The Liberal party welcomes the long overdue decision to give the UK electorate the opportunity to vote on our nations EU membership in June's referendum.


As a long established, mildly Eurosceptic party we have a wide range of views.  No doubt each of our  members will come to slightly different conclusions as to what is best as  the debate develops . As such we need to allow dissent.  It is an integral party of our party's philosophy that we do not employ a whipping system to impose a unified policy front.
 
The vote at the 2011 party Assemble endorsed a policy of negotiated reform or negotiated exit from the EU. It is up to members to decide if the recent negotiations meet those aspirations.

Those who wish to campaign as Liberals to leave the EU can register as Liberals for Go Global whilst not committing those who honourably feel otherwise.

Pro-European members may wish to consider joining the Britain Stronger in European campaign. Those not supporting Brexit will still be respected as party members.

What is important is that we campaign upfront in the debate as Liberals and avoid being implicitly lumped with other parties, most particularly the LibDems and UKIP.

The concept of elected Police and Crime Commissioners(PCC) was created in 2011 with the idea of generating greater accountability for regional police forces in relation to budgets and performance targets.


The first PCC elections were held in a stand-alone manner with three and a half year terms. The second round of elections in May 2015 will be for a fuller 4 year term, and scheduled to occur on the same day as regional elections, suggesting at least a partial increase in turn-out.

The poor turn-out for the PCC elections in the November 2012, averaging 15% nationally leave a serious democratic deficit whilst the 5k pound deposit and 100 names on a nomination form further restrict the ability of candidates outside of the establishment to participate.

The Liberal Party continues to opposite the elected role and the associated election as simple politicisation, whilst adding another level of bureaucracy.

Perhaps the only redeeming feature of the election was the fact that almost a third of the successful candidates were Independents, ensuring that the election wasn’t a simple carve up between the two dominate parties in Westminster.

PCCs have indeed had a tough induction, with steep and unprecedented cuts to Police budget, for which they should be given credit for navigating, but the concept of the PCC falls short of public expectations.

The PCCs accountability only extended to Police targets and budgeting, and they do not have any powers over operational or disciplinary issues, which remain beyond public scrutiny.

The PCC has the power to dismiss the Chief Constable, of which at least two have done so, but no further down the chain of command. Of course we don’t wish to introduce an element of political interference into the Police forces, but issues of public accountability continue to surface.

Nationally there remains no obvious supervision of regional Police forces from central Government, and we continue to see the sorry spectacle of police forces investigating police forces over the most serious issues.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales (HMIC) exists only to assess and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales.

The issue of the PCCs mandate therefore warrant critical scrutiny. Is the term Commissioner even valid without an expansion of the role?

Although the role meets the Liberal aim of ‘local’ accountability, it does so only for a limit set of functions, ie budget and performance, and not operational accountability.

One suggestion has been that the three emergency services should be covered by a single ‘Emergency Services’ Commissioner.
Although fire services share with police forces a county affiliation, the national ambulance service is run on a regional basis. In the Thames Valley, the South-east ambulance service covers Berkshire, Bucks and Oxfordshire, but also Hants which has a separate PCC.

The functions and responsibilities of the three emergency services are fundamentally different, and only the Police and fire service have any affiliation by any stretch of the imagination. As the nature and culture of these three services is also very different, it is hard to see where any commonality could be found.

Unified call centres for the emergency services obviously exists, but it is unclear how much further integration there could be. Would we wish to merge the role of Police call handler with Ambulance dispatchers?

The inclusion of fire services in the PCC responsibilities offers the only plausible route to a wider public role, but with the proviso that any such move in this direction needs to be carefully managed to ensure the minimum disruption to front line services.

I read with regret, and some despair of the latest round of cuts being forced upon West Berkshire’s residents by central Government’s draconian reductions to council funding(Newbury Today website, 8th February) and the impending closure of 8 of the counties 9 libraries.

This news has then been rapidly eclipsed by further revelations on the extend of cuts being imposed as the Conservative council scrambles to find almost 11 million pounds worth of savings to their budget by decimating local services and provisions in the year ahead.

The truth of the matter is that Conservative government believes that the provision of public service is an unnecessary extravagance and those depending on such services the underserving poor.

