The Liberal Party wishes to share its heart felt sympathies with the people of France after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.

Islamic extremism is a phenomenon of today. It has little to do with the Islamic religion, and more to do with the complex rivalries and intolerances of a region fuelled by outside interventions.

These people are certainly not represtantive of the religion they allegedly stand for. History is punctuated by episodes of violence in the name of religion and hate and violence can only lead to more hate and violence.

The Middle Easts problems will not be solved by further foreign military intervention, but by complex negotiations and bridge building under the obsesses of a recognised international instituation such as the UN.

Stephen Graham
NEC member

This was the original policy discussion document, which in turn was used for an Assembly motion in October 2015.

I have uploaded it here as it contains a lot of information for a better understanding of the housing market.

Stephen

****************************************************************************************

As the first in a series of policy discussion's, I'd like to start with a highly topical issue, that of the countries housing shortage, highlighting some of its causes, obsticles and potential solutions.

To meet an ever increasing demand for new homes, driven largely by demographic changes originating in an ageing population and more people wishing to live on their own, along with the natural retirement of older stock, we really need to be building over 225000 new homes annually in this country.

As a nation we haven't built a sustainable number of homes annualy for decades, the pre-recession high was 183000 and after recovering to 110000 in the period 2010 & 2011, it declined in 2012, before recovering again with an estimate of 89000 in the first 3 quarters of 2014.

The government has proposed building 100000 affordable homes, but this is a one off plan, when what we need is this number year on year almost indefinitely. Having failed to build a sustainable number of houses for so long, we have in fact built up a housing deficit of 1.5 millions homes which also needs to be taken into account.

It should be pointed out early on that there are in excess of 900000 empty homes in this coutry, but getting these back onto the market has provide almost imposisble, and doing so would have a major impact on the volume of new housing needed to meet our domestic needs.

The first issue is where should the new housing  be built, both on a regional and national basis. The economic boiler house of the south east is crying out for affordible homes for essential worker, but there is also demand across the nation, a proportion of which will be social housing, and not for working households.

I was unable to establish what proportion of new builds are 1, 2, or more bedrooms in size, although anindotal evidence potints to a steady decrease in 3 bedroom, but an increase in 4 or more. Parlimentary select committee's have frequently referred to a 35% target of affordible housing, which I take to be 1 or 2 bedroom.

As Liberals we value local decision making, but successive governments have seen local opposition to planning applications as an annoying inconvenience and made change to the process which give a presumption of approval, leaving communities with limited grounds to object to over-developments, infilling and the creation of conurbations.

It isn't being a NIMBY to object to thousands of home being paracheted into your neighbourthood, such as Enborne in the Nebwury area, or the Kennet Valley south of Reading, when concerns over access, transport, schools and GP surgeries has been brushed aside in the haste to submit the planning application.

The previous Labour governments flagship strategy was the South East Plan, 640000 homes in the South East by 2026, which saw counties allocated seeminly arbitary housing quotas, and obliging fast track public enquiries with limited scope to reject often unimaginative housing developments.

In any case having worked in the building trade its very likely the economy will find it impossible to sustain a domestic building program of this size without resorting to importing building materials from abroad. There were brick shortages during the last 'boom' and the cement industry has been seriously demished since the recession.

Then there is the issue of skilled labour. Despite the best endeavours of the construction industry to increase training, it will struggle to find enough workers as much of the workforce is transient, with people moving in and out of the industry, often never returning after a relativly short period of participation.

The obsticles to developing a national housing policy aggreeable to all are many, but a balanced approach to new build and restoration, a mimum 35% afforidible housing and the stimulation of regional development to take the pressure out of the south east all contribute to a sustaiable policy.

In the final analys though, a houseing policy doesn't need to be complicated. In the simplest form people just want somewhere affordible to live which they can call call home, and within a short travelling distance to work.

An area of policy which I haven't seen a significant amount of comment on in our party is our relationship, both economically and personal, with the banking sector.

Banks have been transformed in recent decades, and after the crash of 2007-08 this is now belatedly being seen as not having been for the better. Embolden banks knowing they were 'Too Big to Fail' indulged in the much maligned casino banking, venturing into area's of complex trading that required the employment of physicists and mathematicians.

Funding for business both big and small, has taken on a secondary importance, the later finding is increasingly difficult to find vital funding. This is even when central government has directed banks to dispense state assistance such as the Funding for Lending(FfL)scheme.

A recent article in The Economist suggested that banks in fact now do over 60% of their business in relation to mortgages, and that business banking is now a stagnant area of activity. Large business have been driven into the bond markets, which by their very nature are only suited to the largest corporate borrows. and completed unsuited for small businesses.

