Switch to an accessible version of this website which is easier to read. (requires cookies)

Woking and Surrey local news

Here you will find all the latest news from Woking Borough Council Liberal Democrats and Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats

  • Feb 18, 2012:
    • LibDem Group Leader Cllr Richard Sharp's reponse to Budget Statement by the Leader of Woking Borough Council
      Mr Mayor, fellow Councillors, Ladies & Gentlemen. I welcome this opportunity to respond briefly to the budget statement by the Leader which in the past has not always been permitted. Let me review some of the areas that Cllr Kingsbury focussed on in May 2011 as I'm sure he will wish to measure progress in these promises as is his norm at the budget speech. Low Council Tax The nil increase in council tax is completely supported by the Liberal Democrats and as I said at the Executive earlier, we would have given officers the same brief in preparing this budget as the Conservatives did. In fact we would have insisted on it right from the draft papers. This nil increase is in stark contrast to the 2.99% increase voted for by the Conservative group at County Hall - there we can see the results of a significant Conservative majority. For once I have to agree with Eric Pickles who said, "Surrey's failure to get to grips with their finances has led to this rise and quite frankly why should the public pay the price for their poor financial management?" Recycling My group supports the recycling targets of this council and we work with officers and members in finding new ways to encourage people to reduce, reuse and recycle. Much has been done from when this council first introduced wheeled bins including the introduction of roadside glass collection and separate street recycling bins from when we controlled the council. We encouraged the early involvement of this council in Surrey's food waste collection trial and we continue to support the council's efforts in this area on a cross‐party working basis. Facilities for children and young people Whenever there is a proposal for play, sports facilities or leisure all councillors will want to know the views of Cllr Ian Eastwood. His focus on this area and his expertise has even been acknowledged by the Leader of the Council when the leisure contract was awarded. We welcome the support from the Portfolio Holder for cross‐party working in this area and hope to continue to improve this provision in the future. Community Buildings Let me say clearly that my group has reviewed the community asset programme as we said we would and the programme has our full support - though we continue to wish to see New Homes Bonus funds making a difference where new house building is taking place. Soon we will see the completion of the Hoe Valley scheme and I echo Councillor Kingsbury's comments from May - "an excellent example of how well both parties can work together when we try". Without the intervention of Liberal Democrat councillors this scheme would have been postponed and with our oversight we will see a major investment project delivered ahead of schedule and beneath budget. Economic Development There are times my group has expressed concerns on the details of the economic development investments made by the council (for example we did not want to see the library shut and we had hoped for new and high footfall retailers for the Wolsey Place extension to bring more shoppers into our town centre) but we support this being a priority for this council and the strength of our support will become apparent over the coming months as new investments come forward. Affordable Housing This council has plans for affordable housing that are unfortunately being hampered by Central Government. Though our Moor Lane PFI scheme has passed numerous new hurdles and not been rejected as other proposals have by Central Government, the delay in this programme is appalling. I can only hope the latest schedule will be held to. In addition the Liberal Democrats argue that the Conservative leadership of this council has not insisted that Thameswey through its housing subsidiary is clearly focussed on affordable housing provision and has left it with too broad a business plan. While I welcome the end of the negative housing subsidy as I'm sure the Leader does I cannot agree with the Coalition Government's decision in the Housing Strategy to offer a discount of as much as half the value of their homes to Right‐to‐buy owners. I remain unconvinced that this council will have the funds to ensure homes sold through right‐to‐buy will be matched by new homes developed for social rent. This Right‐to‐buy policy introduced by Horace Cutler (who disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach) through the then Conservative controlled GLC has become Conservative national policy and has seen this country's social housing provision decimated and the extension of this policy risks making things even worse. Environment This council could have led with a significant solar panel installation scheme if Conservative members had not blocked officers from bringing a scheme forward for so long. While this area is one in which cross‐party working has historically made the environment a priority in Woking, I'm afraid that the only way you can get green from blue is to add some yellow! Summary In summary I hope this response is seen to show that the Liberal Democrat group is supportive of the priorities of this council and its key policies. A year ago Cllr Kingsbury remarked that we enter into a debate as we enter elections that "does not concentrate on the great success we have had together in this Council but on our minor differences". So although Conservative literature is already implying that we would not have delivered a council tax freeze and that we are drifting further and further to the left we will not get distracted by this nonsense and remain focussed on delivering the best possible outcomes for Woking residents. Although there is not a formal coalition in Woking I'm sure that residents will see that when the Conservative group claim a shiny success for their group alone, if they look closely they will find sticky Liberal Democrat fingerprints all over it. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • May 3, 2011:
    • Woking welcomes Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to Woking
      Woking Liberal Democrats were proud to welcome Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg to Woking this afternoon. In a visit to Broadmere Community Primary School in Maybury and Sheerwater, Nick Clegg spent time talking to staff and pupils and helping them with school work. Nick also took time out to meet with local election candidates and give interviews to national and local media. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Mar 27, 2011:
    • Rosie Sharpley Supports the AV Referendum
      The decision on whether we should replace the "First-Past-The-Post" system with the Alternative Vote on May 5th will be a defining political moment. A "Yes" vote for change will mean FAIRNESS and will take our country forward. It will: Make politicians work harder to achieve more than 50% of the vote. With AV, parties will have to pay far more attention to the majority of people during election time, not just chase after a few marginal constituencies. Give greater legitimacy to MPs, since those elected will have the support of a broader base of people. Better reflect our country as it is today. Labour and the Conservatives are no longer the "Top Two". Many smaller parties, including UKIP and the Greens, are in favour of AV - only the BNP are against. AV will provide a real spurt for "People's Power" and end the days of mammoth swings from Left to Right and back again. Don't just moan about politicians. Put a better spread of people in power. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Feb 4, 2011:
    • Woking Liberal Democrats welcome council tenant energy charge refund
      Woking Liberal Democrats welcome the decision made by the Council Executive last night to refund council tenants, who were overcharged for their energy usage in the 2009/10 financial year. This follows strong Lib Dem pressure two years ago forcing the council to look at the way it charges tenants for energy use. The Conservative-controlled Executive imposed energy charge rises of over 60% two years ago at the height of the recession. Upon investigation by the Lib Dem-led Housing Task Group, it was found that all council tenants were charged the same regardless of their energy usage. This meant that an old-age pensioner was forced to pay the same heating charge as a large family. There was no energy metering of individual council homes at all providing no incentive for tenants to save energy. Lib Dem Shadow Housing Spokesman, Cllr Denzil Coulson said: "As part of our tireless pressure on the Conservatives to charge council tenants for what they use, council tenants are now charged according to how much energy is used per council housing block. These blocks of flats are metered individually meaning that we have a fairer system making this refund possible. "A Housing Revenue Account surplus of £191,562 will be used to refund tenants, which could range anything from £55 to £300 per household. "We object to the fact that tenants have to apply for their refunds. Residents have been urged to contact the council so that their accounts can be credited. A letter was sent out notifying residents of this but we, as Liberal Democrats, have insisted that the council personally contact and visit residents to help claim what they are entitled to. Last night we also exposed the fact that the Council have not properly thought through the administration of the refunds for those with visual impairment and reading difficulties." Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 17, 2010:
    • Burstow: Dementia care report must serve as a call to action for NHS
      A report into the care received by nearly 8,000 patients with dementia in 206 hospitals in England and Wales has revealed that few hospitals provide mandatory training for their staff in awareness of dementia; that many patients with dementia are not having assessments of their mental health or state of nutrition and that there are serious delays for patients referred to in-hospital liaison services. The Royal College of Psychiatrists' Centre for Quality Improvement-examined the care provided by 206 hospitals across England and Wales to 7,934 patients, discharged from hospital between 1 September 2009 and 28 February 2010. Commenting, Liberal Democrat Care Service Minister Paul Burstow said: "The results of this interim report are dire, distressing and entirely unacceptable. People with dementia have complex needs and these must be recognised by those caring for them. "More than a year after the original National Dementia Strategy was launched, 95% of hospitals do not have mandatory training in place. Patients and families will quite rightly be angry and disappointed with the lack of progress. "The Coalition Government has accelerated the pace of reform. We have set out where hospitals must take urgent action, including ensuring there are senior members of staff to lead on dementia, providing training for all staff and specialist older people's mental health teams. "This must serve as a call to action for the NHS. Managers and clinicians of local services need to account for the quality and standards of care for people with dementia and their families. Substantial improvement must be realised before the final report next year". Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 16, 2010:
    • Nick Clegg confirms end to child detention
      He said the practice will end completely by May 2011, and confirmed that the family wing of Yarl's Wood immigration centre in Bedfordshire is to close immediately. Mr Clegg said: "Today the Coalition Government is setting out, for the first time, how we are ending the detention of children for immigration purposes in the UK. "How we are ending the shameful practice that last year alone saw over 1000 children - 1000 innocent children - imprisoned. "Today's announcement marks a big culture shift within our immigration system. "One that puts our values - the protection of children - above paranoia over our borders. "One that prioritises doing the right thing over looking and sounding tough." Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 11, 2010:
  • Dec 7, 2010:
    • Mark Hunter: Miliband doesn't have clout to condemn Woolas
      Liberal Democrat MP Mark Hunter has challenged Ed Miliband to condemn the racially divisive tactics used by Phil Woolas in his General Election campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Mark Hunter said: "It is becoming more and more apparent as the weeks pass that Ed Miliband just doesn't have the clout within his party to show some leadership and admit that Woolas was wrong. If he did he'd be shot down in flames by other Labour MPs. "I was genuinely shocked that Miliband didn't make a statement as soon as he became leader that this sort of racially divisive politics will not be tolerated. "For him to then make the monumental misjudgement of appointing Woolas to his frontbench team speaks volumes. "If Labour is to draw a line under this scandal, then Ed Miliband needs to shout from the rooftops that the kind of campaigning used by Phil Woolas - intended to 'get the white folk angry' - can never again be any part of Labour politics." Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 6, 2010:
    • Paul Burstow speech: Improving access to psychological therapies
      Liberal Democrat Care Minister Paul Burstow has announced Government plans to extend its mental health services by making psychological therapies more accessible to those in the NHS. He made the announcement in a speech to the New Savoy Partnership, which can be read below: One of the first rules of politics is that new governments never talk about past successes. We focus on change, not continuity. On what's wrong, not what's right. On where we're going, not where we've been. I want to break with that convention today. Mental health has moved forward significantly in recent years. And we should acknowledge this. I'm afraid the politician in me means I can't resist saying 'not before time' and 'not far enough' … But the point stands: some major steps have been taken. Acute mental health services lifted out of obscurity. Better community support. Better outreach. More crisis services for those with the most severe mental illness. And psychological therapies - breaking new ground. Transforming how we think about depression, anxiety and other common mental disorders. And giving GPs more options and patients more hope of recovery. Real progress. And progress that's down to you. To the members of the New Savoy Partnership and the We Need To Talk coalition - thank you for campaigning so effectively for change. And to all of the therapists and professional leaders in the room today - thank you for delivering it in practice. Still work to do, of course. Yes, there are issues in acute care. Issues around community treatment. Around variability of standards. Around co-ordination of local services. Yes, we need to raise the profile of mental health, particularly amongst GPs and commissioners, which is a point I'll return to later. And yes, we need to reduce the persistent gap in outcomes between different social groups. A gap highlighted by today's report on the five year Delivering Race Equality programme, which I hope we can all learn from. THE MENTAL HEALTH STRATEGY Reducing these inequalities will be central to the new strategy for mental health when it's published early next year. The other thing this strategy will do is project a much broader vision for mental health. A vision grounded in wellbeing. And a vision that sees mental illness as one of the big social challenges of our time. No longer just a Department of Health issue, or even just a Government issue. A challenge borne by our society, and to be tackled throughout our society. Mental illness is endemic. - One in six have a mental illness at any given point. - Four in ten on incapacity benefit have a mental health problem. - Depression, stress and other mental disorders costing the NHS more than £10 billion. - And costing our wider economy at least ten times that amount. You've been asking for a more radical approach - and the Coalition Government is now answering that call. David Cameron saying that general wellbeing should now become a key measure of our success is highly symbolic. Why? Simply because what a Government measures affects what it does. So this commitment really defines the Coalition's approach to social policy. Yes, we need economic growth, absolutely. But after a painful recession, we also need to heal emotional wounds. We need a psychological recovery alongside economic recovery. THE VALUE OF IAPT And IAPT is key to this. By reaching into people's lives, and reaching out across the services that support them, you can be a powerful point of connection. Brokers, if you like, of this new approach to mental health and wellbeing. I had the pleasure of meeting some of your professional colleagues at a centre in Reading a few months ago. I spoke to the service users, learnt about how these therapies had changed their lives, transformed their confidence, their outlook, their aspirations for the future. There was a time when diagnosis of a mental health problem was the end as far as work goes. IAPT is changing that. Everyone I met there had had their lives turned round by the services they received. One lady had suffered a serious physical illness and had to leave her job. Going in and out of hospital, and then being stuck at home, she became depressed and withdrawn. And so when she'd recovered her physical health, she was paralysed with fear and anxiety and couldn't return to work. Therapy made all the difference. She regained her confidence, she eased herself back to work, she got back to her normal self. I know that stories like this inspire the work you do. We need them to inspire others. To have the courage to come forward. To be open about their illness. To ask for help. And this is where Sue's [Baker, chair of Time To Talk] organisation comes in. Reducing stigma. Puncturing myths. Dispelling prejudice. This is absolutely key to the change we need to see. But, of course, opening people's minds to mental illness is only half the battle. People need to get the right support when they do come forward. And today I want to share our plans for IAPT: how we plan to extend choice, improve access and start to mainstream the use of talking therapies within the NHS. EXPANDING THE PROGRAMME First, we need to complete the existing training programme. Two-thirds of the country already covered. By the end of this financial year, 3,700 newly trained staff will be on board. We will then go much further. The funding we're releasing from the Spending Review will mean that by 2015, every patient in the country should be able to get timely access to proven psychological therapies. And, wherever possible, they should have real choice of approved therapies. At the moment, IAPT is a little too much like Henry Ford's business philosophy … you can have any therapy as long as it's CBT. To be fair, it wasn't a bad model to get us on the road. But we do need to diversify. To open the door for other, equally effective therapies to help people with different needs. So we'll invest the money and work with the local NHS to upskill staff across four other NICE-approved therapies: - In counselling - interpersonal therapy - brief dynamic therapy; and - couples therapy Something the last government promised 12 months ago. We'll actually deliver it. But choice isn't just about the type of therapy we offer. It's really about autonomy. About giving people options about how they receive services, from whom, at a time and in a setting that suits them. So IAPT sites need to deliver truly personalised care, as some are already starting to do. And if choice is one side of the coin, then equity is the other. IAPT must now reach out to a much broader range of people - old and young, and across the illness spectrum. