Printed in National Press - Telegraph and Guardian

Sir - While hundreds of millions of pounds is spent by the Government demolishing terraced homes in the northern cities, what about the quality of homes built to replace them? The Commission housing built in the past five years is not good enough.

So terraced homes in their thousands are being destroyed when, with a reasonable repairs, the majority would be superior to the new-builds taking their place.

Who benefits? Not the growing numbers of families on waiting lists. Not the home-owners, who are forced out of their homes and can be left £30,000 out of pocket. This profligate waste of taxpayers' money and destruction of housing must be halted.

Cllr Steve Radford, Leader, the Liberal Party, Liverpool

Published in Daily Post - Stadium Capacity to be 80,000 ?
 
WHEN the new owners let it be known that the level of investment for the new stadium is not "paid back" by a mere increase in capacity of 50%, eg, from a 45,000 to 60,000 capacity, they have stated what has been perfectly obvious from start to finish.
 
Throughout the campaign to save Stanley Park, all the objectors have recognised Liverpool does need an international-sized multi-purpose stadium. The whole Anfield area is already a congestion nightmare and the council's car parking plan has been feeble to the size of the problem.
 
The size of stadium and the size of investment required must mean the stadium must be built on a site with good transport, rail and motorway links, like on the East Lancs or in Speke.
 
The high density of housing in and around the Anfield area make the new stadium untenable.
 
The new owners have made a leap forward in opening up honest debate the council's consultation so far has tried to suppress.
 
Cllr Steve Radford, leader, Liberal Party Group

Thanks to Riverside MD for Inspection of Long Term Vacants

Cllrs Steve Radford, Hazel Williams and Chris Lenton
Liberal Party Councillors for Tuebrook and Stoneycroft
41 Sutton Street
Tuebrook
Liverpool
L13 7EG
0151 259 5935

07920090322

Dear Editor

Over the last three weeks we have led a sustained attack on both the council and housing associations to leave long term vacant properties, degrading various communities and leaving homes vulnerable to arson

As a consequence of this campaign, after a series of robust criticism by us, the Managing Director of Riverside Housing toured our area and looked at the burnt out state of one of Riverside's vacant in Russian Drive.

We were pleased that at long last The Managing Director, Mr. John Wood , had the decency to recognise Riverside had failed our community and immediately a series of properties in Kremlin Drive, Russian Drive and Windsor Road have been put up for auction.

To his credit Mr. Wood took the time to see the problem on the ground and we thank him for it.

If residents anywhere else in the city are suffering neglect due to council or housing association long term vacants being left idle, they are welcome to write to us at : The Liberal Party, 41 Sutton Street, Tuebrook

Without doubt vacant properties depress communities and are a lost regeneration opportunity.

Since a few weeks ago various council vacants in Clubmoor, Tuebrook,Stoneycroft and Anfield were put on the sales list , the council has been inundated with local families interested in repairing these houses. With so many families on the record high waiting lists more must be done to bring affordable homes back onto the market

Cllrs Steve Radford, Hazel Williams and Chris Lenton
Liberal Party Councillors for Tuebrook and Stoneycroft

Labour would take us back to Militant Days

Cllr Steve Radford
Liberal Party Group
41 Sutton Street
Tuebrook
Liverpool
L13 7EG

0151 2590 5935
07920090322

Dear Editor,

For the fifth year running our Liverpool's token opposition , Labour, have come to a council budget decrying that the city is heading for another financial crisis.

Haven't we heard that one every year?

If there was an element of truth in their cries of calamity , then it must beg the question where was their alternative budget ?
Where was Labour plan to put the council budget back on course ?

Of course Liverpool's neolithic Labour Party complained we had not put up council tax over last decade and they would have in effect kept it at the highest in the land.

