Visiting the Thatcham Nature Discovery centre most recently, I was disappointed, but not at all surprised, to see two of the Solar powered parking meters recently installed in the parking areas.


Having obviously failed to generate enough voluntary 3 pound ‘donations’ in recent years, and following a recent leaflet drop, BBOWT now appear to have resorted to peer pressure to bolster revenues.

Presumably if you are not displaying a ticket, you are a bad citizen, and need to be shamed into contributing to what should be a resource freely accessible to all. A recent report by English Nature highlighted cost as a major factor restricting access to the countryside, particularly for minority groups

Even before the management of the site transferred to BBOWT, I was left with the impression that elements of West Berkshire Council saw the on-going funding of the service as an inconvenient cost, one to be dropped at the first opportunity.

As a former resident of the Newbury area, I actually recent being asked to make further contributions to a facility I indirectly contributed to via my council tax over the years, but after years of unjustified cuts to public services, pay to use is now becoming a reality.

The biggest shame is that this country actually possesses the wealth to properly funded local services, but the Conservative Party are the last people likely to promote any form of modest wealth redistribution to the benefit of all not least Land Value Taxation.

*************************************
I never submitted this one as it was taken over by events and blanket coverage in the local media 
after local parish councils objected to the signs. I did post the same text on the local bird watching forum which elicited the following response:

I think you will find the "Pay and Display" machines are in fact voluntary donation posts and will have notices attached making this clear[which the parish councils objected to - SG]. There was a substantial article about this in this weeks Newbury Weekly News. I see no reason why those who are not members of the Wildlife Trust should be asked to contribute towards the facilities they are using. If you go to any other organisation such as the RSPB or WWT or other Wildlife Trust reserves non members usually have to either pay for parking or pay an admission fee. Sad as it is these organsiations don't run on fresh air!

I read with interest the Newbury Weekly front page story(27th August)
detailing the anonymous West Berkshire councillors who have reportedly
been summoned to court  over council tax arrears.

A similar story line was run in Reading a couple of years ago as I
remember, in which case the offending councillors were actually named.

In fact all these headline stories nicely illustrate is the
difficulties many ordinary people have with what is probably their
largest monthly household bill after their rent or mortgage.

Council Tax is a regressive tax in that those in the lower bands
actually pay proportionally more than those in the higher bands as a
percentage of a home’s value.

The Liberal Party believes that both the regressive nature of the tax
should be revised, and Council Tax should be continuously banded so
that mansion owners and owners of more expensive properties pay more
without any need for a mansion tax.

Ultimately we believe that a properly implemented Land Value Tax would
adequate fund local services, although it has the one drawback in that
it redistributes the income from land rather than redistributing the
ownership of land.

Local taxation in the form of a Council Tax makes local politicians
accountable to the electorate for their decisions; unfortunately they
are no more or less likely than any other person to fall prey to its
financial demand.

Stephen Graham
Newbury Liberal Party(Organiser)

I have taken the liberty of uploading the NEC Press release
issued in March 2014 in relation to the unfolding crisis in the Crimea.

************************************************
Meeting on Saturday The Liberal Party National Executive noted with
grave concern, the increased tensions and provocations which have
emerged in the Ukraine and the Crimean peninsular .

We call upon both national and regional leaders to do all in their
powers to defuse tensions, and allow the rule of law to take its
course both in regard to the   legitimate government of the
Ukraine and the impending referendum on Crimean ties to the Ukraine.

We also recognise the historic ties and strategic role of the Crimea
to Russia and urge all parties to allow the people of The Crimea to
be allowed to determine their future without duress, just as the
people of the Ukraine aspirations be respected.

We likewise urge the Western Powers do nothing to inflame tensions
and divisions within the Ukraine.

Released by
Cllr Steve Radford
President of he Liberal Party

Over the 5 years I have been with the Liberal Party I have submitted a regular stream of letters to both the local and national media.

Over the coming days and weeks I am intending to progressively upload all the drafts I have, which cover a wide range of local and national issues, and which should provide a rich source of inspiration to others.

Although I have had good success locally, I have never had a letter published nationally, and with the demise of two Reading centric titles, the Reading Post and Get Reading, my options locally are now rather limited.

Thanks

Stephen

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.