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE You all know the value of intervening early. The cost of reaching out too late. Up to half of all mental illness starts before the age of 14. Untreated disorders can blight a child's school years and future prospects in ways that are terribly difficult to recover from. So we now want to develop a psychological therapies model for children. We'll do so by setting up pilot sites, where teams will train up staff to provide appropriate therapies for younger people. And asking the crucial questions. What's the level of unmet needs? Where and how should we offer these therapies. How do we work with schools and children's services most effectively? The ambition here is very clear: to take the same step forward in access for children and young people that we have in adult services. With psychological services designed for children, and to a significant extent designed by them. We will use the knowledge and expertise of organisations like Young Minds and others. To make sure this IAPT programme genuinely speaks to the needs of children, young people and their families. What about the other end of the age range? Analysis shows that over 65s made up just 4 per cent of those using IAPT. By our estimates, it should be nearer 12 per cent. Why is this? Is stigma a problem? Are GPs attentive enough to depression amongst older people? Are we offering support in the right places - do we need to start offering home visits, for instance? And how can we link this up with our Dementia strategy We need to find the right answers and we need to do it quickly. There's an added urgency here, given that the ban on age discrimination in health starts from April 2012. No time to lose. Again we will need the help of key organisations to help us understand and overcome the barriers. IAPT AND SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS There are two other major groups not benefiting from IAPT. The first is the one-and-a-half million people who suffer with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bi-polar and personality disorder. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends psychological therapies, yet research by Rethink suggests that half of those with these conditions have never been offered these therapies. Again, we need to do better, and again I want the voluntary sector and the professional community to lead us to the right solutions. We'll bring together Rethink, the Royal Colleges and other professional bodies to look at existing capacity, and develop appropriate training for their members and for practising therapists. IAPT AND LTCS The other excluded group are those with medically unexplained symptoms and with long-term physical conditions. People with diabetes, hypertension and heart disease have twice the rate of mental illness. If you have two or more health conditions, you're seven times more likely to have depression. And this is reciprocal. Where the depression isn't treated, your physical recovery suffers too. Studies show diabetics with depression cost the NHS between 50 and 75 per cent more to treat than those in good mental health. Which is a pretty active demonstration of the adage that there's "no health without mental health." And that's a principle that must be etched on the hearts of NHS commissioners. We can no longer have a health service that patches people up physically, but leaves them struggling mentally. We need a big shift in emphasis. Mental health on a par with physical health in the NHS. The big question is how do we make this happen in practice?' How do we ensure mental health doesn't slip back in tougher times? To be blunt, how do we ensure there's life after IAPT? A FIRM COMMITMENT Politicians talk in priorities. It's our natural language. The problem is that we want to say everything is a priority, and that devalues the language. So my advice is look at what politicians do, rather than what we say. That's where you get the true picture. Look at what we've done with IAPT. - Mentioned in both party manifestos and in the final Coalition Programme; - £70 million announced within weeks of the new Government to continue roll-out; - Another clear commitment made in the Chancellor's Spending Review; - This speech from me today outlining the detail and making a number of firm commitments; - And in the mental health strategy, we will make the funding available to deliver these IAPT commitments. Be in no doubt. The momentum and the political will is there. This is a deep commitment - for me, for my party, and for the Government. And the importance I attach to psychological therapies will be made clear in the NHS Operating Framework when it's published in a few weeks time. WIDER POLICY CONTEXT I know many are concerned psychological therapy is vulnerable in these tighter times. And that concern is understandable. Mental health services have had a tendency to be 'last in and first out' in the NHS of the past. But not this time. The policy landscape is completely changed. And changed, I believe, in your favour. Firstly, the shift from targets to outcomes will give mental health a new prominence in how the NHS is judged. The new Outcomes Framework will paint a picture of what good care looks like. In terms of patient experience. In terms of hard results. In terms of quality. But absolutely not in terms of process targets. To give you a simple example. Under an outcomes model, the NHS isn't tested on the speed at which you get your knee operation. It's tested on how quickly you get back on your feet. How quickly you're pain-free. How quickly you can return to work. Real measures that matter to people. And that broader outlook opens the door, it means that people's mental health cannot be ignored if you want to secure the right outcomes. A very clear signal to commissioners. The second thing we're developing is a new tariff for talking therapies linked directly to the Outcomes Framework and ensuring providers are paid according to the contributions they make to those outcomes. This will give commissioning teams a clear rationale for investing in psychological therapies. Helping them to make sense of how these services contribute to better outcomes across the populations they support. THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP It's hard to break old habits. Commissioners, like everyone else, tend to stick to what they know best. Some really 'get' it, really understand psychological therapies and the difference you can make. I think you'll hear from a GP immediately after me, who fits that description. Others need persuading. And that's partly up to you. To start having conversations. To understand the agendas and processes of emerging consortia. To start building a compelling case for why investing in psychological therapies is worthwhile. Don't sit back and wait. Because the policy landscape is changing in another very significant sense. Power is shifting. Moving away from the centre. With less prescription. Less command and control. More decisions taken locally. More flexibility for NHS leaders and their local government partners to run the show. Now you could see this as a threat - that without central protection, you won't get a look in during local decision-making. But I'd sound a warning to the pessimists. The big danger if we allow this gloominess to take root is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need strong, active, positive leadership. Not just from the centre, and not just in terms of politicians like me making speeches. But at all levels, in every part of the country, putting forward the case for psychological therapies. THE VALUE OF EVIDENCE Evidence is the ace up your sleeves. Session-by-session outcome monitoring, in place across 90% of all patients, gives us a formidable picture of how these therapies improve a person's recovery. We need to make sure this is understood and heard by commissioners. Particularly in the context of QIPP. And particularly in the context of Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. You can make an extremely strong case for why investing in therapies now can save costs down the line. Costs to acute care. And costs to social care and other public services. So my message is this. Don't simply wait for me to make that case, or for officials in Whitehall to come up with a new guidance or directives. That simply isn't the world we live in now. It's up to you, tapping into organisations like the New Savoy Partnership and others, to get the message across. TRANSPARENCY And if we really want to open people up to talking therapies, then talking therapies themselves need to open up to people. Greater transparency for patients and professionals. Better information on what to expect from services and what to expect from different treatment options. More meaningful data on the strengths and weaknesses of different providers So, finally, we will publish the outcomes that different services have achieved. We want to create a new ratings system for IAPT that allows people to compare local success rates. CONCLUSION Let me sum up before I hand over to you. It's human nature to be suspicious of change. I know many people are worried about the future. But you have a clear and strong track record of success. And so you should have good reason to be confident. I've said very clear today. We want to build a mentally healthy society. This commitment starts in Number 10, and reaches across and beyond Government, as you'll see in the mental health strategy. You're a central part of that commitment. We believe in IAPT. We believe in life after IAPT. We trust in you. In your integrity. And in the work you do. There is much to be optimistic about. So be confident. Be positive. Embrace the NHS reforms. Embrace these plans for IAPT. And together we can make it all happen. Better services. More choice. Less stigma. Greater hope for the many affected by mental illness in our society. Thank you. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 3, 2010:
    • Elwyn Watkins: Time to let the voters decide
      Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 2, 2010:
  • Dec 1, 2010:
    • Nick Clegg speech to OSCE summit
      Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
    • Lynne Featherstone: World AIDS Day message
      To view the message, please click here. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Nov 30, 2010:
  • Nov 26, 2010:
  • Nov 25, 2010:
    • Featherstone appointed International Violence Against Women Champion
      Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone, was today appointed International Violence Against Women Champion. This role will see her lead British efforts to tackle violence against women overseas. Commenting on her appointment, Lynne Featherstone said: "Today marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and I am delighted to have been asked by the government to fulfil the role of championing this cause around the world. "Today, women around the world are still subject to rape, domestic violence and abuse, the scale and true nature of which can often remain hidden. Britain has a duty to use its influence across the globe to shine a light on this issue and I am proud to take on responsibility for doing so. "Among women between the ages of 15 and 44, acts of violence cause more death and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. It is truly one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world today. "We must bring this issue out in the open through increasing awareness, furthering work on prevention and helping the women who have been subjected to violence pick up their lives again. Only then can we put a stop to the cycle of violence against women once and for all." Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Nov 24, 2010:
    • Sarah Teather: Delivering a fair start for every child
      Liberal Democrat Education Minister Sarah Teather has written to Liberal Democrat members following the publication of the Coalition Government's white paper on schools, "The Importance of Teaching". The white paper can be read here and Sarah Teather's message to members can be read below. Dear friend, Liberal Democrats believe that a quality education is the biggest opportunity to improve people's lives. Nothing is more important than giving every child a fair start in life. Today the coalition government published its white paper on schools - "The Importance of Teaching". It sets out our ambitious reform programme to raise standards for all children while narrowing the gap between rich and poor. It shows how the Government is delivering the fair start for every child that we promised in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The White Paper announced four key reforms - Delivering a Pupil Premium, on top of the budgets that schools already have, to go to every deprived child wherever they live, to allow schools to put extra resources into narrowing the gap in attainment between the richest and the poorest. Giving all schools more freedom to make the right choices for their pupils - slimming down the national curriculum, removing bureaucracy and red tape and reducing testing and league tables. Recognising that it is the quality of teaching that really makes a difference in the classroom - expanding graduate teacher programmes like Teach First, developing networks of "teaching schools" and supporting continuing professional development. And, something important to Liberal Democrats, matching school freedoms with a strong strategic role for local authorities in ensuring fairness - in admissions policies, for children with special educational needs, and in championing educational excellence in all schools, including Free Schools and Academies. You can read more about the white paper - and you can watch the video below about the pupil premium. As part of the consultation process, you can send your views on the white paper to: schoolswhitepaperteam@education.gov.uk. If you have friends or family working in education, please foward this email so they can get involved. The Liberal Democrats are delivering in Government the fair start for children we promised. Yours, Sarah Teather MP Minister of State - Department for Education Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Nov 23, 2010:
    • Nick Clegg delivers the Hugo Young lecture
      Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg this evening delivered the Hugo Young lecture - you can read it in full below. Check against delivery Hugo was the great anatomist of British politics of his generation, with a particular passion for civil liberties, European cooperation, government transparency, and pluralism in politics. Tonight, I will argue that progressive politics is undergoing a period of reinvention; a reinvention that would have mostly met with Hugo's approval. Hugo was a passionate believer that open politics, a politics based on faith in people, rather than institutions, was the generator of real social progress. I agree, and I think that among the many extraordinary changes of 2010, one of the most important will prove to be a watershed in the development of progressive politics. There are those who see the crisis in the public finances as a catastrophe for progressive politics. Who believe that cutting the deficit means cutting progressive aspirations. In fact, it provides an opportunity for renewal. Is it possible to be progressive when money is tight? I will argue tonight that it is. The need for fiscal discipline is sharpening the choices we face. It is forcing us to be clearer about what it really means to be progressive. With less money, we need more focus. The need to make choices is revealing an important divide between old progressives, who emphasize the power and spending of the central state, and new progressives, who focus on the power and freedom of citizens. For new progressives, the test is not the size of the state, it is the relationship between the state and the citizen. Old progressives conflate the idea of progress with the control and reach of the central state. Labour are at risk of being on the wrong side of this divide, and of becoming the conservatives of British politics -- defending outdated approaches, rather than looking forward to a new progressive future. In the mid 1980s, a senior Labour politician wrote that Labour must be the "we will make you free" party, not the "we know what's best for you" party. It is not very often you'll hear me say this, but I think the author, Roy Hattersley, was right. I will illustrate the divide between old and new progressives in five critical areas of policy and politics: - deficit reduction and state spending; - public service reform; - fairness and equality; - localism; - and finally, pluralism in the conduct of politics itself. I will be focusing tonight on domestic policy; in the New Year I will be setting out in some detail the new progressive approach to foreign policy. For now, just let me say that while old progressives instinctively hoard power to the nation state, the new progressive approach is intrinsically internationalist on issues such as Europe, migration, trade and foreign aid. Nor will I say too much tonight about civil liberties. Not because there isn't a clear divide here between old and new progressives. On the contrary. Old progressives pose a trade off between individual liberty and national security. But, for liberals, liberty is the guarantor of our security. It is a false trade-off. For old progressives, national priorities will automatically trump individual freedoms. By contrast, the Coalition Government has already halted ID cards, and set out plans to regulate CCTV and end the indefinite storage of innocent people's DNA. We will also shortly be published the results of our counter-terrorism review. Deficit reduction & state spending First, let me tackle the general issue of the size of the state, and the specific, topical one of deficit reduction in the UK. The old view defines being progressive as being straightforwardly in favour of more state spending and activity. On this analysis, a state spending 50 per cent of GDP is more progressive than one spending 40 per cent - while a government spending 60 per cent would be more progressive still. This is clearly nonsense. The question is not how much the state is spending, it is how it spends it. The new progressive test for any form of state intervention is whether it liberates and empowers people. There are some areas where a new progressive approach would imply more state intervention and investment, such as early years, narrowing educational inequalities and promoting a greener economy. That is why I have argued many times that it makes no sense whatsoever to use a phrase like 'small state liberal'. It is not the size of the state, but what the state does, that matters. This approach underpins my view on tackling the deficit. I reject the idea that it is more progressive to pay off the deficit more slowly than to act decisively. Delay on the deficit will mean higher interest rates on mortgages and a greater burden on tax payers both now and in the future. So while delay might look more "progressive" in the sense of reducing the immediate scale of spending cuts, it is not more progressive if we consider people's lives and budgets in the round and, if we look to the future. There is nothing progressive about saddling the next generation with our debt. Progressive politics must also take into account fairness between, as well as within, generations. This is true for the economy and the public finances, and even more so for the environment and climate change. The Government's plan for deficit reduction has inevitably dominated coverage of the Government's plans. If you ask people what we are about, right now many would say paying off the deficit. I am confident that people will see that we are about very much more than this. Reducing the deficit is a necessary but not sufficient condition for our plans. Out of the fog of war generated by the arguments over the deficit, you can see the building blocks we are putting in place for a better, fairer, and more open society. Public Services Some of the most important of these building blocks will be reformed public services - and this is a second area where the difference between old progressives and new progressives can be clearly seen. New progressives focus on placing power in the hands of citizens, communities and localities, while old progressives prioritize central state spending and standardization. Let me take the NHS as an example. For old progressives, the NHS needs more money, more targets and more national standardization. For free marketeers, the problem with the NHS is that it is a monopoly with state funded care, squeezing out the possibility of a fully-fledged market in health. For new progressives, the problem with the NHS is not that it is monopolistic, but that it is monolithic. The NHS should offer more diversity, more personalisation, and more flexibility - but all within a tax-funded public system that is always free at the point of delivery. Personal budgets are a perfect example of new progressive policies, giving social care users and people with chronic health problems more control and choice. We are accelerating moves to personalize health and social care, and we are aiming to have a million budget holders by 2013. In education the same principles apply. A tax-funded, free education system -- but a system that allows for parental choice, diversity, and freedom. Parents and schools should be given the maximum amount of freedom, rather than being subject to control by diktat from Whitehall. That's why this government is setting schools free - our vision is that, over time, all schools will become Academies, exercising real freedom over the way they teach and the way they support their pupils. Diverse providers of education in a system overseen by the local authority, acting as the democratic champion of parents and children. The education White Paper published tomorrow takes us a huge distance down that road by opening up the option of Academy freedom to all schools - and I mean all schools, including Pupil Referral Units and special needs schools - so that every school has the freedom to innovate and improve. Add to that something I have been writing about and campaigning for for years: extra funding, directed at the children who need it most. That is what we are delivering through our pupil premium, which by 2015 will be targeting an additional £2.5 billion a year of help to the poorest pupils in our society, wherever they live. The state education system, the welfare state, the NHS: these are the institutions and services that make for a civilized nation. And old progressives can be proud of their role in creating them. But if you were building these today you would take a different approach to their early architects. You would start with the citizen and build upwards, rather than starting with the central state and projecting down. New progressives are committed to all of these institutions. And committed to radically reforming them to better reflect the modern world and contemporary needs and demands. In essence, within these institutions new progressives seek to rebalance the relationship between citizen and state, putting the citizen in charge. Poverty/fairness The difference between old and new progressives in their approach to individual power is also visible when it comes to tackling poverty and promoting fairness. Old progressives see a fair society as one in which households with incomes currently less than 60% of the median were to be, in Labour's telling verb, "lifted" out of poverty. Now, I am certainly not arguing against this aspiration. But the weakness of the old progressive approach is that it leads to huge amounts of money being devoted to changing the financial position of these households by fairly small amounts - just enough, in many cases, to get them above the line. But poverty plus a pound does not represent fairness. It represents an approach to fairness dominated by the power of the central state to shift money around, rather than to shift life chances. The other weakness of this approach is that it pays insufficient attention to the non-financial, dimensions of poverty, particularly in terms of access to services. Of course it is better to have more money, even if it is only a little more. But poverty is also about the quality of the local school, access to good health services and fear of crime. So the old progressive approach to poverty is too narrow. But it is also too static. Can we really think that a society in which people are temporarily lifted above a statistical line by a few pounds is, in the long run, fairer than one in which opportunity is genuinely dispersed and people's future life chances are fundamentally improved? Inequalities become injustices when they are fixed; passed on, generation to generation. That's when societies become closed, stratified and divided. For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is. This difference in approach is at the heart of many of the arguments that have taken place about the fairness of the decisions taken in the spending review. There have been studies undertaken of the impact of the spending review that use one measure - income - at one point in time. And they are valuable for precisely this reason. But they are not a full depiction of all of the things that matter in a person's life. You cannot airbrush out the services that make a difference to a person's fortunes: the support you get in the classroom when you are young; the care you receive from the NHS if you are sick; the childcare services you can rely on when you are working. You have to take into account the lives that people live in practice, not that they live on paper. That is why the Government's own analysis, which did include services, showed a different picture, one which showed the richest fifth losing the most from the spending review, and the poorest fifth losing less. Our decisions to protect NHS funding, increase schools funding, to address pensioner overty and provide additional early years provision all channel resources towards the poorest. The snapshot, income-based analyses are not wrong -- they are simply providing a partial analysis of a comprehensive spending review. Ed Miliband said this week that the UK is a "fundamentally unequal society". I agree. Let us put aside for a moment that he said this after his party had been in power for thirteen years. He also says that "for some people the gap between the dreams that seem to be on offer and their ability to realize them is wider than it's ever been before." Again, I agree. The UK is unequal in precisely the way he identifies - in terms of social mobility, life chances and opportunity to move ahead. But then comes the lurch to old progressive thinking. Having correctly identified social mobility as the problem, he suggests the 50p top tax rate as the solution. Old progressives are obsessed with one single marginal tax rate paid by a tiny fraction of the population. They focus on one aspect of the tax system - and financially speaking a pretty insignificant one - rather than looking at the overall system. They make a shibboleth of a single tax rate and allow symbolism to trump real reform. By contrast, new progressives want to reform the tax base fundamentally, towards taxation of unearned wealth and pollution, rather than people. The Coalition Government inherited a complex tax system that was unfair in many important ways. So within weeks of coming into power we had increased the income tax threshold by £1,000 to £7,475 and raised Capital Gains Tax by ten percentage points to 28 per cent. As you know, the Coalition Government has pledged to prioritise cuts to taxes on income, particularly low income, rather than cuts in inheritance tax. In the Budget we also announced that we would examine the case for switching aviation tax from per passenger to a per plane duty, as well as a review of the climate change levy to give more certainty and support to the price of carbon. Our tax system needs fundamental reform, not political symbolism. The shift, from a static, income-based definition of fairness to an approach focused on mobility and life chances also informs the Government's approach to the funding of higher education. It is no secret that the Government's proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government. But, on Higher Education, I want to be crystal clear. I will defend the Government's plans for reforming the funding of universities, even though it is not the one I campaigned for. It is not my party's policy, but it is the best policy given the choices we face. I know that more protests are planned by students tomorrow. I make just one request of those planning to protest: examine our proposals before taking to the streets. Listen and look before you march and shout. Our plans will mean that many of the lowest income graduates will repay less than they do under the current system. And all graduates will pay out less per month than they do now. Nobody will pay a penny back until their earnings reach £21,000 per year, compared to £15,000 now. The highest-earning graduates will pay back the most. We will spend £150 million a year to lower the financial obstacles for applicants from the poorest backgrounds. For the first time since Labour introduced fees, we will abolish the requirement for part-time students to pay upfront for tuition. These students are generally older and poorer and make up 40% of all students. Providing they are studying for at least a third of their time, our plans mean they will no longer face an upfront fee. And, perhaps most important of all, we will make sure that universities wanting to charge more for degrees are made to open their doors to the many, not just the few. For those institutions seeking to charge more than £6,000 a year - up to the proposed £9,000 limit - there will be stringent access requirements and real sanctions for those who fail the meet them. In fact, looked at objectively, our graduate contribution scheme is very close to the so-called graduate tax advocated by the NUS. Except it's even fairer in the way it's applied. There is lots of anger about higher education at the moment and I understand it. I am angry too. Here's what makes me angry. Oxford and Cambridge take more students each year from just two schools - Eton and Westminster - than from among the 80,000 pupils who are eligible for free school meals. Scandalously, the number of disadvantaged students going to these universities is going down, not up. And a young adult from an affluent background is now seven times more likely to go to university than one from a poor background. These are the things that make me angry: these are the facts that would make me take to the streets; these are the injustices that our policy will remedy. Higher Education should be a powerful engine for social mobility. Right now it isn't. Our policies will finally make higher education open to everyone. Localism The next area I want to address is the relationship between national and local power. Most national governments are formed with a promise to give more power to localities. Most completely fail to deliver on this promise. So I know it is very much easier to preach localism than to practice it. Labour had some important early successes, with devolution to Scotland and Wales especially. But these represented what Professor Vernon Bognador calls "horizontal devolution" -- from one level of the nation state to another -- rather than "vertical devolution" of power down to local authorities, communities or citizens. In terms of vertical devolution, our recent history is lamentable. The lure of hoarding power to the central state proved too great for recent prime ministers to resist. Mrs. Thatcher declared war on local authorities. Blair and Brown continued the hostilities. Localism is an important dividing line in progressive politics and, once again, not one that maps neatly onto party lines. There are localisers and centralisers in all the major parties, although I think the Liberal Democrats can fairly claim to be the most consistent party of localism. One of the unifying themes of the Coalition Government is the drive to decentralise power. If you are serious about this, it means handing over real financial power. Given that Local Authorities are being asked, financially speaking, to do more with less, we should give them much more freedom as possible over how they do it. That includes the ability for councils to borrow against their future tax revenues, and we are now working on letting councils retain business rate revenues and apply greater discretion to them. And already the Government has removed the ring-fences from more than £2 billion worth of local spending, and rolled 18 separately earmarked grants into the main formula grant. Opponents of localism protest that local authorities can't be trusted to keep spending on the right projects, and that provision will varying from area to area. But the real point is this: local authorities will be accountable to their own electorates for the decisions they take about spending and services, just like central government. If people don't like what national politicians do, they can chuck them out at the next election. This is called democracy. It is just as important at a local, as at a national level. If people dislike local decisions, they can chuck local councillors out, too. Opponents of localism brandish the phrase post code lottery to dramatize differences in provision between areas. But it is not a lottery when decisions about provision are made by people who can be held to democratic account. That is not a postcode lottery -- it is a postcode democracy. For new progressives, the localisation of power - which means, necessarily, of money - is one of the most urgent tasks facing us. Reversing a century of centralisation will not be a quick or an easy task. But we have made a good start. Pluralism/Coalition Politics The final divide between old and new progressives I want to touch on tonight is in regard to their attitudes to political parties and to political pluralism. New progressives are instinctively pluralist in their approach to politics. Herbert Morrison famously said that socialism could be defined as "whatever the Labour party does in government." But the triumph of one political tribe over another is not the singular purpose of politics. Progressive politics is defined by an openness to parties working together. For the Liberal Democrats, this is the kind of politics we have been campaigning for for decades. The Conservatives, under David Cameron, have to their credit, embraced two-party working with integrity. For obvious reasons, I think Labour - and, dare I say it, the media - are still struggling to come to terms with it. Our political culture has become attached to binary, "winner takes all" politics, with political argument seen as a zero-sum game, always with one winner and one loser. Labour is in danger of being left behind, of becoming stuck in an anti-pluralist rut. When we practice plural, coalition politics, they cry foul. But if you see every compromise as a betrayal, you will never understand plural politics, and will certainly never be able to engage in it. The most interesting and important divide in politics today does not fall neatly along party lines or a left-right axis. Perhaps that is why the new politics of coalition, plural politics, is being well received by the public. I hope my Conservative colleagues will forgive me for reminding you that in the election they painted a scary picture of what they called the "Hung Parliament Party". You may remember that this party was going to be dithering, indecisive and weak. Well, it hasn't turned out like that. The British public, long assumed to be opposed to the idea of coalition, are now in favour. The Coalition Government is beginning to rewrite the rules of British politics. It is of course still early days. We are six months into one of the boldest experiments in British politics, six months into a five year coalition government. The new politics is still very much a work in progress. But the early signs are encouraging. Conclusion So, there is a clear divide between new and old progressive approaches to policy and politics. Old progressives measure success by the power and spending of the central state. New progressives measure it by the power and freedom of individual citizens. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished." I do not underestimate the scale of our challenges as a nation. We face very deep problems: the crippling deficit, threats of terrorism, climate change and social division. But you cannot be a liberal without being an optimist. And it is my unquenchable conviction that if we place our faith in people rather than in institutions, our future, and the future of new progressive politics, is bright. Thank you. Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
    • Clegg: Inequality becomes injustice if passed on, generation to generation
      "Is it possible to be progressive when the public coffers are empty? My answer is yes. Certainly the crisis in the public finances means making some sharp choices. But it also forces us to be clearer about what it really means to be progressive. With less money, we need more focus. The need to make choices is revealing an important divide between old progressives, who emphasise the power and spending of the central state, and new progressives, who focus on the power and freedom of citizens. Labour risk being on the wrong side of this divide. They are becoming the conservatives of British politics, defending outdated approaches rather than looking forward to a new, progressive future." Published and promoted on behalf of Woking Liberal Democrats by Rosemary McCrum, Sunnymeads, Westfield Common, Woking, GU22 9NT Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Apr 26, 2012:
    • Tweets and a Dead Parrot
      Councillor Hazel Watson, Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, has tabled the following four written questions to the Leader of the Council for the Annual General Meeting on 8 May 2012. Dead parrot Since the original announcement of the Community Partnered Libraries proposals for the County's libraries to be run by volunteers we have seen Molesey Library withdrawn from the plan, part time paid staff allocated to libraries and the threat of ongoing staff training costs all meaning that the plan can no longer be saving the County Council money. In other words the often-stated reason that the County Council is pushing ahead with the plans to save them from closure no longer adds up. Will the Leader agree with me that the only reason that the plans are still being pursued is dogma, that he does not want to see himself tainted like his predecessor by a failed ill-conceived proposal, and that the plans like the famous Monty Python sketch, are a dead parrot nailed to the perch to give an impression of still being alive? Democracy before tweets At the 24 April Cabinet meeting I asked a written question regarding Community Partnered Libraries. You read out a statement announcing that the plans would go back to the June Cabinet meeting in response to that question. I requested a copy of that statement and was told by you that it would be made available after the meeting. Checking back the webcast of the meeting, this was at 14.06. I later learnt that also at 14.06 a Tweet appeared from the County Council's media team saying "Council to take libraries decision again", with a link to a copy of the statement on the http://news.surreycc.gov.uk website. Does the Leader agree that it shows extreme disrespect to press release a reply to a member before giving the member a copy of the reply, and will he undertake to ensure that there will be no further instances of this putting spin before the democratic process? Checks and balances A number of members from across all sides of the Council Chamber have raised concerns that the Member Asset Panel has been effectively abolished removing the necessary checks and balances it provided and the route to tapping the knowledge provided by local members. Will the Leader agree to reinstate the Member Asset Panel forthwith? Knowledge hub at best unwise The Local Government Association facilitates an internet discussion forum facility called the "Knowledge Hub". One of the forums listed is the "Surrey CC Workspace" which is described as "A private community for senior officers and members of Surrey County Council. This CoP has been established to facilate (sic) cross directorate working and strategic thinking." Given the constitutional requirements on discussions and meetings between officers and members, the separation of roles between officers and members and Freedom of Information requirements, would the Leader agree with me that such a forum is at best unwise and at worst in breach of the County Council's Constitution? Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Apr 24, 2012:
    • Lib Dems call on Conservative-run County Council to abandon libraries plan
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have called on the Conservative-run administration to abandon it's ill-conceived and unpopular plans for 10 of the County's libraries to be run by "volunteers" instead of professional librarians. In a response to a written question to the Conservative-run Cabinet from Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition, the administration stated that it will "take the decision again" at the 19 June Cabinet meeting. Speaking in response to the statement, Hazel Watson said: "The Conservative administration is arrogantly pressing ahead with its plans for communities to run their own libraries instead of professional librarians, despite the wishes of Surrey residents and losing the High Court battle. "The Conservative administration is in denial as to the extent of the opposition to its plans and it is in denial about losing the High Court case. It is misleading when it says it is 'allowing' communities to run libraries, when in fact it is forcing 'volunteers' to run libraries, or they will be closed. "The Conservative administration's proposal to press ahead with the plans is an insult to the many Surrey residents who have campaigned vigorously to keep their local libraries fully staffed by professional librarians, even to the extent of taking their battle to the High Court. "The Conservative-run Cabinet claims that its aim is to 'Keep all of Surrey's libraries open while elsewhere in the country branches are closing'. This suggests there is no choice. However, no Lib Dem council has closed any libraries since the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. Labour have closed 32, the Conservatives have closed eight. Surrey County Council's Liberal Democrats call on the County Council to abandon its ill-conceived plans immediately. "The Leader of the Council should have learnt from his predecessor, who was ousted from office as a result of trying to force through unpopular and controversial on-street parking charges, that there is a time to admit defeat, abandon ill-conceived and unpopular policies and do what the public want." The question tabled by Cllr Hazel Watson was: In view of the recent judgment with regard to the Surrey County Council's ongoing expensive High Court battle with library users and residents over "Community Partnered Libraries", will the Leader agree to cut the Council's losses and stop the plans, or is he prepared to face ever increasing costs, not only financially to the Council but also to his political credibility and face a similar backlash to the one his predecessor faced over the ill-conceived on-street parking proposals? Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Apr 3, 2012:
    • Lib Dems welcome High Court libraries judgment
      Lib Dems welcome High Court libraries judgment, and call on Conservative-run County Council to put the plans back on the bookshelf Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have welcomed the judgment by Mr Justice Wilkie in the High court today. Commenting on the judgment, Liberal Democrat Communities Spokesperson John Orrick said: "Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised our concerns regarding the equalities impact of the County Council's library plans. "On every occasion we were dismissed by the former Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games for raising the issue, usually with glib answers. At the December 2011 meeting of the Full Council she was highly dismissive of our concerns in a written answer to a question from the Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition Hazel Watson and further went on to verbally dismiss suggestions that Surrey County Council's decision was flawed due to failing to consider the Equalities Impact Assessment. "The judgment today means she was wrong then, and that the Cabinet was wrong in taking the decision it did in September. It can't just bolt on equalities training now to its plans, because its decision making was flawed, it would have to go back and reconsider its decisions. "The Council is burning Surrey Council Taxpayers money on continuing this expensive High Court battle, and it is burning Surrey Council Taxpayers money paying officers to continue working on these ill conceived plans. "The costs are rocketing up, but the financial savings achieved by the plans are relatively small. The only reason this is still going on is because the Conservative administration is unwilling to say it was wrong. They should cut their losses, and save some face, by abandoning the plans now. The second phase has already been put back on the bookshelf by the Leader, it is time he did the same with the original 10 libraries." ENDS Below is the written question and answer to Council on 13 December. The verbal follow up question and answer can be viewed here. Click on Index Points, then Member's Question Time. It is the second question. SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2011 CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND THE 2012 GAMES (2) MRS HAZEL WATSON (DORKING HILLS) TO ASK: On Wednesday 16 November 2011, His Honour Judge McKenna ruled that Gloucestershire County Council's and Somerset County Council's plans for their public library services were unlawful on equalities grounds. He ruled that both councils had failed to take account of their equalities duties when pushing through the cuts, condemning both councils' approach as "bad Government", and that it was "important to the Rule of Law" that the decisions be quashed. Surrey County Council's PVR methodology states "PVRs will be delivered by…consulting widely including with residents and specifically vulnerable groups and communities and with staff". The Equalities Impact Assessment on the Community Partnered Libraries plan stated: "Older users of branch libraries will be negatively impacted if their nearest branch closures. Younger users of branches and mobiles could be negatively impacted by the removal of services. Surrey's draft Single Equality Scheme suggests places to go are restricted for young people, and this is exacerbated by poor public transport, particularly in isolated rural areas. Libraries currently help promote literacy and love of reading among young people, and no reduction to this service is proposed. However, young people would be negatively impacted by local branch closures as they may not be able to travel independently to another branch." "Residents with a disability will be negatively impacted by any local branch closures as they may find it more difficult to travel independently to another branch." "More women will be impacted by any reduction in library services than men." "Reduction of branches would mean carers have to travel further to get to a local library." "Rural communities with limited access to services may be impacted if branch services are reduced. Not all library premises have toilets or baby changing facilities. There is a relationship between socio-economic disadvantages and other protected characteristics that libraries have an impact on: race, religion, disability … Libraries offer free information and educational material and programmes help residents with low educational attainment, literacy development and finding employment and developing resilience and life skills." Given the judgment by His Honour Judge McKenna, the negative impacts highlighted in the Equalities Impact Assessment and the lack of the wide consultation with residents and specifically vulnerable groups and communities and staff stipulated in the PVR process, would the Cabinet Member agree that pushing ahead with the Community Partnered Libraries Programme lays the County Council open to judicial review and therefore the proposals should be abandoned? Reply: The Court Ruling was that Gloucestershire and Somerset had not sufficiently gathered and analysed information relating to equalities and, in Gloucestershire, had selected a library in a deprived area for closure. They were ruled to have not given "due regard‟ to their statutory equality needs. In Surrey, libraries in the county's Priority Areas were excluded from the list of those selected for community partnering and are to remain as part of the strategic core network. Surrey carried out its EIA concurrently with the PVR. Although the EIA noted that over 85% of Surrey residents have access to a car. Public transport modelling carried out as part of the PVR study showed that 95% of households would continue to have a journey time of under 30 minutes at peak times to a library by public transport. Surrey's Books on Wheels service will continue to offer service to housebound users. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Mar 21, 2012:
    • Budget 2012: For the many, not the few
      Over 20 million working people will be better off next year after Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government delivered the biggest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance in the Budget. The massive £3.5bn tax cut for working people delivers: The biggest ever single uplift in the tax threshold A personal allowance of £9,205 in April 2013 21 million working people getting an extra £220 tax cut Brings the total tax cut for basic rate tax payers to £550 Brings the total number of people lifted out of tax to 2 million. The Liberal Democrats have ensured this is a budget for the millions not for the millionaires. That's why the biggest move in this Budget is a tax cut for ordinary workers, going further and faster towards the Liberal Democrat goal of making the first ten thousand pounds you earn tax-free. From a pledge on the front page of our 2010 manifesto directly to the pockets of working people. Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, people working full time earning the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill cut in half. We have delivered on Nick Clegg's pledge to go "further and faster" on the personal tax allowance. This means that 21m basic rate taxpayers will get an extra £220 cut in their income tax bills and a further 840,000 people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether. Last years announcement that Child Benefit would be withdrawn from higher-rate tax payers caused many people to question the rules - especially for one earner familes. The budget today introduced a higher limit before the benefit is withdrawn and a "taper" to make the scheme. The Liberal Democrats were also commited to making sure that this was a budget that saw those earning most paying their fair share. New taxes on the very richest will raise FIVE times as much from the super-rich as next years cut on the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p will cost: Stamp duty increased to 7% for multi-million pound homes New 15% tax on companies buying property over £2m Crack-down on tax avoidance for the richest To stimulate the economy, there are new measures to help businesses across the country: Reducing red-tape on business taxes for small business Cutting corporation tax to help British business Getting more money from the banks to loan more to British businesses Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said: "As part of the Coalition budget deal, we agreed to reduce the top rate of tax to 45p - but only after securing a series of new taxes on the wealthy that pay for it five times over. "Labour's 50p rate turned out not to work effectively. By introducing taxes that do work, like a tycoon tax, raising stamp duty, blocking stamp duty avoidance, and getting non-resident companies to pay capital gains tax on their residential property, we have secured real progress on the taxation of wealth. This is a budget for the many, not the few. "We've stuck to our tough but necessary plan to deal with this country's financial problems. Britain can't afford unfunded giveaways - unlike the last Labour government, we have made sure everything is paid for. "The Budget shows real progress on our commitments to infrastructure - on roads, railways, and renewable energy. Tougher green taxes on company cars will help cut emissions as well as raising money. "We've also secured new support for our creative and aerospace industries, technology investment and getting the best new ideas from our Universities into production. This, and further business tax simplification, means that we have delivered a budget for growth as well as fairness." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Mar 20, 2012:
    • Surrey Conservatives lock care home decision behind closed doors
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have condemned the County's Conservative administration for refusing to accept that a safety net of adult care homes for Surrey's most vulnerable should continue to be run by the County Council. In the debate today in full council on a motion proposed by Liberal Democrat County Councillors John Orrick and Hazel Watson, the Conservatives pushed through an amendment that laid the County Council open to putting all of its adult care homes out to be privately run. Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council said: "The Conservatives in their actions today blocked any effective public debate of the policy that should steer the decisions that are being taken behind closed doors at County Hall. It was clear from their amendment to our motion, and by the words of the Conservative Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, that they are considering Surrey County Council not running any of its own adult care homes in the future. This would be a damaging U-turn on existing policy, which would be difficult and expensive to reverse. "Liberal Democrats believe that a mix of homes run by the County Council, private care homes and home care needs to continue to ensure that there is a safety net for those with high or complex needs. The County Council should not put all its eggs in the private sector basket." Councillor John Orrick, who has the County Council run Dormers Care Home in his Caterham Hill division, said: "The Conservatives were disingenuously killing the debate by incorrectly saying that the Liberal Democrats are calling for all of the County's care homes to be run and owned by the County Council. "We are quite clear that in the present financial climate that we want to see a number of homes owned and run by the County Council for the most vulnerable, as many people as possible to be able to stay in their own homes and for the private sector to be used where appropriate. "We must ensure that Surrey County Council has the homes it needs long-term to care for those with high or complex needs." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
    • Lib Dems call for safety net for elderly Surrey residents with high or complex needs
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for the County's elderly with the highest or most complex needs to be cared for in residential homes run by the County Council as well as private sector care and home care for people with lower needs. In a motion to the meeting of the full County Council today the Lib Dems will call for an open public debate about provision of care homes, following recent discussions behind closed doors at County Hall. Lib Dem County Councillor John Orrick, who has the County Council run Dormers Care Home in his Caterham Hill division, says: "The Adult Social Care Committee on 22 February received a confidential verbal report entitled Review of in-house older people's residential homes. It is the role of members that we should set the policy framework for the Council, and as the Leader said when appointed, it is important we do this as openly and transparently as possible to ensure we get the right decision for Surrey's residents." At present Surrey County Council owns 30 residential care homes for older people, of which 24 homes are leased and managed by private companies and 6 are run directly by the Council. Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "Liberal Democrats believe that a mix of homes run by the County Council, private care homes and home care needs to continue to ensure that there is a safety net for those with high or complex needs. "Surrey County Council needs to plan ahead to ensure there are sufficient residential care home places for the elderly and that the quality of care, particularly for those with high or complex needs, is fully met. "Care for those with high or complex needs is more expensive and funding being spread more thinly means it is becoming less financially viable for private companies to provide the standard of care needed. "With an ageing population it is becoming increasingly important that Surrey County Council runs care homes for those most in need and plans adequately for the long term future. Given the instability in the private sector, as demonstrated with the recent collapse of Southern Cross, it is important that Surrey County Council runs some homes of its own to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. The County Council should not put all its eggs in the private sector basket. "We are seeing a shortage in school places across the County due to inadequate planning and the closing of school buildings in the past, which are now difficult to replace. We do not want to see the same mistakes made with care for the elderly as we are seeing in Surrey's schools." ENDS Cllr John Orrick's motion says: 'This Council agrees that owing to an ageing population, a large number of older people will need care and support, and that: More support should be provided to enable Surrey's older people to live in their own homes for as long as possible Older people with high or complex needs require support in residential care homes and these should continue to be provided directly by the County Council. This would guarantee that the number of high quality places will be maintained given the instability within the private home care sector.' Full text of Cllr John Orrick's speech: The Adult Social Care Committee on 22 February received a verbal report in part 2 entitled "Review of in-house older people's residential homes". It is not only unfortunate, but also unacceptable that any debate on the future of residential care home should take place solely in part 2 of a select committee. It is the role of members that we should set the policy framework for the Council, and as the Leader said when appointed, it is important we do this as openly and transparently as possible. Surrey's residents must be able to engage with us on any future plans and shape our decisions, you only have to look at the reaction to the former Leader's on-street parking plans to see how decisions taken without proper consultation came come back and bite you. At that same meeting of the Adult Social Care Committee there was a very interesting report entitled "Older People's Mental Health and Dementia Strategy Update". Madam Chairman, if you haven't already, I recommend that you and all members read it. The report outlined the range of differing services provided by Surrey County Council, the NHS and third sector organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society, and showed that good progress in Dementia care has taken place across the County. It also stated that there reduction in the number of residential placements for people with dementia from 138 placements in 2008/2009 to 110 placements in 2010/2011. Meaning more people can live in their own home for as long as they choose to. This is all good news, and my motion reaffirms and strengthens the County's commitment that the highest quality of support be given to enable Surrey's older people to live in their own homes as long as possible. A Parliamentary answer last year revealed that in total 1819 homes for elderly and disabled people - one in ten of all care homes - are not meeting standards designed to protect residents from the risk of abuse. Almost as many were putting elderly people in danger because medicines were not administered safely, 1668 homes did not meet standards for respecting and involving people who use services while more than 1,600 did not even ensure frail and elderly people got the food and drink they needed. When spot checks were carried out on hundreds of care homes and nursing wards earlier they showed one in three were failing some of the Care Quality Commission's standards. Michelle Mitchell, Charity Director at Age UK described the findings as "extremely worrying" and said the standards were about absolute essentials that any human being should expect to receive. We have all seen the uncertainty caused by the collapse of Southern Cross, and there are concerns over other care home providers, especially among those providers who rent their properties. Written evidence to the parliamentary Health Committee by Care UK, one of Surrey's private providers says: "service users with complex needs, or conditions that make them potentially vulnerable, may receive more appropriate, personalised care within a residential setting than in their own homes." They go on to say "local authorities are only commissioning care for critical or substantial needs cases, which in themselves have increased in acuity-therefore staff are being asked to deal with higher levels of need with little or no extra remuneration." And there lies the problem, with increasing pressures on care homes, tightening budgets and the situation where increasingly only those most in need are being placed in care homes, we are creating a situation where the most in need of care are being disproportionately given the least support and private care home providers are least likely to offer extra support as money is squeezed. Private care home providers will therefore try to avoid the more complex cases with higher needs, and for this reason we must make sure that those with higher needs are supported by the County council directly. We must put Surrey's most vulnerable residents first, young or old. I beg to move the motion. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Mar 11, 2012:
    • "A more liberal Britain with every passing year" - Nick Clegg's speech to Lib Dem Spring Conference 2012
      Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg used his speech to the Party's Spring conference in NewcastleGateshead to call for the forthcoming budget to be a "budget for fairness" and pledged that it would help working familes. The Deputy Prime Minister pledged that by 2015 Britain would have seen an end to control orders, the first gay marriages and the first elections to the House of Lords. Nick Clegg's conference speech in full: This year will show the best of Britain. The Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee, a nation proud of our past, but with our face to the future. A nation that treasures liberty, honours hard work and values fair play and fair chances. That is the character of our country: strong, confident, united. And our character as a nation is being tested, because even in this year of celebration families are under pressure, worrying about paying their bills, about keeping their jobs, about the future. The road to full recovery for our economy will be long, and it will be hard. Anybody who says there is a quick or easy way out is kidding themselves. So the Coalition Government is working hard to clean up after the financial storm of 2008. Sweeping up Labour's mess and keeping our economy safe. At times like these, we must pull together. Not let ourselves be pulled apart. Pull together as one nation. A liberal nation because that is the spirit of Britain. Some people think there is something slightly un-British about liberalism. But this country, our country, is the home of liberty. And we Liberal Democrats are heirs to the great, British liberal cause. I am proud that now, in this Coalition Government, Liberal Democrats are repairing Labour's industrial-scale destruction of liberty. Reversing 28 days of detention without trial, destroying the DNA records of innocent people held by the state, ending the illiberal nonsense of ID cards. British liberties restored by British liberals. Before 2015, because of us there will be: the first gay marriage - and an end to child detention the first bank levy - an end to huge tax loopholes for the rich the first elections to House of Lords - an end to Control Orders the first coalition government in our lifetimes ...and an end to the myth that Liberal Democrats can't govern. We are governing to fix our economy. We are governing to fight for fairness. We are in government - and we are on your side. So yes, these are hard times. But this will be a good year for a great nation. A good year for Britain. But let me tell you, this will be a good year for British liberalism too. Our biggest challenge is to rescue our economy. We need to sort out the financial mess Labour left us. But we need economic reform too. We need a new economy that serves not one square mile, but one nation. Not creative accounting, but creative industries. Not the City, but all our cities. Healing the divide between North and South. That's why our Regional Growth Fund - that Ian Wrigglesworth has helped to lead - is investing £2.4 billion. Creating more than 300 hundred thousand jobs in the areas that need them most. And we will bring sanity and responsibility to our banking sector. That's why we've put up the bank levy. And why we are protecting high street banks from risky investments. We will free our cities. That's why we are striking deals with our biggest cities: Sheffield and Manchester Liverpool and Leeds Bristol and Birmingham Nottingham and Newcastle Giving all of these great cities new powers and new opportunities, to be the engines of growth again. And we will rebalance power in the workplace. That's why I want us to build a 'John Lewis' economy, where workers have a real stake. Not capital versus labour, bosses versus workers but modern enterprises built on shared endeavour and shared profit. An old liberal idea to build a new liberal economy. And a sustainable economy, one that protects the environment. Tackling climate change, green jobs for the future, green apprenticeships and a Green Deal to cut energy bills. Some say we have to choose between boosting growth and being green. What a load of rubbish. Going for growth means going green. The race is on to lead the world in clean energy. The new economic powerhouses - China, India, Brazil - are competing. So the choice for the UK is simple: wake up, or end up playing catch up. Going green is not a luxury for the good times. It is the best road out of the bad times. Our party is the green party of government. We have always been a green party. And let me tell you this: we always will be a green party because we need an economy fit for the future to pull us out of this economic downturn. And in these hard times, we have to look out for each other. That's why I fought so hard for benefits to be increased fully in line with inflation. The biggest cash rise ever in the basic state pension because we promised to look after pensioners. And we will. Benefits for the unemployed were protected, too. Not everyone agreed with me on this, if you believed some of the stories. You would think these benefits are unlimited handouts for so-called "scroungers". But these are benefits for ordinary people. Many of them laid off through no fault of their own and who strive to get back into work. Most people who claim Job Seekers Allowance are off benefits within three months. They don't all sit there waiting for the next welfare cheque. That is a dangerous myth, that dishonours those down on their luck. A friend of mine recently shared his memories of his father becoming unemployed. His Dad signed on but every day, he set the alarm for the same time as he had done for his job. He got up, shaved, put on a shirt and tie and sat at the kitchen table, working to get a job. And my friend said: "I've never been more proud of my Dad". So let's never forget. Unemployment benefits are benefits for people who fall on hard times and hard times are not the moment to slash them. But if you are on benefit, you owe it to the nation, to yourself, and to your family to strain every sinew to find a job. To get up every day, just like my friend's Dad at the kitchen table and work at finding a job. That's why I am such strong supporter of the basic idea driving the Coalition's welfare reforms to make work pay, boost independence and give real help finding a job rather than leaving people stuck on the dole, enslaved by poverty. That is why, in a few weeks time, I will be launching the new Youth Contract. A Liberal Democrat drive for youth jobs: 20,000 more apprenticeships, 160,000 new jobs and 250,000 work experience places. A £1 billion scheme to get every jobless youngster earning or learning, getting all our young people earning or learning. Because no matter how hard things may be we will never, ever leave our young people behind. That includes encouraging work experience. There's been some controversy about this policy but I make no apology for it because we are doing the right thing. Labour's benefit rules actually penalised unemployed youngsters for getting work experience. So thousands of them ended up on the sofa, glued to the TV, cut off from the world of work, wasting time and losing hope. Our policy means young people can get up and get on, keep their skills alive, keep up the habits of a working life and improve their chance of landing a job. Because let me tell you this: there is nothing liberal about leaving our young people to waste away on the dole. So: we all have a part to play, a duty to the nation, and this duty is greatest of all for those with the greatest means. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden - that is basic justice, Liberal justice. But that is not how it feels today. Too often, rather than paying their dues the wealthy pay their accountants to get them out of it. Avoiding tax, minimising the amount they have to contribute - that's the name of their game. Boasting about the latest wheeze for moving an asset here, a property there and a loophole everywhere. All to make the tax bill lower. Let me tell you, few things make me angrier as the unemployed struggle to find work, as ordinary families struggle to make ends meet, as young people struggle to get on the housing ladder: the sight of the wealthiest scheming to keep their tax bill down to the bare minimum is frankly disgraceful. Multi-millionaires avoiding tax by moving their money around. So: we will call time on the tycoon tax dodgers and make sure everyone pays a fair level of tax. We've already raised capital gains tax, cut tax reliefs for the wealthiest, clamped down on tax avoidance at the top and we will go further because the Liberal Democrats have a crystal clear approach. A philosophy of tax as old as our party, described by Mill, pursued by Gladstone, implemented by Lloyd George: tax wealth, not wages. That is why we will raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. A radical tax policy. Our tax policy. From next month, 25 million people will have more money in their pocket and over a million low-paid workers will have stopped paying income tax altogether. Just think about that for a moment: a million more workers with no tax bill because of us, because of you. That's what it means to be a Liberal Democrat: real tax cuts at a time of real need. But we have to do more. That is why the Budget in ten days time must offer concrete help to hard-pressed, hard-working families: a big increase in the income tax threshold, further and faster towards £10,000. Help we promised, help we must deliver in Government, today. I want the Budget to show how we are anchoring this Government in the centre ground. Credible - but fair. The last Labour budgets led our nation to the economic precipice. Fantasy budgets issued by a party in denial - out of ideas - and abdicating responsibility. This month's Coalition budget will show the determination of both parties in Government to repair the public finances. Keep our economy safe and help working families. The last big tax-cutting budget was in 1988. Nigel Lawson cut billions from the tax bills of the highest-paid workers: a budget for the few, not for the many. But this year's Coalition Budget must be a budget for fairness - not an 80s Lawson budget but a modern liberal budget. Because we need a tax system for a nation pulling together: not being pulled apart. More important now than ever, when the forces of division are so strong. In dark economic times, people can turn inwards, close their doors, look for scapegoats. Fear can breed resentment and division: divisions between north and south between the nations of the UK, between different races or religions, between rich and poor, between the generations. Britain has a proud record of diversity and tolerance but we cannot be complacent. When the economy weakens, prejudice can breed. So let's fight it, in every corner of our nation. We are bringing forward proposals for gay marriage, already provoking debate. Let me just say, if you are a young gay person, your freedom to love who you choose is a fundamental right in a liberal society - and you will always have our support. Let's also fight for liberalism in London where just one more Liberal Democrat member of the Assembly would ensure the BNP gets kicked off. What a great moment for British tolerance that would be. Let's wipe away the ugly face of racism and reaction. I call on all Londoners - vote for Brian Paddick, vote Liberal Democrat and kick out the BNP bigots. And let me also say a word or two about Scotland. I want the Scottish people to have much more power for over Scottish affairs. The Liberal Democrats are, after all, the party of home rule. But I also know that, as nations in a United Kingdom, we are better together than we would be apart: richer, safer and stronger. Alex Salmond wants to break up the nations of the United Kingdom. I want to keep them together. He says this is a time for division - I say it is a time for unity. He wants to split us apart - I want us to pull together. It is our job, as liberals, to fight against the forces of division. Fight for our vision of an optimistic, open and tolerant nation: a nation confident enough to face outwards to the world. Arguing, as I will be, at the Rio+20 Summit for green growth to create jobs, engaging with emerging nations to drive free trade, supporting President Obama's drive, in Korea this year to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists and becoming the first major economy to hit the UN's 0.7 per cent target for foreign aid. Real help for the poorest in the world, promised by us and the Conservatives in opposition - delivered by us together in government. This is a time that demands a better politics. A politics of the national interest. That's why I am proud of this Coalition Government. We have shown that two parties, two very different parties, can govern together. Never again will the political Luddites be able to say that coalitions don't work. Coalition is working, it is has been tested and it has passed the test. Take NHS reform. Controversial, yes. Difficult, yes. But the value of coalition has been proven because this is a coalition Government. The health bill was stopped in its tracks and rewritten because this is a coalition Government. Competition will be the servant of health care, not the master because this is a coalition government. This is a bill for patients not profits. It is not a Liberal Democrat health bill but it is a better bill because of the Liberal Democrats, a better bill because of you. A better bill because of Shirley Williams - Shirley: thank you. So: I am proud of how Coalition is working but I am even more proud of us, of you. The Liberal Democrats are once again a truly national party of government. The only party of the centre ground, not of the left or right, of north or south, rich or poor but doing the right thing for the whole nation. The other parties are bound and gagged by vested interests. We are not. The other parties are hemmed into certain parts of the country. Look at the electoral map: blue seats in the south, red ones in the north. Look at where the money comes from: trade unions on one side, City financiers on the other. That is why we can say today: the Liberal Democrats are the only true one nation party. A one nation party of the radical centre, representing all regions and nations. Seeing not what divides us - but what unites us. Sound on the economy, passionate about fairness: doing the right thing and battling vested interests. Challenging the status quo. For this is the timeless liberal mission: taking on the establishment when it fails the people. A more urgent challenge today than for generations because the old establishment has failed. The two square miles - the City and Westminster have failed. Failed the ordinary people of this country and must not be allowed to fail them again. Now that we're in Government, people might ask if we can still be the party that challenges the establishment. The answer to that is an emphatic yes. I may be Deputy Prime Minister but let me tell you: I am as much of a radical as ever. Jo Grimond decried the conservatives of all parties, those who he said showed a 'sentiment in favour of things as they are': Things as they are means an economy for executives not ordinary workers Things as they are means a bank system that bankrupts our economy Things as they are means life chances being crushed by the fortunes of birth Things as they are means a tax system that hurts ordinary working families Things are they are means a House of Lords stuffed with machine politicians Things as they are means political parties kow-towing to media moguls Things as they are just won't do any more And we are in politics to change them. We are the pioneers of British politics: our eyes on the horizon. By 2015, we will have done a lot but we will have plenty left to do. Take education - a touchstone issue for this party. We will have changed the landscape by the end of this parliament, spending £2.5 billion a year on our pupil premium to strengthen our schools and create new opportunities for our children. But that is just the beginning. So I want our ambitions for education to be at the very heart of our manifesto in 2015. Education that delivers on the liberal promise: that every child can go as far as their talent will take them. That is what we Liberal Democrats will fight for. So: 2015 is not the destination. 2015 is a staging post. This country will be a more liberal nation but we will just be beginning to tackle the deep problems that cramp the lives of our citizens and hobble our economy. Because let me tell you this: in 2015 we won't be looking back, asking people to thank us for what we have done. We will be looking forwards and asking for their support for what we can do together in the future. We won't have finished the job in 2015. We will just be getting started, just getting started on making this nation. Stronger. Fairer. Greener. Freer. A more liberal Britain with every passing year: that's the prize. Let's get out there and fight for it. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Mar 7, 2012:
    • BBC coverage of some of the comings and goings at County Hall
      BBC Coverage of some of the comings and goings at County Hall, including an interview with Hazel Watson, Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition: #SurreySackings - Political expert on what SCC Cabinet sackings mean for #Surrey residents and their leadership. (mp3) © BBC with permission Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Feb 7, 2012:
    • How Surrey County Councillors voted on the Budget
      Below is a table of how Surrey Councillors voted on the 2.99% Council Tax rise at this morning's budget meeting. The main points are: All Liberal Democrat members were present and voted against the 2.99% increase. All Resident/Independent members were present and either abstained or voted against the increase. All Conservatives who were present voted for the 2.99% increase. A number of Conservatives, including the former Leader Andrew Povey, who has tweeted his opposition to the increase, were not present. Mr Agarwal Lab Against Mrs Kemeny Con For Mr Amin Lib Dem Against Mrs King Con Absent Mrs Angell Con For Mr Kington Res/Ind Against Mr Barker Con For Mr Lake Con For Mr Beardsmore Lib Dem Against Mr Lambell Lib Dem Against Mr Bennison Con For Mrs Lay Con For Mrs Bowes Con For Ms Le Gal Con For Mr Brett-Warburton Con For Mr MacLeod Con For Mr Butcher Con For Mr Mallett Res/Ind Against Mr Carasco Con For Mrs Marks Con For Mr Chapman Con For Mr Marlow Con For Mrs Clack Con For Mr Martin Con For Mrs Coleman Con For Mrs Mason Res/Ind Against Mr Cooksey Lib Dem Against Mrs Moseley Con For Mr Cooper Res/Ind Abstain Mr Munro Con For Mr Cosser Con For Mrs Nichols Lib Dem Against Mrs Curran Con For Mr Norman Con For Mr Elias Con Absent Mr Orrick Lib Dem Against Mr Ellwood Con For Mr Phelps-Penry Res/Ind Abstain Mr Few Con For Mr Pitt Con For Mr Forster Lib Dem Against Dr Povey Con Absent Mrs Fraser Con For Mr Renshaw Con Absent Mr Frost Res/Ind Against Mrs Ross-Tomlin Con For Mrs Frost Con For Mrs Saliagopoulos Con For Mr Fuller Con For Mr Samuels Con For Mr Furey Con For Mrs Searle Lib Dem Against Mr Gimson Con For Mrs Sealy Con N/V Chairman Mr Goodwin Lib Dem Against Mr Skellett Con For Mr Gosling Con For Mrs Smith Lib Dem Against Dr Grant-Duff Con Absent Mr Sutcliffe Con Absent Dr Hack Con Absent Mr Sydney Con For Mr Hall Con For Mr Colin Taylor Lib Dem Against Mrs Hammond Con For Mr Keith Taylor Con For Mr Harmer Con For Mr Townsend Res/Ind Abstain Mr Harrison Res/Ind Abstain Mrs Turner-Stewart Con For Ms Heath Con For Mr Walsh Con For Mr Hickman Res/Ind Abstain Mrs Watson Lib Dem Against Mrs Hicks Con For Mrs White Lib Dem Against Mr Hodge Con For Mr Wood Res/Ind Against Mr Ivison Con For Mr Young Con For Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
    • 2012 Budget Speech by Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson
      I request a recorded vote on the administration's budget for 2012/13. I will be voting against the administration's Budget, because an almost 3% increase in Council Tax is excessive. It is time for all County Councillors to stand up and be counted and to vote against the Budget. While there is no escaping that to protect services over the coming years there has to be an increase in Council Tax. The administration's plans are in excess of what is required to balance the books and are an unnecessary burden on Surrey's council tax payers in the recession. The legacy of years of the administration, by their own admission, failing Surrey's residents means that there is almost no choice but to increase Council Tax. The administration states in its own Corporate Strategy, being discussed today, that they failed Surrey residents for years. Surrey Council Taxpayers are still paying for that failure. The Corporate Strategy states: " In 2008 Surrey County Council was failing Surrey residents. Key essential services were not being delivered effectively: some were close to failure. Our costs were spiralling out of control: our projected spending over the years 2009 to 2013 was over £200 million more than the income we would have. We had little credibility with key partners. We had not invested as well as we should have in the skill and training of staff and the equipment that they had to work with." I agree with that statement. Millions of pounds of money were frittered away on such things as excessive reliance on consultants instead of spending it on frontline services needed by Surrey residents. I do not support the content of the administration's Budget because it cuts services to a greater extent than overheads and the back office. This is the wrong balance of priorities. Services for the benefit of Surrey residents should be protected and administrative functions should be cut first. I support the additional money for Surrey's highways maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition, I would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. I would also increase funding for voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents. The 0.49% additional Council Tax being proposed by the administration amounts to £2.7 million of revenue funding. I propose to reverse the Community Library plans costing £200,000. Reverting concessionary bus passes to a 9am start, costing £350,000, and not implementing £100,000 of administration cuts to voluntary organisations. These proposals total £3.35million. I propose that the funding for these proposals is taken from £1million from the Communications budget out of an excessive £2million budget. £1million from Agency staff out of a total of £12million. £1million from expenditure on consultants out of a total of £5million, and by bringing forward an £800,000 saving from the Chief Executive's Office reorganisation proposed for 2015/16, totalling £3.8million which is £450,000 in excess of the savings required to balance the books. I would also abandon the administration's expensive legal battle against Surrey residents in the High Court in order pursue its ill-conceived plans to replace professional library staff with volunteers in 10 of the County's libraries. In order to fund the £2million of capital or one off schemes in paragraph 50 of the Budget I would use the two new reserves totalling £7.6 million. I believe that these two new reserves are unnecessary, given that the County Council has total reserves of £112million of which £81.9 million are earmarked and £30 million are available balances. This leaves £5.6 million of these two new reserves that I propose are used for road resurfacing capital expenditure. The additional £5.6 million I propose to spend on road resurfacing would be a step towards addressing the massive £400 million backlog of roads maintenance in the County which the administration's Budget has inadequately addressed. In fact the additional £2million proposed by the administration in their Budget is a mere drop of tarmac in a sea of Surrey potholes. All in all, the administration's Budget places an excessive burden on Surrey Council Taxpayers, does not provide the services that Surrey residents want and need. Instead it piles up money in the bank that would be better spent resurfacing Surrey's potholed roads. I urge councillors to vote against the administration's Budget. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
    • Time to get road repairs out of a hole
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for action not words in repairing Surrey's roads. Cllr Stephen Cooksey, the Liberal Democrat Transportation Spokesperson has tabled a written question to today's meeting of the County Council regarding failings in the new highways maintenance contract. Cllr Cooksey said: "The answer from the Conservative Cabinet Member raises as many issues as it answers. "Whilst it is encouraging that the contractor is penalised for failing to achieve contract targets, this is not getting Surrey's roads repaired. After this week's downfall of snow there will a fresh new set of potholes and cracks that need repairing. With a roads maintenance backlog of £400million, Surrey's residents want to see Surrey's roads being fixed, not just empty promises. "The new contract seems to have brought welcome improvement to the implementation of major schemes but has left much to be desired with regard to the smaller repair and replacement jobs that are so important in local communities. Residents have been kept waiting for months, for example, for the replacement of signs and bollards or grate and manhole covers regardless of the pressures from local members and County highways officers. Emergency repairs are not followed through with permanent repairs, residents are not given advance notice of works and members are unable to obtain information about local schedules. "The Council has received a somewhat complacent, 'everything will be alright' response from the Cabinet member which does not instil confidence that sufficient pressure is being applied to achieve the rapid improvement that is necessary. "The fact that the present arrangements might be an improvement on the appalling situation that was allowed to develop with the previous contract is of little comfort. We will continue to press the Council to ensure that the situation is improved and the promised level of service attained." Stephen Cooksey's question to today's meeting of Surrey County Council and the reply are: CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT (1) MR STEPHEN COOKSEY (DORKING AND THE HOLMWOODS) TO ASK: On 12 January the Environment and Transport Select Committee received a report on the performance of the newly appointed highways maintenance contractors. While it was clear the new contract is working better than the old one a number of issues were raised including: Failure to deliver follow up permanent repairs to emergency repairs within the stipulated 28 days. IT and operational problems preventing the contractor achieving the productivity required to deliver contract response timescales for safety repairs. The contractor not having sufficient resources to meet surface protection work demands. Problems with road marking sub contractors. Carriageways not being swept of stones after surface protection within agreed timescales. Residents and businesses being given advance notice of works in their road too late or too early. Failure to promptly answer councillor queries. What actions will the Cabinet Member be taking to ensure Surrey residents and businesses receive the standard of road maintenance that they pay for? Reply: The report presented to the Environment and Transport Select Committee did identify a number of areas where May Gurney had not achieved the required level of performance. Two key issues were identified in the report: 1) Repair of Safety Defects - It was anticipated that there would be on average 30,000 safety defects to repair each year, however in the 6 month period between April and October, May Gurney repaired 20,000 safety defects, partly due to a large backlog of defects inherited from the previous contract, partly caused by the bad winter. In spite of this higher than expected defect level May Gurney achieved an average of 85% repaired within the required timescale, and October's performance confirms an average 95% success rate. This is steadily improving, and we are confident that May Gurney will achieve the required targets before April 2012. 2) Surface Dressing/Microsurfacing - May Gurney did not effectively plan and resource the surface treatment programme, and as a consequence residents were not always advised of works and May Gurney could not secure necessary resources to deliver the full programme in 2011/2012. We have now addressed the issues that caused these problems, which included a national equipment shortage and Surrey not producing the Capital programme until March, 3 months late. We are confident with the better pre-planning May Gurney will deliver the expected performance for 12/13. We have learned our lessons from the SHiP Contracts, and there are two key mechanisms contained in the new contract to ensure May Gurney are focussed on resolving these issues. These are: 1) May Gurney are paid a fixed lump sum for repairing all safety defects. This means that the additional resources that have been brought in to deal with the increased number of safety defects are at their expense. 2) May Gurney's profit is directly linked to their performance, and therefore deductions have been made from their profit to reflect the actual levels of performance achieved. These two features ensure that Surrey only pays for the level of service it receives, and also provides a strong incentive for May Gurney to achieve the required performance and productivity levels. The mobilisation of a new contract is always a difficult and challenging time, and May Gurney have faced some real challenges, including problems with IT systems and managing the transfer of staff from the previous contracts. However, the quality of the work is noticeably better than the previous contracts and performance continues to improve. We will work with May Gurney to ensure they achieve the required performance standards, particularly in the areas identified above. Information on the performance of the highways contract is now published on the Council's website. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Feb 6, 2012:
    • Lib Dems call for all party vote against excessive Council Tax rise
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for county councillors from all parties to support them in voting against the excessive 2.99% Council Tax rise being proposed by the Conservative Leader and Cabinet to the County Council budget setting meeting on Tuesday. Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, says: "The Budget setting meeting is the time for all County councillors to stand up and be counted. While there is no escaping that to protect services over the coming years there has to be an increase in Council Tax, the plans by the Conservative administration are in excess of what is required to balance the books and are an unnecessary burden on Surrey's Council Taxpayers in the recession. "I will be calling on county councillors from all parties to join with the Liberal Democrats in voting against the proposed 2.99% Council Tax increase." Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats propose to save money to protect services include: halving the excessive £2 million communications budget spent on PR spin and glossy magazines bringing forward from 2016/17 the reorganisation of the Chief Executive's Department, a saving of £800,000 cutting the £17million spent on consultants and agency staff using a small proportion of the County's £112 million of reserves and available balances to fund road resurfacing and important capital projects an end to the costly High Court fight against residents over the plans to replace professional library staff with volunteers. Cllr Watson adds: "We support the additional money for Surrey's highway maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition we would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching Conservative change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. "We would increase funding to voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 31, 2012:
    • Lib Dems call for Council Tax rise restraint
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for the Conservative administration to show restraint in increasing Council Tax in the 2012/13 Budget. Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, says: "The legacy of years of the Conservative administration at Surrey County Council, by their own admission, failing Surrey's residents means that they now have almost no choice but to increase Council Tax. "The Conservative-run Cabinet states in its own Corporate Strategy being discussed today that they failed Surrey residents for years. Surrey Council Taxpayers are still paying for that failure." The Corporate Strategy states: 'In 2008 Surrey County Council was failing Surrey residents. Key essential services were not being delivered effectively: some were close to failure. Our costs were spiralling out of control: our projected spending over the years 2009 to 2013 was over £200 million more than the income we would have. We had little credibility with key partners. We had not invested as well as we should have in the skills and training of staff and the equipment they had to work with.' Cllr Watson continued: "Council finance officers have been clear that the Council Tax increase that is needed to stick to the Council's five year financial plan, and not have unacceptable further cuts than those already planned, is 2.5%. In the present financial climate, with many Surrey residents struggling to make ends meet, it is irresponsible for the Conservative administration to want to put up Council Tax by more than 2.5%. "We support the additional money for Surrey's highway maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition we would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching Conservative change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. "We would increase funding to voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents. "Our proposals can be achieved by halving the excessive £2 million communications budget spent on PR spin and glossy magazines, bringing forward from 2016/17 the reorganisation of the Chief Executive's Department and cutting the millions spent on consultants and agency staff. We would use a small proportion of the County's £112 million of reserves and available balances to fund road resurfacing and important capital projects. This can be done without increasing Council Tax by the excessive amount proposed by the Conservatives." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 24, 2012:
    • Lib Dems call on County Council to abandon expensive legal battle
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for the Conservative administration to abandon their plans to replace professional staff in 10 of the County's libraries with volunteers, rather than continue with a costly legal fight against Surrey residents in the High Court. Following the High Court order on Friday by Hon. Mr Justice Wyn Williams, that the County Council should 'take no irrevocable steps towards implementing the Community Partnered Libraries (CPLs) decision impugned in these proceedings until further order of this court', Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, said: "I am calling on the Conservative administration at Surrey County Council to immediately end its unpopular and ill-conceived plans to axe professional library staff and replace them with volunteers, and to abandon the squandering of council taxpayers money on an expensive and drawn out legal battle in the High Court. "The Conservative administration should be listening to Surrey residents who value their local libraries and want to protect them from being downgraded and potentially being closed. Local communities want their libraries to be fully staffed with professional librarians to ensure a good service is maintained. "Continuing with the ill-advised and unpopular High Court battle is not a good use of Surrey council taxpayers money. The Conservative controlled County Council should be serving Surrey's residents, not fighting them in the High Court. "At the Budget Meeting on 7 February Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats will be calling for a change to the County Council's Budget for 2012/13 to reverse the Conservative administrations' Community Partnered Libraries plan so every library across the County is fully staffed with professional librarians." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 22, 2012:
    • Secret Surrey stifles scrutiny
      Following the announcement by the Conservative Leader of Surrey County Council that he is proposing a 2.99% rise in Council Tax, Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are demanding to know why councillors have been denied papers to properly scrutinise the proposals by the Conservative administration for the County's 2012/13 Budget. At a meeting of the County Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Friday which was meant scrutinise the 2012/13 Budget, and at which papers were meant to be available for scrutiny, no papers were presented. Members, behind closed doors, were given a two-minute presentation by a senior Finance Officer and brief verbal summaries by Conservative Scrutiny Committee Chairmen of their views. In a number of briefings to Select Committees by council officers that were held behind closed doors, councillors have been denied any background papers or even printed copies of the PowerPoint presentations they were being shown. Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson is submitting two formal questions to the Council's Cabinet challenging the secrecy behind Surrey County Council's decision making. Cllr Watson says: "Secret Surrey is denying proper scrutiny of major proposals about cuts to services in the County. "Surrey's residents must come first, and proposals should be discussed in an open and transparent way that ensures they get the best value for money and that essential services are protected. The lack of real and effective scrutiny of proposals means that this isn't happening." More like North Korea than Kent Cllr Watson is also tabling a question asking why Surrey is taking so long to publish any sort of budget. Kent County Council published its detailed 59 page "Draft Budget Book 2012/13" on 20 December 2011, giving Kent residents and businesses one month to examine the detailed plans and comment on them. Cllr Watson added: "When you couple the secret way in which proposals are discussed by Conservative controlled Surrey County Council, with the very late availability of information, you end up with crucial decisions being taken in a manner more in keeping with North Korea than democratic Britain." Notes Councillor Hazel Watson is tabling the following questions for the meeting of the Conservative Cabinet of Surrey County Council on 31 January: Question 1: The first paragraph of the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee set out at the Annual General Meeting of the County Council stated "Monitoring performance, risk and budget across all services", how can the Committee perform this function, when at the 20 January meeting under the item on the County Council Draft Budget, no papers were provided to members to perform either the role of overview or the role of scrutiny? Question 2: Who is responsible for issuing the instruction to officers that Members of the Council should not be provided with copies of the PowerPoint presentations or any background papers at the recent budget briefings to Select Committees? Question 3: Kent County Council published its detailed 59 page "Draft Budget Book 2012/13" on 20 December 2011, giving Kent residents and businesses one month to examine the detailed plans and comment on them. By contrast Surrey County Council published a far less detailed outline budget with no details of proposed cuts to services and no time for detailed consultation, a month later. Why cannot Surrey County Council conduct the budget setting process in the open and transparent way in which its neighbour does? Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 16, 2012:
    • Lib Dems ask "Where is Surrey's Budget for 2012/13?"
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are asking "Where is Conservative-run Surrey County Council's Budget?" Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "With only three weeks to go until Surrey County Council's 2012/13 Budget setting meeting on 7 February, the Conservative administration has not yet even published a draft budget for consultation. "Enquiries by the Liberal Democrats of other county councils across the country have revealed draft budgets being published in December 2011, allowing an open public debate about proposals. By contrast, Surrey residents and businesses are kept in the dark; there is no openness or transparency about Conservative-run Surrey's Council Tax and spending plans. "If Kent, which is bigger than Surrey, managed to publish a detailed draft budget for consultation in December 2011, why couldn't Surrey? "When is the Conservative administration at County Hall going to get its act together? The late publication of the budget means that there will be little opportunity for councillors and residents to scrutinise it. We need to be reassured that Surrey residents will be getting good value for money, that the budget is realistic, that it will protect services and not waste money. "Every year it is the same. Every year I ask why the plans of the Conservative controlled Council are not made public earlier. It is not as if it is a surprise that they have to take budget decisions at the same time every year. Surrey County Council 's Conservative administration needs to look at how and why other county councils manage to be much earlier and more open with publishing their budget proposals, rather than the last minute muddle they come up with every year." NOTE: Kent County Council's draft budget can be accessed by clicking here. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 2, 2012:
    • Conservative Surrey fails to see the light on Solar Power
      The Government introduced the Feed-in-tariffs (FiT) to encourage early take up of renewable technology in April 2010. Surrey County Council finally approved a scheme to install solar panels on 25 buildings in July 2011. Yet when the Government announced a cut to the FiT rate, they still had not installed a single solar panel. SCC Lib Dem Environment spokesperson Cllr Will Forster said, "Surrey County Council has been so slow in acting that the Conservative Council Leader has axed all the proposed solar photovoltaic panel installations at a cost of £60,000." "This is in complete contrast to Liberal Democrat controlled Eastleigh Borough Council, which partly by installing so many solar panels will be carbon-neutral in 2012. Surrey is paying the price for County Hall's half-hearted approach to climate change." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Jan 1, 2012:
    • Surrey could've kept 9.00 am bus pass start
      Conservative controlled Surrey County Council could have kept bus passes starting at 9.00 am and still underspent by £150,000 on this year's local buses budget! £351,000: The amount saved by Conservative controlled Surrey County Council by cutting concessionary bus passes for the elderly and disabled from a 9.00 am start to a 9.30 am start. £500,000: The amount Conservative controlled Surrey County Council is projected to underspend on the budget for local bus services this year. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 15, 2011:
    • Lib Dems condemn e-mail censorship
      Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have condemned the censorship of e-mails to Members of the Council. Members of the County Council have been blocked from receiving e-mails from the Chairman of the Surrey Libraries Action Movement. Liberal Democrat leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "It is fundamental to democracy that members of the public, constituents, Surrey businesses and local organisations can communicate freely with elected members. The heavy handed decision to decide that e-mails from SLAM are Spam is undemocratic and unacceptable. "Even the County Council's Constitution explicitly states that the delivery of correspondence will not be delayed or interfered with by officers or Members." NOTES: 1.) County Councillors received the following email at 13.28 on 12 December: "Over the past two weeks you will have received a series of unsolicited emails from Mr Michael Alsop, Chairman SLAM, which he has addressed to all Surrey County Councillors, the CEX and other senior officers. This is part of his campaign against the council's plans for Community Partnership Libraries. Whilst he is at liberty to pursue his arguments as he chooses, his frequent broadcasting of email messages has become unreasonable. I have written to him today to ask him to reconsider and to address any future email to Customer Relations. Meanwhile, any further emails from Mr Alsop will appear in your Lotus Notes in-box as junk mail, giving you the option to open or discard it." 2.) Not all County Councillors are able to retrieve email from their "junk mail" as many who are also Borough/District Councillors have their email auto forwarded. 3.) The Member/Officer Protocol of Surrey County Council, which forms part of the Constitutions states: "42. Information and correspondence will be sent to Members by post either directly or through the pigeon holes at Members' Reception, by email or by fax as appropriate and its delivery will not be delayed or interfered with by Officers or Members." The protocol is available online here (pdf file) Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Dec 11, 2011:
    • The Eurozone Crisis - Some Lib Dem Comments
      The gathering Eurozone crisis - particularly the dramatic summit on Friday when David Cameron dug his heels in - has generated a variety of comments from Lib Dem spokespeople. The news media do not generally give Lib Dems much coverage, so here are some key comments, including some not widely reported. First three defining comments by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. Back on 30 November, the Lib Dem leader in Brussels Guy Verhofdtstat gave an early warning about Sarkozy and Merkel. Significantly, on 1 December the European Liberal Congress in Palermo rejected the Socialists' proposed Transaction Tax. Following speeches by President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris on 2 December, Guy Verhofstadt rejected their Intergovernmentalism. Also on 2 December, South-East Lib Dem MEP Sharon Bowles posted her crisis warning. Then on 5 December Guy Verhofstadt again warned that Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, offered nothing new. On 7 December, Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff expressed doubts about EU President Van Rumpoy's plans to avoid Treaty change. Following the summit, on 9 December Sharon Bowles posted her analysis that Cameron played a dangerous game and lost. Also on 9 December, Sir Graham Watson MEP, the European Lib Dem President accused the Centre Right Establihment of Letting Europe Down. However earlier on 9 December, Sir Graham Watson had also describd the UK's decision to stay out of the EU Treaty deal as regrettable. Finally again on 9 December, Andrew Duff deplored the UK decision not to participate, but described the summit as a New start for the Euro. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

