THERE was considerable debate last week about how well placed, or otherwise, Liverpool and Merseyside are to cope with the downturn, compared to other parts of the country.
The Centre for Cities think-tank set the ball rolling by issuing a press release placing Liverpool on “red alert”, asserting that, along with Hull and Belfast, the city is one of the least able to withstand the tough times ahead.
The Centre for Cities looked at the bare facts, including current levels of worklessness and low skills levels, before concluding that the people of Liverpool were more vulnerable to a downturn than residents of other cities.
But, later in the week, Professor Michael Parkinson, director of the European Institute for Urban Affairs, based at Liverpool John Moores University, published his own government-commissioned assessment about the same subject. Prof Parkinson says the recent development of Liverpool One shopping development and the waterfront Arena and Convention Centre mean the city is now more cushioned against the hard times than in previous recessions. He argues that his home town has pulled itself sufficiently far up the hill not to slip down again.
Perhaps the difference between the two reports can be explained by the geographical perspectives of their authors.
The Centre for Cities is based in London, which is not a problem in its own right, but does mean its staff don’t see as much of the place as professors from Liverpool John Moores University.
Residents or regular visitors to our city know what went before: we remember the days before the regeneration that began in the 1990s. We see the improvements, causing us to say, with some justification, that the city is on the up.
But the first-time visitor sees something different. They don’t see the improvements because they have no memory of the Liverpool of the past. Instead, the visitor sees the obvious signs of deprivation and judges the place accordingly.
In a sense, both reports are right. There is plenty to be both worried and optimistic about at one and the same time.
Our resilience in the 18 months or so of recession that lie ahead is a transitory concern. Recessionary fears will pass relatively quickly. What really matters is how we plan for the longer-term future. Yet, with the exception of Peel’s pie-in-the-sky Liverpool Waters, I don’t hear too much planning for the decades ahead. Everybody, including the worthy think-tanks, has become fixated on the recession.
The problem is exacerbated by the end of the European Union- funded Objective 1 programme. There won’t be any more money for grand construction and regeneration projects. Furthermore, the British government’s funds have been made tighter by the credit crunch, rising unemployment and falling tax revenues as the economy turns down, so Whitehall won’t be helping out.
Instead, the city’s future development will have to come from private sector initiatives and the chances are it will a few years yet before investors or the bankers will be plunging their cash back into big schemes here or anywhere else.
And what does it matter if Liverpool is suffering proportionately less than Manchester, Leeds or London, if that apparent advantage arises only because the city didn’t do so well during the good times?
