20 Most Recent Press Articles

Lost labours

Written by John Kampfner, Editor of the New Statesman 2005 - 2008 on Tue 9th Mar 2010

Today I launched my pamphlet, Lost labours, with Nick Clegg. As somebody who has a long involvement with the Labour party, including editing the New Statesman magazine, I have been able to give a frank and honest appraisal of a decade and a half of New Labour. And in it I explain why I can no longer support them, and am instead turning to the Liberal Democrats.

You can read the full pamphlet at http://tinyurl.com/yf7td4u, and a more condensed version in an article I wrote for the Guardian at http://tinyurl.com/y8qgakz.

Alongside one million other voters, I deserted Labour in 2005 in protest at Iraq in favour of the Liberal Democrats, the only party to oppose the war. My decision to back the Lib Dems in 2010 is based in a more fundamental appraisal of Labour's record together with a positive assessment of the Liberal Democrats' platform.

New Labour in office has had one all-consuming purpose: re-election. Since 1997, their every working day was based around the task of prolonging their term of office. It filled in the ideological hollow and justified ever-encroaching authoritarianism and a pandering to the right on criminal justice and other areas of social policy. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat analysis of the failures of the deregulated market has been consistently, and painfully, accurate. Nick Clegg's tax reform plans, taking four million low paid workers out of tax altogether, are the most redistributive of any party. And the Liberal Democrat approach to criminal justice, human rights, foreign and social policy is close to mine.

People can only for so long be exhorted to hold their nose, to vote for a party they feel has let them down, simply because the alternative is worse. It is deeply damaging to politics to resort perpetually to the double negative. The Liberal Democrats offer a positive, radical and different vision. That is why they have my support.

A sad day for Shepway residents as Lydd Airport expansion plans approved

Written by Gemma Watts, Protect Kent and published in www.protectkent.org.uk on Thu 4th Mar 2010

Protect Kent is shocked and saddened at Shepway Councils decision last night, to approve plans for an extended runway and new terminal building at Lydd airport.

For the last few years, along with many other local organisations, Protect Kent has campaigned strongly against the proposal, which will shatter the unique tranquillity of the Romney Marsh with increased noise from larger aircraft, which will land and take off a few miles from the town.

Shepway Councils own officers, the RSPB, Natural England and the Government's statutory advisors on nature conservation have all recommended rejection.

Deputy Director Sean Furey said:

"The decision by Shepway Council shows little consideration has been made for the tranquillity of this unique area or opposition from local residents. The Councils own planning officers advised the plans be rejected, yet still approval has been given. Expanding Lydd Airport is the most unsustainable decision that could have been made for this area, yet sadly it has now been made. The environmental impact is going to be devastating."

Vote blue, go green, feel sick

Written by Lynne Beaumont on Thu 4th Mar 2010

Last night, by 27 votes to 12, Shepway District Council gave Lydd Airport (LAA) the go ahead to expansion plans, against expert advice from its own advisers, officers, Natural England, the RSPB and others.

How much of tax payers money has been wasted this time?

Shepway employed experts to give councillors information before they made a decision on the future of Romney Marsh in respect of the expansion of London Ashford Airport. This was argued with, ignored, chopped to pieces, and voted against.

Because councillors voted against this recommendation, and voted against the findings of Natural England, the officers at Shepway District Council will be contacted the Government of the South East, asking them to call it in for public enquiry.

For many years now, the Conservatives have hidden behind the view that there should be a public enquiry, and this is what they have said to people. They gave their sympathy to people who are going to be affected. People didn't want their sympathy, they wanted their councillors support.

In a referendum, held by Shepway District Council, 75% of residents of New Romney said NO to expansion, and 55% of residents who live on New Romney Coast and Lydd said NO.

Yes, we need jobs, and green tourism is the way forward for Romney Marsh, spreading right across the 100 square miles of Romney Marsh, which will provide jobs, and money for the local economy, without destroying the most beautiful, and scientifically important part of our area.

Could you imagine an airport being given permission is areas like North Norfolk or the Yorkshire Dales? No.

David Cameron, only 4 days ago said in his speech to the Conservative conference, and I quote:

"It was you (conservative activists and councillors), who campaigned at local election after local election, under the slogan Vote blue, go green, that have demonstrated our councils are the greenest and the best in Britain, and that we are the new environmental party in Britain, and you should be proud of that.."

The Conservatives who voted for Airport expansion last night in Shepway obviously didn't listen to their leader. They have proved once again that they don't care about our environment, and they do what they want to do in Shepway.

Local residents turned out in their thousands to tell their councillors how they felt about this expansion, and this has been totally ignored. There will no doubt be a public enquiry into this fiasco, and how much is this going to cost the tax payers?

Vote blue, go green, feel sick.

Residents have a right to know

Written by Trudy Dean, Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition, Kent County Council and published in Letter to the Editor on Mon 22nd Feb 2010

It is understandable that KCC is concerned about the leak of a confidential document concerning a top officer's pay to the KM. However, I agree with the view of Caroline Spelman's Tory spokesman on Local Government who said this week that "Residents have a right to know how their council tax is being spent".

So I am bound to ask why it was secret in the first place. As a Conservative led authority does KCC not agree with Ms Spelman? Or is this just a policy for consumption of voters prior to the General Election?

I think we should know.

