In
addition to the party priorities set out below, I have my own interests.
I would like to see more investment
in cycling provision locally, which would mean more than painting a few
white lines onto roads. Cycling is a fun activity which can keep us
healthy. It is easy to do and can be enjoyed by almost everyone.
It also reduces the number of cars on our busy roads, which benefits us all.
However, most people see cycling as dangerous and would never dream of
getting on a bike. Local authorities can do a lot to encourage people
through simple activities such as requiring proper cycle lanes to be
included in any new roads. With all the planned development around
Witney in particular, this could be a once in a generation opportunity
to build a lasting legacy which can benefit everyone.
We also need to invest in affordable housing which is well designed, which does not swamp existing communities and which comes with the services that people need to live well in our district. I worked for the Vale of White Horse District Council for 7 years, during which time the then Lib Dem administration prioritised high quality affordable housing and delivered more than 1500 homes in town centres and sustainable communities. West Oxfordshire has a good record for affordable housing but we need to keep the pace of building up to make sure that our communities remain strong and vibrant. Leafield's shop and school are good examples of how new housing can benefit villages. More people living in Leafield has meant that both are thriving.
The district council is small and has limited budgets but those budgets must be spent wisely, building strong communities now and leaving a lasting legacy for the future.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PRIORITIES FOR WEST OXFORDSHIRE
Every authority needs an active opposition and the Lib Dems have a good record in West Oxfordshire. In March, Lib Dem councillors stood up for the Citizens’ Advice Bureau when the Tories tried to slash the budget. It was Lib Dems who convinced the Tories that they should look at opening a recycling facility at Greystones to replace Dean Pit.
The Liberal Democrats want a better future for everyone in our area, which includes:
- Enough affordable houses so that the next generation can afford to rent or buy a home locally
- Roads and pavements maintained properly
- Higher building standards, to reduce fuel costs and CO2 emissions
- Better recycling for businesses. What;'s the point of us all recycling at home when busioness throw away tons of rubbish each day because there is no choice for them?
- Zero-landfill targets. This will be tough to achieve but there is nothing wrong with having targets to aim for
- Planning policy that supports local food production, encouraging jobs and sustainability
ABOUT ME, THE CANDIDATE FOR HAILEY, LEAFIELD AND MINSTER LOVELL
I am standing for election in West Oxfordshire for the village I have lived in for 10 years. I am a passionate Liberal Democrat, an active local citizen and a keen advocate of local democracy, not to mention a father of two children who go to the local school.
I have stood for election in various places but this is the first opportunity I have had to represent my own village, together with the surrounding villages of Hailey, Minster Lovell and Ramsden. Previously I worked for a local authority so I was unable to stand in any elections. However, I have kept myself busy since moving to Oxfordshire. I joined the community shop committee five days after arriving in Leafield and I remain an active member. Our community shop opened in January 2003 with working capital of about £700. After more than our fair share of trials and tribulations we remain in business with great staff, an ever growing range of stock and we are looking forward with great pride to our tenth birthday next year. Our shop now includes the Post Office, which closed but which we successfully revived. I volunteer in the shop regularly.
I have also served as parish councillor and parish clerk in the village, during which time I worked towards getting us more affordable housing and new play equipment. Latterly I was a member of the church PCC and an active member of the church.
That's a brief biography to provide a flavour of your candidate. I shall discuss my interests and priorities in the next post.
I have stood for election in various places but this is the first opportunity I have had to represent my own village, together with the surrounding villages of Hailey, Minster Lovell and Ramsden. Previously I worked for a local authority so I was unable to stand in any elections. However, I have kept myself busy since moving to Oxfordshire. I joined the community shop committee five days after arriving in Leafield and I remain an active member. Our community shop opened in January 2003 with working capital of about £700. After more than our fair share of trials and tribulations we remain in business with great staff, an ever growing range of stock and we are looking forward with great pride to our tenth birthday next year. Our shop now includes the Post Office, which closed but which we successfully revived. I volunteer in the shop regularly.
I have also served as parish councillor and parish clerk in the village, during which time I worked towards getting us more affordable housing and new play equipment. Latterly I was a member of the church PCC and an active member of the church.
That's a brief biography to provide a flavour of your candidate. I shall discuss my interests and priorities in the next post.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
MORE ON LABOUR'S NHS SHAME
Lord help me, quoting Simon Carr twice in two days. What is to become of me? Nevertheless, the Independent's somewhat fuzzy commentator reports on PMQs with Nick Clegg yesterday and notes the following:
'The most revealing exchange suggested that Labour may be losing the argument on the Health Bill. Clegg gave her three bite-sized facts to chew on: 1) Labour was wanting to spend less on the NHS than the Coalition. 2) Sweetheart deals with the private sector were now illegal. 3) There was a new statutory duty to reduce health inequalities.'
