Mayor Joe Anderson “my good name [has been] dragged through the mud” over £90,000 legal bill for unfair dismissal case

Mayor Joe Anderson “my good name [has been] dragged through the mud” over £90,000 legal bill for unfair dismissal case

Mayor Joe Anderson “my good name [has been] dragged through the mud” over £90,000 legal bill for unfair dismissal case

                                                           

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Liverpool City Council meeting of 16th September 2015 Part 1 of 6

Mayor Joe Anderson explains why Liverpool City Council paid a nearly £90000 legal bill over an unfair dismissal battle with his former employer Chesterfield High School
Mayor Joe Anderson explains why Liverpool City Council paid a nearly £90000 legal bill over an unfair dismissal battle with his former employer Chesterfield High School

After pledging his full support to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for the Council motion on the “Who Put That There!” campaign, Mayor Joe Anderson used his slot on the Council meeting agenda to give a very detailed explanation to those present about his former employer unfairly dismissing him.

“Joe must go” was a slogan on a protest banner I saw earlier this year, but this story starts with Chesterfield High School. Chesterfield High School told Joe to go, but Joe said no.

Joe (being a staunch trade unionist) felt this wasn’t fair. As His Honour Judge Serota QC put it Joe Anderson was on “a reverse form for a zero hours contract” in that he got to be Mayor, do zero hours of work for his employer yet still be paid by his employer!

However it wasn’t the fact that he was being paid for not working that was Joe’s problem. His employer decided that paying somebody for no work wasn’t “value for money” and that the public would be horrified if they knew so sent Joe a P45 through the post.

This hurt Joe. So Joe asked his friends at Liverpool City Council what they could do.

Sure enough Liverpool City Council got a lawyer for Joe. So it went to an Employment Tribunal.

The Employment Tribunal ruled that yes Joe had been unfairly dismissed but even if he hadn’t been, his employer would have still have sacked him anyway. So no compensation for Joe.

This was not the result Joe wanted, so once again he asked his friends at Liverpool City Council what they could do.

Sure enough Liverpool City Council got a lawyer (again) for Joe. So it went to an Employment Appeals Tribunal and here is the judgement.

Once again the case was lost and the final bill (that fell on the taxpayer) came to just under £90,000.

Mayor Anderson at the Liverpool City Council public meeting on the 16th September gave a detailed defence as to why he had done this.

Called to speak by the other Mayor, having been already embroiled in a trial by media, this was Mayor Anderson’s chance to have his say.

With his head bowed down, the normally confident Mayor seemed crestfallen. He started by referring to the blog of the Lib Dem Leader Cllr Richard Kemp. Mayor Anderson said he was doing this not because of Cllr Kemp’s blog.

He referred to it as “the Council’s legal action” (although as you can read from the Employment Appeals Tribunal judgement Liverpool City Council were not a party to the case).

Mayor Anderson was going to tell people the “full facts” and so that the public could “understand the complexities of this” followed by “I’ve certainly got nothing to hide or wish to disclose, err not disclose” .

Feeling his own collar he explained how he’d been on the radio that very day and dealing with the press detailling with the reasons why.

Joe (because it’s very hard in reporting this to know which bit it in this is Joe the former employee and which bit is Mayor Joe Anderson) said, “When I then became Leader of the Council in 2010, people in the Labour Party certainly know but I made a pledge, a promise that I would become a full-time Leader of the Council and for too long this Council was run like a toy town at Council and officers led the Council by the nose. Councillors weren’t here and decisions were made that were quite frankly not good enough for a Council and a city like Liverpool.”

Joe’s explanation was that when he was Leader of the Opposition on Liverpool City Council that Sefton Council had paid the LEA controlled Chesterfield School “round about £7,000 a year”. That was to pay Joe the 208 hours he was allowed off.

He claimed this cost Chesterfield School “less than £4,000” (although I’ll point out that surely Chesterfield would’ve had to pay both Joe time off to be a councillor and someone else to do his job?) which Joe saw as a “good deal”. Mayor Anderson stated that politicians were all doing this including two former leaders of Liverpool City Council.

Mayor Anderson claimed that the money he was receiving for no work from Chesterfield School he was giving to charity.

