|
|
|
| Local Democracy Week | <mail@shepwaylibdems.org.uk> |
20 Most Recent Press ArticlesGetting Britain's economy back on trackWritten by Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Thu 9th Oct 2008
When a ship is sinking, we must send out the lifeboats, not argue about who steered the ship into the iceberg. At Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7659180.stm), I pledged my support for the moves being taken by the Government. Vince Cable and I have been clear that we must do whatever is necessary to halt the downward spiral of the British economy. But the Government must do more. It must use the leverage it currently has over banks to end unacceptable bonuses for senior executives, ensure that home repossessions are only ever an absolute last resort, and cut some slack for struggling small businesses before calling in their loans. Now is also the time for tax loopholes to be closed for the very wealthy and the money saved to be used to cut taxes for low and middle income earners. Hard-pressed families and individuals need more of their own money back now more than ever as they are worrying about their savings and facing mounting bills. We are fortunate to have a great deal of economic expertise in our party with Chris Huhne, David Laws and Susan Kramer working closely with myself and Vince Cable on the challenges that face us. Over the coming weeks and months it will continue to be our party that is leading the debate with the ideas and solutions to put Britain's economy on the right track. You Can Run, Cllr Oliver, But You Can't HytheWritten by Neil Matthews and published in Letter to the Editor, Herald on Thu 9th Oct 2008 It is terrible state of affairs if a politician thinks the opinion of the people they represent is foolish. 1100 people (so far) have decided Cllr Linda Oliver's continuing absence is wrong and have asked her, and her Hythe Town Councillor husband, to stand down. Official figures show Cllr Mrs Oliver is still in receipt of her allowance - about £3500pa! Cllr Linda Oliver's rant last week, in your Letters column, fools no one. She is absent from her ward and attends Council meetings on a much less than frequent basis. Indeed, to allow for this, Shepway's Conservatives have removed her from every District Council committee - thus removing her duty to work on them. Writing an occasional letter for a resident is not representing the people who elected you. For example, I doubt she was aware of the sewage pipe collapse behind the houses in St Nicholas Road, Hythe. On that occasion I had to call out Shepway's emergency team on a Sunday afternoon. Darren Briddock and I also had to convince Southern Water to take responsibility for the vast hole that had appeared in the pathway. Residents were well aware of Southern Water's tanker parked in Frampton Road over night, pumping out the sewers, so new pipes could be put in place. You can't do Ward work like this from 180 miles away. Where is this 'excellent team of Conservative Councillors' she refers to? Like her, Hythe's Conservative District councillors couldn't be bothered to attend the crucial meeting when Nickolls Quarry was granted planning permission by her Shepway Conservative District Colleagues. Is that that standing up for your Ward? I think not - nor do the residents of Hythe West. Hythe Councillors Let Hythe down over Nickolls QuarryWritten by Neil Matthews and published in Letter to the Editor, Kent Messenger on Thu 2nd Oct 2008 The people of Hythe, and particularly those of Hythe West, have been completely vindicated in wanting their petition to be acted upon by the Conservative District Council. They asked for the absent Cllrs Mr & Mrs Oliver to stand down, as they don't feel they can be properly represented from 180 miles away. Last week, at the Council's meeting when the Nickolls Quarry planning application was discussed and voted upon, the residents witnessed the absence of Cllr Mrs Oliver. As their District Councillor, Cllr Mrs Oliver had the right to address the committee and give her views on the application. She failed to do so. To be fair however, she was not alone in her absence. Both Cllr Hayward (Hythe West) and Hythe District Councillor Michael Lyons were absent too. In fact, no Hythe District Councillor was present. By failing to attend and stand up for the views of local residents, Hythe's Conservative District Councillors have let down Hythe, and let down themselves. Proud to back the Gurkha causeWritten by Lynne Beaumont, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Shepway District Council on Fri 19th Sep 2008
It was with great pride, I took part in the demonstration outside the High Court in London this week, standing alongside hundreds of retired Gurkha's. The demonstration had been organised to show the world how badly this country treats its best soldiers, with no right to remain in this country if they retired before 1997, even after giving 24 years of their lives to defend this country. Now, we have the support from Joanna Lumley and Virginia McKenna, whose Fathers both served 30 years with the Gurkha's: this is a cause very close to their hearts. It is time for the Government to sit up and listen. The nation as a whole knows this legislation to be wrong, unfair, and unjust. I am ashamed that our Country treats retired Gurkha's in this fashion. Gordon Brown could end this injustice with a stroke of a pen, and put an end to the shame, and an end to the suffering it is causing. This campaign will never end, until justice is seen to be done. We will not stop representing these people, until this wrong is put right, and the families involved are given the same rights as any other commonwealth soldier who is prepared to lay down their life in