Absolutely, Simon. Labour is utterly exposed on the NHS Bill for all these reasons and more, including the simple fact that they did more than any other government to bring private enterprise into the NHS, normally at the expense of existing services. Sadly no one has yet gone in with the proverbial stiletto to finish them off. Add to that the fact that Lib Dem histrionics on this Bill are neither helping the coalition nor the party and you've got a clear field currently being left for Labour which we should own as the party which has played with a straight bat on this throughout.
Carr ends by speculating that the coalition may be more solid than people think and may persist after 2015. That's a big claim to make on the back of a single PMQs and it will strike terror into the hearts of both Tories and Lib Dems. For Lib Dems with a knowledge of our history, memories of the post-1918 coalition governments may cause them to shudder a little [Google it if you want to know more: if I attempt a summary here I will be hauled up for getting the building in which a deal was struck or the pen used wrong].
'The most revealing exchange suggested that Labour may be losing the argument on the Health Bill. Clegg gave her three bite-sized facts to chew on: 1) Labour was wanting to spend less on the NHS than the Coalition. 2) Sweetheart deals with the private sector were now illegal. 3) There was a new statutory duty to reduce health inequalities.'
Absolutely, Simon. Labour is utterly exposed on the NHS Bill for all these reasons and more, including the simple fact that they did more than any other government to bring private enterprise into the NHS, normally at the expense of existing services. Sadly no one has yet gone in with the proverbial stiletto to finish them off. Add to that the fact that Lib Dem histrionics on this Bill are neither helping the coalition nor the party and you've got a clear field currently being left for Labour which we should own as the party which has played with a straight bat on this throughout.
Carr ends by speculating that the coalition may be more solid than people think and may persist after 2015. That's a big claim to make on the back of a single PMQs and it will strike terror into the hearts of both Tories and Lib Dems. For Lib Dems with a knowledge of our history, memories of the post-1918 coalition governments may cause them to shudder a little [Google it if you want to know more: if I attempt a summary here I will be hauled up for getting the building in which a deal was struck or the pen used wrong].
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
LABOUR OPPOSITION TO THE NHS CHANGES - AS PRINCIPLED AS A NEWS OF THE WORLD JOURNALIST
Simon Carr in the Independent is a bit too frothy for my liking but his commentary on the NHS debate yesterday contains one telling paragraph:
'Labour was castigated, though probably not chastised. Oh, the things they did in government. The practice-based commissioning. The private treatment centres. The £67 billion of private money debt. The £12bn private IT system. And the franchising out of a hospital that Lansley is being vilified for. "The only secret Tory plan they find is a Labour plan," he yelled. For all the fury, maybe there is a secret consensus underneath it all.'
I know this is just a light-hearted dig at politicians in general but it nicely encapsulates the double standards of the Labour Party, which introduced GP commissioning and greater competition into the NHS, often at the expense of existing NHS providers. I wonder what Andy Burnham would say to this. You get the feeling he would cheerfully blame the Tories for the Iraq War if he was asked to.
'Labour was castigated, though probably not chastised. Oh, the things they did in government. The practice-based commissioning. The private treatment centres. The £67 billion of private money debt. The £12bn private IT system. And the franchising out of a hospital that Lansley is being vilified for. "The only secret Tory plan they find is a Labour plan," he yelled. For all the fury, maybe there is a secret consensus underneath it all.'
I know this is just a light-hearted dig at politicians in general but it nicely encapsulates the double standards of the Labour Party, which introduced GP commissioning and greater competition into the NHS, often at the expense of existing NHS providers. I wonder what Andy Burnham would say to this. You get the feeling he would cheerfully blame the Tories for the Iraq War if he was asked to.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL
There is an excellent article from Tim Farron in the Grauniad in which he defends our record in government and calls on Lib Dems to have a bit more pride in our achievements. The fact that we are delivering on lowering tax for the lowest paid, putting more money into schools and - something which has been forgotten - 'kicking the decision on Trident into the long grass' is mentioned by Farron. He also mentions the little fact of the disastrous war in Iraq which any Labour politician in government at the time must wear like an albatross around their neck.
The bit that matters most is the attack on Labour's Andy Burnham for his dishonest attacks on the NHS Bill on the basis that he opposes 'NHS privatisation'. Putting aside the fact that the bill is not privatisation, Tim Farron comments on Labour's 2006 NHS Act which, er, introduced private competition and, as Farron points out, led directly to the privatisation of two practices in his constituency. As I've said before, shame on Labour for this attack.
