Harry Doyle

Diary of a Councillor

Tag: liverpool

  • The Corrosive Cost of Political Lies: How Opposition Parties Damage Democracy When They Peddle Misinformation

    FIGHT BACK: Liverpool Labour fights back against fake news peddled by the Liberal Democrats

    In an era where trust in politicians has plummeted to historic lows, with just 9% of the British public now believing politicians tell the truth, every misleading statement further erodes the foundations of our democratic system. While much focus rightly falls on government accountability, the responsibility to maintain public trust extends equally to opposition parties. Their willingness to distort facts for political gain doesn’t just damage their opponents – it damages democracy itself.

    This principle is being tested in Liverpool, where the Liberal Democrats continue campaigning against a fabricated Labour policy that simply doesn’t exist. The Lib Dems have built an entire political narrative around the claim that Labour wants three-weekly bin collections, complete with petitions, press releases, and social media campaigns. Yet this supposed “Labour policy” has never been discussed or considered by Liverpool’s Labour leadership. It is, quite literally, fake news.

    The Liberal Democrats’ misleading campaign stems from comments by a single Labour backbench councillor, Steve Munby, who suggested three-weekly collections might be worth considering. Munby, who hasn’t held a cabinet position since 2017, was expressing a personal view – not announcing Labour policy. The distinction is crucial, yet the Lib Dems have deliberately conflated one councillor’s musings with official policy.

    Rather than engaging with Liverpool’s actual waste strategy – improving recycling rates from a dismal 17.9% and introducing weekly food waste collections – the Lib Dems have chosen to campaign against a policy that doesn’t exist. They’ve created their own reality, then demanded residents fight against it.

    Liverpool Liberal Democrat candidate and campaigner tweets petition to save something which isn’t under threat

    Opposition parties perform a vital constitutional function: scrutinising policy, holding those in power accountable, and providing alternative visions. However, with this privileged position comes profound responsibility. Opposition parties have a duty not just to oppose, but to oppose truthfully.

    When opposition parties abandon truth for convenience, they undermine credibility – not just their own, but that of the entire political system. Research shows that political misinformation creates “an ouroboros of democratic decay,” where false information breeds distrust, making people more susceptible to further misinformation.

    The Liverpool controversy illustrates misinformation’s broader democratic impact. The Lib Dems’ false narrative doesn’t just harm Labour – it harms all politicians by reinforcing perceptions that political discourse is unreliable and self-serving.

    LIE: Liverpool Lib Dem Opposition Leader launches fake news story about bin collections

    Research shows that exposure to political falsehoods reduces trust in institutions across party lines. When voters encounter misleading claims from any party, it reinforces cynical assumptions about all politicians. The damage spreads throughout the democratic ecosystem.

    Democratic opposition requires the moral obligation to criticise honestly. Opposition parties receive public funding and media coverage because their role is essential to governance. With these privileges comes responsibility for good-faith engagement with factual reality.

    The Liberal Democrats’ Liverpool campaign fails this test. Rather than engaging with Labour’s actual waste policies – offering legitimate grounds for debate about costs, environmental impact, and effectiveness – they’ve chosen to tilt at windmills of their own creation.

    The Liverpool bin collection controversy may seem like minor local politics, but it represents something serious: the normalisation of deliberately misleading political discourse. Each convenient fiction over inconvenient truth makes the next deception easier to justify and harder for voters to identify.

    The Liberal Democrats in Liverpool, like all opposition parties, have every right to scrutinise, even criticise, Labour’s policies. They have the responsibility to do so truthfully. Until they recognise this distinction, they remain part of democracy’s problem rather than its solution.

  • Rebuilding Our Youth Services: How Liverpool is Using Public Health Funding to Address the Crisis in Youth Provision

    The devastating impact of austerity on youth services across the UK since 2010 represents one of the most short-sighted policy decisions of our time. With over £400 million cut from youth service budgets, more than 1,243 youth centres closed, and 4,500 youth worker jobs lost, we have witnessed the systematic dismantling of the preventive infrastructure that kept young people safe and engaged in their communities. In Liverpool, as across the nation, we have seen the consequences of this ideological vandalism play out in our neighbourhoods through rising antisocial behaviour, increased youth involvement in serious violence, and a generation of young people left without the support they desperately need.

    Youth services funding cuts in England and Wales 2010-2019

    As Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Culture in Liverpool, I have witnessed firsthand how these cuts have created a perfect storm of challenges for young people in our city. However, I also see tremendous opportunity in our innovative approach to using public health funding to rebuild youth services from the ground up, creating a more integrated, evidence-based system that tackles the root causes of poor outcomes for young people while delivering better value for money and measurable health improvements.

