My view on the additional runway at Heathrow and airport expansion in general is one of great environmental concern. If we look at the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, it states:

• a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2¬¨‚àûC above pre-industrial levels;
  
• to aim to limit the increase to 1.5¬¨‚àûC, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change;
  
• on the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognising that this will take longer for developing countries;
  
• to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science.
  

You would think in these days of violence and hostility, the last thing you would want is to install some sense of military instinct in young people. Unfortunately the Tories are a Party living in the past and this is a policy more akin to Tom Brown's Schooldays than schooling for tomorrow. Instead of proposing the inclusion of non-military youth organisations attached to schools they have taken the road towards National Service. Let's make no mistake, the Tories education plans are one of division all the way to the core. The introduction of cadet forces is yet another step in dividing pupils. We do not need to install military values, what's needed is community values, something the Tories do not understand.

The prospect of closing large numbers of community pharmacies has alarmed many people. The usual excuses are rolled out such as 'It will not impede upon the service' and 'This is the new model for pharmacies' in an attempt to fool the public what is being proposed is a modern way of working. I suppose in some ways it is a modern way, just like closing community hospitals, A&E departments, Police Stations etc. The modern way is definitely not the right way, as what is looked at first and foremost is cost saving. Service unfortunately comes way down the list of priorities.

11 October 2016


Press release: Liverpool approves tower in World Heritage Site buffer zone, despite serious concern from UNESCO

Liverpool City Council has approved proposals for a 22-storey tower on Skelhorne Street in the buffer zone of the city’s World Heritage Site (WHS).

The decision on 11 October 2016 was approved by five votes to two, despite specific requests from UNESCO not to grant planning approval for this application, as well as objections from SAVE and the Victorian Society.

Reacting to the decision the UK National Committee of ICOMOS, the official advisor to UNESCO on cultural heritage sites, said: "ICOMOS-UK regrets that Liverpool City Council have pushed ahead with a decision on this planning application at this time. Such a move ignores the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's request not to approve the project until a Desired State of Conservation for the Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site as a whole is defined and adopted. It is the responsibility of all key stakeholders to work together to ensure that Liverpool's World Heritage status can be assured for the future."

SAVE wrote to each member of the planning committee ahead of the meeting to highlight our serious concerns and those of UNESCO, requesting that the decision be deferred until the Desired State of Conservation Report (DSOCR) is submitted in December. Our letter can be viewed .

The DSOCR for a World Heritage property is a document outlining the state of conservation which needs to be achieved through corrective measures in order to remove it from the Danger List. Once the Desired State of Conservation is achieved, the World Heritage Committee will remove the property from the Danger List.

The Council’s decision to ignore UNESCO’s request and approve the scheme is needlessly hasty. The draft DSOCR is due to be submitted on 1 December, and a period of two months wait before making a more informed decision, based on the DSOCR report, is reasonable.

The proposal is for a 22 storey student accommodation tower, within the WHS buffer zone and opposite the Grade II listed Lime Street Station, the Grade II listed Crown public house, and within clear viewing distance of the Grade I listed St George’s Hall.

SAVE considers that the proposal will cause great harm to the setting of the WHS and surrounding listed buildings, and as a result of its height its impact will be far reaching; Cllr Steve Radford, one of the members of the planning committee who opposed the decision, described the proposal as ‘excessive’.

At the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee in July 2016, UNESCO took the decision to retain the Liverpool WHS on the at risk list for a fifth consecutive year, and also singled out two projects – towers at Skelhorne Street and Princes Reach - advising against the granting of planning permission. The decision stated that:

'[The World Heritage Committee] Notes furthermore the submission by the State Party on 8 July 2016 of new information about two projects: Princes Reach, Princes Dock, Liverpool and Proposed Student Residences in Skelhorne Street, Liverpool and also requests the State Party to ensure that neither project receives project approval, until the DSOCR has been finalized and adopted;'

Both schemes referred to have now been approved – the 34 storey Princes Reach tower was approved in September – and the council’s decisions flagrantly ignores UNESCO’s request.

These approvals further increase the risk that the city will be stripped of its WHS Status, something being seriously considered by UNESCO.

Henrietta Billings, Director of SAVE said: “This planning permission for a 22 storey tower deliberately flies in the face of serious international heritage concerns. Liverpool's World Heritage Status is a badge of honour which is slipping through its fingers because of short sighted planning decisions.”

Note to editors:
1. For more information please contact the SAVE office on 0207 253 3500 or 

The Liberal Party’s energy policy as stated on our website proposes that central government should be taking the lead to produce a national plan for all energy resources.


Unfortunately faced with a cacophony of demands on government time, energy policy only appears in the media accompanied by apocalyptic commentaries about potential disruption to supply and rolling blackouts.

Much of our national oil and coal generating capacity needs to be retired on a range of grounds including climate change, pollution and increasing maintenance costs for aging plant and machinery.