the service of this country. Looking forward to Lib Dem Conference in BournemouthWritten by Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Thu 11th Sep 2008 Our annual conference - my first as leader - is due to start in Bournemouth in less than three days' time. I want to tell you about some of the exciting things that are going to take place. Conference is a fantastic chance for us to connect with people and to get our message across to voters. We will be debating our important statement of aims and values - Make It Happen - as well as key policy debates on crime, transport, security and Europe. I'm also going to be launching my 'One Million Door Challenge' to the party. My challenge is for party members to knock on one million doors across the country between the end of conference and June next year - very likely polling day for the local and European elections. This is a great chance to promote the message of Make It Happen - that we are the real change this country needs. It is a tough challenge, but one which I am confident that we are more than capable of meeting. I'm determined that under my leadership we will be the party that communicates with people. By talking, listening, and learning. That is why since I became Leader I've been holding Town Hall meetings in constituencies across the country. And it's why I'm so enthusiastic about this new campaign. If you want to do you your part to help meet my challenge and you are coming to conference then go to the special campaign briefing on Saturday. It's at 8pm in the Bryanston Suite of the Marriott Highcliff Hotel. You will also be find out about how to get involved in the challenge in your area on Flock Together and there is an event on Facebook for Saturday's launch. Other important things to note about conference are that Conference Committee and Policy Committee officers have now selected the two topics for the 'urgent issue' discussions at conference: Sunday 14th, 09.15 - 09.45: Polar Ice Caps: Accelerating Climate Change Monday 15th, 17.20 - 18.00: Recession and Rising Energy and Food Prices: Impacts on Poverty Other last-minute additions to the agenda, including the selection of amendments and emergency motions, will be made by Conference Committee on Friday. Any party member can come to conference. If you just want to pop down for the day, you can register as a day visitor on the door - remember to bring your party membership card. The cost is £30 per day (£15 unwaged rate). We start on Saturday morning and finish, with my speech, on Wednesday lunchtime. I look forward to seeing you in Bournemouth! How to tackle crimeWritten by Chris Huhne, Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesman on Thu 11th Sep 2008
Crime hurts some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society, who are least able to withstand its effects. All the political parties want to cut crime. The only question is how. Our approach, as Liberal Democrats, is fundamentally different to that of Labour and the Conservatives. We favour what works. Criminal justice policy has been buffeted by tabloid opinion for too long. It is time for hard evidence in cutting crime. With the highest prison population in Europe, we rely on prison far too much. First, re-offending is appallingly high as prisons are colleges of crime. Secondly, the chances of being caught are far too low as only one in a hundred crimes leads to a conviction. Our plans emphasise catching criminals through more and better policing. This means more police on the streets, gathering intelligence, encouraging witnesses and building relationships with the communities they serve. It means improving the standard of the average police unit to that of the professional best so that the chances of detecting crime go up. That would solve an extra 140,000 violent crimes every year. Unlike Labour and the Tories, we will not duck the big issues in police reform. It is unfair on the vast majority of diligent and hard-working officers that less conscientious colleagues are not tackled. We will review the single point of entry at the level of constable, the 30 year lifetime career, and pay by seniority rather than effort and talent. At the heart of our reforms is a radical decentralisation of power. Local police authorities will hold chief officers to account; set local priorities instead of following Whitehall targets; and set budgets and tax precepts. These proposals will be debated on Sunday at our Bournemouth conference, and you can read more details at http://tinyurl.com/crimeproposals. Unlike Labour and Tory plans for elected sheriffs, all parts of the community, including women and ethnic minorities, would be fairly represented. The plans breathe life into our commitment to localism by ensuring that councils take control where possible, but that police authorities are fairly elected otherwise. And they set out a route march for a real attack on crime by focussing not on what sounds tough, but on what works. Please do give me your feedback, and I hope you are able to attend or follow the debate. Will you add your support for a new UK Military and Veterans's Hospital?Written by Lynne Beaumont on Fri 15th Aug 2008 I've recently been asked to sign a petition in support of a new dedicated UK military and veterans' hospital, and would like to ask you to do the same by signing the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Wounded/. As the organiser of the petition says: "The current facility at Selly Oak is doing a great job but cannot cope with the numbers returning from conflict abroad. "Two Para alone has on this tour sent more than 50 casualties to the UK, and all cannot be accommodated at Selly Oak. When you include casualties from other battle groups to this figure, a single ward in an NHS hospital is not going cope. Troops being sent home to recover are relying on NHS services which are already over committed. This country needs a dedicated military facility - it is an important issue and one which the whole military family should support. "Only 8,500 people have signed so far which is a tiny amount when compared to other petitions. Many more names are needed and Downing Street has put a time limit of one month for people to sign up. "Time is short so please act quickly. Sign up by visiting the link below, and please pass it on. "http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Wounded/" Clegg lambasts Brown over Gurkha disgraceWritten by Lib Dem Activist & Political Commentator Alex Folkes and published in http://lansonboy.blogspot.com on Wed 25th Jun 2008