The difference however, came when Cllr Anderson became Mayor Anderson. He explained “six or seven weeks before my 55th birthday, Chesterfield High School became an academy and six or seven week before my 55th birthday sacked me without any discussion with me, without any negotiation with me” or as he put it “P45 in the post, you’re sacked”.

For him the fundamental principle as a trade unionist, he would support any councillor of whatever colour political party they may be, as the principle of being sacked for carrying out public service should be something that (saying this while twirling his finger) “we all defend and stand by”.

He said that the decision that that it should be challenged and that the indemnity policy applied was taken by the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer of Liverpool City Council and that the Council’s external auditor and legal advisors were also informed.

In criticism of Councillor Kemp he said, “Let me ask ourselves the question around the politics of this, where it’s getting played out and how it’s disgracefully being played out. Course Councillor Kemp says, ‘Will he pay it back?'” At this point Mayor Anderson just shrugged in reply and then pointed out that former Lib Dem Leaders of Liverpool City Council had had similar arrangements with their employers.

He referred to the trial of former Lib Dem Leader of Liverpool City Council Warren Bradley, that a court had found guilty of perjury followed by saying “I’ve done nothing wrong, I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. The only thing I’ve done wrong, the only thing I’ve done wrong is trusted the School to honour that procedure that we’ve got in place that was costing them nothing but because it went to an academy they decided to sack me. That was the only thing that we did wrong”.

Mayor Anderson continued, “Then you ask yourself the question, ‘Has Councillor Anderson benefitted from this, has he gained from this?’ Well let me tell ye, not only have I not gained, my good name which I am proud of and the hard work that I do for this City has been sullied by individuals in this Council, dragged through the mud by individuals in this Council, for doing nothing more than trying to serve the people of this City.

It’s been estimated that because I’ve been finished in my local government pension that I had for 16 years that I will have lost somewhere estimated to be £134,000 in contributions. If I die now in service or whatever, I’m not in service of course because I’m not in the pension, my wife, my family I get nothing, no protection! No job to go back to! And yet there are councillors in this chamber that want to pay politics with that.”

He said he would support anyone who was sacked for doing public service “because it’s the right thing to do public service and so my conscience on this matter is absolutely 110% clear” because “nothing I’ve done in this matter was for Joe Anderson. Nothing! ” and “never at any time did I seek any personal gain for me”.

Referring to the opposition Mayor Anderson said, “they played dirty politics with it and that shows to me, that shows to me the contempt that they have for the democratic politics that we engaged in over the Mayoral Deal and also the disrespect that they have for this City and for us and the form of governance that we’ve got.”

Mayor Anderson said that the government has accepted and will change through legislation the changes that need to be made to support mayors in the future. If he’d stayed as Leader of Liverpool City Council, he would’ve retained his salary, retained his allowances and retained his pension.

However the City of Liverpool wouldn’t have had the Mayoral Deal, the schools and wouldn’t have had that investment and he wouldn’t have lost out on his pension accruing and the benefits if he was still part of the pension scheme. He finished by saying, “My conscience on this matter is absolutely clear” and received a standing ovation and applause from his Labour councillors.

There are a series of FOI requests to Liverpool City Council on the whatdotheyknow website here, here and here that give further information on this matter.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

                                                           

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The video above of the Special Meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority of the 2nd September will finish uploading by about 16:30 on the 2/9/15. Once processed it should be available for viewing but is not available at the time this blog post was published.

Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail

At a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, councillors, the Mayor of Liverpool and co-opted members agreed a revised set of recommendations. The revised recommendations appeared only minutes before the meeting started.

The revised recommendations approve a request to the Conservative government to devolve powers to the city region as part of a devolution deal.

Here are the original recommendations (with the crossed out parts deleted by the revised recommendations):

It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-

(a) comments upon, and endorses the devolution themes that will form the basis of the Liverpool City Region’s input to the Comprehensive Spending Review on the 4 September 2015 (NB: this detail will form the basis of a follow-on report for members’ consideration); and

(b) notes that the devolution process will remain an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Authority, for members’ consideration."

