Knoxy2001e

Posts: 1,424

April 2012 "Anderson was born in Liverpool in 1958, the son of an office cleaner and merchant seaman. He lived in Dingle during his early life, attending St Vincent Primary School and St Martins Secondary School before leaving education at 16 without any qualifications.

Anderson joined the Merchant Navy when he left school and later worked in the leisure industry. He then attended Liverpool John Moores University as a mature student and obtained a Diploma in Social Work, this qualification allowed him to become Social Worker. He has stated he will give up his social work to become full time leader of the council.^[1]

He is a fan of Everton Football Club and has spoken of his desire to see the club remain within city and his opposition to the planned Kirkby Project.""

sounds like a great choice, ignore the pathetic rant of the closet red above.

Allseeingeye

Posts: 258

April 2012 Look it up on Blue Kipper - Exctract below - I assure you Anderson was one of the major reasons the project fialed.

Outside the consortium, minor local political opposition came from three Labour councillors in the Abercromby ward, messrs. Anderson, Munby and Grant. Anderson, who is a committed Evertonian, later became leader of the Labour group on the City Council. But this had no real affect on the progress of the project. When I interviewed him he showed a remarkably crude lack of knowledge of how such schemes are designed. As an example, at one point he queried how emergency services were going to have access and egress – a basic design function and statutory requirement for any similar project which will go on any site anywhere. Moreover, he made it clear he would not support the scheme unless it had a preponderance of private funding, an extraordinary position for a Labour councillor. His suggestions for alternative sites were Leeds Street and Edge Lane, two brown field locations which imply even more planning problems, land reclamation and infrastructure costs, as does almost any other inland site within the city boundaries. Kings Waterfront is a clear site. His opposition appeared to owe more to short term political ward opportunism than any thought-through intellectual consideration. His main observation, never justified, was merely that the project was “not deliverable.” This is not a valid argument. It is mere rhetoric unsupported by rationale. Nevertheless, Anderson raised some important and quite justified questions, some of which are repeated in this essay. I believe Joe Anderson simply made the wrong judgement based on inadequate knowledge. His two cohorts probably merely followed his example. Another example of a different type of politicking was the Janus-faced approach of Peter Kilfoyle, MP for Walton, in his spurious early day motion 923 in the House of Commons.