Nick Clegg used his slot at Prime Minister's Questions today to return to the subject of the shameful treatment of former Gurkha soldiers by this Government. Gurkhas, let's remember, are soldiers from another country who are prepared to fight our wars and to die for our country. And yet the Government continues to deny the right of many former Gurkhas to remain in this country if they want after they retire. Brown replied that the Government had introduced the right of residence for Gurkhas who were serving or have served since 1997. That's all very well, but there are still a few thousand other brave former soldiers who they condemn to poverty by denying them the right to residence. After PMQs had finished, Nick joined representatives of the former Gurkhas, including Victoria Cross winner Tul Bahadur Pun for a march to Downing Street where they handed in medals in protest at the treatment they receive from this Government. Conservatives need to listen to referendum results and actWritten by Neil Matthews and published in Letter to the Editor, Kent Messenger on Thu 19th Jun 2008 Last Thursday the people of Sandgate felt sufficiently annoyed with their 'Mayor' and Councillors to deliver a landslide decision, in a poll, to change their Town Council back to a Parish Council. I congratulate them in delivering such an overwhelming statement of their feelings to the Council. Over the past few years, I've been both the Mayor of Hythe and the Chairman of Saltwood Parish Council. Town or Parish status really should make no difference to how your Council is treated: what makes a difference is how it is run and what you are seen to be doing. It's not what you are, it's what you do. I have also noted how the local Tories have urged Sandgate Councillors to action the outcome of the Sandgate poll. I hope the Tories continue in this manner when they consider the planning applications to extend and expand Lydd Airport. The people have voted overwhelmingly to oppose any such expansion - in TWO local polls. We shall see. A Different Parking Strategy: Free Permits, Proper Consultation and Helping Local BusinessesWritten by Tim Prater, Shepway District Councillor for Cheriton on Thu 22nd May 2008 Shepway Council are in the process of consulting on the first phase of a parking strategy, that will see a controlled parking zone introduced across the centre of Folkestone before the end on 2008. At April's Shepway Council meeting, I proposed a scheme where the first permit for every household would be free. Although the Conservatives voted that proposal down, I hope that they will be prepared to listen to proposals to make the scheme better. Consultation The current consultation is almost entirely focused on the residents of the first area in which the parking strategy to be implemented - Central Folkestone. It's been made explicit (by Rory Love) that views of people from outside that area will have less weight - despite the fact that the system as implemented there will almost certainly set the model for the roll-out of the Parking Strategy across the rest of the district, and will affect those who visit the area as well - in some instances more than those that live there. There should be a new cross-area consultation on the general principles of the Parking Strategy, with a consultation on a range of charging rates and strategies, before implementing anywhere in the area. Otherwise, the scheme as imposed in Central Folkestone will end up being rolled out to other areas (as it would be too difficult to have massively different schemes / charging rates etc in different areas) without proper consultation. Residents There is a clear feeling developing that the parking strategy is simply about charging residents for a facility they currently have. The proposal to charge a flat £25 per permit will do nothing to mitigate that feeling. An alternative would be to offer a FREE permit to every household, and then only charge for subsequent permits for each household. This may (depending on the cost of the subsequent permits and the income from the sale of parking vouchers / visitor permits) decrease the total overall income, but as even an estimate of that income has yet to be published, it's hard to value that decrease, and with the introduction of charging, its still certain to be cash generative (as required in the published parking strategy) but without every household that wishes to park on the road near their house being forced to pay. The free first permit is not unique:
Businesses / Hotels The charging period of 9.30 - 5.30 Monday to Friday is longer than it needs to be to achieve the aim of reducing commuter and long-term parking. A period of (say) 11.00 - 3.00 would also achieve the aims, but have significantly less impact of businesses, and especially visitors to local hotels and B&B's who could then park for an overnight stay without requiring a ticket. We are keen to promote Folkestone (and the district) as a tourist destination - putting in place a scheme which requires someone staying in a B&B to "feed a meter" at 9.30am hardly seems visitor focused... There should also be a clear statement that hours and days of operation WILL NOT be increased. We have recently seen the extension of charging hours in car parks to increase revenues, and there should be written assurances that the scheme will not be extended until later at night or into the weekends. There should also be a clear statement of the expenditure priorities for any income from the scheme. Apparently income generated has to be spent on parking / transport schemes (otherwise it gets clawed back by Kent Highways). The schemes that will benefit from the income should be published, so that local residents can see what benefits we will see locally from charging for on-street parking. Business permits that cover the 4 zones of the first phase will cost £375 on the current proposals. By the time the number of zones is increased from 4 as the strategy is rolled out, the cost of a pass that covers central, west and east Folkestone as well as Sandgate, Hythe, Elham Valley and Romney Marsh could be phenomenal - well into the thousands. There needs to be either a lower price, or a commitment that an "all zone" pass will not rise in price as new zones are put in place. Update on the Folkestone TriennalWritten by Organisers of the Folkestone Triennal and published in Email to supporters on Sun 13th Apr 2008 Thank you for your continuous interest in the upcoming Folkestone Triennial - we wanted to update you on recent activities. The Folkestone Triennial is gathering momentum. We have received significant national press coverage and we are more convinced than ever that it will be one of the most important cultural events of 2008. We have been successful in raising £2 million from The Roger De Haan Charitable Trust, Arts Council England, The Henry Moore Foundation, The Folkestone Estate, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Goethe Institut London, Shepway District Council, Kent County Council, SEEDA and Bernard Sunley Charitable Trust. A further £200K is still required for us to deliver all aspects of the project - we are doing a final push! Our team has developed an ambitious education and access programme to compliment the Triennial. The educational activities include debates, dialogues, talks, tours, discussions and workshops. We have also developed specially tailored tours and workshops for schools and community groups. All the artist projects (23!) are progressing extremely well. Many of the artists, including Jeremy Deller, Tacita Dean, Christian Boltanski, Kaffe Matthews, and Pae White, are now working in Folkestone ? some of them with local communities and school children. The Folkestone Triennial will be open from 14th June / 14th September. Our website is now live! Please visit us on http://www.folkestonetriennial.org.uk. Your chance to shape Lib Dem policy on… the UK's response to GlobalisationWritten by Jeremy Hargreaves - Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats' Federal Policy Committee and published in www.libdemvoice.org on Fri 28th Mar 2008
Globalisation is changing our world. Liberal Democrats have generally welcomed it - as well as putting forward views about how we should seek to influence its development. But it is a fact - and it has consequences for own domestic UK economy. A policy working group chaired by Lord (Robin) Teverson is looking at what Britain needs to do respond to the processes of globalisation and to equip ourselves for the globalised twenty-first century economy. Their consultation paper (http://consult.libdems.org.uk/globalisation/) - on which they are inviting comments from all party members - looks at several aspects of this. A first group of questions are around the economic impacts within the UK. What infrastructural and technological developments are needed to enhance the UK's competitiveness? What is the right role for government in that - and what are the risks of state intervention here? How should governments properly seek to help British companies compete - and how can government and business best work in partnership to ensure the right skills among employees? Then there are questions about how we should respond to some social aspects. What should our attitude be to increased economic migration? What are the best ways to address the resulting community cohesion questions - and what is the right role for welfare spending here? Does more welfare spending threaten the UK's competitiveness - or in fact help promote it, as there is some evidence from other countries to suggest? A third set of issues is around the environmental impacts of globalisation on the UK's economy: how do we balance reducing the environmental impact of the UK's economy with our need for competitiveness? In particular how can we do that without simply outsourcing negative environmental impacts elsewhere? And how can we take advantage of the opportunities in this area for the UK's economy? How can we promote the different regions of the UK to maintain and develop competitive industries within the globalised systems - and what should different levels of government do to help their local areas, and learn from each other? Finally - and crucially, I believe - how can we politically manage globalisation? The process of globalisation, and national politicians saying they have no ability to respond in a global economy, and a sense that your job in Tewkesbury can be cut by a decision of a board in Tokyo, is perhaps the most disempowering feature for many people. How can we help people to feel involved in some of these processes - and actually be