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.

We in the Liberal Party are dismayed, but not surprised by the
Conservative Parties proposal to allow property of up to £1 million be
free of any inheritance tax on the basis that is is 'a basic human
instinct' to provide for your children.

This is a disgraceful attempt to cloak a socially devisive policy with
the warm glow of family values.

In reality such a policy will only ensure that the rich stay rich and
the poor stay poor, especially in the South East of England, where
house prices have run out of control.

The Liberal Party believes in equality of opportunity for all and thus
proposes a system of 'Universal Inheritance' whereby all inherited
wealth is taxed at 10%, in order that all can recieve an inheritance
of £10,000.

That way we can ALL provide for ALL of our children - not just the
privillaged few.

The Liberal party notes the media coverage of the closure of the UKs last deep coal mine at Kellingley Colliery, in North Yorkshire.


Once the corner stone of the emerging industrial revolution, Britain's once flourishing coal industry has been systematically run down over recent decades. This has regrettably often been with little regard to the fate of local communities and livelihoods.

Although open cast mining remains active in this country, King coal has been overwhelmed by a combination of cheaper foreign imports, the phenomenon of shale gas, as well as environmental concerns over fossil fuels contribution to rising CO2 levels.

It is arguable that even when an industry is in terminal decline, such as the coal industry, politicians have a duty to minimise the damage and facilitate a managed withdrawal whatever their views on the industries merits.

Workers and their families need to know that even if one industry closes, livelihoods and communities will continue to be supported as far as is feasibly possible.

We in the Liberal Party have read through the Conservatives manifesto
pledge to extend home ownership under the right to buy scheme to a
substantial number of private housing associations tenants.

What is none too clear from media reports is how the Conservatives
intend to replace the depleted housing stock,the level of compulsion
applied to private housing associations to sell, and the rights of
those who chose not to participate or can't obtain even a modest mortgage.

The damage to the finances of the current Housing Associations budgets
would be irresponsible if they were forced to sell properties at the
level of discount envisaged by the government without full and fair
compensation.

Home ownership is not for everybody, and carries with it an open ended
commitment to maintenance which does not suit everybody and there will
always be those who's low wages or social circumstances precludes home
ownership.

A stock of affordable homes and council housing will always been
needed, no more so than today, where the bedroom tax has driven many
into the private rental market, that many can ill afford. Many of the
south east authorities can not house low paid and key skills employees.

The estimated cost of the right to buy scheme, suggested to be in the
region of 6 billion pounds, could be equally spend on refurbishing the
excessive number of properties, possible in excess of 800000, which
are currently empty and represent an unrealised source of desperately needed homes.

I read with interests this week the outline of the SNP election manifesto, and its spending commitments.

Unfortunately although many of the ideas taken individually and in unison are sensible, together they potentially represent a unaffordable wish list both in the manner they are portrait and the funding expectations that go with them.

We do in fact have the accumulated wealth in this country to meet many of the manifesto commitments, but we have two factors inhibiting this.

The first is our an obsession with often punitive upper tax levels, which potential discourage investment and hard work.

Secondly as a society we have developed a singular blindness to the huge amount of wealth moving from generation to generation via loopholes and exemptions in our inheritance regime. This is often accrued and not earned wealth.

As a result  we are simply failing to make the countries wealth work for all to create the  opportunity society which the Liberal Party believes is wholly affordable and in step with our constitutional commitment to a
society where all its citizen shall possess liberty, property and security, and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

As the election campaign nears it final week, I see that Ed Miliband,
the leader of the Labour Party, has chosen to revisit his earlier
suggestion of rent controls for the private sector.

Although that may be welcome news to tenants, it does nothing to
address the obvious cause of higher rents, that of a scarcity of
supply.

This country has not built a sustainable number of homes for decades,
and is struggling to even reach the pre-recession peak of 183000 news
starts. This is still far below the estimated 225000 new homes needed
annually just to keep pace with normal demand.

The Conservatives have proposed building 100000 affordable homes, a
target later doubled in size, but this is a one off plan, when what we
need is this number year on year almost indefinitely.

And simply selling off the countries housing association stock at a
discount without like for like replacement, as the Conservatives are
suggesting, will simply compound the scarcity of supply.

A new homes initiative which includes a concerted effort to return
900000 empty homes to the market would both provide affordable
accommodation, as well as provide a spur to economic activity and
employment at the economy struggles to maintain headway.

May 2015 has indeed seen an historical Conservative win in the general
election, but a dispassionate analysis of the results shows something
remains amiss in our first past the post electoral system.

The conservative parties slender parliamentary majority, is actually
based on just 36.9% of the national vote. That equates to 32244 votes
per elected MP.

By comparison the populous, insurgent UKIP, which took third place in
the general election with 12.7% of the national vote, needed 3.8
million people simply to elect one MP. The corresponding figured for
the Green Party was over 1.5million, yet the figures for Labour and
SNP were 40292 and 25972 respectively

The fairest solution to this issue is an advanced form of proportional
representation termed the Single Transferable Vote. Existing single
member constituencies would be replaced by multi-member constituencies
returning 4 or 5 MP's. Each constituency would be based on natural
communities, rather than unnatural constituencies that happen to be
the right size to return one MP.

Moreover, electors would no longer vote with an inflexible "X" - the
mark of illiteracy - but would number their candidates in order of
preference and the ballot would be counted in a way that would ensure
that their votes would be utilised as fully as possible.

That is an electoral system in which the Liberal Party would like to
see all voters believe their vote matters, and is not 'wasted' on any
party who national popularity is crowded out locally.