Andrew Grice in the Independent says today that we are still in the game, which is nice given that he has been one of many seeking to dismiss us in the past. He also reports a lovely moment: following an attack on the Lib Dems by rabid Tory Nadine Dorries, someone at LD HQ sent her flowers to thank her for helping differentiate us from them.
If you're in two minds about the Lib Dems or if you have simply decided to follow the headlines and damn us for being in government, can I urge you to pause and reflect on articles like this one. As Tim Farron says, we have achieved more in the last 2 years than we did in the last 60. Your taxes are lower thanks to us; the replacement of an obsolete nuclear weapon with another obsolete nuclear weapon is less likely; proposals for reforms to the NHS to save everyone money and improve care have been decontaminated by us; the poorest schoolchildren have got more funding from government to help them to succeed; the Tories have been reined in by a muscular approach to coalition from the LDs.
And we haven't invaded any Middle Eastern countries for oil.
I will always dislike the Tories but the coalition was and remains the right choice and I respect our MPs for their forbearance in the face of horrible pressure.
The bit that matters most is the attack on Labour's Andy Burnham for his dishonest attacks on the NHS Bill on the basis that he opposes 'NHS privatisation'. Putting aside the fact that the bill is not privatisation, Tim Farron comments on Labour's 2006 NHS Act which, er, introduced private competition and, as Farron points out, led directly to the privatisation of two practices in his constituency. As I've said before, shame on Labour for this attack.
Andrew Grice in the Independent says today that we are still in the game, which is nice given that he has been one of many seeking to dismiss us in the past. He also reports a lovely moment: following an attack on the Lib Dems by rabid Tory Nadine Dorries, someone at LD HQ sent her flowers to thank her for helping differentiate us from them.
If you're in two minds about the Lib Dems or if you have simply decided to follow the headlines and damn us for being in government, can I urge you to pause and reflect on articles like this one. As Tim Farron says, we have achieved more in the last 2 years than we did in the last 60. Your taxes are lower thanks to us; the replacement of an obsolete nuclear weapon with another obsolete nuclear weapon is less likely; proposals for reforms to the NHS to save everyone money and improve care have been decontaminated by us; the poorest schoolchildren have got more funding from government to help them to succeed; the Tories have been reined in by a muscular approach to coalition from the LDs.
And we haven't invaded any Middle Eastern countries for oil.
I will always dislike the Tories but the coalition was and remains the right choice and I respect our MPs for their forbearance in the face of horrible pressure.
Monday, 27 February 2012
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF BLOGGERS ON THE PROPOSED NHS CHANGES
The arguments over the health bill continue to rumble on and the consequence of the debate is that any light shed on the substance of the proposals has been lost in the heat of political discord. I am but a humble pundit and my conclusions can be oversimplified thus:
1. Labour is being about as dishonest about this Bill as it is possible to be. There is not one single, solitary measure in the proposals which was not being introduced during the last Labour government. Any Labour politicians who says otherwise is lying. Bare-faced, Pinocchio-nosed lying. Competition, GP commissioning, private companies providing care - with huge government subsidies and few targets, fragmentation of the service - all were introduced, or extended, under Labour. The difference with the current proposals is that they offer a coherent approach to the piecemeal New Labour 'let's try this and see what the focus groups say' approach. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it has the aim of improving the service for the long-term. Labour tinkered and threw money at the NHS, keeping it chugging along while the costs rose and rose; the coalition government is trying to redesign it to work for another 60 years as we all get older and need more and more interventions to keep us chugging along. You can't blame Labour for trying to derail the proposals but their dishonesty is breathtaking.
2. The Lib Dems support the spirit of these changes and we should have the courage to support the letter of them as well. Our Peers are acting on solid principles but if they continue to insist on major changes the Bill will be blunted beyond any practical use and we will look like we twist with the wind on health. That is Labour's role. I don't suppose anyone loves the proposals unreservedly but they are coherent and they are government policy. We should support them - not without reservation but without the impression of panic every time another Royal College (who knew there were so many?!) comes out against the changes.
3. No one likes change. If someone came along to your company and told you that a shadow office would be set up to compete with you for work, you'd probably be fed up as well but that's the modern world of public sector service provision. I experienced it in the 1990s in the local authority I worked for and it stank and completely demoralised the staff. It happened twice, which did nothing to the general mood. However, by the time I left the organisation was incalculably leaner and fitter, proving that the nasty medicine worked there - not without tears but it did work. Because of my personal experience of this process I am not completely for the proposals and I sympathise with the poor people who will have to introduce them. However, I recognise that something has to change in the NHS.
4. The Tories did promise no major changes to the NHS and they broke that promise. We didn't. Let them fight that battle, not us.
