Lib Dems pledge to legalise cannibis

The Liberal Democrats say they have a plan to break the grip of criminal gangs and protect young people by introducing a legal, regulated market for cannabis. They say they're proposing this because they say that the current approach to cannabis has been a catastrophic failure. Unregulated cannabis is freely available and widely used, generating significant mental and psychical health problems – especially for young people – who are being harmed by increasingly potent products.

And because organised criminals are making huge profits at the expense of people’s health, in an illegal industry with no age checks, and no controls on quality or strength. The UK cannabis economy is worth an estimated £7bn a year and the Liberal Democrats say they could put that money to better use. The party accuse every British government so far has passed the buck of responsibility for this problem, thereby giving total control to the illegal rings who benefit from it. This is irresponsible and dangerous.

The Liberal Democrats say they're proposing a series of strict regulations, such as limiting sales of cannabis to over-18s, making cannabis safer by limiting its psychoactive chemical content, and taxing all cannabis sales (generating up to £1bn for investment in drug education and treatment). How can they know it will work? They say they have rigorously consulted a panel of experts, including senior police officers, drugs policy analysts and public health experts. They considered evidence from countries who’ve successfully legalised cannabis.

The Lib Dems say that when a country as eminently sensible as Canada has come to the conclusion that regulation is better than prohibition, you know that the tide has turned. The question is now how to regulate responsibly and effectively. The Liberal Democrats say they can do it.

Lib Dems pledge an extra £7bn for schools

The Liberal Democrats have announced they will invest nearly £7bn more in schools and colleges over the next parliament. The Lib Dems say that funding would reverse cuts to frontline school and college budgets, protect per pupil funding in real terms and ensure no school loses out from the National Funding Formula.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Education Secretary Sarah Olney commenting on the Lib Dem proposals said: "Children are being taught in overcrowded classes by overworked teachers - but Theresa May doesn't care."

"While funding per pupil is set to see the biggest cuts in a generation, billions of pounds are being spent on divisive plans to expand grammars and free schools. This extra £7 billion of funding would ensure no school and no child loses out. We will reverse crippling Conservative cuts to school budgets and invest to ensure every child has the opportunity to succeed." Mrs Olney added.

Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron commented: "A landslide for the Conservatives would allow Theresa May to take parents across the country for granted and cut our schools to the bone. Only the Liberal Democrats can provide the strong opposition Britain needs to stand up for your community. Vote for the Liberal Democrats and you can change Britain’s future."

The Liberal Democrats will invest £6.9bn more in our schools and colleges over the next parliament, to ensure no school and no child loses out. This goes further than Labour’s commitment to reverse £3bn of cuts to school budgets by 2020.

Over the course of the parliament, the Liberal Democrats say they will:

• Protect per pupil funding in real terms in schools (£3.3bn)
• Protect further education per pupil funding in real terms (£660m)
• Ensure no school loses out from the National Funding Formula (£1.26bn)
• Protect the pupil premium in real terms (£415m)
• Invest in continuous professional development for teachers (£165m)

The £6.9bn includes £1.1bn of Barnett consequentials for devolved nations.  The Lib Dems say their plans will be fully costed in their manifesto although, party leader, Tim Farron told the Today programme that the Lib Dems will raise Corporation Tax to 20%  and scrap the married couples tax allowance. The party say they will include reversing the Government’s proposed funding for new grammar schools in their manifesto.

May council triumph doesn't make June a done deal

By David Hough

I waited to write this third blog until we had all the results in from the County Council elections. As I said a couple of weeks ago, while the results are interesting, it would be unwise for people to get too excited, or too depressed about them.

This is because as local elections turnout was considerably lower than it will be in the General Election, and that big cities like London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds were not voting in their urban areas.

There is an additional aspect which makes these elections difficult to read is that people often vote differently locally to nationally. Therefore, it’s possible that areas where the Conservatives did well that traditionally return a Labour MP, will still do so on June 8th.

However, these local elections, being so close to the General Election can act as a guide, and there is no doubt the Conservatives will take a lot of confidence going forward, that they can, indeed, get that big majority that Theresa May is seeking.