Snow: Get it right next time

Written by Gary Fuller, Folkestone Town Councillor for Harvey Central and published in Letter to Kent County Council Cabinet Member for Kent Highways Nick Chard on Wed 17th Feb 2010

Over the past week, like many others in Folkestone, I've had to walk to home after becoming stranded, my child has fallen repeatedly due to icy pathways (and I've seen plenty of evidence that she isn't alone in doing so) and I've been called by an elderly person who has been trapped indoors for days (in my case, not a relative).

Folkestone, along with other areas of East Kent, have been gripped by complete chaos brought about by what I feel was a wholly ineffective strategic response from Kent Highways to the snow that fell last week. As of last night, there were still pathways in Folkestone, in roads such as Sandgate Road, Pleydell Gardens, Millfield, Manor Road and Ingles Road, that were covered in thick layers of snow that had turned to ice, despite the fact that no snow has fallen since last Friday at the very latest. I'm completely appalled that this has been allowed to happen and I expect, at the very least, that this should never happen again.

With this in mind, and to help me further understand how Folkestone was failed so completely, I would be grateful if you could send me the current gritting response information, including orders of priority and minimum service standards. I would also be grateful if you could outline for me, and keep me informed about, plans to improve the responsiveness and strategic effectiveness of Kent Highways in gritting Kent's roads in the future. I would have it noted that, despite the strategic failures, I salute the herculean efforts made by all Kent Highways staff in responding to the inclement weather.

I will look forward to hearing from you soon.

Where Were They?

Written by Lynne Beaumont on Thu 11th Feb 2010

Sandgate High Street (A259) on Thursday morning: Sandgate Hill was closed due snow to stuck lorries blocking the road

Snow had been forecast for the East of Kent, 4 days in advance of the latest snowfalls. Kent County Council have been announcing, proudly, that they have plenty of salt. So why, oh why, was it not on the roads of Shepway last night and today?

Early yesterday evening, I attended a meeting in Hythe, and had to drive down Horn Street, leading from Cheriton to Seabrook. I lived on Horn Street for 17 years, and have never seen anything like it. The road was sheet ice, mirror glass. Everywhere there were abandoned cars, and bemused people doing their best to stay safe.

Where were the gritters? Where had the gritters been all day?

Chaos was everywhere. Why?

Roads have been impassable and closed across Folkestone, Hythe and Sandgate all night and many still are dangerous this afternoon. This will have cost the businesses of Folkestone and the surrounding area hundreds of thousands of pounds. Children could not attend schools or nurseries. Elderly people have been isolated in their homes. Buses couldn't run. Care agencies unable to get to vulnerable people.

There was absolutely no need for this chaos. Kent County Council are responsible for gritting the roads. They haven't. They knew it was happening and they have let us down, again. There can be no excuses this time: an apology is not good enough.

Nick Chard, the Kent Cabinet member with this responsibility, should wake up and smell the coffee, and look out of his window - or get someone actually in in Shepway to look out of theirs. Mr Chard, the unpassable roads of Shepway last night and today are your responsibility, your error. It is time to stand aside and let someone who cares, and can keep main roads safe, take the lead.

A New Era for Europe

Written by Catherine Bearder MEP and published in Surrey in Europe Newsletter on Wed 27th Jan 2010

This is a period of great change in the European Union, but also one of great uncertainty. With the final accession of the Lisbon Treaty on 1st December much has changed to the structure and workings of the Union, but if we work carefully the threatened turmoil will be avoided. I remember Paddy Ashdown saying after the 2004 accessions (when 10 countries joined the EU) that what was needed was a period of deepening the Union rather than widening, and it seems as if the last decade has been consumed by institutional wrangling, but that time is now over. We must now walk together into a new era of European cooperation, one where the principle focus is on working to improve the life of our citizens.

The rules that underlie the EU have changed over the years, but its structure has generally stayed the same. It was a structure built for a much smaller Union and, despite a number of changes with new accessions, it didn't grow into an effective or coherent body. Missing was the setting up of a legal entity, a single, streamlined structure that would work with the EU's current size. The first try to solving this problem was the Constitutional Treaty. However, as we all know, its launch and sales campaign failed miserably. It was thrown out by disillusioned and mis-informed voters and was replaced with the Lisbon Treaty. The new rules are being tried out tentatively. "Únder Lisbon" is the new catch phrase; as with any change of rules, MEPs will take a little time to settle into a new way of working, learning when to watch out and when to act. But there is a palpable relief that it has succeeded, we now can work as a true Union rather than as has sometimes happened, a collection of 27 Heads of states doing their bit and everyone coping with the results.

The appointment of the new Commission was the first test in this new era of European parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary consent is required for the appointment of the President of the Commission, as with the college of Commissioners. Many of the Commissioners-Designate have been impressive throughout their hearings that have been held by the MEPs, and I'm confident we will have a strong Commission over the next five years. They had little over a month to get familiarised with their portfolios before facing very detailed questions for three hours. It's a gruelling task for them, but the responsibility of their jobs demands it. The will of democracy has also been exercised, as the Bulgarian nominee for the Commission was rejected by the Parliament and she subsequently withdrew. Technically we can only approve the college as a whole, but it was clear that the nominee hadn't got a grasp of her portfolio and certain allegations were made against her financial probity. If only we had a similar system for ministers in the UK. Only the Prime Minister has the right to appoint, with no public hearing and no chance for democratically elected representatives to reject an unsuitable appointee. I feel that often we have Ministers without the slightest interest in their portfolios!