This is no-longer anything to do with austerity, reducing the deficit or reducing the footprint of Government, it is a callus attempt to cut what they see an unnecessary expense.

In these circumstances no amount of panic stricken representation by Richard Benyon, the elected Conservative MP, or any other Conservative MP will change this.

It is a mind-set reinforced by last summer’s election victory, whereby the Conservatives now seem to believe they have an elected mandated  to reduces public services to the bare bones. The opposition Labour party is in no position or fit shape to oppose such cuts, and the LibDems are simply an electoral irrelevance.

In contracts Liberal Party has opposed needless cuts to public services, and believes such expenditure is vital to ensuring a properly funded and inclusive society. The means to support these via Land Value Taxation exists, and remains a central plank of Liberal party policy.

With the suddenly realisation of the scale of cuts being forced on local councils in next year’s government settlement, we hear that representatives from the six unitary authorities in Berkshire have been to Westminster to express their dismay.


In their wake Conservative MPs is in neighbouring Newbury and Bracknell have been left scrambling to intervene on behalf of councils of their own persuasion.

Unfortunately as they are belatedly realising, their own party has scant regard for the provision of public services, and seemingly their own re-election chances.

The truth of the matter is that Conservatives see the neediest in our society are the undeserving poor, and no amount of panic stricken representations to their peers will change this philosophy.

It is a mind-set reinforced by last summer’s election victory, whereby they now seem to believe they have an elected mandated to ensure the closure of libraries, day centres and alike.

Sadly although we have the financial wealth in our country to provide fully funded public servers, along with a fully funded NHS, contrary to David Cameron’s must maligned assertion, we aren’t all in it together.

The Liberal Party has opposed needless cuts to public services, and will do so in this May’s local elections. To that end we welcome the chance to promote a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security, and public services are adequately funded and protected.

I was reminded recently that this May will see not just regional local elections, but also the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners.

The last round, in November 2012, saw an abysmal turn out of a fraction over 15% nationally, at an estimated cost of 75 million pounds.

In areas where there are no local elections this year, turnout is not likely to improve even with increased publicity nearer the polls. Many voters being handed a ballet paper will simply vote along party lines due to a lack of knowledge and awareness.

Perhaps the only redeeming feature of the election was the fact that almost a third of the successful candidates were Independents, ensuring that the election wasn’t a simple carve up between the two dominate parties in Westminster.

The Liberal Party continues to oppose  the elected police commissioners role and the associated election as simple politicisation, whilst adding another level of bureaucracy and the costs that go with it.  

The current role seems to have little practical purpose.  We might have a more positive view if the role looked at leadership and co-ordination of all emergency services fire police and ambulance. 
 
Although the PCC may have responsibility for managing budgets and police targets, they do not have any powers over operational or disciplinary issues, which remain beyond public scrutiny.

On this point alone, the concept of the PCC falls short of public expectations.

The announcement this weeks that two of the independent candidates for the role of Police Commissioner in the Thames Valley have withdrawn from the race, comes as a timely reminder of all that is wrong with these elections.

The appointment of Police Commissioners, with the emphases on outside candidates, has been derailed by a nomination process where only the established political parties are effectively able to afford the 5K pound deposit and mobilise the 100 names needed on the nomination form.

So now we are left with 5 candidates, four from established parties, which given the prevailing political climate and comments already made in the national press, risks the contents becoming politicised in exactly the way the roles originators had sort to avoid.

The real Liberal party has opposed the elections for just this reason. The main political parties can’t help but use this opportunity to brandish their law and order credentials or to use the vote as a comment on the popularity of the coalition government.

Not exactly the sort of background  conducive to a sensible debate on policing priorities in the 21st century.

The e-mail I received this week from the Electoral Reform Society is a
timely reminder that we now have less than 3 months before the
countries first elections for Police Commissioners on the 15th
November.

The Liberal party itself opposes the introduction of Elected Police
Commissioners as an unnecessary politicisation of the Police Service,
as well as being concerned at the rumoured cost of 75 million pounds
for these elections.