The Conservative made over 560 gains, many of them deep into what was considered natural Labour territory, and, perhaps even more tellingly, over 150 in Scotland, and just short of a 100 in Wales. So, this was not just an English victory for the Tories, they suddenly can look at being a party of the union again.

To confirm the current Tory domination, they also won four of the six Metro Mayors being contested for the first time, including victories in the Tees and West Midlands. It is true that in Greater Manchester, former Education Secretary, Andy Burnham won by a landslide, he very much ran as himself, and wasn’t willing to have Jeremy Corbyn play any part in his campaign.

There can be no doubt that the Labour Party had a disastrous night, losing nearly 400 councillors, and in Scotland slipping to a poor third behind the SNP and the Conservatives. Mr. Corbyn described the results as ‘disappointing’ but that severely underestimates the seriousness of the situation.

Disappointing is Sion Simon just failing to be elected as the mayor in the West Midlands. Disappointing is the Liberal Democrats failing to make big strides forward they’d been predicted to. They made gains in some areas, but lost about three dozen seats overall.

That was disappointing. Labour’s losses were cataclysmic, and have given the Conservatives some momentum to take into the final five weeks of the campaign, which will almost certainly lead to them increasing their support in June’s General Election.

What Labour do about this situation is a tricky one. Many who oppose the Corbyn leadership believe that just dumping him now (although there’s no way to make him do so at this stage), and replacing him with Deputy leader Tom Watson would drastically improve the party’s prospects.

But I think the die is cast, and if the election defeat is as bad as many believe, the party will need to regroup, and decide, at leisure, the best course of action. Jeremy Corbyn has not indicated he would stand aside, in fact the opposite, and so those remaining MPs who oppose him will need to make some decisions. Whatever they do, it is not going to be easy.

However, as bad as the results were for Labour, they at least have something to build on. As disappointing as the results were for the Liberal Democrats, if these results were repeated in June, they would double their MPs, and a small step forward is better than steps backwards.

The biggest losers in the County Council elections were UKIP. They started the evening with around 145 council seats, and ended it with a solitary councilor left, in Burnley. Results like this aren’t merely disastrous, they could be apocalyptic. It appears that now that the referendum has been won by the Leave side, that many feel UKIP’s purpose has been fulfilled. Many of their voters returned to the Conservative Party, but (and this worrying for Labour), it appears that ex-Labour voters who switched to UKIP, have gone straight to the Tories.

Overall then, the only party who can really be satisfied with Thursday’s results are the Conservatives. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and UKIP all have thinking to do. Some more than others, and only the next few weeks will demonstrate if they’re able to recover any ground.

As for the rest of the campaign, it’s proceeded fairly sedately. Constituency parties are continuing to select candidates, especially in seats that are considered unwinnable. The sudden calling of the election has left local parties with not much time, and finding people prepared to take time out, at short notice, in a hopeless cause, is proving difficult.

Mrs. May has continued to avoid meeting too many people, while Mr. Corbyn continues to meet people who support him. So, neither of them are actually getting out there meeting the voters.

Tim Farron has been, and this week discovered the perils, as a Malcolm Baker confronted him in Oxford over the Liberal Democrat’s less than enthusiastic embracing of Brexit. To his credit, Mr. Farron dealt with the situation calmly, used it to speak to the cameras about Mrs. May’s lack of engagement, and spoke about Mr. Baker’s right to voice his opinion. This earned Mr. Farron a handshake from Mr. Baker, and thanks for letting him let off steam. This probably won’t help the Liberal Democrats in the election, but it promotes Tim Farron in a positive way.

Parliament was officially dissolved on Wednesday, and now the County elections are out of the way, the campaign will really pick up pace. Prepare yourselves for five weeks of wall-to-wall coverage, much of which will generate more heat than light.

By the end of this week all the election candidates in all constituencies will be known, and the leaflets will start to pile up, which will provide plenty of paper for recycling. Expect to see the party stalls in your high streets from next weekend, as they attempt to win your vote.

As a former candidate, my admiration goes out to those giving up time, and in many cases, money to stand. So please treat them all with respect, and give them the opportunity to make their case.

David was Labour PPC for Rayleigh and Wickford in 2015

The perils of a 'progressive alliance'

By David Hough

A progressive alliance, where parties stand aside to give the main challenger a better opportunity of winning a seat, is something that sounds great in theory, but also comes fraught with dangers.

