http://container-mag

.com/30-zpmc-cranes-

for-liverpool2/
I've already said the word WAR was wrong & so is this article.I'll admit I never knew & I guess neither did most Southampton residents that ABP already owns a piece of Liverpool dock land.
Have you any idea what Peel Ports would be thinking of using this for? would they be looking to expand along that side of Southampton Water?
If it brings jobs fair play but if it's to remain inactive then why?
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnielpool[/bold] wrote: no one is at war with anyone? its really embarrassing don't you thinks Liverpool is not the least interested what goes on in Southampton it just wants to improve itself , and what is wrong with doing that???[/p][/quote]So why are they bidding for Marchwood Military Port? I find the "WAR" the wrong thing to say but this attempt to move into this area just gives food for the fire.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Why is it wrong for Peel Ports to move into YOUR area, when ABP run the port of Garston , which is in a suburb of Liverpool. You seem to think it is OK for them to be in our area, but when we do the same thing it is totally unacceptable. You my friend are a Hypocrite and I agree with RONNIELPOOL your use of the word WAR is rather offensive. If you want to worry about something, then the following item regarding Liverpool2 , which was raised in the Daily Echo the other day might give you cause for concern. Before the Southern Daily Echo starts a " Containers War " with Liverpool, please note that this development is using private money. http://container-mag .com/30-zpmc-cranes- for-liverpool2/[/p][/quote]I've already said the word WAR was wrong & so is this article.I'll admit I never knew & I guess neither did most Southampton residents that ABP already owns a piece of Liverpool dock land. Have you any idea what Peel Ports would be thinking of using this for? would they be looking to expand along that side of Southampton Water? If it brings jobs fair play but if it's to remain inactive then why? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Thu 19 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
Loosehead heres a little bit more news for you.