The analogy that comes to my mind is an old VW camper van. Everyone loves them and there are lots of old ones on the road which have been patched up and repaired to within an inch of their rivets but there will come a time when the trusty old wagon will not be economically repairable any more. The choice then becomes to pay over the odds or to try something new.
I have always used the NHS and I always will. I believe completely in public sector provision and I am 100% convinced that the NHS will remain free at the point of use and that the service I receive will be just as good, if not better, once the proposed changes are introduced. I wish Lib Dem peers with the power to ruin us at Westminster would recognise this.
If the proposals fail, the government fails and the Lib Dems are done for. So here's a mad idea for the day. Why not suggest that a Lib Dem minister takes over from Lansley in delivering this policy. The poor 'volunteer' would have to be dragged to the Department of Health by several teams of wild horses but they could then set about explaining the changes, which Andrew Lansley has not done. I don't think he has done anything wrong: his only crime has been to stick to his principles, which any sensible politician knows never works. A Lib Dem Secretary of State for Health would be able to present a fresh approach and demonstrate that the Lib Dems can deliver tough changes. They wouldn't become wildly popular but the legacy for our party could be immense. I wouldn't dream of suggesting who that lucky volunteer might be but we have the people to do this and do it well.
The Tories would be delighted because they would perceive the pressure moving away from them but a good Lib Dem Secretary of State could damn them robustly for the manner in which the proposals were introduced, while still playing with a straight bat on getting the sensible changes implemented.
1. Labour is being about as dishonest about this Bill as it is possible to be. There is not one single, solitary measure in the proposals which was not being introduced during the last Labour government. Any Labour politicians who says otherwise is lying. Bare-faced, Pinocchio-nosed lying. Competition, GP commissioning, private companies providing care - with huge government subsidies and few targets, fragmentation of the service - all were introduced, or extended, under Labour. The difference with the current proposals is that they offer a coherent approach to the piecemeal New Labour 'let's try this and see what the focus groups say' approach. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it has the aim of improving the service for the long-term. Labour tinkered and threw money at the NHS, keeping it chugging along while the costs rose and rose; the coalition government is trying to redesign it to work for another 60 years as we all get older and need more and more interventions to keep us chugging along. You can't blame Labour for trying to derail the proposals but their dishonesty is breathtaking.
2. The Lib Dems support the spirit of these changes and we should have the courage to support the letter of them as well. Our Peers are acting on solid principles but if they continue to insist on major changes the Bill will be blunted beyond any practical use and we will look like we twist with the wind on health. That is Labour's role. I don't suppose anyone loves the proposals unreservedly but they are coherent and they are government policy. We should support them - not without reservation but without the impression of panic every time another Royal College (who knew there were so many?!) comes out against the changes.
3. No one likes change. If someone came along to your company and told you that a shadow office would be set up to compete with you for work, you'd probably be fed up as well but that's the modern world of public sector service provision. I experienced it in the 1990s in the local authority I worked for and it stank and completely demoralised the staff. It happened twice, which did nothing to the general mood. However, by the time I left the organisation was incalculably leaner and fitter, proving that the nasty medicine worked there - not without tears but it did work. Because of my personal experience of this process I am not completely for the proposals and I sympathise with the poor people who will have to introduce them. However, I recognise that something has to change in the NHS.
4. The Tories did promise no major changes to the NHS and they broke that promise. We didn't. Let them fight that battle, not us.
The analogy that comes to my mind is an old VW camper van. Everyone loves them and there are lots of old ones on the road which have been patched up and repaired to within an inch of their rivets but there will come a time when the trusty old wagon will not be economically repairable any more. The choice then becomes to pay over the odds or to try something new.
I have always used the NHS and I always will. I believe completely in public sector provision and I am 100% convinced that the NHS will remain free at the point of use and that the service I receive will be just as good, if not better, once the proposed changes are introduced. I wish Lib Dem peers with the power to ruin us at Westminster would recognise this.
If the proposals fail, the government fails and the Lib Dems are done for. So here's a mad idea for the day. Why not suggest that a Lib Dem minister takes over from Lansley in delivering this policy. The poor 'volunteer' would have to be dragged to the Department of Health by several teams of wild horses but they could then set about explaining the changes, which Andrew Lansley has not done. I don't think he has done anything wrong: his only crime has been to stick to his principles, which any sensible politician knows never works. A Lib Dem Secretary of State for Health would be able to present a fresh approach and demonstrate that the Lib Dems can deliver tough changes. They wouldn't become wildly popular but the legacy for our party could be immense. I wouldn't dream of suggesting who that lucky volunteer might be but we have the people to do this and do it well.
The Tories would be delighted because they would perceive the pressure moving away from them but a good Lib Dem Secretary of State could damn them robustly for the manner in which the proposals were introduced, while still playing with a straight bat on getting the sensible changes implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)