In fact banks have seemingly adopted a cut off our noses to spit our faces mentality towards regulators and customers. Told to bolster reserves to mitigate future shocks, they have almost deliberately cut lending and closed off lines of credit to struggling businesses knowing full well that by doing so, they would choke off the economic activity we need to expand our post-recession economy.

What we need is a fresh appreciation of the banking sectors rule in our society. I would assert that banks should function in their simplest form as the providers of finance and expertise to fund the creation of new business, stimulate economic activity, creating prosperity and employment.

To return to this simpler model will mean a major change of mind set not just for bankers, but also politicians, businesses and ordinary customers. Banks will no-longer be allowed to treat customers, both business and personal, solely as a source of profits, and must be whiling to re-invest in the wider economy and society in general and on a longer time-scale.

As Liberals we wish to intervene as seldom as possible in economic activity, but the banking sector will need to be guided into a more responsible mode of operations. The financial industry in general has for decades been lorded as the high alter of Mammon, where greed was good, and this mindset is no-longer socially acceptable.

One alternative option for business funding has been the creation of a national investment bank. Indeed we do have British business bank PLC, a state-owned economic development bank established by the Coalition government as originally announced in 2012.This has now received over 1.25billion pounds of funding to assist the small business sector with funds and expertise.

As much as this move must be applauded, it can also be seen as a realisation that conventional banks are no-longer able or willing to help business, when they simply have to, whether they want to or not.

As we have already painfully seen a banking sector which is not receptive to the wider needs of the economy has been detrimental to the health of this country, long-term economic prosperity and a burden on the tax payer.

Friday 13th November the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 had features about the Government looking at rule changes to clamp down on benefit tourism.  It was quite clear that all the rules looked at were going to hit sections of the UK working population and it may well be that the main aim of these suggested rule changes is to cut the amount of in work benefit paid, not to stop benefit tourism.  

Currently the government is trying to work out a change in the rules on in-work benefit - it seems that they are trying to cut the level of in-work benefit available under the pretext of stopping EU migrants claiming it.  

There is a very simple change to the rules on in work benefit that could be brought in without any major impact on most UK claimants which would impact on those benefit tourists who are coming to the UK.  That would be to say that to claim in work benefit you must have:

a) been resident or substantially resident in the UK for at least four of the previous six years.

or

b) paid four full years of national insurance contributions.

Provided no starting age is set on rule (a) it would permit access to benefits for those aged 18 to 22.  Allowing for any four out of the previous six years would allow for those who go and live or work overseas for limited periods, e.g. gap year students.

Rule (b) would cover those workers who by nature of their work are working overseas for UK based companies, like many of the freelance IT consultants, who continue to pay at least the voluntary contribution in the UK whilst working overseas.

These changes would effectively stop most benefit tourism without hitting those normally resident in the UK or who are contributing via the NI system.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the long term economic future of the developed world and in particularly the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism is rampant short-termism in business.

This was brought up at a previous Liberal Party Assembly, but the issue has never had the wider public airing it needs.
An obsession with dividend payments and ever high share prices has led to businesses in developed economies to abandon long term business investment, job creation, and hence wider economic growth, simply to produce another impressive business update and an often unsustainable dividend.

Anybody who remembers Sir John Harvey Jones and his 1980’s book, Making It Happen, would be familiar with an unglamorous pre-90s culture of succession planning, long term business growth and investment, with a steady but modest dividend.

By comparison modern executives know that their continued reign is dependent on an uninterrupted stream of positive business updates and profit statements. The business press is littered with numerous examples of CEO’s who’ve departed after a below par trading statement or reduced shareholder pay-out.

Work forces have commonly been slashed to reduce costs and more often this has been done to directly pass on the saving to investors as labour costs are certainly the highest single item on a company’s books.

This often leaves the remaining workforce to carry the burden with the implied threat of redundancy if they do not cover the increased workload.

As Liberals we recognise the advantages of the capitalist business process and cycle, but we also cannot be blind to the erosion of economic development and the wests industrial base.

If we do not invest in new business, plant and machine, and of cause workers, we risk falling behind other economic regions. Then where will be the fruits of economic prosperity to fund public servers?

Since it is undesirable to set levels or ratios for profit and dividend, we need to seek alternative routes to encourage more inward investment and hence economic activity.

You will never convince companies or their investors of the merits of a long-term view. They will always need to be ‘encouraged’ to adhere to this principle via tax breaks and incentives which cost the exchequer money. The trick is to make such concession revenue positive, or at least revenue neutral.

This may involve tax breaks for R&D and direct investment, reduced NI contributions for apprentices, lower business rates or corporate tax. It will involve wider investment in training and education and the nation’s infrastructure.

It also involves a learning process for business and their investors to understand the negative long-term effects on local economies, as well as their own businesses of their own short term pursuit of another unsustainable dividend.

NB The original feed back from this documents circulation amongst the NEC was to highlight the part share options
also influence executives behavior, which is a very important point.

The idea of full employment re-surfaced during the run up to the last election, but failed to be more that a fleeting media episode as the main political parties attempted to embellish their political credentials.

The Liberal Party certainly hasn't rejected the idea of full, meaningful employment, paying a living wage, and it should not be dismissed as some sort of unachievable utopian idea.

Full employment would imply full employment for the UK workforce and population. This in itself entails a ethical conundrum as to the ethics of displacing those in employment who are of foreign origins.

A full employment policy would need to enable the long-term unemployed and those on benefits to be matched to employment opportunities thus potentially displacing foreign workers.

The reality is that despite record levels of employment and work force participation, far too many people remain parked on benefits, unable to take up meaningful employment, necessitating immigration to plug the gap.

The first obstacle is the concept of structural unemployment, the persevered equilibrium level of unemployed. This represents the hardest to place and employ, due to their to their lack of skills or location, or lack of mobility.

Structural unemployment was once thought to be about 4.25% of the workforce in the UK but in recent years appears to have drifted up to 5.5%. That equates to about 1.75 million perpetually unemployed, and  an increase of 450000 on previous perceptions.

Put another way, economists and government ministers feel a 5.5% unemployment rate is manageable, even desirable, to balance inflation.

When economies are growing, and creating jobs, they encounter wage push inflation, where shortages of labour, and by implication skilled labour, begin to force up wages as employers are forced to pay more for peoples skills. This happens in tandem with inflationary pressures from other scare resources, most obviously raw materials.

As has been said elsewhere no economic cycle ever died of old age, they were all killed by central banks increasing interest rates to curb inflation and an overheating economy.

As I have previously argued a better educated, more mobile work force may be able to hold down wage push inflation, certainly not indefinatly, extending the period of economic activity before policy makers reach for the brakes.

The path to full employment involves the creation of an attractive investment environment, with the right balance of tax and regulatory environments, and a skilled, mobile workforce to attract long-term investment in the country.
It requires affordable housing for essential workers, good transport links and accessible public transport.

For all the official league tables placing the UK in 6th place for educational achievement, employers continue to bemoan the lack of literacy and work related skills in the employment market. Apprenticeships and vocational training need to be empathised and supported.

Full employment has unquantified benefits. A higher domestic rate of work force participation reduces the need to employ foreign workers, reducing immigration, and the persevered pressure's on housing and schools.

People in work, on a living wage are in less need for working tax credits, heating allowance and housing benefits. They are likely to be less stressed and have better self respect and self esteem, reducing both physical and mental heath issues.

There will always be those who are on invalidity benefits because of ill health, and these people have the right to an adequate level of support in our society. However nobody should be told that the door to meaningful employment has been closed and they can stay at home on a drip-feed of benefits because its easier to find somebody else to take up that employment opportunity.

I was originally asked a question on our parties policy towards zero hours contracts and this in turn led me onto the 
more general issue of changing employment patterns and the proliferation of low wage employment, with an emphasis on the UK.

Economies have historically progressed from agriculture to manufacturing and on to to service industries over time. 
This has been most marked in the Post 1945 era as far eastern economies have taken advantage of improved global transport and now communication  links, which has allowed low wage and hence low cost production centres to proliferate outside Europe

In our country the 2007 recession has accelerated one manifestation of this in the creation of the squeezed middle, where the gradual economic erosion of the employment market has created a lot of high paid, and lots and lots of very low paid jobs, but nothing in the middle.

The off shoring of  many service jobs means that that often only low grade staff are now needed in the UK, as anything more technical has been out-sourced to the lowest cost foreign call-centre and middle earners are gravitating to the bottom segment of the wage market as their jobs are undercut.

In theory as wages rise globally, and the low cost locations dry up, the cost base will even out. China is now finding that its economy is being undercut by low wage produced in Cambodia and Laos, but where to after that? Africa is often sited as the last remaining frontier, but there are numerous issues to be addressed on the continent from reliable electricity supplies, to basic employment skills, governance and regional stability.

There is the possibility that some manufacturing  or service functions will come full circle and return to its country of 
origin as costs even out, although this theory has yet to be proven. Political and cultural demands are often behind the move back to a UK cost base for call centre's.