Here are the revised recommendations agreed today:

1.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is recommended to:

  1. Approve the initial scope of the proposals as outlined in the supplementary report and the presentation made to the Combined Authority as the Liverpool City Region’s formal submission to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, subject to a delegation to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Chair of the Combined Authority and the Lead Officer: Economic Development to make any drafting amendments to the final document;
  2. Continue negotiations with Government over the Autumn period in advance of the publication of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review to secure a bespoke devolution ‘deal’ for Liverpool City Region which will:
  1. Drive economic growth and increase productivity;
  2. Reduce costs and improve outcomes across the whole of the public sector;
    and
  3. Improve social outcomes and better health and wellbeing for local residents.
  1. Note that any actual agreement with Government would require the approval of constituent Councils with appropriate consultation put in place;
  2. Note that devolution negotiations are an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Combined Authority, for Member’s consideration and approval; and
  3. Note that any Agreement will only be signed by both the Constituent Councils and Government when both parties are fully satisfied with the final details of the Devolution Deal.

So what are the proposals that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are asking the government for?

The proposals are in this supplementary report and include the points below (plus other asks):

  • Abolishing Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Abolishing the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Asking for a legislation change so that any surplus Mersey Tunnel tolls can be used for economic development
  • “the repayment of historic Mersey Tunnels debts by government”
  • Development Corporation Status for the Liverpool City Region
  • Creation of a Land Commission
  • “Designation of catapult Centres in the City Region for Manufacturing Technology Centre focused on marine and renewable energy and a Centre of Excellence for Infectious Diseases”
  • “A Free Trade Zone designation for the Liverpool Wirral Port system that includes provision for Global Zone-to-Zone Transfers, No Duty on Value Added and Enhanced Customs Warehousing”
  • “We want government to give us a long-term Special Rail Grant (SRG) to help
    secure a new fleet of Merseyrail trains.”
  • “the development of a generation system of regional significance, for example, an offshore tidal lagoon”
  • Also requested are “asks” under the headings of “cultural partnership and creative dock”, “community safety, enforcement, licensing and regulatory services”, “education”, “children’s services” and “health, wellbeing and social care”

Certainly the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is asking for many changes from the government, which if agreed in principle will be subject to consultation.

Here are what some of the people on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority had to say at today’s public meeting that agreed the proposals:

Mayor Joe Anderson (Mayor of Liverpool, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) said, "There will be opportunities, there also will be more negotiations of more substance with businesses, with other political parties, with other interested groups like health, the voluntary sector, the trade unions and others to engage and involve themselves in the process."

Cllr Phil Davies (Chair, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) asked, "In the near future presumably we’ll be drawing up a consultation programme if you like as the negotiations roll out?"

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 "golden goodbye" for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

Should all Liverpool City Council councillors have had a vote on a £110,000 “golden goodbye” for the former Director of Public Health?

                                                            

Mayor Joe Anderson responds on the issue of green spaces in Liverpool 8th April 2015
Mayor Joe Anderson (Chair of the Appointments Panel), Liverpool City Council 8th April 2015

For those with long memories going back to 2012, you will remember a number of Wirral Council’s chief officers were suspended, but left Wirral Council with large payouts. One example (of many) was Bill Norman (the former Monitoring Officer/Head of Law, HR and Asset Management) leaving at a cost of £151,416.

Those with even longer memories will remember that two senior managers in Wirral Council’s Social Services department left the employment of Wirral Council the day before the Anna Klonowski Associates report was published at a cost of £109,496.45 for the Head of Support Services (Finance Department) and Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing (Department of Adult Social Services) at a cost of £111,042.95 .

There was a certain degree of public anger that in the case of these last two councillors were not directly involved in the decision. Outrage at the amount involved led to a change to Wirral Council’s constitution, so councillors did decide whether to agree to a compromise contract in Bill Norman’s case. This also led to changes at the national level.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP wrote to all leaders of local councils in England in February 2013, you can read read his letter here which contained the following on what should happen with regards to large severance payments.

  • Full Council should also be given the opportunity to vote on severance payments over £100,000. Many believe that pay-offs to senior local government staff are excessive and too frequent. The Localism Act brings out into the open the approach taken to severance across the sector. There is a clear case for going further and ensuring that, as well as approving their authority’s policy on severance, Members are able to consider each time it is proposed to spend local taxpayers’ money on a large pay-off.

    This follows on from my announcement in November 2012 where I said that I intend to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. I am currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

Accompanying Eric Pickles’ letter was guidance, which section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 stated that “A relevant authority in England must, in performing its functions under section 38 or 39, have regard to any guidance issued or approved by the Secretary of State.” Sections 38 and 39 of the Localism Act 2011 relate to pay policy statements.

