'A deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, the breakdown of scrutiny and accountability, a dysfunctional culture putting the spending of public funds at risk and undermining the city's economic development.'
'An overall environment of intimidation, described as one in which 'the only way to survive was to do what was requested without asking too many questions or applying normal professional standards."
These were some of the words read out in Parliament by then Secretary of State for Local Government Robert Jenrick in relation to Liverpool Council on March 24 last year. They were words that sent shockwaves around this city - and beyond - and that would trigger an existentialist crisis for Liverpool and its ruling authority.
READ MORE: Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram issues warning to local firms with links to 'murderous' Putin
Mr Jenrick was summarising the bombshell report, put together by government inspector Max Caller, who had spent four months investigating key council departments, uncovering serious failures and finding a culture that had seen huge amounts of city taxpayer money wasted.
It was a dark day for Liverpool. The image of a Conservative minister - himself no stranger to questions of probity - publicly dragging the city over the coals in the House of Commons was a deeply unpalatable one and prompted fury from local people at those who were seen to have allowed this to happen.
This week will bring with it the one year anniversary of the publication of the Caller Report. So where does the city and its council find itself now, 12 months after that moment of shame?
To help us assess the impact of Caller, the progress it prompted and the future direction of the city, we spoke to two renowned students of Liverpool politics. Jon Tonge is a professor of politics at the University of Liverpool and Michael Parkinson is an honorary professor at the same institute and an ambassador for its heralded Heseltine Institute.
Both of these figures know an awful lot about Liverpool and its politics, but when it comes to the Caller Report, their views are intriguingly divergent. One thing both academics do agree on is that the revelations of the Caller Report represented a seismic moment for Liverpool.
"It was right up there in terms of dramatic moments concerning the governance of Liverpool, because it's one of the most damning reports that has ever been issued against any council", recalled Professor Tonge.
"The report could hardly have been more damning. But it's important to stress that it was not a condemnation of the entire council. Things like adult services, education were untouched, there were no criticisms of large swathes of council activity, but where the Caller Report did criticise the council, it was as bad as it gets.
"Multiple failures of governance, breakdowns, an environment of intimidation, often unexplained and unrecorded land sales - it was outrageous some of the stuff that was going on. What was in the report was really damning and there didn't seem to be any accountability of what was going on, it was a cabal not a council in those areas."
Professor Tonge is of course referring to the condemnation of activities within the council's regeneration, property management and highways departments. And he is not wrong about the gravity of the criticism contained within the report.
There were reports of failures of proper process across planning and regeneration, with documentation sometimes created retrospectively or even destroyed. In highways the report discovered dysfunctional management practices, a lack of scrutiny and oversight and the awarding of dubious contracts.
And in the council's property management department, Mr Caller recorded a continued failure to correctly value land and assets, meaning 'the taxpayer frequently lost out.' The report found that when it came to selling land, the city council's best interests were not on the agenda.
In terms of the culture within these departments, the inspection uncovered a an 'an overall environment of intimidation in which the only way to survive was to do what was requested, without asking too many questions.' So why, when considering these remarkable revelations, does Professor Michael Parkinson believe the report was in some ways unfair?
"I thought it could have been written differently, it could have made those arguments about the deficiencies of Liverpool City Council without rubbing the city's nose in it as it did," said Professor Parkinson. He added: "If you listened to Robert Jenrick in Parliament on that day, you thought my god, the world has come to an end, talking about the greatest misuse of funds that ever happened.
"Then you go to the report, it talks about mismanagement, which we know about and about some serious problems in some areas. But they were relatively happy with a lot of the council and talked of a decent workforce. You can't overstate the significance of that report and I think there were some very real criticisms to be addressed, but I do think it was exaggerated and the reputational damage was much greater than was necessary and fair."
It's an interesting view. Many in the city were understandably furious at the revelations of the Caller Report and those seen to be at fault for them, but there are others who worry that a Conservative government is more than happy to make an example of Liverpool for a prolonged period of time. It was not a surprise to anyone that such a devastating inspection report would lead to the imposition of Whitehall commissioners at the council, however unpleasant that eventuality would be for a city like Liverpool.
The four commissioners arrived in June last year to oversee work done in the troublesome departments identified by Caller. The city was told they would be in place for at least three years. The unpalatable optics of Tory-government-appointed mandarins running large parts of Liverpool became practically inedible when it was revealed earlier this year that the city's residents would be funding a 50% pay hike for their work.
One thing both Professors Tonge and Parkinson do agree on is that the commissioners should not be in place in Liverpool for a second more than is absolutely necessary.
"It was unavoidable bringing the commissioners in, but having unelected commissioners running parts of the council is hugely undemocratic," said Professor Tonge. He added: "I don't think central government has ever been a fan of Liverpool and I think there is a concern that they might overstay their welcome. They should be treated like the fire brigade, they come in to put the fire out but then they can go. Once the knowledge of best value has been transferred, they don't need to hang around."