Peel Ports' £300m Liverpool2 back on schedule

International Festival of Biusiness being held in Liverpool debate hears of access concerns for enlarged Seaforth container terminal
Mark Whitworth, Peel Ports chief executive pictured at Seaforth container terminal
Peel Ports’ £300m Liverpool2 scheme is back on schedule – but the ports operator and one of its biggest customers have raised concerns over access issues linked to increased traffic flows.
Peel was part of an International Festival for Business debate on Liverpool and its future as a major port and maritime centre, this week.
The event, organised by Containerisation International and Lloyd’s List, featured Peel Ports chief executive Mark Whitworth and Atlantic Container Line (ACL) president and chief executive Andrew Abbott as its key speakers.
Mr Whitworth revealed that construction of the new container terminal at Seaforth is now back on schedule after winter storms had held up operations.
He said: “Liverpool2 is genuinely bang on time. We had one or two hairy moments in the winter, but we’re on plan.”
The facility is due to open towards the end of 2015.
But concerns have been raised about transport links to the terminal, which will be capable of handling the biggest container ships in the world.
Mr Whitworth said: “We have some medium-term concerns about access and we are lobbying now.
“If we don’t address that question it could be a limiting factor. There’s a lot of work to do, but we think we will find the answer.”
He added: “It is not just a port issue, it is a wider Liverpool access issue.”
Andrew Abbott said: “Are we going to have long gate queues? Right now it works perfectly. It’s just the unknown.”
However, fellow panellist Mike Garratt, founder of transport consultancy MDS Transmodal, said the issue is being addressed: “There are studies going on, on access to Seaforth.
“The Highways Agency is putting money into addressing the immediate concerns.”
He said there are likely to be road transport issues because capacity on the rail network is growing, but he said the Peel-owned Manchester Ship Canal linking Liverpool to Port Salford is a viable alternative: “I can’t see the Ship Canal becoming congested.”
Peel hopes to persuade shipping lines to use Liverpool2 to access markets north of Birmingham rather than moving goods by road up from ports in the South of England.
Mr Whitworth said: “The cost of a journey from southern ports to the North West is more than shipping a container half way around the world.”
Panellist Mark Copsey, general manager for shortsea operator MacAndrews, believes logistics operators will recognise the business case for Liverpool2. He said: “Trucking companies and trucking infrastructure will come with the customers. If the business goes from south to north, they will come.”
Andrew Abbott added: “Once this new terminal is put together I would not be surprised about how much more business will come.”
ACL has operated container ships out of Liverpool since it was founded in 1967 and earlier this month it signed a 10-year deal that will see five of the world’s biggest vessels using the Port of Liverpool as their UK port of call.
It is also expanding its Liverpool office, growing staff by more than 40% to a total of 180.
American-born Mr Abbott told the debate: “Liverpool is one of our best performing ports.
“The labour situation here is probably the best we have in all of Europe, and certainly better than North America.
“We are making Liverpool our back office operation for Europe and America. We did that because productivity was better than anywhere else, so they won it fair and square.
“Our operation in Liverpool is as smooth as silk and we never have a problem.”
He added: “We have been here since 1967, but it feels like home and we are going to be here for a few years.”
You just don't get it! the objections to the stop start terminal was the way you got the money for it & if you had been honest about why you wanted it then ABP & this city plus many other ports would have had no objections so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Loosehead heres a little bit more news for you. Peel Ports' £300m Liverpool2 back on schedule International Festival of Biusiness being held in Liverpool debate hears of access concerns for enlarged Seaforth container terminal Mark Whitworth, Peel Ports chief executive pictured at Seaforth container terminal Peel Ports’ £300m Liverpool2 scheme is back on schedule – but the ports operator and one of its biggest customers have raised concerns over access issues linked to increased traffic flows. Peel was part of an International Festival for Business debate on Liverpool and its future as a major port and maritime centre, this week. The event, organised by Containerisation International and Lloyd’s List, featured Peel Ports chief executive Mark Whitworth and Atlantic Container Line (ACL) president and chief executive Andrew Abbott as its key speakers. Mr Whitworth revealed that construction of the new container terminal at Seaforth is now back on schedule after winter storms had held up operations. He said: “Liverpool2 is genuinely bang on time. We had one or two hairy moments in the winter, but we’re on plan.” The facility is due to open towards the end of 2015. But concerns have been raised about transport links to the terminal, which will be capable of handling the biggest container ships in the world. Mr Whitworth said: “We have some medium-term concerns about access and we are lobbying now. “If we don’t address that question it could be a limiting factor. There’s a lot of work to do, but we think we will find the answer.” He added: “It is not just a port issue, it is a wider Liverpool access issue.” Andrew Abbott said: “Are we going to have long gate queues? Right now it works perfectly. It’s just the unknown.” However, fellow panellist Mike Garratt, founder of transport consultancy MDS Transmodal, said the issue is being addressed: “There are studies going on, on access to Seaforth. “The Highways Agency is putting money into addressing the immediate concerns.” He said there are likely to be road transport issues because capacity on the rail network is growing, but he said the Peel-owned Manchester Ship Canal linking Liverpool to Port Salford is a viable alternative: “I can’t see the Ship Canal becoming congested.” Peel hopes to persuade shipping lines to use Liverpool2 to access markets north of Birmingham rather than moving goods by road up from ports in the South of England. Mr Whitworth said: “The cost of a journey from southern ports to the North West is more than shipping a container half way around the world.” Panellist Mark Copsey, general manager for shortsea operator MacAndrews, believes logistics operators will recognise the business case for Liverpool2. He said: “Trucking companies and trucking infrastructure will come with the customers. If the business goes from south to north, they will come.” Andrew Abbott added: “Once this new terminal is put together I would not be surprised about how much more business will come.” ACL has operated container ships out of Liverpool since it was founded in 1967 and earlier this month it signed a 10-year deal that will see five of the world’s biggest vessels using the Port of Liverpool as their UK port of call. It is also expanding its Liverpool office, growing staff by more than 40% to a total of 180. American-born Mr Abbott told the debate: “Liverpool is one of our best performing ports. “The labour situation here is probably the best we have in all of Europe, and certainly better than North America. “We are making Liverpool our back office operation for Europe and America. We did that because productivity was better than anywhere else, so they won it fair and square. “Our operation in Liverpool is as smooth as silk and we never have a problem.” He added: “We have been here since 1967, but it feels like home and we are going to be here for a few years.”[/p][/quote]You just don't get it! the objections to the stop start terminal was the way you got the money for it & if you had been honest about why you wanted it then ABP & this city plus many other ports would have had no objections so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. loosehead
  • Score: -2

5:50pm Thu 19 Jun 14

search for truth says...

Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!! search for truth
  • Score: 2

9:10pm Thu 19 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths?
Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side?
already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then?
Just a thought!
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths? Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side? already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then? Just a thought! loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:25pm Thu 19 Jun 14

phil maccavity says...

search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money.
I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013.
In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool.
In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money. I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013. In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool. In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! phil maccavity
  • Score: -2

10:36pm Thu 19 Jun 14

search for truth says...

loosehead wrote:
search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths?
Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side?
already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then?
Just a thought!
Loosehead you are getting very confused regarding Peel Ports and what they have in mind in Liverpool, you seem to have some notion that they are a small outfit, believe me, they have their fingers in many different pies such as :-

For your information, Peel Ports owns the Port of Liverpool ( formerly Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ) which has vast docks on both sides of the river mersey next door to Cammel Laird ship yard on the Birkenhead , Wirral side of the river and the area's either side of the Pier Head on the Liverpool side.

Peel Ports are currently building the International Trade Centre ( http://peelitc.co.uk
/ ) within the dock estate on the Wirral side of the river, the remaining dock estate has been given outline planning permission for a redevelopment known as Wirral Waters ( http://www.wirralwat
ers.co.uk/ ).

On the Liverpool side of the river Peel Ports have outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the obsolete parts of the dock estate, this development is restricted by the historical listed parts which must be retained, this development is known as Liverpool Waters ( http://www.liverpool
waters.co.uk/ ).

Your idea that Peel would try to use Marchwood as a cruise terminal is fanciful. The government seems to be hellbent on outsourcing services across all government departments so the likely scenario is :-

1 . The government won't sell of Marchwood , it might be strategically needed in a war type scenario overseas.

2. The government are likely to lease it out ie. The government are more likely to privatize the services carried out there.

3. Peel might want to diversify into this sector , thus depriving ABP of the use of this facility.

One thing is for sure , never under estimate Peel and what they have achieved and have ambitions to achieve.
Liverpool2 is an extension to the Container port at Royal Seaforth Dock and consists of a brand new quayside with deepwater berths , reclaimed from the river.

THere is a lot more going on than you might think see this website if you don't believe me Loosehead, ( http://www.merseymar
itime.co.uk/default.
phuse )

Peel also own the Trafford Centre in Manchester one of the largest out of town shopping centres in Europe ( http://www.peel.co.u
k/activities/shoppin
gcentres/traffordcen
tre ).

It also owns 4 airports including Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Media City in Salford which is leased by the BBC and ITV television networks.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths? Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side? already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then? Just a thought![/p][/quote]Loosehead you are getting very confused regarding Peel Ports and what they have in mind in Liverpool, you seem to have some notion that they are a small outfit, believe me, they have their fingers in many different pies such as :- For your information, Peel Ports owns the Port of Liverpool ( formerly Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ) which has vast docks on both sides of the river mersey next door to Cammel Laird ship yard on the Birkenhead , Wirral side of the river and the area's either side of the Pier Head on the Liverpool side. Peel Ports are currently building the International Trade Centre ( http://peelitc.co.uk / ) within the dock estate on the Wirral side of the river, the remaining dock estate has been given outline planning permission for a redevelopment known as Wirral Waters ( http://www.wirralwat ers.co.uk/ ). On the Liverpool side of the river Peel Ports have outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the obsolete parts of the dock estate, this development is restricted by the historical listed parts which must be retained, this development is known as Liverpool Waters ( http://www.liverpool waters.co.uk/ ). Your idea that Peel would try to use Marchwood as a cruise terminal is fanciful. The government seems to be hellbent on outsourcing services across all government departments so the likely scenario is :- 1 . The government won't sell of Marchwood , it might be strategically needed in a war type scenario overseas. 2. The government are likely to lease it out ie. The government are more likely to privatize the services carried out there. 3. Peel might want to diversify into this sector , thus depriving ABP of the use of this facility. One thing is for sure , never under estimate Peel and what they have achieved and have ambitions to achieve. Liverpool2 is an extension to the Container port at Royal Seaforth Dock and consists of a brand new quayside with deepwater berths , reclaimed from the river. THere is a lot more going on than you might think see this website if you don't believe me Loosehead, ( http://www.merseymar itime.co.uk/default. phuse ) Peel also own the Trafford Centre in Manchester one of the largest out of town shopping centres in Europe ( http://www.peel.co.u k/activities/shoppin gcentres/traffordcen tre ). It also owns 4 airports including Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Media City in Salford which is leased by the BBC and ITV television networks. search for truth
  • Score: 1