At Liverpool City Council’s Budget meeting of the 5th March 2014, the pay policy for 2014/15 was agreed. The bit about large severance payments is phrased in an interesting way:

6.6(ii) Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on severance payment puts forward a case for offering full Council the opportunity to vote on severance packages above a certain threshold and that is placed at £100k. Full Council delegates this function to the Council’s Appointments Panel. Council does so, on the basis that such delegation facilitates compliance with Data Protection legislation in respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned without prejudicing transparency as that is achieved by the City Council ensuring compliance with Access to Information Rules, Legislation and all accounting requirements placed upon the Authority.

    In other words instead of following the guidance and giving all councillors a vote at Liverpool City Council on severance payments over £100,000 and the requirement in section 40 of the Localism Act 2011 to have regard to the guidance when drawing up their pay policy statement, Liverpool City Council decided just to do things differently.

    Buried on page 82 of Liverpool City Council’s statement of accounts for 2014/15 it shows a payment of £110,000 was made for “compensation for loss of employment” to Liverpool City Council’s Director of Public Health who left on the 6th April 2014.

    So did the Appointments Panel at Liverpool City Council decide on this? The meeting of the Appointments Panel of Monday 24th February 2014 (the one directly before to the Director of Public Health leaving in April 2014) curiously has no agenda and no minutes published on Liverpool City Council’s website.

    The supplementary guidance issued in 2013 had this to state on the subject of large severance payments.

    Severance payments

    11. There has been a great deal of public scrutiny of the level of severance payments awarded to senior local government staff and rightly so. Authorities should ensure that they manage their workforces in a way that best delivers best value for money for local taxpayers and sets the right example on restraint. This includes any payments offered to staff leaving the authority.

    12. Authorities are already required to publish their policies on severance for chief officers 5 and their policy on discretionary compensation for relevant staff in the event of redundancy. 6 In addition, other regulations provide for disclosure of remuneration of senior employees including details of severance payments within authorities’ annual statement of accounts. 7

    13. Taken together, these measures enable greater scrutiny of the money spent by authorities on severance. However, given continuing public concern about the level and frequency of such payments, there is a case for going further to ensure that decisions to spend local taxpayers’ money on large pay-offs are subject to appropriate levels of accountability. Authorities should, therefore, offer full council (or a meeting of members in the case of fire authorities) the opportunity to vote before large severance packages beyond a particular threshold are approved for staff leaving the organisation. As with salaries on appointment, the Secretary of State considers that £100,000 is the right level for that threshold to be set.

    14. In presenting information to full council, authorities should set out clearly the components of relevant severance packages. These components may include salary paid in lieu, redundancy compensation, pension entitlements, holiday pay and any bonuses, fees or allowances paid.

    15. This follows on from the Secretary of State’s announcement 8 that he intends to remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement for a designated independent person to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior officers from the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. We are currently consulting with the Local Government Association and others on the draft regulations to give effect to these changes.

    So according to the guidance, should all of Liverpool City Council councillors had a vote on the £110,000 payment to the former Director of Public Health along with a published breakdown as to how this £110,000 figure was arrived at?

    Why is the agenda (and minutes if it met) of the public meeting of Liverpool City Council’s Appointments Panel immediately prior the Director of Public Health not available?

    Why state in the pay policy about “respect of the entitlement to privacy of the individual concerned” when there is legislation requiring such payments to senior officers to be included in the statement of accounts anyway (see Regulation 7(3)(iv) of the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011)?

    Doesn’t this all seem to show that when the Coalition government tried to improve transparency and accountability in this area that Liverpool City Council just blatantly decide to carry on what it was doing before regardless of what the new guidance stated?

    Does anyone know if following consultation with the Local Government Association and others whether regulations about this area came into force (if so what are they called) or was guidance considered sufficient?

    If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

    Mayor Joe Anderson responds to green space protestors "I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again [as Mayor]"

    Mayor Joe Anderson responds to green space protestors “I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again [as Mayor]”

    Mayor Joe Anderson responds to green space protestors “I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again [as Mayor]”

                                                                     

    Protest outside Liverpool Town Hall 8th April 2015
    Protest outside Liverpool Town Hall 8th April 2015

    About three dozen people protested outside Liverpool Town Hall yesterday ahead of a meeting of Liverpool City Council councillors. The protest was about opposing any plans to build on green space land and against Liverpool City Council selling off any green space land to developers.