involved? The working group would welcome your views on any of these issues, and they will help inform them in developing the proposals that they will bring to conference this autumn. Letter to the Editor: Opposing Tory Tax HikesWritten by Tim Prater and published in Letter to the Editor, Folkestone & Hythe Herald on Thu 27th Mar 2008 Thanks to Cllr Carey for pointing out in last weeks Herald that the Liberal Democrats opposed the Shepway Council budget. The Conservative budget saw a massive increase in the expenditure on "strategy and leadership", but precious little for improving front line services such as street cleaning or safety. The budget also saw the Council Tax raised as far as possible without capping, some Council fees raised hugely, and the introduction of the Councils new £35 Garden Tax on recycling. What's not to oppose? Just last year, the Conservatives increased the size of the "cabinet" of Conservative Councillors (who are each paid £8,000 a year) from 7 to 10, at a cost of around £100,000 over 4 years. A proper budget would have started from scratch on this and all other budget headings, and sought to deliver better value for local tax payers. That's not the job of a few budget amendments, but a completely new start. If Cllr Carey cannot understand that, it's more than scary. The Liberal Democrats also opposed an amendment from Cllrs Copping and Marsh which aimed to take money away from Folkestone Sports provision. The Liberal Democrats simply do not agree, and believe sports facilities in Folkestone need better support, not less. Debating Policy in the Liberal Democrats: Members Views SoughtWritten by Federal Conference Committee on Thu 27th Mar 2008
Liberal Democrats are rightly proud of the fact that we remain the only major party to be internally democratic. Unlike the other parties, party policy can only be decided by the democratic vote of the representatives of the party membership, after debate at the party conference. Despite this, however, the number of policy motions submitted to conference has steadily fallen over the last ten years or so. Federal Conference Committee want to hear your views on why this may be so, whether it matters and what - if anything - we should do about it. This paper sets out the background to the issues and asks a series of questions. Please let us know what you think: see the end of this article for a summary of questions and details of how to respond.
Federal Conference Committee (FCC) chooses the policy debates for each conference from the pool of motions submitted by state, English regional and local parties, elected reps, specified associated organisations (SAOs) and federal committees such as the Federal Policy Committee (FPC). The number of policy motions submitted to conference from all these sources appears to be on a long-term trend downwards. In 1996 the number of policy motions submitted for debate at the autumn conference was 126. Ten years later, in 2006, it was 62, and last year, 2007, it was 54. Partly in response to this, though also partly as a result of feedback from conference participants about the composition of the conference agenda, FCC has reduced slightly the number of policy debates that take place at each conference - from 22 to 1996 to 17 in 2006 and 2007. We have used the extra time for alternative ways of discussing policy, including Q&A sessions, presentations and 'urgent issue' discussions. Arguably we should be selecting even fewer motions. Certainly it seems to be the case that we select some motions which are of relatively little interest to most participants. In each of the 2006 and 2007 conferences, we called more than three in every four speaker's cards submitted in a quarter of the total number of policy debates, and in each conference there was one policy motion where we called every single card submitted. In addition to this, our dependence on motions from the FPC and Parliamentary Party has grown. Over the last five autumn conferences, the FPC accounted for an average of just under a third of motions on the final agenda, and the Parliamentary Party for exactly half. Motions from all other sources - local, state and English regional parties, SAOs and non-parliamentary conference reps - have fallen to slightly more than a sixth (generally about three debates per conference). Occasionally FCC is criticised for not selecting controversial motions for debate from the party grassroots. In fact this is true - but only because, by and large, such motions are not submitted. In recent years all the major debates (the longest and most controversial, with the highest numbers of reps wanting to speak) have been submitted by the FPC or Parliamentary Party (though controversial amendments from other sources have been debated). The motions submitted by the 'grassroots' (i.e. not the FPC or parliamentary party) are almost invariably of lower interest, with fewer people submitting cards to speak.
The conference feedback form for autumn 2007 included a question asking respondents why they had not submitted motions (or amendments). Responses can be grouped into three sets:
It may also be the case that people are generally happy with existing party policy, and see no reason to change it. Two successive leadership elections have failed to reveal any substantial disagreements over major issues. Furthermore, after twenty years of policy-making, the party now has a comprehensive body of policy, and there are relatively few gaps or seriously outdated areas - and where there are, FPC policy papers are usually quite good at addressing them. Q1 If you or your local party have not submitted a policy motion recently, why is this? Q2 Do you think reducing the number of policy debates at conference matters?