Addressing the EU's failure to talk with one voice was one of the priorities of Lisbon. Failure to do this has plagued the EU, as we've struggled to impose ourselves on the international scene. Over the last year we have faced the collapse of the world financial system and the ever increasing threat of climate change, and our approach to both these crises would have been stronger if we'd spoken with one voice. Under Lisbon we now have one person to coordinate external action: the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton. Mr Kissinger´s successors finally know who to call when they need to speak to Europe.

The EU's performance at the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change illustrated what happens when we fail to act together. The expectations were great and people from all over the world were willing their representatives to come up with a comprehensive plan to address the warming of the planet's atmosphere. Copenhagen was clearly a miserable failure, and what was also clear was why the European Union failed to achieve its potential. The heads of some member states jostled for seats around the table, and Europe ended up with a muddled and divided face. It was a lost opportunity. The European Union was not recognised or given its negotiating weight.

"Under Lisbon", (those words again) this would not have happened. The Commission and the High Representative in the future will speak on behalf of the Union and last week we saw the first evidence of how much more effective this will be. In Kathy Ashton´s statement on the disaster in Haiti we heard how she had been able to call an extraordinary meeting of the Council to plan the Union´s relief effort. Already the single planning is adding to that of the member states and not competing with it.

So we enter a new phase in the Union, there is a huge amount of goodwill and energy to make it work. Only time will tell if we live up to the high expectations we have set. But let us hope this new era is a time for concentrating not on how we will work for our constituents, but on actually doing the work our constituents sent us to Brussels to do.

It's time for Real Change in Folkestone and Hythe

Written by Lynne Beaumont on Fri 22nd Jan 2010

Protecting services like schools, the Royal Victoria Hospital, Fire Services and Post Offices. Fighting Lydd Airport expansion. Justice for Gurkhas. All are campaigns I've fought alongside local people in the last 4 years.

Some we've won. Some we're still fighting. But they share one thing in common. Whether the campaign has been big or small, they make a big difference to local people.

That's what I care about. Making our area better. Changing local people's lives for the better.

Be Part of the Change.

I'm proud to have been selected as the Liberal Democrats' Parliamentary Candidate for Folkestone and Hythe. Time is short. We have 4 months to run the campaign of our lives.

In those months, we will need to give local people a real message of hope. That their vote can change things. That their new MP will stand up for local people and local causes. That not all MPs are the same.

I know how hard it will be to win here, but I'm not interested in losing. I want to be your next MP. I'm standing because I care. I want to win. I want to change local lives for the better.

I'm not wasting a single moment. I hope you'll work with me. Together, we can make a difference. We can make it happen. Together.

However you can work with me - from agreeing to put up a poster, to telling friends, to joining my team in the next few weeks - please let me know by emailing me at lynne@shepwaylibdems.org.uk or calling me on 07885 940 945. Together, we can make a real change.

2010: The year of the political reset button

Written by Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats and published in New Year Message on Wed 30th Dec 2009

I have a confession to make: 2009 tested my belief in politics to breaking point. I remember once looking round the House of Commons during another Punch and Judy session of Prime Minister's Questions. In the real world, youth unemployment had just reached its highest level ever, our brave soldiers were facing extraordinary dangers in Afghanistan, the bankers were still gorging themselves on bonuses, and the economy was in the middle of the worst recession in generations. And what were the politicians doing? Yelling and guffawing at each other as if the world outside didn't exist.

So I don't blame anyone for feeling a sense of despair about our clapped out political system. You are being taken for granted by the people in charge. Big money is hollowing out politics with some rich donors not even bothering to say whether they pay full British taxes or not. And to top it all the expenses scandals exposed some MPs as spivvy property speculators and tax evaders rather than public servants.

This whole set-up has to change. That's what 2010 should be all about. Big, permanent change for the better.

People's faith in politics may be dented, but I still believe in our ability to learn from the mistakes of the past, and set things on a new course. 2010 must be the year we press the political reset button.

But that will only happen if we do things differently. More of the same won't produce anything new.

Of course both Labour and the Conservatives have learned to parrot the language of change. But where's the proof they mean it? Despite all the hot air about fixing politics they have both voted against giving people the right to sack MPs who've seriously broken the rules. Both have refused to clean up the rotten system of party political funding. Both refuse to give you your say by introducing fair votes to the House of Commons. And both refuse to shake up the City of London, so that bankers can never again play Russian roulette with your savings.

Some people say, what's the point of voting when the same old parties always win? I say: vote for what you believe in. If you like what the Liberal Democrats stand for, vote for it. If you want real change, not phoney change, vote for it. If you think things should be different, vote for it.

At the end of the day, politics should be about what you believe. What kind of Britain do you want to live in? What kind of world do we want our children and grandchildren to grow up in?

So as the countdown to the next General Election finally begins, I have a simple question for the other party leaders: what do you believe, really believe?

People don't want leading politicians clinging on to power for its own sake, or just telling people what they want to hear. There's got to be more to it than that.

I have one belief above all others: a belief in fairness. Under my leadership the Liberal Democrats have been working on new ideas to make Britain the fair country I believe most people want it to be. We want to raise standards in all of our schools by giving specific help to the children most in need, and by making class sizes smaller. Soon we will be publishing new ideas to turn our economy away from its over-dependence on the City of London to a new, green economy where hundreds of thousands of new jobs will be created as we rebuild our transport, energy and housing infrastructure. Above all, we are now the only party with a detailed plan to make taxes fair - removing all income tax on the first £10,000 you earn, paid for by asking people at the top to pay a bit more.