The Labour MP for Norwich South, Clive Lewis, among others, advocated doing this in a Guardian article on April 30th. They specifically said that Labour should stand aside in some seats, to help the Greens.

In reality, this would only help Caroline Lucas hold Brighton Pavilion, where Labour are the main challengers, and might even lead to wavering Labour voters, and Liberal Democrats (the local party having already decided to stand aside) voting for the Conservative, and putting the seat in danger.

My first point being that there is no guarantee that the result will not backfire. There are only limited circumstances, in a very marginal seat, where it may work.

A second problem is that once these voters have been encouraged to back another party, or have put their cross elsewhere, they may not return. For those that go to the polls, their vote is important to them, their way of expressing an opinion on which party they believe will provide the best government for them.

This creates a third problem, which is that their vote becomes a negative one, and not a positive, because they are being encouraged to vote against something, not for. Tactical voting is something that goes on in elections, but at least a choice is being made to vote against a particular party. When a party removes itself from the fray, it restricts the amount of choice available.

An example that comes to mind occurred in Richmond a few months ago, when Zac Goldsmith resigned his seat and Conservative Party membership, over the proposed third runway at Heathrow. He stood as an independent on this issue, and the party decided not to put up a candidate against him, and support his candidacy as an independent.

This backfired spectacularly when Sarah Olney of the Liberal democrats came through to win the by-election, as many Conservatives were unhappy at the actions of the local party, and either didn’t vote, or it went elsewhere. Goldsmith has been readopted as the Conservative candidate for the election, but there is no guarantee that voters will just return to the fold, especially those who object to his pro-Brexit stance, Richmond having voted to Remain during the referendum.

My final objection, which is linked the those previously mentioned, is that it is undemocratic. Voters are having their choices restricted. Readers will, perhaps, think that not all parties stand in all seats, which is true, but that is not the same as a deliberate decision to stand aside in favour of a different party’s candidate.

Voters back particular parties for their own reasons, and it would take too long to go into them here, and they will often be reluctant to vote for another party, just because their local party asks them to.

Our political system is far from perfect, and many people express dissatisfaction with the parties, and the candidates that are already placed before them. However, I do not believe the artificial manipulation of the system is the answer.

This article is not about electoral reform, but that could be a way forward, enabling parties to stand on their own programmes, but voters would be aware that they would be likely to be working together in government. The recent coalition government, has made many wary, so it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.

In conclusion, I do not think formal deals as part of a so-called ‘progressive alliance’ would be beneficial to our democracy, and could work to its detriment. The two principle objections I have are that it is a negative vote and its undemocratic, because it removes choice. That it can also backfire, is another issue I’ll leave the parties to wrestle with.

David was Labour candidate in Rayleigh & Wickford at the 2015 general election

It May-be all over for Labour

A view of the campaign from the sidelines by David Hough

It will feel strange during the election campaign not being involved. However, I made a decision last year to leave the Labour Party, and have not joined any others. Therefore, I will be writing these blogs as an interested observer, albeit with a centre-left bias.

Recent polling has been suggested as one of the reasons Mrs. May decided to call an election now, as well as messages coming out of the CPS regarding possible prosecutions of people involved in some of the campaigns during the 2015 election. Mrs. May, herself, indicated in her announcement speech outside No.10 Downing Street, that the main driving force was the need for a mandate for the Negotiations over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.

I suspect the calculations revolved around all three possibilities, with the polls a clincher, as she saw the possibility of securing a very solid majority, which would leave her unchallenged for the duration of the parliament.

The formality of a vote in the Commons passed without any problems today. This was held due to the requirements of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, in which 66% of the MPs had to approve it, which they did with ease. Indeed, in the end only thirteen MPs voted against, including Clive Lewis, who may be considered a leadership contender should Labour lose, and Mr. Corbyn resign the leadership.

As the campaign begins, everything indicates a big Conservative victory, although Professor John Curtice, of Stirling University, has suggested it may not be as big as some believe, due to there being fewer seats than ever likely to change hands on election night.