10:39pm Thu 19 Jun 14

search for truth says...

phil maccavity wrote:
search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money.
I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013.
In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool.
In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!
ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money. I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013. In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool. In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![/p][/quote]ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port. search for truth
  • Score: 2

5:49am Fri 20 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths?
Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side?
already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then?
Just a thought!
Loosehead you are getting very confused regarding Peel Ports and what they have in mind in Liverpool, you seem to have some notion that they are a small outfit, believe me, they have their fingers in many different pies such as :-

For your information, Peel Ports owns the Port of Liverpool ( formerly Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ) which has vast docks on both sides of the river mersey next door to Cammel Laird ship yard on the Birkenhead , Wirral side of the river and the area's either side of the Pier Head on the Liverpool side.

Peel Ports are currently building the International Trade Centre ( http://peelitc.co.uk

/ ) within the dock estate on the Wirral side of the river, the remaining dock estate has been given outline planning permission for a redevelopment known as Wirral Waters ( http://www.wirralwat

ers.co.uk/ ).

On the Liverpool side of the river Peel Ports have outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the obsolete parts of the dock estate, this development is restricted by the historical listed parts which must be retained, this development is known as Liverpool Waters ( http://www.liverpool

waters.co.uk/ ).

Your idea that Peel would try to use Marchwood as a cruise terminal is fanciful. The government seems to be hellbent on outsourcing services across all government departments so the likely scenario is :-

1 . The government won't sell of Marchwood , it might be strategically needed in a war type scenario overseas.

2. The government are likely to lease it out ie. The government are more likely to privatize the services carried out there.

3. Peel might want to diversify into this sector , thus depriving ABP of the use of this facility.

One thing is for sure , never under estimate Peel and what they have achieved and have ambitions to achieve.
Liverpool2 is an extension to the Container port at Royal Seaforth Dock and consists of a brand new quayside with deepwater berths , reclaimed from the river.

THere is a lot more going on than you might think see this website if you don't believe me Loosehead, ( http://www.merseymar

itime.co.uk/default.

phuse )

Peel also own the Trafford Centre in Manchester one of the largest out of town shopping centres in Europe ( http://www.peel.co.u

k/activities/shoppin

gcentres/traffordcen

tre ).

It also owns 4 airports including Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Media City in Salford which is leased by the BBC and ITV television networks.
we know the port(Marchwood) is only being leased out & the military is staying but there's a huge piece of the Port the new operator can use for dock related work ie cruise ships or roll on roll off car transport.
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Here's a thought for you.As I've said in another post what if Peel port gets Marchwood military port & offers cruise companies cheap berths? Then they acquire Dibden bay from ABP & the rest of the land on that side? already dredged to take super cruise ships they can dock alongside the dock wall so will Peel ports be so interested in developing Liverpool's cruise industry then? Just a thought![/p][/quote]Loosehead you are getting very confused regarding Peel Ports and what they have in mind in Liverpool, you seem to have some notion that they are a small outfit, believe me, they have their fingers in many different pies such as :- For your information, Peel Ports owns the Port of Liverpool ( formerly Mersey Docks and Harbour Board ) which has vast docks on both sides of the river mersey next door to Cammel Laird ship yard on the Birkenhead , Wirral side of the river and the area's either side of the Pier Head on the Liverpool side. Peel Ports are currently building the International Trade Centre ( http://peelitc.co.uk / ) within the dock estate on the Wirral side of the river, the remaining dock estate has been given outline planning permission for a redevelopment known as Wirral Waters ( http://www.wirralwat ers.co.uk/ ). On the Liverpool side of the river Peel Ports have outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the obsolete parts of the dock estate, this development is restricted by the historical listed parts which must be retained, this development is known as Liverpool Waters ( http://www.liverpool waters.co.uk/ ). Your idea that Peel would try to use Marchwood as a cruise terminal is fanciful. The government seems to be hellbent on outsourcing services across all government departments so the likely scenario is :- 1 . The government won't sell of Marchwood , it might be strategically needed in a war type scenario overseas. 2. The government are likely to lease it out ie. The government are more likely to privatize the services carried out there. 3. Peel might want to diversify into this sector , thus depriving ABP of the use of this facility. One thing is for sure , never under estimate Peel and what they have achieved and have ambitions to achieve. Liverpool2 is an extension to the Container port at Royal Seaforth Dock and consists of a brand new quayside with deepwater berths , reclaimed from the river. THere is a lot more going on than you might think see this website if you don't believe me Loosehead, ( http://www.merseymar itime.co.uk/default. phuse ) Peel also own the Trafford Centre in Manchester one of the largest out of town shopping centres in Europe ( http://www.peel.co.u k/activities/shoppin gcentres/traffordcen tre ). It also owns 4 airports including Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Media City in Salford which is leased by the BBC and ITV television networks.[/p][/quote]we know the port(Marchwood) is only being leased out & the military is staying but there's a huge piece of the Port the new operator can use for dock related work ie cruise ships or roll on roll off car transport. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:09am Fri 20 Jun 14