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    One of the protestors from a group called Save Our Green Spaces Liverpool addressed the meeting and said, “Firstly, we want to ask the Council and the Mayor once again to respect the views of local people and our communities and not just listen to their preferred developers whose objectives seem to be for short-term economic gain at Liverpool’s long-term expense.”

    She asked for new housing to be built on brownfield sites and not green space sites and said “As a Labour run Council, it is your duty to look to the benefit of your constituents and listen to their views and to keep the lungs of our city in our parks and open spaces.

    We would also hope finally that in the Mayor’s final year he would want his legacy to be the introduction of building thousands of homes by the Council, affordable homes for its people on brownfield sites, rather than being remembered for building homes for the elite on places like Sefton Park Meadows.”

    Mayor Joe Anderson responds on the issue of green spaces in Liverpool 8th April 2015
    Mayor Joe Anderson responds on the issue of green spaces in Liverpool 8th April 2015

    Mayor Joe Anderson (pictured above) said that the protestors were “coming together in an alliance with the Greens and the Liberal Democrats to cause political mischief”. He claimed that “over the last four years, 167 sites totalling more than 100 acres have been created or improved within this city. We’ve now got more green space in this city than we’ve ever had in the history of this city, more green space now than we’ve ever had.”

    He finished by saying, “We’re not in the hands of anybody, we’re in the hands of the people of this city and it’s they who will decide. Let’s see and let me tell you one thing Janet you said in my last year as Mayor, well I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again!”

    If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

    Why did Mayor Anderson claim a councillor was “behaving like a child” for highlighting a cut of £42,000 to domestic violence charities?

    Why did Mayor Anderson claim a councillor was “behaving like a child” for highlighting a cut of £42,000 to domestic violence charities?

    Why did Mayor Anderson claim a councillor was “behaving like a child” for highlighting a cut of £42,000 to domestic violence charities?

                                                                 

    Just for a change I thought I would attend a public meeting of Liverpool City Council yesterday evening, which was their budget meeting.

    Prior to the meeting starting, there were a lot of police outside Liverpool Town Hall and not just on foot, but going round on motorbikes and police vehicles. The High Street was closed off to traffic as you can see from the traffic cone to the right of the photo I took below:

    Even before getting in to the Council Chamber, the City Watch (Liverpool City Council employees) were stop searching everyone from the press and public attending, supposedly for “whistles and banners”.

    At the time this meeting happened (due to the similarity in uniforms between Liverpool City Council’s City Watch and Merseyside Police) I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Merseyside Police for further details. However it turned out that Merseyside Police had nothing to do with the stop searches.

    However moving swiftly on to the meeting itself, you can read the papers for the meeting on Liverpool City Council’s website.

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 Part 1

    Liverpool City Council (unlike Wirral Council) doesn’t have a public gallery a floor above the Council Chamber, so the public sit on chairs (or benches) around where the councillors sit. What was also interesting was that during the meeting a screen showed a live transcript of what was said.

    On Wirral I know that during Council meetings there are two people providing sign language, however having what is being said during the meeting appear on a screen that everyone can see, benefits everyone with hearing difficulties in being able to follow what’s going on.

    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 showing the screen used for a live transcript of the meeting
    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 showing the screen used for a live transcript of the meeting

    The Lord Mayor of Liverpool (who chairs meetings of Liverpool City Council) did refer to social media and filming of meetings at the start and said, "Can I remind those present that this is a meeting held in public and not a public meeting? I would also like to emphasise that this is a key public meeting, can I therefore request that everyone present, including the public treat this meeting accordingly which will enable the business to be dealt with effectively?

    The use of social media and filming for reporting proceedings is permitted during Council meetings. This does not extend to filming of members of the public and anyone wishing to film the proceedings are also particularly directed to the very sensitive issue of filming children without the express permission of their parents."