Outside federal conference (and the state conferences in Scotland and Wales), policy issues are not discussed particularly broadly within the Liberal Democrats. It seems likely that many local parties rarely, if ever, hold policy discussions (the extent to which local party 'pizza and politics' events are organised is unknown, though we are working with Liberty Research to try to gauge how much is happening). Nevertheless, the huge (and growing) number of fringe meetings that are organised at federal conferences, and the success of the two special policy events in recent years - the 'Meeting the Challenge' conference in January 2006 and the 'Setting the Agenda' conference in January 2008 - suggests there is a considerable appetite for policy discussion. The more that policy is discussed within the party, the more likely local parties and conference reps are to come up with ideas for policy motions. Some local parties already hold specific meetings to discuss possible items for submission to conference. English regional conferences could be particularly appropriate forums in which to encourage discussion of potential motions for federal conference. Having said all this, many of the discussions that took place at the two special policy events were of a broad ideological nature that would not necessarily lend themselves well to detailed policy motions and debates. FCC could, of course, organise this type of session at federal conference, not linked to a specific motion. We piloted this type of session in autumn 2007, with a discussion on 'citizenship and identity', and the 'urgent issue' discussions on particular topics we have timetabled over the last two years are similar. We could organise more of these sessions at federal conference, and reduce the number of motions debated. Q3 What can the federal party do to encourage policy discussion more broadly within the party? Q4 What should FCC do to encourage more local parties to (a) consider submitting motions, and (b) discuss the Preliminary and Final Agendas for conferences? Q5 Would you like to see more discussion at conference of broad issues without detailed policy proposals, even if this means reducing the number of debates on policy motions?
There may also be steps that FCC can take to make it easier for people to submit motions. The current procedure is not as straightforward as it could be, and it is probably the case that people do not have a clear idea of when to submit motions, and of how to do so with a reasonable chance of success. The current system features three deadlines for submitting motions; for autumn conferences these are:
We changed the system for spring conference several years ago, effectively removing the first deadline for everything other than policy papers and constitutional amendments. The reasoning was that very few local parties ever submitted anything by the first deadline, in November. This different structure of deadlines for the two conferences may itself be confusing. Additionally, a mid-May deadline may seem too far away from conference for many local parties and conference reps to bother writing anything; it also, of course, falls shortly after the local elections. One possible option would be to scrap the first deadline completely, for both conferences, and to have one main deadline slightly further away from the conference than we now have it - say, in early July for autumn conference. This may help to stimulate more input. There are two main disadvantages to this option. First, we would be circulating the Final Agenda and all the policy papers in mid-August, with an early/mid-September deadline for submission of amendments - probably not the best time for local parties to organise discussion meetings. Second, we would not be able to circulate the details of amendments to motions - which often provide the focus for the main debate on items - until the eve of conference. Q6 Bearing in mind these advantages and disadvantages, do you favour scrapping the first deadline for submission of motions?
There are a range of changes we can make to our submissions procedures to make it easier for people to submit motions - including in particular offering more help with drafting motions in a form suitable for debate. These include:
Q7 What should FCC do to make it easier for you to submit motions?
Federal conference has always been about more than policy debates. The agenda has always featured set-piece speeches (from the leader, other party spokespeople and invited guests) and the business sessions necessary for the running of the party (committee reports, business motions, constitutional amendments, etc.). In recent years we have introduced a series of innovations, including Q&A sessions, presentations, and discussions without votes, such as 'urgent issue' discussions. In addition, a huge range of events take place outside the conference hall: consultative sessions, fringe meetings and training. Questionnaire feedback indicate that at present people think we are getting the balance broadly right, though complaints about dull debates suggest that some, at least, would like to see fewer motions. In 2006 and 2007, about 50 per cent of the agenda was taken up with policy motions; FCC could easily reduce this proportion, and increase the time spent on other items. Q8 Would you like to see a lower proportion of time spent on debating policy motions? If so, what would you like to see instead? Please let us know what you think! Return your answers to the following questions to:
...by 10th May 2008 Q1 If you or your local party have not submitted a policy motion recently, why is this? Q2 Do you think reducing the number of policy debates at conference matters? Q3 What can the federal party do to encourage policy discussion more broadly within the party? Q4 What should FCC do to encourage more local parties to (a) consider submitting motions, and (b) discuss the Preliminary and Final Agendas for conferences? Q5 Would you like to see more discussion at conference of broad issues without detailed policy proposals, even if this means reducing the number of debates on policy motions? Q6 Bearing in mind these advantages and disadvantages, do you favour scrapping the first deadline for submission of motions? Q7 What should FCC do to make it easier for you to submit motions? Q8 Would you like to see a lower proportion of time spent on debating policy motions? If so, what would you like to see instead? Thank you! Letter to the Editor: The Missing Councillor OliverWritten by Neil Matthews and published in Letter to the Editor, Folkestone & Hythe Herald on Thu 27th Mar 2008 Cllr Carey put the case in a letter to the Herald last week that a Council's budget is the 'single most important work the Council does'. "Perhaps she could explain why Bath resident and Shepway district Councillor Mrs Linda Oliver didn't attend this budget meeting? Indeed, since the autumn, Councillor Oliver has attended just TWO of the last 8 Hythe and Shepway full Council meetings. How can Shepway Conservatives justify a situation where one of their colleagues lives so far away and turns up to meetings so little? Do the Conservatives really believe this is an acceptable way to represent Hythe West and its residents? Gurkhas Hand Back Their Medals to ParliamentWritten by Lynne Beaumont, Liberal Democrat Leader, Shepway District Council on Thu 20th Mar 2008
On Wednesday 19th March, approximately 2,000 retired Gurkhas met outside the Houses of Parliament, along with several members of Shepway Liberal Democrats, to protest at the way they are treated differently to any other retired soldier in the British Army. 50 long service and good conduct medals, plus an MBE, were handed to Nick Clegg, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in protest at the way they are being discriminated against. Why is it, that Gurkha soldiers, who are re veered all over the world are being treated this way. If they retired before 1st July 1997, they are not given the chance to become British Citizens and live in the country they fought to protect. It is an honour to help this proud race of people, who have been prepared to lay down their lives to protect our way of life, and our Country for the past 200 years. No special treatment is being asked for. All that is needed to put this outrageous situation right, is to treat them the same as any other British Soldier. This is in the gift of Gordon Brown, who could rectify this discrimination in an instant if he wished to do so. Retired Gurkhas understand that a war is not won in a day. They understand that to win you keep going until you reach your objective. We will continue to fight this unfair, unjust Government, until this discrimination is at an end. We will continue to represent these brave, tireless, proud and incredibly loyal race of people until the objective is met. Fighting On For Our Gurkha HeroesWritten by Peter Carroll on Sun 16th Mar 2008
For a number of years our Party has been a major player in the fight to secure justice for Gurkha soldiers. Despite recent concessions from the Government many retired Gurkha soldiers still suffer great injustice. The valour and dedication to Britain of the Gurkhas is legendary. However, it is still the case that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 are not allowed stay in the UK. Additionally, there are still great injustices on Gurkha pensions. Nick Clegg MP is using his position on the national stage as Leader of the Liberal Democrats to take the fight for Gurkha justice to a new level. At 10.00am on Wednesday 19th March 2008 he will attend a demonstration of 3,000 retired Gurkhas outside Parliament. At this demonstration, 50 retired Gurkhas will hand in their Long Service and Good Conduct Medals to Nick and ask him to pass them on to the Prime Minister. For such loyal and proud people to do this is testament to their depth of feeling. The Lib Dems in the Lords will attempt to bring in legislation to end the injustice caused by the 1997 cut off date for citizenship. The Lib Dem Commons team will table an Early Day Motion and a series of questions to the Home Secretary. Both BBC and ITV have said they will cover these events and we expect significant interest from the national press. It is our hope that the combination of Prince Harry's service with the Gurkhas, the intense drama of the medal handing in ceremony and the Parliamentary efforts of Nick Clegg and his team will force a major concession from the Government. Anyone who supports this cause and is able to attend on 19th March, please do consider coming to Westminster and lending your support. How Lib Dem Members Can Shape Future Party PoliciesWritten by Jeremy Hargreaves - Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats' Federal Policy Committee and published in www.libdemvoice.org on Fri 7th Mar 2008
One of the features which marks out the way in which we Liberal Democrats as a party make our policies is that they are decided by the members, not just by the Leader and Shadow Cabinet. We often tend to focus on the fact that all policies have to be voted on by Conference. But in fact there is another way in which all party members - including those who aren't able to go to Conference - can have what is probably an even greater influence on what our policies are. And that's through the process by which every working group preparing a policy to take to conference publishes a consultation paper, setting out some background and asking some key questions, at http://consult.libdems.org.uk/. Any party member who is interested in developing our policies could and should take advantage of this to feed in their views. Some party members frequently complain that by the time proposals come to conference it is difficult to influence exactly what the proposals say - but then often don't take up any of the many opportunities that there are to participate in shaping those proposals at an earlier stage, when this very much is possible. Working groups are currently seeking views and input from members in three areas. Members can contribute in these areas by attending their consultative session at conference, by writing to the chair of the group (something always open to any party member) - or through the special website at http://consult.libdems.org.uk/ that all working groups have. Each group's site contains the consultation paper, and a discussion forum.