If we as Leaders want people to turn out to vote at all at the next General Election, we have got to show people our convictions, not just dividing lines, our beliefs, not just soundbites.

I hope in the coming months even more people will get a chance to find out what I believe in, and the beliefs of the Liberal Democrats. If enough people share our convictions, our beliefs, then 2010 really can be the beginning of something new.

Fresh Lib Dem Commitment to Axing Student Tuition Fees

Written by Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Fri 18th Dec 2009

I'm writing to let you know some good news about the Liberal Democrat manifesto - good news for students and for everyone who wants a fairer Britain. This week the Party's federal policy committee agreed a way to deliver one of our most important policies, the scrapping of unfair tuition fees. We've developed a plan to phase out tuition fees over the course of the next six years, to ensure this vital policy is affordable even at this time of economic crisis.

Labour and the Conservatives refuse to address the issue of fees and there is a real danger that both of them would lift the cap on fees which could mean even more debt for students when they leave university. We think that is wrong and our policy will prevent it happening.

It's simply wrong to penalise people who want to make the best of themselves by saddling them with enormous mortgage-style debts from the day they graduate - especially when we know the root of the current economic crisis was too much debt. And it's clear that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are far more likely to be put off going to university if it costs them tens of thousands of pounds. In a fair society, university admissions should be based on your grades and intelligence, not the wealth of your parents. You should decide whether going to university makes sense for you - and you shouldn't have to make the decision based on your bank balance.

We were right to oppose tuition fees from day one, and have been right to continue to oppose any lifting of the cap on the limit of fees. The government has been obsessed with artificial targets for how many people should go to university, while putting barriers in their way in the shape of fees. My priority is making degrees affordable, and that means scrapping these unfair fees, including for those who study part-time. This is vital, because it tends to be older or poorer students who can't afford a full-time degree, but under current rules they have to pay up-front, while everyone else is allowed to defer their payments.

Of course, at a time of economic crisis, when the government has got the public finances into a mess, it is extremely important to be responsible about making a big financial commitment like this. Students want to be treated like grown ups; they know money doesn't grow on trees and that big spending commitments like this are only affordable over time. That's why we have agreed together to lay out a financially responsible timetable to scrap fees, step by step, over the six years after the General Election.

Final year tuition fees will be the first to go. Too many people drop out, often put off by the huge costs. We'll make it easier to stay on, because no student will pay any fees to complete their degree. In 2011, we'll get help to part-time students, regulating the fees they pay (a vital step towards abolishing them). In 2012, part-time students will be able to access the same loans as full-time students. In 2013, we'll extend free tuition to second year students. In 2014, we'll extend that same free tuition to part time students. And in 2015, as the public finances are recovering, we will be able to afford to abolish all remaining fees.

Labour's recession has made it more difficult to find the money to fund our priorities. That's why we are right to adapt our plans for big spending commitments and why it is right that our General Election manifesto will focus this time on a smaller number of key commitments. But our message to students is clear: we remain the only party that believes fees are unfair, and the only party with a plan to get rid of them for good.

Dungeness: The REAL Nuclear Option

Written by Tim Prater on Tue 24th Nov 2009

It's easy - and understandable - for the recent decision on Dungeness to be seen as a hammer blow to the Marsh economy. The decision to provisionally exclude Dungeness from the list of 10 sites being considered for new Nuclear build seems to put at threat the potential of 600 local jobs - maybe more. Of course we want those jobs locally, and Dungeness has a long and proud association with the safe generation of nuclear power.

So why was the decision made, and where do we go from here? It seems the Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) representatives (who advised the Government on the Dungeness decision) did so on the basis that any new nuclear power station on the proposed site would need to be built further back from the coastline to enable adequate sea defences to be put in place which in turn would destroy the shingle ridges which are the subject of strict environmental protection.

Natural England made such a strong case for the protection of the fragile eco-system at Dungeness that DECC had no option but to recommend the Government to remove Dungeness from the list of proposed sites, reinforced by a very strong case put by the RSPB for the protection of the wildlife & habitats there.

Since the building of Dungeness B in the 70's Dungeness has been granted the European status as an SAC (Special Area of Conservation), an SPA (special protected area) and is also a proposed Ramsar site (wetland site of international importance). Successive Governments - backed by local Councils - have supported these special conservation and protection areas.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment for Dungeness has concluded that losses as a result of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would prove difficult to mitigate or compensate for, due to lack of suitable alternative shingle habitat available in the vicinity, the active role that coastal processes play in maintaining the shingle habitats, and the time period that successional shingle vegetation communities take to establish.

So where now? Clearly, there are some facts to be established, and a challenge to be made if any of them are not true. Governments can screw up (!). Does the proposed site of Dungeness C actually use a different site to the current footprint of the stations? If not, where does that leave the case for removal from the "possibles" list?

Am I a Nuclear sceptic? Yes - I think most people are. If I thought there was already a secure, clean and renewable alternative I'd go for it like a shot. Nuclear has risks, and the long term storage issues of spent fuel remain the elephant in the room - after decades of generation.

But do I think that from here, after a deplorable lack of research and investment in renewable sources of power over decades, that we will be able to support our imminent energy needs without new nuclear build? I don't know - and increasingly, there are many green commentators such as George Monbiot, who also have doubts. We shouldn't be in this position, but we are. On that basis, I can see a need for new Nuclear build, but we must do everything, everything, to ensure there is never a need for another round of Nuclear stations beyond this one.