We in the LIberal Party supported Liverpool having a modest and a legal budget

We tabled an amendment to set officers to a more stretching target of selling a further £3m worth of surplus and derelict homes and land. The money raised to fund £1m additional traffic safety and £2m extra into the community safety budget

If Labour had come close to winning the vote against the budget, we would have had another financial crisis of a council without a lawful budget.
Labour would have taken us back to the Militant Days.
Will they ever learn Liverpool deserves better

Cllr Steve Radford
Leader of the Liberal Party Group - The  Responsible Opposition

Footnote" It is truely amazing that if Labour believe the finances are so out of order they were for the fifth year running incapable of putting forward an alternative budget or even put forward constructive amendment as our own Liberal Party Group has done each and every year" Cllr Steve Radford

Printed Echo Letters Page 6th March

MR Brian Dowling (ECHO Letters, Feb 27) claims that the North City Academy can proceed after two years of legal battles.

The reality is the North City Academy could have been built on the former John Hamilton site quite adequately several years ago and there has never been a real case for depriving the people of Everton of the Dixie Dean playing fields.

It is this council which has caused a legal conflict when a perfectly obvious alternative was always available. The delay in building the new school was of the council's own making.

Cllr Steve Radford,
Leader, Liberal Party Group

This article was written for Liverpool Gay Website and follows local coverage in Out NorthWest and limited coverage in the Liverpool Echo

Several weeks ago (25th January) I and about 20 plus community LGBT representatives  and equality officers of public bodies listened attentively for an hours plus feedback from research by the Stombreak Project into Homophobia in our city.

What unfolded was a horrendous analysis of homophobia throughout the city.
 The incidents of relentless abuse and violence was recorded by LGBT households , not just in the rough areas but in every postcode.

The most frightening statistic in my mind was that 14% of LGBT households were subject to attacks/and abuse from people they identified as their own neighbours.

It was not a case of violence being focused in the city centre/commercial venues or the cruising areas but in the very homes of gays and lesbians.

When it came to police response the evaluation of LGBT support officers was the only positive feedback in a series of disconcerting stats.

In the field of education , two thirds of young people who had left s school or college within the previous two years reported homophobic bullying.
Few felt any confidence to seek teaching staff support, one even reported having been treated as the problem not the victim.

If we don't challenge homophobia at school was message does that bode for the future ?

When the group discussed the feedback, it was left to me as the sole city councilor who turned up, to express the view that this homophobia was endemic in the city and only by appealing to the public from civic , religious and business leaders could start to challenge.
In this respect I was backed up by Matthew of Outsiders

The results should be an alarm bell for the city.

Totally predictably one council officer said that they should not shout aloud as it could damage the city during its capital of culture.

 Weeks have passed by and the full results have not been shared publicly despite requests from various journalists in the city I have spoken to

As a consequence our Liberal Party Group tabled motions for both Children's Services (Education) Committee and Housing and Community Safety Committee. The council officers response was to dilute the findings and somehow suggest the research was flawed

If we are ever to change attitudes in the city it is this institutionalised homophobia ,which denies the significance of the problem ,rather than challenge the public attitudes dynamically, needs robust political direction and courage at the highest levels.

Having seen how the ruling Lib Dems stalled my group's proposal to bring in a Civic Partnership Register for two years, even though it was their own official or should I say token policy, you can guess I will not be holding my breath.

Most importantly we need Lesbians, Gays and Transgendered members of community to speak out, enough is enough, or do we sit back and watch future generations of lesbians and gays leave the city rather than being treated as the community where prejudice against is tolerated and to be expected

Cllr Steve Radford
Leader of The Liberal Party Group

Liberals Attack Standards Borad, councillors treated worse than criminals

Cllr Steve Radford
President of The Liberal Party
41 Sutton Street Tuebrook
Liverpool L13 7EG
0151 259 5935
07920090322

To William Tandoh
Local Democracy Directorate
Department for communities and Local Government
Elland House
Bressenden House
London
SW1E 5DU

Dear Sir

On behalf of the Liberal Party we would wish to make the following
comments in the public domain concerning these fundamental questions over the
rights and responsibilities of councillors.