The nomination process for candidates, with its demand for a five
thousand pound deposit, returned only on reaching a 5% threshold in
the poll and the need for 100 valid signatures on the nomination
papers means that small parties and all but the most determined
Independents have been effectively excluded from the running.

Although there are encouraging signs Independent candidates are coming
forward, the electorate risk being left with a Hobson’s’ choice
between the two main political parties, and one does wonder what they
have to be afraid of aside from the loss of political influence and
prestige?

Perhaps they fear maverick Independent candidates will propose
switching off speed cameras, suspending the speed limit at midnight or
even suggest the decriminalisation of drugs, as one candidate is
alleged to be considering.

What we aren’t likely to see are mainstream candidates opposing steep
cuts to Police budgets or the scrapping of bureaucratic form filling
by the police, which successive governments have rung their hand over,
but done absolutely nothing to repeal.

The right to vote is a long valued and defended principle, however it
risks being devalued by a restricted field of choice in the elections,
whilst the Electoral Reform Society is concerned a lack of publicity
for voting day could drive the turn-out below 18.5%, undermining their
credibility.

As the New Year dawns, the Liberal Party NEC would like to take a moment to reflect on the past years progress and the opportunities for the new one.


As a party we ran over forty local and 4 national candidates in last summer’s elections. We continue to have a wide regional presence, allowing us to look forward to further opportunities to put our message across in the next cycle of local elections next May.

As December has unfolded the NEC has watched with dismay at the widespread flooding across northern England, including the historic city of York, where the party held its successful assembly last October.

We wish everybody affected our sincere sympathy and our admiration at their resolve in these trying times.

I see from recent media reports that The labour Party has again chosen
to highlight its populist pledge to cap energy bills if it was to win
the next general election,

In fact it could be sensibly argued that the prices we pay for energy
and the margins energy companies enjoy are not in fact excessive for
any commercial business. The real issue is people inability to pay
their bills in a country where business and government seem to have
made a virtue out of not paying a living wage.

There are indeed practical steps which could be taken by a more
motivated energy regulator to encourage competition, prompt
realisation of savings to customers when wholesale energy prices drop,
as well as ensure energy companies tidy up their own act with
inadequate  billing systems, poor customer service, and over complex
tariffs.

Earlier this year the Labour Party highlighted the fact that half of
the households living in fuel poverty in our country are actually in
employment, whilst there are over 1 million people in receipt of
housing benefit  who are also in a job.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this level of benefit actually adds
up to a unacknowledged subside to employers, who should be paying a
living wage, and not relying on the state to keep their employee's in
house and home using government tax receipt.

The vast majority of people in receipt of working credits would dearly
love to be able to pay their energy bills without having to fall back
on the State. The real issue is the cost of living crisis in this
country but his is of secondary concern to a Labour Party more
interested in populist postulating than addressing the more pressing
issues of social justice.

I read with interest the latest election debate on the future of
Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in the opening decades of the 21st
century

Unfortunately the main protagonist in this discussion have missed
several key points concerning the practicalities of a modern nuclear
deterrent, aside from the obvious ethical issues on their use.

Although there are arguably as many nuclear missiles in the world as
at any time since the end of the Cold War, the most immediate threat
to European stability, the Russian Federation has already discovered the
virtues of a war by proxy in the Eastern Ukraine negating any threat
of nuclear intimidation. At the same time our nation is unlikely ever to
be faced with a nuclear stand-off with China on the far side of the
globe.

Like the Battleship and four-engined bombers, Trident is a weapon's
system from another age of conflict and of little deterrent when much
of the world conflicts are now regional insurgencies, stretched across the
Africa Continent and the Middle East from Mali through Libya, Syria
and Iraq and beyond.

These are potential adversaries who are hardly going to be worried
about a submarine launched nuclear tipped missile as they hide in
their training camps or rock shelters in remote deserts and mountain ranges. 

The counter to this threat is feet on the ground based around rapid
deployment forces equipped with conventional weapons.

At a time when we continue to make redundant dedicated members of our
already over stretched armed forces, and are contemplating the
commission of two aircraft carriers which we can't actually afford to man, fuel
or even equip with enough aircraft and helicopters, Trident is simply
the wrong weapons system for our day and age.