phil maccavity says...

search for truth wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money.
I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013.
In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool.
In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


!
ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port.
So did Liverpool!!
Olive Chord Branch Line
All UK major container ports had money invested in their rail infrastructure to get freight off roads so this was not unique to Southampton (and the port owners and customers had to contribute millions to get this upgrade!!).
The upgrade of the line from the south went all the way up to Nuneaton
Also look at money invested in upgrading the motorways in your neck of the woods.
The M53 to your house is a country lane compared to the congested roads around here and there is more Govt assistance to a second Mersey crossing helped along by Mr Osborne
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money. I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013. In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool. In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![/p][/quote]ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port.[/p][/quote]So did Liverpool!! Olive Chord Branch Line All UK major container ports had money invested in their rail infrastructure to get freight off roads so this was not unique to Southampton (and the port owners and customers had to contribute millions to get this upgrade!!). The upgrade of the line from the south went all the way up to Nuneaton Also look at money invested in upgrading the motorways in your neck of the woods. The M53 to your house is a country lane compared to the congested roads around here and there is more Govt assistance to a second Mersey crossing helped along by Mr Osborne phil maccavity
  • Score: -4

10:52am Fri 20 Jun 14

search for truth says...

phil maccavity wrote:
search for truth wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
search for truth wrote:
Quote by Loosehead ................

so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem.

When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way.

The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead.

Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!!
Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money.
I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013.
In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool.
In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



!
ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port.
So did Liverpool!!
Olive Chord Branch Line
All UK major container ports had money invested in their rail infrastructure to get freight off roads so this was not unique to Southampton (and the port owners and customers had to contribute millions to get this upgrade!!).
The upgrade of the line from the south went all the way up to Nuneaton
Also look at money invested in upgrading the motorways in your neck of the woods.
The M53 to your house is a country lane compared to the congested roads around here and there is more Govt assistance to a second Mersey crossing helped along by Mr Osborne
ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey.
Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled.
The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened.

http://www.merseygat
eway.co.uk/about-the
-mersey-gateway-proj
ect/why-we-need-mers
ey-gateway/
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: Quote by Loosehead ................ so Liverpool 2 with private money? no problem. When Liverpool 2 takes off you may well eat your own words, because this will definitely affect Southampton in a very , very big way. The important thing is that this was done with private money so that's fine and has the wholehearted approval of Loosehead. Bless you Loosehead, your an absolute gem !!![/p][/quote]Re Liverpool 2 being funded by private money. I doubt if 'Search for the Truth' has time to read his local paper the 'Wirral Globe' (as he seems to spend all his spare time on the Southern Daily Echo site!!) but perhaps he would like to research an article dated 28th May 2013. In this there was a report on the £35m Regional Growth Fund Grant given by George Osborne (who, incidentally, is quite matey with John Whitaker of Peel Ports and has a constituency adjacent to the Mersey) to pay for the dredge of the Mersey to help towards the development of Peels new container terminal in Liverpool. In contrast the dredge of Southampton Water, to help develop the new container berths here, took several years to pass through the necessary procedures and the financial assistance from the Uk Govt and EC was exactly .............NIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![/p][/quote]ABP Southampton had millions of tax payers money spent on upgrading rail infrastructure to the benefit of the port.[/p][/quote]So did Liverpool!! Olive Chord Branch Line All UK major container ports had money invested in their rail infrastructure to get freight off roads so this was not unique to Southampton (and the port owners and customers had to contribute millions to get this upgrade!!). The upgrade of the line from the south went all the way up to Nuneaton Also look at money invested in upgrading the motorways in your neck of the woods. The M53 to your house is a country lane compared to the congested roads around here and there is more Govt assistance to a second Mersey crossing helped along by Mr Osborne[/p][/quote]ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey. Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled. The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened. http://www.merseygat eway.co.uk/about-the -mersey-gateway-proj ect/why-we-need-mers ey-gateway/ search for truth
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Fri 20 Jun 14