So again, why has Dungeness not been included on the list of potential new nuclear sites?

Because the Government, advised by English Nature, says it will harm the unique habitat of Dungeness - a habitat which has special protection due to its uniqueness, and which can't simply be replaced or "mitigated" by providing space elsewhere. If that's true, then it doesn't meet the criteria of being "environmentally acceptable".

You can't designate an area for special protection as its special, then ignore that when it suits you. Others have said that they would support Dungeness C if it satisfied "environmental requirements". If the report is right, it doesn't. Game over.

So what are the positives?

The positives are the REASON for rejection - we have at Dungeness an absolutely unique site. There isn't anything like it in the world. "The world according to the best geographers is divided into Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Romney Marsh." it says in Ingoldsby Legends by Reverend Richard Harris Barham. Quite right, although he maybe undersold it.

We should be telling people about our sixth continent, our eighth wonder of the world. Dungeness should be a draw to millions of people from across the country and beyond to visit, stay, explore, watch and enjoy. We should take pride in what the area has, and actively seek to develop and promote it.

The rest of the world would be seeking to promote, utilise and protect this uniqueness, to make it a draw to visitors from across the world. Is the best we can do to say that we must build a nuclear power station on it? Where is our sense of pride. Where is our imagination, our "can-do" spirit?

No-one else has what we have. Lets do something to use it in a way that creates jobs locally, develops pride, makes the most of the resources we have, and allows others to share our sense of wonder in this stunning corner of England.

The Eden Project in Cornwall attracts over 1 million visitors a year to, with the greatest possible respect, a bunch of big greenhouses. They employ 400 core staff directly, 200 season staff and the spin-off employment for the area - places to stay, places to eat, other attractions, transport and more - would employ at least as many again. Where is our "Other Eden" project - we have a better starting place than they do.

How do we develop this project?

Lets work with partners who would want to see this sort of tourism, where people come to learn more about and share our unique environment. Lets engage with the RSPB, with English Nature, with local hotels, guest houses, Discover Folkestone, Hythe & Romney Marsh, the RHD Railway, the lighthouse, pubs, restaurants and others to develop a plan of a massive increase in tourism to the area.

What will we need?

Better transport links - yes. Train links, park and ride, lets look at trams, eco-park and ride (like bicycling holidays) building a real network of cycle paths, even extending the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway.

We'll need to develop more, and sustainable, places to stay. Will this mean some development on the Marsh to provide facilities for all these visitors - yes it will. But lets embrace the opportunities our special status gives us.

If low level building of holiday homes is impossible due to the risk from the sea, lets make a virtue of that - lets build hotels and B&Bs on stilts, lets looking a floating hotels, lets use our canal and make it somewhere people can stay, and use. Lets encourage local people to promote their own green tourism businesses, and build on those we have. Lets make the most of the farmland and open space and celebrate it, and make buying and serving local produce the rule, not the exception.

Lets show people around the area, develop tours and help people get around. Boating jetties, fishing tours to exploit the Wembley of fishing, using the skills of those who have fished in the area for years, and helping them to renew their businesses and make money again from the sea, but with a greater catch of tourists than dwindling quotas of fish.

Cycling tours, pick up and drop off cycle points - when it comes to cycling, the Marsh makes Holland look like a big dipper ride. Families cycling around the area, with guides, eating in local restaurants serving local food, shopping in local shops proudly selling local produce, visiting a wide range of attractions run by and for local residents, and staying in accommodation built to make the most of the landscape, run and employing local people.

And this should be more than a one-way discussion - lets get the ideas of all those who live, work and enjoy the area to get their suggestions into the mix, and really start to pursue them. What do you think would work? What would you like to see?

By maximising what we have got, rather than obsessing about what we haven't, we could build a tourist industry - an environmental tourist industry - employing more people than a power station ever could. We could build a sense of pride in our place, our people and the natural beauty and uniqueness of Dungeness and Romney Marsh. Now THAT'S a nuclear option.

Creating a Banking Levy: A Fair Deal for the Taxpayer

Written by Vince Cable MP on Tue 17th Nov 2009

The UK banks owe their very existence to the British taxpayer with the Governor of the Bank of England estimating that they have received the equivalent of £1 trillion in taxpayer support.

But it does not stop there. The banking industry is unique in having the taxpayer acting as a safety net. Until the banks can be successfully broken up, the Liberal Democrats believe that they should pay for the explicit guarantee that they receive.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable has proposed creating a new levy on bank profits at a rate of 10%, with all the revenue raised (estimated next year to be around £2bn) going towards tackling the structural deficit.

Vince Cable said:

"One trillion pounds worth of taxpayer support has gone into keeping the British banking industry afloat. We must find a way to split the banks so that the British public no longer props up 'casino' banking.

"Meanwhile, it is only right for the taxpayer to get a fair deal for the guarantee that they provide to the banking industry. A 10% levy on bank profits would be used to pay down the structural deficit that they are partly responsible for creating.

"The Government should use next month's pre budget report to put forward this proposal so that banks recognise the explicit guarantee that they currently enjoy."

This levy would be supplementary to corporation tax. However, unlike corporation tax it would be payable on all profits made within the tax year, without the deduction of previous years' losses. Had this levy been in place prior to the financial crisis it would have raised approximately £4bn per year. Profitability has fallen since the crisis and we expect further write downs from some banks, making the current likely yield from this levy around £2bn next year.

