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.

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.