I read with interest the latest news on  West Berkshire Councils
entanglement with the Parkway development, as outlined on the Newbury
Weekly website(20th Feb 2015).

Although it is regrettable that the council has failed to realised a
significant 6 figure in revenue from parking for the last two years,
the article suggested that council may have also missed opportunities
to follow up the agreement.

If SLI have not submitted agreed plans, why wasn't the council or its
officers not following this up promptly with phone calls to ensure the
earliest conclusion to the signing and the realisation of the revenue
stream?

The issue of parking revenue also highlight the problem in this
country of the over-reliance on external revenue sources to fund local
services by councils. This includes not just parking fees, but traffic
enforcement penalties, the camera's on the Park Way bridge in Newbury
and in the case of Reading Borough Council, bus lane enforcement.

Councils were given revenue raising powers in part to make the public
more sensitive to councils spending and to hold them to account for
doing so at the ballet box. Councils nationally were not given such
powers so they can raise revenue in an opportunistic manner, just
because it seems so much easier than properly managing budgets and
spending.

If public services are not being properly funded centrally, and they
almost certainly weren't even before the Coalition governments
unwarranted cuts, councils are still not justified in resorting to
stealth taxes to do so, however compelling the case.

The Liberal party is a long advocate of Land Value Taxation both to
adequately fund public services, and to promote a modest
redistribution of wealth in this country. The collection of  funds
would be both fair and transparent to all.

The LibDems commitment to Land Value Taxation appears to have waned
almost as soon as it's ill judged entry into the Coalition government.
And one would hardly expect the national Conservative party to endorse
a policy which would ensure its own electorate, benefactors and
wealthy donors paid their fair dues to society.

I noted with some sadness the latest media reports on the continued
quest for compensation by Barry George, who having served 7 years in
prison for a crime he did not commit, has yet to see a penny of
compensation, let alone a public apology for his ordeal.

He, along with 3 other men also seeking similar compensation, recently
staged a peaceful protest outside a global law summit which took place
in central London, and which the current Prime Minister David Cameron
attended. These 4 men are  not unreasonably seeking compensation for
their imprisonment, after they have been freed under the pretext of a
miss-carriage of justice.

Instead over the years, what the High court  and successive
governments have done has been to put up further re-interpretation's
of the definition of a miss-carriage of justice. This has had the
desired effect of rising of the bar to those seeking compensation by
restricting the grounds on which a claim can be based, and creating
further obstacles to those seeking redress.

Liberals believe this goes against natural justice, but simply
reflects the casual discrimination in this country against people
who's convictions have been over-turned, and where in the past people
have routinely had the cost of their meals in prison deducted from
their compensation after they have been freed.

Of cause there needs to be checks and balances in the system when
deciding compensation, but to deny it to somebody who has been cleared
of an offence and can no longer be seen as a suspects is plainly
wrong.

Telling somebody, as Barry George has been, that they are not innocent
enough to receive compensation, is not just a mockery of justice, it
is plainly insulting and wrong.

The Liberal Party NEC notes recent political developments as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has resigned sighting grave concerns over projected cuts to disability benefits.

The Liberal party believes that the wealth to sustain affordable public services and a robust safety net for the most vulnerable in our society exists, but requires a radical change in the political will and thinking behind funding public services.

As an alternative we would promote Land Value taxation to adequately fund public services, whilst there should be a UK Universal Inheritance for all UK-born UK citizens at 25, starting at, for example, £1,000 and increasing annually for ten years or more by the same amount.

This far sighted scheme would be financed by progressive taxation on cumulative lifetime inheritances, in combination with a much reduced tax on cumulative gifting, of all capital gifts and inheritance.

These schemes underpin a Liberal Party constitution which aspires to create a society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security, and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

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.