Energy companies themselves, although increasing storage almost exclusively for natural gas, are unlikely to want to move into the generating field, clouded with uncertainties over revenue from generating and returns on investment.

The UK regulator has taken over from National Grid in ensuring uninterrupted supply but has been criticised as having insufficient experience to manage such a complex system, and relying on open bidding for additional generating capacity, which only adds to consumer cost.

As a civilisation we are addicted to fossil fuels, and the current national debate on the exploitation of shale gas and fracking is one example of this.

One of the major draw backs to the current proliferation of renewable energy sources in the lack of off-peak storage. Material science is still some years away from battery storage of the national scale needed to dispense with conventional power generations.

German renewable energy generation dropped 40% during the last European partial solar eclipse necessitating conventional power sources to be brought online. Gas powered facilities are able to meet such short notice demands, but national electricity grids needs a steady power source, only sustainable by larger coal, oil and dare I say it nuclear power.

Conventional power grids run at a high voltage base, and are very inflexible in accommodating energy sources such as renewable with daily and seasonal cycle’s. Yet the technology to bridge potential capacity shortfalls using ‘stored’ renewable energy does not readily exist.

The last nuclear power plant to be commissioned in this country was Sizewell B in 1995, having previously been subject to a 2 year public enquiry, at the time the longest one in domestic planning history.

Plans for up to 3 more pressurised water reactors were side tracked by the ‘Dash for Gas’, the realisation that a cheaper and more ready supply of fossil fuels existed under the North Sea, with the added incentive of an opportunity to the further dismantling of the UK’s coal industry.

Yet after less than 25 years, we as a nation have become a net importer of gas, in a continent already increasingly dependent on supplies from an antagonist Russia Federation, leading to increasing concerns over security of supply.

Nuclear energy and projects like Hinckley have been criticized for their up-front cost and guaranteed generating price, but it has been argued that renewables already receiving a subsidy and that like for like comparisons on price per megawatt are questionable.

Renewable energy has needed subsidies and preferential access to national grids to get established. As Liberals we would normally oppose such manipulation of the free market but as an answer to the prospects of global warming, it is for the wider benefit of society.

In Germany though a pricing system to encourage renewables, actually penalises conventional power sources to such an extent, that in peak summer, fossil and nuclear power is actually penalised for generate electricity, despite the fact they form the base line of the power generating grid.

What is needed is a complimentary mix of conventional and renewables into the near future. The UK’s domestic energy demands are reasonably well understood, and peak capacity relatively easy to predict.

Tidal power has yet to be full exploited whilst urgent investment needs to be made in extending energy storage.

Perhaps the most pressing issue is the construction of an ‘intelligent grid’ better able to accommodate the fluctuations in renewal energy generation.

This investment should not simply be solely funded by ‘green levies’ on hard pressed domestic consumers, but through properly funded investment, either from government or industry

With the country deciding on Brexit, the Liberal Party has to set it's new position. It was for many years pro-EU but also in favour of massive reform. This (wrongly in my opinion and the reason I never came onboard) changed when the referendum was announced and the Liberal Party became supportive of the Grassroots Out campaign alongside Nigel Farage et all. Personally I would have preferred to join forces with the European Free Alliance (EFA) and campaign for 'Another Europe'.

But what now?

As I have mentioned on another thread I believe the original 'Commonwealth of Europe' policy the Liberal Party stood on for many years could be its USP. Hard Brexit will fail leading to an economic downturn, yet the public do not wish to return to concept of the present EU. Working with political alliances such as EFA and others sympathetic to the idea the 'Commonwealth of Europe' policy does not have to be confined to the Liberal Party's history book, it can be reborn, relaunched and used to demonstrate the difference between the true Liberals and the others.

Regarding Brexit terms, I believe the Liberal Party should campaign to retain access to the single market and retain present environmental and workers rights legislation.

There are prominent people in the Greens and the Labour Party who would like to see a 'progressive pact'. I expect this would take the form of a pre-arranged deal to defeat the Tories, and without PR this is possibly the best way. It could even open the door to PR.

Back in the early 1990's I looked at the General Election results and combined the Green and Liberal vote together. Admittedly back then I think the Liberals were a slightly bigger political force and the Greens were on their way down from the highs of the 89 European Elections. However the combined figures were very impressive.

Today any 'progressive pact' is likely to bypass the Liberal Party and simply involve Labour, Lib-Dems, Greens, the SNP and possibly Plaid Cymru. Nevertheless there would have to make massive negotiations for this to happen, something I see as unlikely prior to 2020. But what would stop the Liberals working with candidates from other parties to build their own pact in local elections? I am sure there is common ground with some Green and Labour candidates and in Cornwall Mebyon Kernow.

It would be interesting to see how others feel, as it would not detract in any way from building the Liberal Party. In fact in these non-PR days additional dialogue and co-operation could see the party grow.