    The statistics paint a stark picture. Research by UNISON reveals that between 2010 and 2023, England and Wales lost two-thirds of their council-run youth centres. In Liverpool specifically, we experienced some of the most severe cuts during the Lib Dem and Tory Government years, with the city forced to reduce youth service spending by more than £2 million in the 2014/15 financial year alone. This was part of a wider pattern of disproportionate cuts to areas with the highest levels of deprivation – Liverpool City Council faced cuts of 27.1% while the least deprived area in the country, Hart District Council in Hampshire, faced cuts of just 1.5%.

    The consequences of these cuts have been profound and predictable. Liverpool has seen knife crime reach its highest levels in a decade, with Merseyside Police recording 945 serious crimes involving knives in the most recent year – an 18% increase. Anti-social behaviour has also risen, with 8,524 incidents recorded in Liverpool in the most recent data, representing a rate of 16.7 per 1,000 residents.

    More concerning still is the 7.6% year-on-year increase in antisocial behaviour incidents between 2024-2025, suggesting that despite our best efforts, the underlying issues that drive young people toward problematic behaviours remain unaddressed. Youth workers consistently report that 91% believe cuts have particularly impacted young people from poorer backgrounds, with increases in mental health issues (77%), substance abuse (70%), and crime and antisocial behaviour (83%).

    So why is this of any interest to Public Health, and why should we utilise the Public Health grant to address this issue?

    The traditional view of youth services as purely recreational or social provision fundamentally misunderstands their role as powerful public health interventions. Youth work operates at the intersection of multiple determinants of health, addressing risk factors that drive not only antisocial behaviour but also mental health problems, substance abuse, educational underachievement, and long-term social exclusion.

    Research consistently demonstrates that youth work delivers significant health outcomes. The government’s own Youth Evidence Base research, published in 2024, found that young people who received youth work support as teenagers were happier, healthier, wealthier and more active in their communities as adults. The study revealed that youth work has positive effects lasting well into adulthood, with participants showing better employment prospects, improved mental health outcomes, and reduced involvement in criminal activity.

    This makes youth services a natural fit for public health funding, particularly given that the Public Health Outcomes Framework already includes indicators covering violence prevention, mental health and wellbeing, and community safety. The ring-fenced public health grant, worth £3.884 billion nationally in 2025-26, provides local authorities with the flexibility to invest in interventions that deliver measurable public health outcomes – and youth services, properly designed and delivered, represent exactly this type of intervention.

    Liverpool’s Innovation: A Public Health Approach to Youth Services

    In Liverpool, we are pioneering a new approach that treats youth services as integral public health interventions rather than optional add-ons to statutory provision. This represents a fundamental shift from the traditional youth work model toward evidence-based, outcome-focused interventions that deliver measurable improvements in health and wellbeing.

    The Council is currently developing proposals to use at least £500,000 of public health grant funding to reinvigorate youth services by significantly investing in youth workers. This targeted investment will be part of a new, multi-agency plan that seeks to improve joint working to help young people thrive, with youth services positioned as a key component of our broader public health strategy.

    As part of this approach, an initial £200,000 was invested over the summer holiday into 15 organisations across Liverpool, providing additional capacity for detached youth work. The purpose of this first phase was to respond to the urgent and emerging needs of our communities, including the concerning trend of ASB, and the increased prevalence of ketamine use amongst our young people.

    Moving forward, we are now looking at different models of recruitment and training to deploy an army of public health youth workers that can respond to need across our city.

    Liverpool’s innovative use of public health funding to rebuild youth services represents a pragmatic response to the fiscal constraints imposed by over a decade of austerity while creating a more evidence-based, outcome-focused approach to youth provision. Rather than simply lamenting the cuts to traditional youth services, we are pioneering new models that demonstrate the clear connections between youth work and public health outcomes.

    As we continue to develop this approach, we are committed to sharing our learning with other areas and building the evidence base that will support increased investment in youth services as public health interventions. The young people of Liverpool deserve nothing less than our most innovative and effective responses to the challenges they face, and I believe our public health approach to youth services offers real hope for creating the positive change that our communities need.

    The choice is clear: we can continue to pay the high costs of reactive interventions after problems have become entrenched, or we can invest in the preventive approaches that keep young people healthy, safe, and thriving. In Liverpool, we have chosen innovation over ideology, evidence over dogma, and hope over despair. Our young people’s futures depend on getting this right.