Professor Parkinson agreed, adding: "The role of the commissioners whether its leading, steering, criticising or supporting, is unclear, there is a lack of clarity about who is actually taking the decisions." Even opposition leader Richard Kemp, for whom it could be assumed the imposition of the commissioners is a major political win, is unimpressed by their efforts and outright appalled at news of their huge pay increase, which he described as 'unmitigated greed.'
Working alongside those commissioners is Liverpool's new mayor, Joanne Anderson, who is of course no relation to her predecessor. Joe Anderson stepped down from his mayoral position after running the city for a decade when he was arrested as part of the police corruption investigation that sparked Max Caller's inspection of the city council.
Mr Anderson, now 63, has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged, he was released under investigation just days before Mr Jenrick stood up in Parliament to denigrate the council he had led for so long. A short time after the publication of the Caller Report, Mr Anderson launched his own website, which he said he wanted to use to 'fight back against the lies, smears and accusations' made against him and the city administrations he led.
It's a new Mayor Anderson now sitting in the Cunard hot seat. Joanne Anderson was an unlikely figure to step in as the city leader, having only sat on the council backbenches for a couple of years. But after a chaotic Labour selection process, that saw a previously approved shortlist of former senior councillors torn up, she stepped up to win the selection and then make history in becoming the first black female leader of any UK city.
It could hardly have been a more challenging atmosphere to arrive in, even for a more experienced politician. A city reeling from one of the worst council inspection reports of all time, with government commissioners effectively running key departments and a Labour group - itself under investigation by the national party - which was more fractious and divided than ever.
It's fair to say the new Mayor Anderson's approach could scarcely be different than her similarly named predecessor. Where Joe Anderson was always keen to speak out on all manner of subjects, Joanne Anderson prefers to work more quietly in the background. It's an approach that Professor Tonge said was badly needed after the chaos emanating from the Caller Report and the problems identified within it.
"I don't think the council has done anything wrong in terms of the elected politicians, since that time, I think there are already signs of improvement from when the report was released", he explained. I think the council has made strides, I think the issues have been addressed and the city has largely been controversy-free, so much as Liverpool is ever controversy free."
On the current mayor, he added: "I like the way that she's tried to target and support the most deprived parts of the city and bring social value to her decisions. I think there are a lot of positives. I think we have had a period of sensible governance under her."
Professor Parkinson is less certain about the leadership of the city at present. He said: "I don't think things have got worse, but it is hard to say they have got better. We are still in the middle of things and I think it will be two or three years before the dust settles.
"The new elected mayor is obviously much less experienced and facing a much more difficult situation. So I think you have an inexperienced cabinet and mayor. I think it has been a very challenging situation with all the problems of trying to sort out the council and deal with the commissioners. It feels like there is much less happening and people are asking where the city is going - and at the moment we just don't know."
One thing the new Mayor Anderson has been criticised for is moving towards a consultation on the future governance model used by Liverpool instead of a referendum that she pledged to hold when running for the position. A long-term critic of the mayoralty, Mayor Anderson said she would hold a public vote and campaign to remove the position if elected. But post-Caller the council has now moved to a cycle of all out elections, starting next year, meaning there will be no local elections in Liverpool this May.
Mayor Anderson says this means the cost of a one-off referendum would be around £500,000 compared with a city-wide consultation that will cost around a fifth of that and which is set to get underway soon.
For Professor Tonge, this was an error. "I wasn't happy that a consultation has replaced the promised referendum, that was a cast iron promise. People were denied a referendum when the mayoralty was brought in and they are being denied it again. Its a shame because on all other fronts I don't think Joanne Anderson has done any wrong, I think she has been a force for good for the city. But I think Labour have got this one wrong. People are still not getting a proper say on how the city is run."
He and Professor Parkinson expect the mayoral position to be removed before the next elections, with a return to the leader and cabinet model most likely to come from the consultation process. Both agree that whatever the governance model Liverpool ends up with, it is the people involved with it that are most important.
Professor Tonge said: "Whatever structures you adopt, you are only as good as your council leader and the people around them, and that's the same whether you have a mayor or a leader and cabinet.
"It's true that the mayor has extra powers and can be stronger in taking a city in a certain direction, and they also have that direct mandate, they are above the council in that sense. But obviously the opportunities for taking the city in a direction it shouldn't go when you have a mayor. But the leader system is not some sort of utopia, Liverpool has had plenty of controversies under that model. Structures of governance matter, but they are not the be all and end all, what really matters is the personnel."
Professor Parkinson agrees, adding: "The elected mayor position in Liverpool is now damaged goods because of everything that's happened and rightly or wrongly, sadly or happily I can't imagine anyone standing up and making the case for the position now. But Let's not get too wrapped up in the process. Governance matters but leadership matters more and let's hope the city gets good political leaders in whatever system we end up with."
Future governance models, who will be involved with them and what direction they will take the city in are just some of the uncertain factors that continue to swirl around Liverpool a year on from the day of the bombshell Caller Report. While the initial shock of that day may have subsided, the ripples emanating from it seem set to continue to spread around the city and its politics for a long time to come.