Herald Opinion: We don't deserve political mischiefWritten by Editor's Comment and published in Hythe Herald on Thu 14th Feb 2008 Two Tory councillors are refusing to resign after they have relocated to the West Country. Linda and John Oliver moved to Bath less than a year after they were elected locally. Mrs Oliver was returned to the district authority last May in a Conservative demolition of the Liberal Democrats while Mr Oliver was returned to the town council in Hythe. Mrs Oliver claims that despite living hundreds of miles away she can remain involved in local matters and properly represent the people who live in her ward. This is hogwash and she knows it. Try as she might, a district councillor's job is more demanding today than it has ever been with mountains of papers to read and digest, and meetings and committees to attend. That does not account for the amount of casework a member must undertake during the course of a four-year council cycle. It seems inconceivable that she can do the job properly. How on earth can she possibly know what is happening on the ground in Hythe when she is so far away? One suspects there is a bit of political mischief going on here. Senior Liberal Democrats want the Olivers to resign to force by-elections. The Lib Dems are keen to get back to winning ways after recent years of lurching from disaster to disaster. One senses that they are beginning to feel a resurgence in their ranks and self-belief that had almost gone after the catastrophic 'tax and toilets' debacle of 2004. They would fancy their chances in Hythe by fighting the Tories on sensitive issues like council tax. The Tories, on the other hand, would be desperate not to lose any ground on the indomitable position they secured last May when they swept the Lib Dems aside. But big majorities can breed laziness, arrogance and contempt. The Tories tore themselves asunder prior to their famous defeat in 2003 by in-fighting and ever-shifting splits. Leaving aside the politics, is this really fair to the local electorate? The Olivers should resign. This Road is Due For Replacement in 174 Years...Written by Tim Prater on Sat 2nd Feb 2008
I was recently called by Meridian TV to discuss the state of Kent's roads, and the backlog of repairs needed in the area. There has been a recent AA report about a £200 million repair backlog across the Country, and here in Kent, a massive £27.8 million has recently been spent not on road repairs, but on merging the existing highways offices into 2 "super-depots" - a plan that seems to generate no direct cost savings! Researching the current backlog on Kent Road Maintenance led me to the grippingly titled "Local Transport Plan for Kent (2006-2011)" which does calculate the backlog of Highways and other maintenance, and works out the effective life cycles that roads, footpaths and other Highways facilities are actually on one current expenditure. If you drive in Shepway, the following figures may not surprise you, but here goes. According to the report at: http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5A8CDF82-3DB2-4179-BB8B-583DDADCBA1A/0/app3tamp.pdf ...the Highways repairs stands at around £174.4 million at today's prices (page 37). Current expenditure is not helping deal with the backlog. The average highway road life cycle was meant to be 50 years (time from building until full replacement) but is now calculated at... 174 years! (page 45) In 174 years, will we still need roads?! Page 52 prices the footpaths repair backlog at £40m. Page 54 has a great quote in the summary - the path average life cycle is 226 years! A footpath built in 1782 (some 20 years before the construction of the Martello Towers and Royal Military Canal to protect us from Napoleon!) would be, on Kent's figures, due to be replaced round about now... Average life cycles for Kent for some other items:
The report was written a couple of years ago, but actually, that's likely to make the REAL costs of repairs (and therefore backlogs) higher rather than lower. On top of that, in Shepway don't forget that Romney Marsh in particular has many unadopted roads which Kent have not taken responsibility for and therefore don't even make it into these figures! The evidence of our local roads was clearly that Kent were falling behind in maintaining roads. However, the figures actually show its much worse than that - Kent Roads are not falling behind - they're falling apart. It's time they got a grip. Archive of earlier Press Articles
Published and promoted by Shepway Liberal Democrats, 82a Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, Folkestone, Kent CT20 3BX. The views expressed are those of Shepway / Folkestone and Hythe Liberal Democrats, not of the service provider. |
![Folkestone Councillor Dhan Gurung introduces Tul Bahadur Pun to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg [Photo: Alex Folkes - www.fishnik.com]](/images/sites/217.160.173.25-3e54d75166df56.63810547/552.jpeg "Folkestone Councillor Dhan Gurung introduces Tul Bahadur Pun to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg [Photo: Alex Folkes - www.fishnik.com]")