Unlike windfall taxes, a banking levy of the kind we are proposing is not an arbitrary one as it is a direct recognition that banks have received beneficial and explicit taxpayer support. The revenue raised from this levy would be used to tackle the structural deficit, thus ensuring that the banking sector helps pay for the problems it has in part created.

All banks that are incorporated in the United Kingdom would pay the levy. The FSA publishes a list of these banks every month. Under the FSA definition, building societies are not banks and will not pay this levy. We wish to encourage building societies that are already struggling to meet high Financial Services Compensation Scheme payments.

We acknowledge that this proposal alone is not enough to tackle bonuses within the banking sector. However, we would expect this levy, as an additional cost to banks, to reduce the size of bonus pools and thus impact their capacity to pay out large bonuses. The Liberal Democrats will be coming forward with further proposals to tackle bonuses such as creating a fully open and transparent system whereby all those earning over £200,000 must have their bonuses published in their company's annual report.

Splitting up the banks remains our ultimate aim, as the Liberal Democrats do not believe that the taxpayer should underwrite high-risk casino banking which provides little social utility. We do however appreciate that separating these banking functions out from narrow high street banking is complex and will take time. Until such a time, the taxpayer will have to continue underwriting the banks and a levy would recognise the contribution that the taxpayer has made and continues to make to the banking industry.

When conditions allow for the banks to be adequately split up this levy would be scrapped. One of the key benefits of this proposal is that it creates a direct financial incentive for British banks to work with the Government in finding a viable mechanism for splitting their functions.

Shepway's Tories - frightened of democracy?

Written by Neil Matthews, Parliamentary Candidate for Folkestone & Hythe and published in Letter sent to the Editor, Hythe Herald on Thu 10th Sep 2009

What is becoming increasingly clear with Shepway's Tories is their intention to keep democracy in the dark. Because of an inability to defend their actions through honest debate they have now stooped to the level of silencing criticism of any sort by whatever possible means.

Look to Hythe, where the Town Mayor (and Shepway's Cabinet Member for Housing), publicly stated she wished no further debate on the Hotel Imperial housing development and went on to refuse the call for a Town Council meeting to discuss the latest issues. Knowing the law however, the two new Liberal Democrat members have forced her to call one. At a previous Hythe Town Council meeting this Mayor prevented an opposition Councillor from asking a question - not knowing the content of the question, she certainly wasn't prepared to find out!

As for the District Council, the Tory Cabinet attempted to have its discussions about the future of the Leas Lift in private. The Tories are now trying to change the Council's constitution so the public will need to collect considerably more signatures for any petition to be heard. They have reduced the number of Full Council meetings and have removed the customary (and constitutionally agreed) opposition member from chairing its Cabinet Scrutiny Committee. As for me, a Hythe West District Councillor, I have been refused access to a crucial Officer's report on the development proposals for Hythe's Fisherman's Beach.

And why, after being warned months and months ago, that the considerable public interest dictates using a large venue for the Lydd Airport debate and decision, have they opted for using the Council Chamber instead - with its very limited public seating capacity?

It is no wonder our Conservative controlled District Council is the least improved District Council in the Country, ranked 388th out of 388. To have proper democracy in our Government, at whatever level, proposals must stand up to robust debate. When this is stifled - think hard. It's time for change.

Parliament - root and branch reform needed now!

Written by Neil Matthews, Parliamentary Candidate for Folkestone & Hythe on Thu 3rd Sep 2009

Remember the MPs' expenses scandal of duck houses, moats and mattresses? The public outrage has diminished since our MPs disappeared on their summer holidays. But MPs who do not wish to derail the gravy train hope that time will be a good healer and the public will forget. This long wait for MPs to sort out their own scandal should be finalised as soon as possible. Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, attacked MPs for allowing themselves to scrutinise their own expenses. His first thoughts were, quiet rightly, that even if they did, it would not command full public confidence. There should be no doubt that Sir Christopher's expenses review should be accepted, in full.

But it is not just MPs' expenses that needs sorting out. Parliament has for too long had a culture of arrogance and secrecy. The true extent of the decay within the parliament system is at last becoming clear but now we have a chance to completely reform it - and it should be done now. Not doing so will just allow for another 'scandal' and we would get angry, again, in the future.

Parliament needs a complete health check from top to bottom.

• The ability to sack a sitting MP who breaks the rules or the law.

• A change to stop large donations to political parties from businesses, organisations or individuals that can lead to unsavoury 'affiliations'.

• An elected House of Lords. So far the changes made to the second chamber have stopped short of any real and meaningful reform.

• A fairer voting system. At present it is possible to have an MP elected by less than half of the votes cast.

• To reduce the accrued power of the Government and restore it back to Parliament itself.

And of course, we still have many MPs that hold many directorships. These MPs attempt to dispel the moans from the electorate by sticking to the line that being in these businesses helps them to be a good MP, but in essence, all it does is make them vulnerable to focused lobbying, and the time they should spend in their constituency or Parliament hijacked by the added bonus of a much improved bank account! Living in modern times requires an MP to be 'full time'.

To the basics of voting itself, we must look at who declares the eligibility to vote within the home - the individual accountability of ourselves or the named householder? And for postal voting, although a boon for absent or busy voters, the present system is unreasonably open to fraud.