  • Reclaiming Our Flag: Why True Patriotism Celebrates Progress, Not Division

    As a resident and Councillor representing Dovecot, I have watched with growing concern as dozens of England flags have appeared across our community and throughout Liverpool in recent weeks. While I am proud to see our national symbols displayed, I am deeply troubled by the motivations behind this latest surge of flag-flying—motivations that have nothing to do with genuine patriotism and everything to do with exclusion, division, and thinly-veiled racism.

    I am proud of the British and English flags, but not for the reasons that drive today’s “Operation Raise the Colours” campaign. I’m proud because these flags can represent the remarkable progress our nation has made toward equality, justice, and inclusion. When I see our flag, I think of the journey we’ve traveled as a society—from the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2014. I think of women gaining the right to vote in 1918 and 1928, the Equal Pay Act of 1970, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. I think of the England Lionesses winning Euro 2022 and defending their title in 2025, making history as the first English team to win a major trophy on foreign soil.

    This is the patriotism I embrace—a progressive patriotism that celebrates how far we’ve come and pushes us toward an even more inclusive future. Our flag, at its best, represents not a return to some imagined golden age, but the ongoing fight for equality and human dignity that has defined Britain’s greatest moments.

    The recent proliferation of flags across England, including here in Liverpool and Dovecot, tells a very different story. This campaign, explicitly linked to far-right groups like Britain First and supported by figures like Tommy Robinson, is not about celebrating Britain’s achievements. It’s about sending a message to immigrant communities that they don’t belong.

    The timing is telling. Where were these flags when the England women’s team made history? Where was this passionate display of patriotism when the Lionesses were bringing home European championships and inspiring a generation of young girls? The silence then compared to the fervor now reveals the true nature of this campaign—it’s not about pride in our country’s accomplishments, but about exclusion and division.

    Women's Six Nations 2025: Results and fixtures as Red Roses seek to ...

    Political theorist John Denham distinguishes between progressive patriotism and regressive nationalism. Progressive patriotism “defines the national interest as the common good” and is “inclusive, seeking fairness, prosperity and security for all”. It’s “radical because it has no hesitation in calling out the powerful who work against the nation as unpatriotic (even when they wrap themselves in the union flag)”.

    Regressive nationalism, by contrast, “seeks to preserve or re-establish the sense of national pride of a previous age” and often engages in “scapegoating and blame-shifting”. This perfectly describes what we’re seeing with “Operation Raise the Colours”—an attempt to use our national symbols to exclude rather than include, to divide rather than unite.

    The tragedy is that this exclusionary use of our flag makes many people—particularly young people, ethnic minorities, and those who support multiculturalism—feel uncomfortable with displays of national symbols. A 2024 YouGov survey found that 27% of Britons had an unfavorable opinion of people flying the England flag outside their home, with the divide falling largely along political lines.

    This is precisely what the far right wants—to make progressive Britons ashamed of their own flag, leaving the field clear for their exclusionary interpretation of what Britain should be. We cannot allow this to happen.

    Our greatest national achievements have come when we’ve embraced change and progress, not when we’ve retreated into exclusion. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the creation of the NHS, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, marriage equality—these represent the Britain I’m proud of. These are the values our flag should represent.

    The recent flag displays across England reveal a fundamental choice about what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that uses its symbols to exclude and intimidate? Or do we want to be a country where our flag represents everything we have achieved and still aim to achieve?

    I choose the latter. I’m proud of the British and English flags because they can represent our progress—LGBT rights, women’s equality, multiculturalism, and the countless quiet acts of decency and solidarity that define our communities at their best.

    Celebrating 100 Years of Women's Suffrage

    But I’m not proud of flags flown to send messages of exclusion and fear. That’s not patriotism—it’s nationalism at its most toxic. And it has no place in the inclusive, progressive, and genuinely patriotic Britain that I believe in and will continue to fight for.

    The flag belongs to all of us. It’s time we took it back.

  • Investing in Our Young People: £20,000 Funding Boost for Knotty Ash & Dovecot Park

    Investing in Our Young People: £20,000 Funding Boost for Knotty Ash & Dovecot Park

    I’m delighted to share some fantastic news for our community. This summer, I’ve been able to secure over £20,000 in additional investment specifically for youth work in Knotty Ash & Dovecot Park ward.

    By working closely with Priority Youth Project and the Merseyside Youth Association, we can get more dedicated youth workers on the ground over the summer months. These experienced staff will be out and about in the community, building positive relationships with our young people, offering support, guidance, and a listening ear.

    This investment is an important step in addressing antisocial behaviour. By engaging directly with young people and helping them access positive pathways, skills, and opportunities, we can make our neighbourhood a safer, friendlier place for everyone.