We believe the whole Standards Board approach is deeply flawed , it is
in our view seeing the need to tie up councillors in regulations, almost
assuming them to be guilty and tried by an elitist body of fellow
councillors with vested interests in the outcome.

The different "regulatory" bodies are taking the place of municipal
democracy. It is the task of an opposition to expose questionable
standards and behaviour and to take its case to the hustings.

Similarly the recent grading of Councils by the Audit Commission
suggests that municipalities are unaccountable corporate bodies that need to be
assessed by by a government appointed regulatory body. Nonsense. In a
democracy it is a key role of opposition to examine, assess, judge and
then to hold the governing administration to account in the ballot box

It is deplorable that as more money is poured into Councillors' allowances
and into Group research and servicing, so do the powers of local
government decline and the political ability to hold the executive to account is
diminished.

In contrast the Board does not give any meaningful regulation to
control officers who act unethically , undermine councillors, act with personal
and political bias, obstruct legitimate information being provided to
elected councillors, in particular to opposition councillors

Nowhere is their a real defense of a councilors freedom to speak as
community advocates and challenge the abuse of public powers or funds, on behalf of the people
who have elected them
It is our view that the people who elect councillors who should judge
their behavior in the ballot box, unless a councillor is subject to criminal
legal action.

In particular the interpretation that prior comment by councillors on
issues, for example in election literature or other councils
disqualifies them from decision making is an unjustified limitation of
the powers and duties of a councillor and undermines the democratic
process  by limiting the  ability of candidates and councillors  to put a view
on planning in the public domain during the electoral process

If councillors are have to have their rights taken, ie excluded or
suspended from office, away then they should be
tied by a group of electors not by politicians who all too often may be
at a personal or political advantage to extinguish political rivals

The proposals for the concept of local investigation is even more prone
to  personal and political bias by officers and councillors. Without doubt we have
had several instances of senior officers colluding with members of the
ruling party to undermine the  constitutional rights of opposition members.

The vague concept of not showing respect  has been used and abused to
prevent opposition councillors airing legitimate grievances and challenging
abuse of powers.

In respect of disclosure again the code gives no expression for the
right of councillors to share legitimate information in the public domain.

We are appalled that the paper declares confidential information as being
disclosed for political gain as something to be suppressed.
The difference between political gain and public interest is highly
subjective

We believe there should only be a restriction on information exempt
from public domain where there are financial interests or personal privacy
of individuals potentially compromised. The public interest must be judged
on the whole not just in the cases of a matter of health and safety,
environment or legal obligations.

In respect of criminal behavior. We do not believe a councillor should
be subject to discipline for behavior that is considered criminal when
there has been no criminal conviction

We believe that the code should not apply whatsoever to the private
life of an individual unless the acton has a direct and meaningful link to
their  work as a councillor. Councillors do not have the benefit of a full time
salaror job security there is no reason why their private lives should be
under scrutiny or subject to frivolous or malicious investigation or
character assasination

Lastly we would point out the common criminal is treated better than
the current standards board procedures. The victim of allegations should
be informed when allegations are made and have the right to a trial by jury, with the right of legal support, the right to examine all the evidence and call their own witnesses, all these basic
procedural balances have been absent in the procedures operated by the
standards board to date

Councillor Steve Radford
President of The Liberal Party

Tuebrook Hope AGM is at the former Brockman Hall on Monday 26th March from 6.30

This will be followed by an open evening with stalls from all the various user and health groups, please call in

Riverside Housing To sell Tuebrook and Newsham Park Long Term Vacant Houses

After relentless complaints by Liberal Party Councilors the MD , John Wood is to visit Tuebrook on Tuesday 13th March from 15.30

On the schedule for sales include

30 Windsor Road, Tuebrook

32 Windsor Road , Tuebrook

44 Windsor Road, Tuebrook

33 Kremlin Drive, Stoneycroft

15 Newsham Drive, Newsham Parl

6 and 6a Russian Drive, Stoneycroft

If you have a long term council or housing association property near you please write to us at The Liberal Party , 41 Sutton Street, Tuebrook