How can we, as a country, lecture other countries about democracy when we have so many undemocratic elements within our own system? People rightly require complete openness and transparency in today's democracy and we need to seize this opportunity to 'get our House in order', and to show the world we mean it.

NHS - It's time for much needed reform

Written by Neil Matthews, Parliamentary Candidate for Folkestone & Hythe and published in Kent Messenger Article on Mon 31st Aug 2009

Every week people talk to me about health care and the NHS. The NHS is one of our most cherished institutions but its future is not in the hands of the people it is there to serve. Its future is at the mercy of the changing whims of politicians and unaccountable managers. Patients should come first and local people know what they need for their area. Having centrally imposed targets placed on doctors or hospitals has put the patients' needs in second place. Responsibility and accountability needs to rest with a Local Board - answerable to us through elections.

If we become unlucky and need hospital treatment the last thing we should worry about is catching an infection we didn't have beforehand; C-Diff or MRSA for example. These infections were born from poor cleaning routines weakened by diverted hospital budgets and/or hygiene control that had been taken out of the hands of the nursing professionals. For a long time strong anti-infection measures were not in place and the monitoring and accountability was of the sloping shoulders variety. It is clear hospitals' chiefs should be made fully accountable - to us.

The 'Post Code lottery' system of health care needs to end now. Why should health care vary from one part of the Country to another? At the moment the Government decides how much money each part of the Country receives but this has led to an unfair distribution of NHS funds. Should people be allowed their needed drugs in one part of the Country but not in another? Is it right that some mothers- to- be have a midwife assigned to them throughout their pregnancy yet in other places receive very little care? This grossly unfair 'Post Code lottery' can not be justified nor tolerated. Primary Care Trusts, which are not held responsible for actions that they take, can still dictate whether a person's life is put at risk because of their policy not to supply them with an essential drug.

Why does the Government think it fair to allow some people living with long-term conditions to pay no prescription charges, while people with other equally serious conditions have to pay?

The NHS is mostly free at the point of need and whilst we appreciate this, it is nevertheless a service paid for, by us, by way of taxation and contribution. And that is why we have the right to use this service and for it to be accountable - to us. Remote and unaccountable Strategic Health Authorities need to be abolished.

In the coming months we will have to decide which party can be trusted with the NHS. There is no doubt Labour has thrown money at the NHS but it completely failed to reform it. They have introduced hundreds of centralised targets and demoralised staff. And for the Conservatives, their MEP Daniel Hannan said recently of the NHS; 'he wouldn't wish it on anybody' and it was a '60 year failure'. In 2005 David Cameron favoured the Patients Passport where if you were rich enough you could have the NHS pay half the cost of your private treatment. It's time to think very carefully which direction the NHS should take.

Nick Clegg's Ramadan Message 2009

Written by Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats and published in Message to Muslims observing Ramadan on Mon 24th Aug 2009

As Ramadan comes round once more, I'd like to wish all Muslims observing the month my very best wishes.

I have learned from working with Muslim communities across the UK - and indeed from the many Lib Dem councillors and candidates who are practising Muslims - that the fasting and Qur'an reading during Ramadan provide spiritual renewal and enlightenment. As friends and family are brought together every night, we also reflect on all the millions of people around the world who still go without food and clean water every day.

We in the Liberal Democrats have always championed religious tolerance, and we are proud of the diverse traditions in our country.

We recognise the importance of the principle of Zakat to Muslims, especially at this time, and I deeply regret that Islam can be unfairly portrayed in many parts of the media especially when Muslim communities in this country do so much excellent charitable work.

I congratulate Muslims for the volunteering and donations they make during the month of Ramadan and at other times, and, more broadly, to thank British Muslims for the enormous contribution they make to life in this country.

Ramadan Mubarak!

Berzi Family Belong to Dover

Written by Friends of Berzi Family Campaign and published in Urgent Message on Tue 4th Aug 2009

Samia and Noradine Berzi, nationals of Algeria and their sons Sami and M'Hand aged 13 and 10, all residents of Dover, were 'Captured' while reporting to Immigration in Kent on Monday July 27th. They are currently held in Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre and due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Monday August 3rd at 21.05 on Air Algerie Flight AH 2055.

The family have been living in Dover since fleeing Algeria in 2005 due to domestic abuse from Samia's in laws which placed the children at risk.

The boys have since settled and integrated in local Dover schools. Their mother Samia is a much valued volunteer for Dover Detainee Visitor Group. She has been visiting and supporting detainees in Dover IRC for three years. Samia has also volunteered for Kent Refugee Action Network (KRAN), Barnados and St Gustons Church. All these organizations have sent letters of support to the Home Office on behalf of the family. The MP Gwyn Prosser has also made representations to the immigration minister Phil Woolas asking for the family to stay on compassionate grounds.

Samia is very frightened that if they are forced to return to Algeria she will lose the children because her vengeful in laws will abduct them. She is fearful for the children's welfare. The stress inflicted on Samia by her in laws resulted in her making two attempts to end her life while living in Algeria. She has been receiving counselling as treatment for depression organized by her GP. The detention and imminent deportation of herself and her loved ones has made Samia ill. She has told friends and colleagues that she is not eating or drinking and we are very concerned for her well being.

People close to Samia and her family are fighting with her to support their wish to stay in Dover where they truly belong.

