With the suddenly realisation of the scale of cuts being forced on local councils in next year’s government settlement, we hear that representatives from the six unitary authorities in Berkshire have been to Westminster to express their dismay.


In their wake Conservative MPs is in neighbouring Newbury and Bracknell have been left scrambling to intervene on behalf of councils of their own persuasion.

Unfortunately as they are belatedly realising, their own party has scant regard for the provision of public services, and seemingly their own re-election chances.

The truth of the matter is that Conservatives see the neediest in our society are the undeserving poor, and no amount of panic stricken representations to their peers will change this philosophy.

It is a mind-set reinforced by last summer’s election victory, whereby they now seem to believe they have an elected mandated to ensure the closure of libraries, day centres and alike.

Sadly although we have the financial wealth in our country to provide fully funded public servers, along with a fully funded NHS, contrary to David Cameron’s must maligned assertion, we aren’t all in it together.

The Liberal Party has opposed needless cuts to public services, and will do so in this May’s local elections. To that end we welcome the chance to promote a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security, and public services are adequately funded and protected.

I was reminded recently that this May will see not just regional local elections, but also the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners.

The last round, in November 2012, saw an abysmal turn out of a fraction over 15% nationally, at an estimated cost of 75 million pounds.

In areas where there are no local elections this year, turnout is not likely to improve even with increased publicity nearer the polls. Many voters being handed a ballet paper will simply vote along party lines due to a lack of knowledge and awareness.

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.

The Liberal Party continues to oppose  the elected police commissioners role and the associated election as simple politicisation, whilst adding another level of bureaucracy and the costs that go with it.  

The current role seems to have little practical purpose.  We might have a more positive view if the role looked at leadership and co-ordination of all emergency services fire police and ambulance. 
 
Although the PCC may have responsibility for managing budgets and police targets, they do not have any powers over operational or disciplinary issues, which remain beyond public scrutiny.

On this point alone, the concept of the PCC falls short of public expectations.

The announcement this weeks that two of the independent candidates for the role of Police Commissioner in the Thames Valley have withdrawn from the race, comes as a timely reminder of all that is wrong with these elections.

The appointment of Police Commissioners, with the emphases on outside candidates, has been derailed by a nomination process where only the established political parties are effectively able to afford the 5K pound deposit and mobilise the 100 names needed on the nomination form.

So now we are left with 5 candidates, four from established parties, which given the prevailing political climate and comments already made in the national press, risks the contents becoming politicised in exactly the way the roles originators had sort to avoid.

The real Liberal party has opposed the elections for just this reason. The main political parties can’t help but use this opportunity to brandish their law and order credentials or to use the vote as a comment on the popularity of the coalition government.

Not exactly the sort of background  conducive to a sensible debate on policing priorities in the 21st century.

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.