I see Jeremy Corbyn along with Diane Abbot and Kate Osamor attended an rally organised by the SWP over the weekend. Admittedly the rally was an anti-racist event, but the fact it was under the banner of an SWP front group and others on the left such as Owen Jones pulled out because of this, shows Labour, under Jeremy Corbyn are leaning further and further into the arms of the Trotskyite left.

Many Labour supporters and members of the soft left and centre will be disgusted by this, and I can see some considering ripping up their membership cards in disgust. Some may consider the Greens or Lib Dems as a political home. But if local Liberal Party secretaries were to write to the letters pages of their local newspapers, it would open the door to the disgruntled.

Elsewhere on this forum I have put forward the case for a real living wage, arguing that through more progressive taxation this would be possible by removing smaller businesses such as corner shops from tax contributions it would allow them to pay the real living wage. The lost income would be recuperated through additional income tax from workers, plus additional money circulating in the economy from increased incomes.

Steve Radford in a Facebook post has made a valid point that the real living wage would increase employment costs by 30% which could lead to redundancies, and illegal employment along with the lack of workers rights that accompany it. Steve argues for a minimum wage set per industry.

Elsewhere I have also put forward the case for a version of means tested Universal Basic Income (a National Income Scheme). Again I have argued that through more progressive taxation this AND Universal Inheritance could be feasible.

A way forward could see this Citizens Income or National Income Scheme combined with industry or business income set Minimum Wages. The goal has to be providing a 'Living Income' for all citizens, allowing them to house, feed and clothe themselves and delivering people from poverty. Combine this with a Universal Inheritance lump sum to encourage business set up, investment and/or home ownership and a progressive, poverty free society can be delivered which does not dent aspirations.

Late summer saw the temporary arrival in the Newbury area of a convoy of 20 vehicles, reputedly carrying southern Irish travellers. 


There swift departure, hastened by the intervention of a senior police office from Reading, again highlighted a seldom commented on aspect of domestic policy.

Britain’s travelling communities are indeed trying to continue a nomadic way of life, increasingly out of step with the modern world, but do not deserve to be constantly hounded into moving on from one site to another like some unwanted invasion as they are all too often portrayed.

The events of Dale Farm have polarised attitudes in this country, but simply prodding travellers into moving on simply shows the casual prejudices that remain in our society.

A minority of travellers have encouraged hostility through their opportunistic behaviour, and one of the commonest complaints I hear is that their protracted stays would not be half as bad if they didn't habitually leave behind their accumulated rubbish for the council to remove at the tax payer’s expense.

It has been pointed out that people can be tolerant of travellers if in turn travellers respect local people – it works both ways.  To earn respect and tolerance people must also show and offer respect and tolerance.

Previous correspondents from the oddly named Traveller Liaison Officer for West Berkshire Council sort to reassure me travellers camped illegally were moved on as quickly as the local authority and Police could achieve. Their welfare appeared to be nobodies concern.

The procedure as explained to me was that if there are signs of forced entry and hence criminal damage, the police may decide to use their own powers, (S61), to move them on if it is private land.

Otherwise the land owner would have to take legal action of their own accord and expense.

If it was public land, the council would start their own process (S77) to have the encampment moved on.  If they refuse to leave the council was likely to make a complaint at the magistrate court (S78) which can take 5 to 7 days as they would have to wait for a slot in court.

In the vast majority of cases, the later threat, with the implied legal costs, unlikely to actually be recovered, and the seizure of their vehicle is enough to move them on.

Peterborough council has introduced emergency stopping places, where if travellers park up in unsuitable places they can be moved immediately to a temporary stopping point under the direction of the council’s liaison officer.

The downside with setting up the Emergency stopping points is that the time they can be occupied is very limited as available land in suitable locations. 

In the long-term the foremost issue is the provision of hard standings and stop over sites across the country. A plan for a minimum number of national stopping sites existed, but has never come to fruition.

At one time their provision became the responsibility of Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As this was presumably a political hot potato and likely to bring adverse and unwelcomed public scrutiny to government decisions, the issue was devolved to local authorities.

Similarly councillors, mindful of local public opinion have sort to kick applications into the long-grass.

In these circumstances the responsibility for the provision of encampments, running water, and where applicable education and medical treatment must come back to central government.

If necessary a government department needs to be created, funded and given the authority to fulfil this need. I would hesitate to use the word Agency to describe such an organisation, as this was a common description for the 19th Century US bureaucracy used to corral native Indians onto reservations.

Although this goes against the Liberal policy of localisation, in this case widespread public hostility to such provision means that a degree of central guidance may be needed to elicit a list of potential sites and their sympathetic siting.

By taking affirmative steps today, we can head-off long-term hostility, and provide a suitable network of sites. This will defuse local issues with unannounced arrivals and remove a source of community friction.

The politics of travellers communities isn't a vote winner, but the Liberal party recognizer’s that a nationwide plan for permanent and transit sites is vital, and a tolerant approach to their location and management is what is required.