Help the Berzi Family stay in the UK

1) Email/Fax Ouahid Bouabdellah CEO Air Algérie and urge him not to carry out the forced removal of Samia and Noradine Berzi, nationals of Algeria, and their children Sami aged 13 and M'Hand and 10. Please include all the following details in your email / fax: " Samia and Noradine Berzi, nationals of Algeria, and their children Sami aged 13 and M'Hand and 10 due to be forcibly removed from the UK on Monday August 3rd at 21.05 on Air Algerie Flight AH 2055.

• Ouahid Bouabdellah CEO Air Algérie

• Fax: 00 213 21 74 44 25

• Human Resources

• rh@airalgerie.dz

• contacts@airalgerie.dz

2) Please send urgent faxes/emails immediately to Rt. Hon Alan Johnson, MP, Secretary of State for the Home Office, requesting that Samia and Noradine Berzi, nationals of Algeria, and their children Sami aged 13 and M'Hand age 10. Are released from detention and returned to their Dover home. Please remember to include HO refs: B12216681 & B1255634 in your letter.

• Fax: 020 8760 3132 / + 44 20 8760 3132 if you are faxing from outside UK)

• Emails: Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, UKBApublicenquiries@UKBA.gsi.gov.uk, CITTO@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Please contact the Friends of Berzi Family Campaign to let us know what you have done:

• Kate: 078 2639 5433

• Email: kadams314@hotmail.com

• Sara: 077 3881 0297

The end of a pernicious myth

Written by Leading Article and published in The Independent on Tue 21st Jul 2009

An independent survey of social housing allocation explodes the myth that new immigrants jump the queue for social housing. The research, commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, found that less than 2 per cent of social housing tenants had arrived in the UK within the past five years, while the proportion of those born abroad living in social housing was almost identical to the proportion of social tenants born in the UK.

A Framework which will hurt Cheriton

Written by Tim Prater on Thu 16th Jul 2009

Local Development Framework's sound like exactly the sort of document you should go out of your way to avoid, but in the case of Shepway, it's suddenly a big issue for a number of areas, including Cheriton. The Framework (LDF) is basically the Council's "plan" on where developments could happen over the next 18 years in the area, and indicates where they would allow them if an application was made. It doesn't mean any proposal made WILL happen, but makes it more likely that it could.

To the horror of many in Cheriton, the LDF includes a line saying:

"To provide a high quality development of about 900 new homes, including family and affordable housing, at Risborough and Napier Barracks, Cheriton. This would help retain the MoD in Folkestone and secure new military investment in Shepway."

If you look in depth at the supporting documents however, the site proposed even includes the Church Road "Stadium" area which is hugely well used by the community.

Although I strongly support the retention of the MOD in Folkestone, such a big development must be out of the question, as is the loss of the much valued Stadium. There is certainly potential for some housing development at the Napier / Risborough barracks site, but 900 homes is too high - in effect, it would increase the size of Cheriton by around 25%. Sandgate Valley ward has around 600 homes - this would be bigger than that.

The additional traffic that such a development would bring would add increased pressure to the already woefully inadequate Horn Street railway bridge (and indeed the whole of Horn Street itself) and that would be a major route of access - as would be the also narrow and crowded Church Road. The roads infrastructure in the area is simply not currently up to the job of sustaining such a large increase in traffic.

There would be significant concerns to about other infrastructure issues - not least school place availability in the area. As the Chair of Governors at St Martins Primary School near to the proposed site, I know that that school is already close to maximum intake for next year, and indeed, with a large troop movement taking place this summer, would be massively oversubscribed if it had taken all those wishing to join the school. Other local schools are also moving towards to top end of their intake. 900 new houses would generate more extra school age children than could be accommodated in existing local schools. Are new schools planned? Not that I know of.

On another infrastructure point, there are a very limted number of local shops within walking distance of the proposed development (indeed, I can think of only a couple in Royal Military Avenue and a couple more in Risborough Lane - the next nearest developments would be Cheriton High Street, Golden Valley and Tescos, all outside the reasonable range of walking, and therefore adding to road pressures still further, and hardly developing sustainable communities. Bus routes in the area linking to shopping areas and stations are poor.

The same applies to doctors, dentists and other services - where are the spaces locally that will be needed to support the needs of so many new houses?

A development strategy can't simply be about building more and more new houses in an area. It should ensure that infrastructure is in place before new developments are built, it should ensure that green spaces are protected, and it should ensure that new developments are not too big for their area. The LDF for Cheriton is NBG. It needs changing - now.

Why will Shepway Conservatives not conserve our Conservation Areas?

Written by Neil Matthews and published in Letter to the Editor, Your Shepway on Wed 15th Jul 2009

Shepways Conservatives' terrible reputation, when it comes to preserving our local history and culture, took a further step into an abyss recently.

No-one could be blamed to think a perfectly good 1920s house, in character with its neighbouring properties and situated within a Conservation Area, would be under no threat from an application for demolition and replacement. Certainly not from a planning application for an alternative glass and stainless steel modern design.

But that is exactly what has happened to Sandgate's western coastal strip - set within a Conservation area, when Shepway's Conservatives voted to approve it at a recent planning committee. Nothing wrong with the proposed new design, per se, but it does nothing to 'protect' and 'enhance' the Conservation Area that any application 'must' demonstrate in planning law in order for a grant of permission to succeed.

Whilst Shepway's Conservatives remain in charge, please don't think our Conservation Areas remain safe - far from it!

Archive of earlier Press Articles

Press Article Feed(v1.0).