search for truth says...

ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey.
Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled.
The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened.

Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one
direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car.
It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way.

People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry.

All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls,



http://www.merseygat
eway.co.uk/about-the
-mersey-gateway-proj
ect/why-we-need-mers
ey-gateway/
ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey. Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled. The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened. Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car. It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way. People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry. All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls, http://www.merseygat eway.co.uk/about-the -mersey-gateway-proj ect/why-we-need-mers ey-gateway/ search for truth
  • Score: 1

3:04pm Fri 20 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey.
Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled.
The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened.

Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one
direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car.
It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way.

People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry.

All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls,



http://www.merseygat

eway.co.uk/about-the

-mersey-gateway-proj

ect/why-we-need-mers

ey-gateway/
The Northam Bridge was originally a Toll Road.
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey. Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled. The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened. Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car. It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way. People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry. All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls, http://www.merseygat eway.co.uk/about-the -mersey-gateway-proj ect/why-we-need-mers ey-gateway/[/p][/quote]The Northam Bridge was originally a Toll Road. loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Fri 20 Jun 14

loosehead says...

search for truth wrote:
ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey.
Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled.
The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened.

Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one
direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car.
It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way.

People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry.

All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls,



http://www.merseygat

eway.co.uk/about-the

-mersey-gateway-proj

ect/why-we-need-mers

ey-gateway/
I would love to see the redbridge fly over tolled for all non dock related traffic.
This would see the watersiders who work in our city contributing to it instead of trying to stop our docks growth & future jobs
[quote][p][bold]search for truth[/bold] wrote: ABP have a port in Garston which is a suburb of Liverpool, this port also benefits from any dredging work undertaken in the mersey. Both mersey tunnels were built as private roads ( by act of Parliament and are tolled. The original Runcorn bridge which was built in 1960 , replaced an old tolled transporter bridge ( that could only carry about 20 cars at a time ). This bridge which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day was part of the national road network and was toll free. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge that is currently being built ( financed by PFI ) will te tolled. Because this bridge runs close to the existing 45 year old bridge, the powers that be, have stated that the old bridge will become tolled when it's new neighbour is finally opened. Your lucky you only have one toll bridge and you only pay traveling in one direction . depite shortly having a new bridge crossing the mersey , making 4 crossings ( 2 tunnels and 2 bridges ), each one of these crossings is tolled. It's bad enough at £1-70 each way for a car through the the tunnels , £2-00 each way across the bridges for a car. It's Industry that gets clobbered , heavy goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with four or more axles pay £6-80 each way. People in Southampton moan about the small tolls they have to pay on the Itchen Bridge, I wonder what they would have said if the powers that be had of insisted that because the new Itchen Bridge was tolled the nearby Northam Bridge should be tolled as well, there would probably have been a public outcry. All roads and bridges throughout the country should be toll free ( including the Itchen Bridge ) , after all they play a vital role in encouraging investment and growth , it seems however that certain area's economic growth is held to ransom by strangulating tolls, http://www.merseygat eway.co.uk/about-the -mersey-gateway-proj ect/why-we-need-mers ey-gateway/[/p][/quote]I would love to see the redbridge fly over tolled for all non dock related traffic. This would see the watersiders who work in our city contributing to it instead of trying to stop our docks growth & future jobs loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree