Critics of the Labour Council of the early 1980s called Liverpool the ‘city of missed opportunities’ (Parkinson and Bianchini 1993). They argue that the council put off the revitalisation of the city by not doing what Manchester did, opting instead to fight the government for more resources. Geographer David Harvey has argued that:

To what extent then did these developments put Liverpool's revitalisation back a decade? Or was this the time the city began to stand up and fight back?

Disbarred, purged - and re-elected

In January 1986 the disbarred councillors of 48 went to court to challenge the District Auditor's decision. In their affidavit, they argued that that District Auditor (DA) had been wrong to fine and disbar them as there was no set date to set a rate, and that it was honest and reasonable for councillors, bearing in mind the needs of the inhabitants of the city of Liverpool, to use their discretion to try to get the best deal possible from the Secretary of State. In acting as they did they argued, they had behaved honestly and with advice, not recklessly. The only financial loss Liverpool had suffered was through the actions of the Government in withholding central funding that the city needed to address its problems. It was not a case of delay itself being used ‘as a weapon or lever to prise money from the Government’. From the councillors’ point of view they believed they were acting in the best interests of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the city by trying to negotiate an improvement in the city's position before they set a rate, not unlawfully or wrongly and with reckless indifference to the results.