    This funding is part of a wider investment by Public Health, aimed at addressing key areas of need throughout our city. By strategically supporting communities like ours, Public Health is ensuring that resources go to where they can make the most positive difference. The summer programme, made possible by this investment, will run throughout August and continue until mid-September—providing sustained support and opportunities for young people during the crucial holiday period.

    Thank you to everyone involved in making this happen and for your ongoing support for our young people. Together, let’s make this summer a safe, positive, and inspiring one for Knotty Ash & Dovecot Park!

    — Cllr Harry Doyle

  • No More Rainbow Washing: How Resilient are Pride Organisations in a Hostile Climate?

    No More Rainbow Washing: How Resilient are Pride Organisations in a Hostile Climate?

    The landscape for LGBTQ+ Pride organisations in the UK and beyond has become increasingly fraught, as shifting political attitudes and the rise of far-right parties reshape the environment in which these groups operate. In recent years, the debate around trans rights has grown particularly intense, with high-profile legal decisions—such as the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling narrowing the legal definition of a woman—further polarising public opinion. At the same time, the growing popularity of parties like Reform UK has led to a more hostile climate for LGBT+ communities, both in rhetoric and in policy.

    This political shift is not limited to the UK. In the United States, the re-election of Donald Trump has seen a rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, with his administration publicly criticising DEI as “illegal and immoral” and threatening companies that visibly support LGBTQ+ causes. Globally, countries like Georgia and Mali have enacted harsh anti-LGBTQ+ laws, signalling a broader trend: as far-right movements gain influence, LGBTQ+ rights are increasingly used as a political wedge and a target for reactionary backlash.

    One of the most immediate and tangible effects of this changing climate has been a sharp reduction in corporate support for Pride events. Where once major brands competed to sponsor parades and festivals, many are now quietly pulling back. In the US, organisers in cities like San Francisco and New York have reported funding shortfalls in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as companies such as Mastercard, Pepsi, Deloitte, Anheuser-Busch, and Target scale down or withdraw their sponsorship. The reasons for this retreat are complex: economic uncertainty plays a part, but so does the fear of political reprisal and consumer boycotts in an increasingly polarised society. Many brands now prefer to limit their support for Pride to internal staff events, rather than risk public campaigns that might attract controversy.

    The UK is experiencing similar pressures. Some local authorities, influenced by the rhetoric of parties like Reform UK, are increasingly reluctant to fund Pride events. Councillors like Ian Cooper in Staffordshire have argued that taxpayer money should be reserved for “essential services” rather than community celebrations, a view echoed by other Reform UK representatives. This growing reluctance to provide public funding leaves Pride organisers in a precarious position.

    The consequences for Pride organisations are stark. Some events have been forced to rely almost entirely on community fundraising and volunteer labour just to survive. At the same time, the increasingly hostile political environment has emboldened anti-LGBTQ+ groups, leading to heightened concerns about safety and a greater need for security, at precisely the moment when resources are most stretched. It is a painful irony that as the need for Pride as a space for protest and solidarity grows, the ability to provide it is under threat.

    Liverpool Pride will not go ahead this year, a difficult decision driven by significant financial and organisational capacity pressures within the charitable organisation that runs the annual event, LCR Pride. Our Labour-run council worked closely with LCR Pride in an effort to prevent this outcome, even offering financial and operational support through Culture Liverpool. Despite these efforts, the challenges facing LCR Pride proved too great to overcome this time. While this news is deeply disappointing, we remain committed to celebrating our LGBTQ+ community. We are ready and willing to work with community members to pull together an alternative celebration this year and we are actively exploring ways to help sustain Pride in Liverpool for years to come, ensuring our city has an annual event to be proud of.

    Despite the increasingly worrying landscape, it is worth noting for Liverpool that pride organisations nationally and internationally are showing remarkable resilience. Many have turned to grassroots fundraising, creative partnerships, and a renewed focus on the core values of Pride—solidarity, protest, and community—rather than a commercial spectacle. The current climate has, in some ways, prompted a return to the roots of Pride as a movement for visibility and resistance, rather than simply a celebration. However, in my opinion, the need for sustained support from allies—both inside and outside the corporate world—has never been greater. If Pride is to continue as a beacon of hope and resistance for the LGBTQ+ community, it will require not just resilience from organisers, but renewed commitment from the wider public to stand in solidarity against a rising tide of hostility. I know I’ll personally be choosing corporations that don’t turn their back on our community.