The biggest reason given for the likelihood of a handsome Conservative majority is what has been happening with the Labour Party since the 2015 election defeat. The election of a leader who the majority of Labour MPs did not, and do not, support has contributed, as the party comes over as divided, and divided parties rarely do well in elections. It doesn’t matter whether the so-called ‘coup’ of 2016 has been a major factor in this, the perception is of a party at war with itself, and any cessation of hostilities for the duration of the campaign will be seen as attempting to paper over the cracks.

As I’ve been watching the coverage of the first couple of days of the campaign, one thing that has struck me, is how many people who say they were Labour voters, will be voting for other parties this time. Some of these cite Jeremy Corbyn as the reason, while others are unhappy with Labour’s, seemingly confused, position over EU withdrawal.

Now I could understand if these voters decided to switch their vote to the Liberal Democrats, especially those who strongly support remaining in the EU, or the Green Party. What doe s get me is those who decide to switch their vote directly to the Conservatives.

Listening to the reasons they give has been instructive. It’s partly to do with Labour’s position on withdrawal, but it also seems as though Mrs. May is still having a bit of a honeymoon. She has been Prime Minister for less than a year, and many see her as a strong and determined character. I think many see her as a fresh face, possibly helped by her keeping a relatively low profile during her years as Home Secretary, so she is not well known by the public.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Mrs. May has also made a large number of statements which are geared to moving onto what is considered traditional Labour territory, and many seem to have found this convincing.

A recent by-election victory in the seat of Copeland, and various council gains from Labour since 2015 do give the Conservatives plenty of grounds for optimism, but by-elections can be misleading, and only time will tell how much of a pointer these results have been.

Although Jeremy Corbyn has rightly pointed out that there are a lot of issues to be discussed during the campaign, it is bound to be dominated by the European Union, and the nature of Britain’s leaving.
The Conservatives appear to be intending on a ‘hard’ or ‘clean’ withdrawal (depending whether you were a Leaver or Remainer), while the Liberal Democrats have stated a clear position, that the UK should maintain as close links with the EU as possible, and a referendum be held on the outcome of negotiations.

Whichever of these two positions you agree with they are clear, and people will know what they are voting for. The Liberal Democrat’s remarkable victory in the Richmond by-election, a strong Remain area, would indicate that they could gain a lot of support in some of these areas. Whether it will have much effect on this occasion will be discovered on June 8th, but a strong showing, following the bloodbath of 2015, will put them in a strong position going forward.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, their position on this issue has been perceived as a confusing one, which has meant the party has been unable to get a clear message across. This could be one of the factors that costs Labour dearly during the election, so they will need to settle on a clear stance early on, and stick to it for the duration of the campaign.

Before I conclude, a brief word about the UKIP, the party that many would say won the argument with the referendum result, but have since struggled to develop a new narrative. The travails of its latest leader Paul Nuttal during the Stoke Central by-election didn’t help with their public image, and he came ended the campaign as damaged goods, in a seat the party believed it would win.

Since then, their only MP, Douglas Carswell, has resigned from the party, leaving them once again without a voice in parliament. The usual noises have been made in which they say they will make substantial gains, and be the government’s ‘conscience’ during negotiations with the EU. Unfortunately for UKIP, the electoral system conspires against them (unfairly I believe), and gaining a single seat, let alone five or six, seems highly unlikely, even allowing for the position of the Labour Party, if the polls are to be believed.

So that is the state of things, as I see them, as the election campaign begins. No doubt I will proved wrong on some things, and, hopefully, right on others as the campaign unfolds. In such a short campaign, there will be little room for any major errors, and by this time next week, things may have altered considerably.

David Hough was Labour PPC for Rayleigh and Wickford in 2015

Lib Dems slam Tories for breaking NI promise

The Liberal Democrats have criticised the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, saying he has broken a Conservative manifesto pledge by introducing a tax on entrepreneurs and “white van man” with a rise in National Insurance Contributions (NICs) that the Lib Dems say will cost them £93 by next year. However independent analysis says the rise will cost self-employed people who affected by the rise paying a further £240 a year.

The Liberal Democrats point out that while the Government are increasing National Insurance Contributions they are going ahead with cuts in corporation tax will. The Liberal Democrats also acknowledge that the government have not asked wealthy pensioners to pay a greater share.