The issue is how do we develop a working and economic environment which creates and retains living wage jobs, encourages and maintains economic development and prosperity whilst reaping the benefits of lower costs. 

Creating jobs encumbrances providing the incentives to invest, adequate infrastructure, a mobile, skilled workforce able to finds affordable accommodation and the right level of taxation and regulation.

As this formula is known to all globally, there is little scope for gaining a competitive advantage. The Irish republic tried lower corporate tax rates, but was eventually forced to abandon these as part of the EU rescue package.

I understand a recent discussion in the FT suggested negative income tax rates for the lowest earners or a basic minimum income, some thing which has been mentioned on the Liberal mailing list, but all fail to address the source of such funding. However these ideas simply tide people over and address the symptoms of the squeeed middle, without providing a long term solution.

The debate on anonymity for defendants in sex offence trials, most commonly alleged rape, has been a hotly debated subject in the recent past and I'd like to distil some of the various strands of the debate.

Under the current arrangement, the identity of any defendant will be  formally announced when their name is read out in court at a remand hearing. In reality it is likely to have  already been leaked to the media via the general public or more likely the Police, a practise which is all too common and should be deplored.

The main argument for naming the defendant is that more potential victims in serial abuse cases are likely to come forward if a name is in the public domain. I understand this has indeed triggered other victims to come forward in some high-profile trails and increased the likelihood of securing a conviction.

The victims of rape are by contrast granted almost total anonymity irrespective of the out-come of the trial.

Much of the debate on anonymity for defendants has come from a handful of high-profile acquittals, when in fact far too few rape cases come to trial, and 60% of cases end in a conviction, although this figure is below previous highs.
The Police and procecutors still have much work to do to ensure the sympathetic treatment of victims, and to mitigate the stigma and hostility victims meet when making accusations. 

Our adversarial, as opposed to a fact finding orientated legal systems leads to confrontational cross examining of victims, which has in itself has sparked a debate about the legal process and conduct of trials.

Perhaps the issue should really how we treat defendants after a trial, particularly having often spent a protracted period on remand, only for a case to collapse or be quitted, as happens in about 40% of cases.

There is no currently compensation for time spent on remand, and as Alan Davies found out, his own political party has reduced the re-payment of legal expenses to legal aid rates, which means somebody is unlikely to get back more than half their costs.

Another issue is that somebody is never found innocent; legally the case against them was not proven. I would presume this would allow prosecution in incident involving perjury or perverting the course of justice. This still leaves a question mark over their aquittal.

I am aware of two cases where young men have spent 9 months on remand accused of rape, only for the cases to collapse within days. One involved a first year undergraduate, and a Police office involved in the case stated that he considered that the defendants life had been ruined by the accusation. 

The stigma of arrest, remand and aquittal will remain with these two young men for life, and would have almost certainly prevent the later from returning to university, as most institutions would almost certainly decline his application.

In these cases, as with any other acquittals the establishment needs to be more forth coming with comprehensive compensation, rather than just sending people on there way with a ruined life and potentially crippling debts.

As has been pointed out before, having been accused of a crime, a defendant is effectively left to his own resources and has no choice but to fight their case against a criminal justice system with unlimited resources and the power to employ the top barristers and Queens Council for which cost is no object.

I therefore believe that any policy would be better directed towards both better justice both for victims and those
acquitted, rather than focussing on the issue of  anonymity in isolation.

I have just joined The Liberal Party and am pleased to be part of this historic group. However, it is probably fair to say that most people in the UK are unaware of the party, or if they are, they confuse us with the Lib Dems. 

Although we are small, with just a handful of councillors, and a very small budget, how can we promote the party, increase membership, and raise our profile so that we see growth?

The party in its current form has been around since 1989. We are a strong party, but tiny. Is it time for a more pro-active approach to growth? Time to work on growing local branches and taking things from there?

I applaud all that the party has done since its rebirth, and the hard work that members and supporters have put in to keep Liberalism alive in the face of the Lib Dems, the Greens and others. But can we do more?

Obviously, social media is a huge opportunity for the party, but again, is it one we are using to its full potential? Being able to join online via paypal is a huge bonus, but could we make more use of video for example? I appreciate that all of this takes time (and in some cases money), but perhaps we as a party need to form a group that will act solely to promote the party and raise our profile. It need not be many (perhaps only one or two).

I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is for this, and welcome comments (for and against). Thanks!

As 2015 draws towards a close, how do we think policy in the Liberal Party should develop, and how can we promote said policy to the wider public?