  • Future of Liverpool’s Culture: The Need for a Tourism Tax

    Future of Liverpool’s Culture: The Need for a Tourism Tax

    Liverpool’s Labour-led City Council has played a central role in shaping and sustaining the city’s cultural scene since taking office in 2010. Over the past fifteen years, the council has championed ambitious projects, supported grassroots organisations, and ensured that culture remains a key driver of the city’s identity and economy—even as the sector faces ongoing challenges.

    Liverpool’s cultural ambition has been vividly demonstrated by the city’s spectacular street theatre events, most notably the Giants. The arrival of these enormous puppets—created by French company Royal de Luxe—in 2012, 2014, and 2018 saw the city transformed into a giant stage, drawing crowds of up to 1.3 million for the final event. These performances not only showcased Liverpool’s creative ambition but also brought communities together and cemented the city’s reputation for world-class public events.

    Liverpool’s event calendar is always packed with world-class happenings, many of which have flourished under council support. Highlights include:

    • The Grand National Festival: The largest horse racing event in the UK, attracting global attention.
    • Liverpool Biennial: The UK’s largest free contemporary art festival, which takes over the city every two years.
    • Eurovision Song Contest 2023: Hosted in Liverpool, this international event put the city in the global spotlight.
    • On The Waterfront Festival: A multi-genre concert series that has become a staple of Liverpool’s cultural offering.

    These events, along with others like the Lunar New Year Festival and BBC Radio 1’s Big Weekend, demonstrate Liverpool’s ability to host and celebrate culture at scale, drawing visitors from across the UK and beyond.

    The council’s commitment to culture is underpinned by the Culture and Arts Investment Programme (CAIP), which currently invests £2.2 million per annum in local cultural organisations. This funding is a lifeline for many grassroots and established groups, enabling them to create, perform, and engage with communities across the city. The programme is part of a broader strategy to ensure that Liverpool’s creative and visitor economy remains resilient and ambitious, even in the face of economic uncertainty.

    Despite these successes, the live events sector continues to face significant challenges. Rising costs, increased infrastructure and compliance requirements, and the lasting impact of the pandemic have made it tough for even the most established festivals to continue. Africa Oyé, Liverpool’s beloved celebration of African and Caribbean music and culture, is a prime example. After record-breaking attendance in 2024, the festival made the difficult decision to take a fallow year in 2025 to ensure its long-term sustainability.

    Liverpool City Council through Culture Liverpool have been unwavering in their support for Africa Oyé. The festival is a key beneficiary of the Culture and Arts Investment Programme, and last year, the council provided additional funding to help deliver a comprehensive traffic management plan for Sefton Park, ensuring the safety and smooth running of the event. Culture Liverpool has also offered significant in-kind support, working closely with the festival team on logistics, promotion, and partnership building.

    This collaborative relationship continues, with the council and Culture Liverpool working alongside Africa Oyé to plan for a bigger and better festival in 2026.

    But while the council’s Culture and Arts Investment Programme is a vital source of support, it is clear that more needs to be done to secure the long-term future of Liverpool’s cultural sector. Current investment is stretched thin, and many organisations—especially those running live events—are struggling to keep up with rising costs and increasing demand.

    At present, Liverpool’s visitor economy is supported in part by the Accommodation Business Improvement District (BID). This scheme sees a levy placed on overnight stays in hotels and serviced accommodation, with the revenue intended to support tourism and the visitor economy. While the Accommodation BID has provided some much-needed funding, there are some flaws in how this money is accessed by culture organisations.

    The process for distributing BID funds can be opaque and overly bureaucratic, making it difficult for smaller and grassroots cultural organisations to benefit. Many groups report that the application process is complex and that the criteria for funding are not always aligned with the needs of the cultural sector. As a result, much of the money raised through the BID does not reach the organisations that are most in need of support.

    A more sustainable solution is needed. One that generates additional revenue specifically for the culture and visitor economy. The introduction of a tourism tax, similar to those used in many European cities, would provide a stable and significant source of funding that could be reinvested directly into cultural events, venues, and organisations.

    A tourism tax would be a small charge added to overnight stays in hotels and other accommodation, with the proceeds ring-fenced for the benefit of the city’s cultural and visitor economy. This approach is already gaining traction across the UK, with regional mayors—including the Mayor of London—backing calls for a tourism tax. Their support makes the introduction of such a levy increasingly likely.

    A tourism tax would not only provide more funding for the sector but would also ensure that the money is distributed fairly and transparently, with clear mechanisms for cultural organisations to access the support they need. This would help to future-proof Liverpool’s cultural sector, ensuring that the city remains an exciting place to live, work, and visit for years to come.