The Liberal Democrats say that the tax will hit five million people, the Treasury say 2.48m people will be affected by the rise of Class 4 NICs. The Liberal Democrats point out that the changes to NICs breaks a Conservative manifesto promise not to increase National Insurance in 2015.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Susan Kramer said: "This is a tax on builders, taxi drivers and window cleaners, some of Britain’s hardest working people. This hits the gig economy where people are already insecure and facing rising prices and job uncertainty. And on International Women’s Day it will hit over one and a half million women."

"Companies will continue to save money by using workers without giving them the security and benefits of staff jobs. Meanwhile, these workers will have to pay more. This is patently as unfair as it is a tax on entrepreneurship and hard work." Baroness Kramer added.

Lib Dems attack the Tories' record on green energy

Liberal Democrat Energy and Climate Change Spokesperson Baroness Lynne Featherstone has accused the Conservative government of trashing the previous coalition government’s green legacy. Attacking the Tories Baroness Featherstone accused them of slashing subsidies for renewable energy while spending billions subsidising Hinkley Point.

The government’s own impact assessment has predicted up to 19,000 job losses in the wind and solar sector. The Liberal Democrats are debating a package of measures to new green industrial strategy at their conference in Brighton.

Speaking at the Lib Dem conference in Brighton Baroness Lynne Featherstone said: "The Coalition was the greenest government ever. We tripled the amount of electricity from renewable sources and set up the Green Investment Bank. On their own, the Conservatives have gone backwards."

Turning her attention to the government's decision to give the go ahead to Hinkley point Baroness Featherstone said: "The eye-wateringly expensive Hinkley power station has been given the green light, while the solar industry is being ripped apart. Huge damage has been done to an industry on the verge of becoming subsidy-free."

"Our renewables industry can thrive with the right investment. It has huge potential for generating profits, creating jobs and exporting to the world’s rapidly expanding green markets. It’s time the Conservatives started valuing the green economy - for its business potential if not for its environmental benefits." Lynne Featherstone added

Lib Dems will block the Tory 'pay to stay'

The Liberal Democrats say their peers will 'protect social housing' by blocking controversial plans in the government’s Housing and Planning Bill. Controversial plans in the Bill, which the Lib Dems say hope to curb include the imposition of starter homes, Pay to Stay, the extension of Right to Buy and the end of lifetime tenancies.

These four are amongst around 100 amendments tabled in the Lords today to the government’s Housing and Planning Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment to strike out Pay to Stay out of the Bill altogether, while the Labour party have put forward amendments which if accepted will water down the policy rather than scrap it altogether. Its not known at this point if Labour will vote for the Lib Dem amendment.

Pay to Stay will see families or individuals with a total income of £40,000 plus a year in London, and £30,000 plus outside the capital, forced to pay the rental market rate. Savills Estate Agents have found that 214,000 households would be hit by the policy across England. 

In London, most of the 27,000 households affected will be unable to afford to rent privately or to buy in the same area. Camden is one of the London boroughs most affected by the change, with more than 2,000 families seeing a sharp increase in bills. The increase of which will go to the Treasury rather than local councils. 

The proposals in the Government's Housing and Planning Bill directly contradict what, Prime Minister, David Cameron said to Inside Housing magazine in 2010: "We support social housing, we will protect it, and we respect our social tenants’ rights."

Leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron said: "The Housing bill is riddled with holes and unfairness. The Government has clearly drafted a Bill without consulting anyone who has lived in or experienced the realities of social housing. Social housing is a lifeline for thousands of people and the Conservatives seem driven by ideological dogma to sell off these homes." 

"The Prime Minister used to be vocal in his support for social housing. His actions show now that he was merely paying lip service." Mr Farron added.

Tim Farron launches Lib Dem referendum campaign it's "time to lead, not leave"

In a speech launching the Liberal Democrat campaign to keep the United Kingdom within the European Union today, party leader, Tim Farron said of Mr Cameron's renegotiation that "I've been asked many times to herald David Cameron’s renegotiation with great praise and say it’s going to solve all of our problems, and others want me to blast it by saying what I don’t agree with or that it’s a complete waste of time."

Mr Farron said Tory divisions were the only reason David Cameron had chosen this course of action: "Let’s be frank. We know the only reason he’s doing it is because of his back benchers – but despite all of that, it does prove is that when you need something you have to work together."