What would you like to do next?

  • Subscribe for updates

    Read updates from this website in your desktop or online news reader

    • On a news reader website

      •  
      •  
      •  

      In a desktop news reader or a website not listed above

      •  
    • Example monthly digest email
      •  
      •  
      •  

    • If you submit your contact details, the Liberal Democrats and their elected representatives may use the information you provide to contact you about issues you may find of interest. Some of the contacts may be automated. You can opt out of these contacts at any time by contacting


    • Generate different image

    Join our email list

    • If you submit your contact details, the Liberal Democrats and their elected representatives may use the information you provide to contact you about issues you may find of interest. Some of the contacts may be automated. You can opt out of these contacts at any time by contacting


    • Generate different image

    Follow the party's activity on...

  • Share this page

    Share this page on another website

    Link to this page

    On websites and printed material:
    wokinglibdems.org.uk/en/page/localnews
    In text messages, Twitter, or reading over the phone:
    wokinglibdems.org.uk/p85D

    Email this page to a friend


    • Generate different image

    Print this page

  • Help out or donate

    Help out in your local area

      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  

    • If you submit your contact details, the Liberal Democrats and their elected representatives may use the information you provide to contact you about issues you may find of interest. Some of the contacts may be automated. You can opt out of these contacts at any time by contacting


    • Generate different image

    Join the Liberal Democrats

  • Tell us what you think

    Send us your views

    • If you agree, the Liberal Democrats and their elected representatives may use the information you provide to contact you about issues you may find of interest. Some of the contacts may be automated. You can opt out of these contacts at any time by contacting us.


    • Generate different image

    Contact us by email, post, or phone