Hello all
 
I originally draw up this document some months ago, but decided it was too speculative and not suitable for circulation as a policy development.
 
It was inspired by increased media coverage on the subject of automation and AI, something which has only intensified in recent months. Recently the FT ran a week long series of stories on the subject, as has the Economist, so I have now decided to circulate it for consumption.
 
Many thanks
 
Stephen
 
*****************************************************
Over the last year or so I have seen an increasingly volumes of articles in the press heralding a major change in the workplace and employment driven by an acceleration in computer automation.

It should be noted at the same time that robotics in itself is still lagging behind computer automation, but development cycles and step changes in affordable components are moving the technology forward at an increasing pace.

The idea of automation was originally envisaged as a way to reduce the number of repetitive tasks, freeing up people to do more complicate and abstract actions. This of cause had labour cost implications for employers.

The reality is that many of these more complex functions can now be done with relative ease by suitably developed computer systems.
Increased automation, such as call centre routing and automated banking has already reduced human employment opportunities. 

Self-service check-outs suit supermarkets as they can reduce staff numbers to a couple of supervisors for till issues, even if the ordinary customer prefers more costly human interaction at a manned check-out.

The result is that job opportunities are fast being diminished, most particularly for the semi-skilled, as well as the emergence of a squeezed middle whose technological skills have been commoditised in a very short period of time.

Another area of automation is additive or 3D printing, the creation of objects using physical printers using computer generated instruction, an area which has ballooned in the last 3 years. It is the evolutionary step on from the Computer Aided Design (CAM) technology of the 1980’s.

Companies embracing this technology have benefited from quicker turn-round times for orders, higher quality and decreases unit costs as well as the inevitable need for less skilled staff.

The financial and social benefits of automation should not be restricted to a small part of society by virtue of their technical skills or enabling wealth.

Changes to the world of work have not been mitigated by increased leisure time or enjoyment for all of society as many people imagined or fantasised. This is in part because such a phenomenon is not socially or economically achievable in human society, not least due to the lack of a sharing or abundancy mentality in our western society.

Whilst we should not seek to inhibit industrial development as a repeat of the luddites rejection of automation, we must remain sensitive to the fact that an increased number of people are being excluded from the working economy by a lack of vacancies and hence a living wage and career.

Where employment does exist, it is likely to be in the very highest creative areas, and restricted to the technologically most able and connected. Work is likely to be of a short notice, high intensity nature.

Where automation and robotics can prove an improvement to humanity, say in the care of the elderly or infirm it should be encouraged. Where automation, or potentially robotics reduced human participation, there needs to be a test to see if that steps benefits the wider society, and not just business.

One suggested remedy has been the adoption of a universal minimum income to compensate those excluded from employment, but as a policy this conflicts for finance with our Universal Inheritance policy.

A poorly managed transition in the employment market will potentially lead to the dystopian societies of science fiction, with an elite benefiting from idle luxury, whilst the majority find themselves lacking meaningful, secure employment, opportunity and security, as emphasised by our party constitution.

Witness the economic and social decline of the former steel manufacturing and coal mining areas of north England and South Wales.
These scenarios will not a happen overnight, but as a gradual process of social decline and exclusion perhaps over decades.  The current consensus is that such a sea-change in employment is likely to be 15 years away. This in turn gives us the opportunity to mitigate its social effects.

The Liberal Party has observed the sad spectacle of the potential failure of BHS, an iconic but now indebted high street chain with over 11000 employees and 164 stores.


The demise of this once major retail giant has again highlighted a whole host of issues revolving around the private sale of troubled businesses, unsustainable dividend payments, underfunded pension liabilities, and the difficulties of turning round traditional bricks and mortar businesses.

It is only right that questions are belatedly being asked of those most closely involved in the long term running of the business and previous sales. These relate to its proper management, proper long-term investment in the business and the accumulation of over 1.3billion pounds of debt including a potential pension’s deficit of almost 600million pounds.

Opaque take-overs which do not sustain businesses, nor employment or economic activity are of no value to any national economy.

The Liberal Party has noted the increased pace of the government’s plans to convert every school in England into an academy before the next general election, and no-later than 2022.


This was not in their election manifesto and is without precedent. There has not been any evidence that academies perform better than local authority schools despite being funded directly by central government.

Rather than driving up standards and accountability in education this move will undermine parental influence, potentially reduce the ability of schools to work together and for councils to drive the education and employment agenda.

Furthermore the government appointed "schools commissioner" has been quoted as saying the process will be driven by "clusters of five to 10 schools led by an external sponsor or, as there are insufficient external sponsors, an outstanding school", which is understood to be in the first instance private companies, no necessary linked to the schools locality.

The effect of the change is that all schools, if the process goes through to its logical conclusion, will be totally controlled by the state, in effect State-controlled schools subcontracted to profit making private sector companies.

Any change to the basic administration of school in this country, which in the first instance should be accountable locally in line with Liberal policy, should be for the benefit of children‘s educations, not for private profit derived from ideological driven change.

The NEC notes the increased pace of the government's plans to convert every school in England into an academy before the next general election, and no-later than 2022.

This was not in their election manifesto and is without precedent. There has not been any evidence that academies perform better than local authority schools despite being funded directly by central government.

Rather than driving up standards and accountability in education this move will undermine parental influence, potentially reduce the ability of schools to work together and for councils to drive the education and employment agenda.

Furthermore the government appointed "schools commissioner" has been quoted as saying the process will be driven by "clusters of five to 10 schools led by an external sponsor or, as there are insufficient external sponsors, an outstanding school", which is understood to be in the first instance private companies, no necessary linked to the schools locality.

The effect of the change is that all schools, if the process goes through to its logical conclusion, will be totally controlled by the state, in effect State-controlled schools subcontracted to profit making private sector companies.

The Liberal Party will lobby robustly against this change to the basic administration of school in this country, which in the first instance should be accountable locally, and for the benefit of children‘s educations.

Over the last weeks we have witnessed George Osborne’s latest budget being over shadowed as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has resigned sighting grave concerns over projected cuts to disability benefits.


It appears as libraries and other public services are being further pruned back in the name of austerity, even some Conservatives are beginning to question the wisdom of exposing their own electoral base to a further weakening of the state’s role.

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 notes the increased media coverage of the count down
to the May 2015 general election, which is now less than 100 days
away.

In the run up to the election, coverage of the most emotive subjects
such as the NHS, Europe and Immigration risk's obscuring the most
fundamental issue, that of the deficit, and its effects on the
countries future prosperity.

As a nation we accumulated a further 13 billion pounds of debt in
December, as the country heads towards a headline figure of 1.5
trillion pounds of debt, despite almost 5 years of Coalition cuts.

Yet despite assertions from the Coalition government that we would all
be in it together, the most affluent in our society have continued to
accumulate wealth, with the top 10% now holding 40% of the nations
wealth whilst government funding for public servers is likely to have
been cut by 40%. by the end of the period 2015/16.

The Liberal Party is committed to the modest redistribution of wealth
to create an opportunity society and continues to promote policies to
this end.

The proceeds of Land Value Taxation would ensure proper funding of
public server, whilst by withdrawing the extensive exemptions for
Inheritance tax, we would be redistributing wealth,  and providing a
foundation for investment in human capital for the next generation.

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.