    Sadly although the public were well-behaved during the meeting, the Lord Mayor’s plea to councillors to behave fell on deaf ears (but more of that later). Once the items such as declarations of interest and minutes of the last meeting were dealt with, the Lord Mayor suggested that Mayor Anderson had twenty minutes to speak to Labour’s budget, the mover of an amendment or right to reply ten minutes and all other speakers allowed five minutes and with the permission of Council a two-minute extension.

    Mayor Anderson started his speech at 5 minutes 36 seconds into the video clip above and finished it at 45 minutes 48 seconds (a total of forty minutes 12 seconds) which was double the twenty minutes he’d been given.

    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 Mayor Joe Anderson speaks on Labour's budget
    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 Mayor Joe Anderson speaks on Labour’s budget

    It’s hard to summarise such a massively long speech although I will try. He said, “we’ve faced an onslaught by this government in terms of financial cuts” and referred to the Green Party as “no more than militant in sandals, the phrase I coined but it is true and absolutely true”.

    He went on to criticise the Green Party’s budget amendment for raising Council Tax by 6% (whilst conveniently failing to mention that his own party’s budget would also raise Council Tax by 1.99%) and asked if the Greens wanted to “return us back to the [19]80s”?

    Mayor Anderson referred to Cllr Kemp (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) as “caustic Kemp” and then went on to say about Cllr Kemp “it’s another smear and it’s another insult and that’s all we get from you so either put up or shut up, that’s my advice to you”. He then went on to refer to Cllr Kemp as “Mr 3% who spends more time jetting off around the world telling people how important he is, instead of spending more time with the Deputy Prime Minister telling him about the damage that is being done to our city on a daily basis”.

    Mayor Anderson also stated that he wanted people who worked in Liverpool to live there so that Liverpool City Council would receive council tax from them. He also said (if I heard it correctly) that next week he was going to MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier which is an international property event held in Cannes, France), although the screen displayed it as Mickham but that this was “not a jolly”.

    Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

    YouTube privacy policy

    If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 Part 1

    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 5th March 2015 Cllr Jake Morrison tries to move an amendment
    Liverpool City Council Budget Meeting 4th March 2015 Cllr Jake Morrison tries to move an amendment

    After his speech and the applause from the Labour benches had died down, Cllr Jake Morrison (independent) tried to move an amendment to the budget. He said that the chief financial officer had looked at it and said it was legal, but that the Chief Executive [Ged Fitzgerald] had decided “not to allow it tonight” so he was asking the Lord Mayor whether he could move it.

    The Chief Executive Ged Fitzgerald then gave a rather long-winded response stating that it shouldn’t be accepted as it hadn’t been submitted in time and that it would set a bad “precedent”. The Lord Mayor asked Cllr Morrison if there was a reason why he hadn’t been able to move the amendment.

    Cllr Morrison said that the Council summons hadn’t informed him of the consequences of submitting a late amendment and that his budget amendment related to a cut of £42,000 to domestic violence charities which he only found out about the day before.

    The Lord Mayor asked if he could speak to the main motion and ask for his amendment to be accepted rather than as an amendment? She then detailed how she had planned the meeting to go.

    Cllr Morrison said “I will stand up until I can move this amendment”. Everyone started speaking at once and the Lord Mayor said (to Cllr Morrison), “sit down or I will ask you to leave the Chamber! Would you leave the Chamber Councillor Morrison? Could you leave the Chamber please thank you? Could you leave the Chamber please Councillor Morrison? Would you leave the Chamber?”

    Throughout this Councillor Morrison carried on talking to his amendment.

    The Lord Mayor then said, “If you don’t leave the chamber, I will adjourn the meeting for ten minutes!”

    Mayor Anderson then intervened and referred to Cllr Morrison’s behaviour as “behaving like a child, you can stand up there and get thrown out. That’s what you might want for your leaflets or whatever”. He asked if Cllr Morrison wanted an answer to his amendment or to “spit your dummy out?” and that he felt he’d “wasted the last twenty-five minutes on you”.

    Cllr Morrison said, “Can I respond to that?” to which the Lord Mayor replied, “No. Cllr Morrison, I’m sorry no, Councillor Morrison either you’re quiet or you leave. You really are being grossly disrespectful.”

    Cllr Morrison said, “I want to move that amendment.”

    The Lord Mayor banged her gavel and said, “This meeting’s adjourned for ten minutes.”

    If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

    Privacy Preference Center

    Necessary

    Advertising

    Analytics

    Other