Mr Farron emphasised what he sees as the benefits to the United Kingdom and the European Union remaining together, Tim Farron said: "After decades of brutal conflict, European nations came together in cooperation. To this day, neighbours and allies support each other in what remains the world’s most successful project in peace. Together we created the world’s largest free trade area, we delivered peace, and we gave the British people the opportunity to live, work and travel freely. Together we are stronger in the fight against the global problems that don’t stop at borders."

Tim Farron didn't deny that he believes the EU needs reform, pointing out that he thinks: "Europe is not perfect. Westminster is not perfect. But picking up your ball in a sulk and heading home, is not the way to win. We should be a leading voice to make changes. Remaining in a reformed Europe. This is Britain’s time to lead the way."

Like with his party conference speech Mr Farron was most passionate in defence of refugees in the European Union at the moment, Tim Farron in a clear swipe at UKIP said: "Earlier this week we had a taste of how the nastier side of the referendum may go. Using refugees – people who are desperate and fleeing conflict – for political points is disgusting."

Turning his fire onto David Cameron, Tim Farron said: "The Prime Minister has shown himself to be weak, and heartless. And this campaign needs the opposite. This campaign needs strength and compassion. The leave campaign will play nasty, and it seems people on our own side will engage in a nasty race to the bottom on immigration, migration and refugees." In a more reassuring tone to his party supporters "But Liberal Democrats, I will not stand for it." and in a direct appeal to the Prime Minister, Tim Farron said: "David Cameron: there are children in Europe who need our help."

Turning to Labour, whos leader Jeremy Corbyn, who are likely to be infavour of the United Kingdom remaining. Mr Farron recalled when the 'pro-AV' Ed Miliband became Labour leader: "I remember AV. A newly appointed left wing Labour leader refused to fully back the campaign." 

Appealing to Mr Corbyn for support in the remain campaign Tim Farron will say: "Jeremy Corbyn, do not let your own internal party chaos derail such an important vote. I know you may have wanted to leave in the past, but now is the time to step up." Calling for the 3 main, UK, party leaders to campaign together Mr Farron said: "We can all put party interests aside for the good of our country. You, Me and Dave. We all back the campaign, so let’s just get on and do it."

Attaching those who claim its 'patriotism' to support one of the number of leave campaigns Mr Farron said: "And one final thing that I must get off my chest. People who want to leave do not own our flag. Patriots love our country. Nationalists hate their neighbours. It is the British spirit that helped bring everyone together. We must not let people pretend that it is the British spirit that tears people apart."

In conclusion Tim Farron told his party that; "we are a proud nation that stands tall in the world. We are a beacon of hope, freedom, prosperity, ingenuity, creativity. We must remain as a leader on the world stage. This is Britain’s time to lead, not leave."

David Cameron has ‘betrayed Britain’s values over the refugee crisis’

An urgent summit to discuss unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have fled conflict, poverty and persecution will be chaired tomorrow by Leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron. On the eve of the summit Tim Farron has said that the Prime Minister is ‘betraying Britain’s values’ by refusing to take in 3,000 unaccompanied children.

Liberal Democrats along with Labour, the Greens and backbench Tory MPs have been pressing the Government to take the 3,000 orphaned child refugees who have reached European shores. The summit is being held to start the creation of a practical implementation plan with the help of a number of interested parties. Tim has invited a number of MPs who have joined him in supporting this campaign, and hopes that all of those who are serious about making this happen will attend.

Despite the Prime Minister, David Cameron, repeatedly saying it would, the Government has never seriously looked into what taking in 3,000 refugee children would mean in terms of financing, local government and third sector capacity. The Lib Dems say Tim Farron is stepping up to the plate and answering the call of millions of people across the country who think we should be doing more to help refugees in Europe

At least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared after arriving in Europe according to the EU’s criminal intelligence agency Europol. Many are feared to have fallen into the hands of organised trafficking syndicates.

In his strongest attack yet, on the Prime Minister, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "During every crisis I can think of Britain has opened its doors and hearts to those in need. We are a beacon of hope and that is something millions of people like myself are proud of. It is what makes me proud to be British. This time the Prime Minister has ignored the pleas of charities and frankly he is betraying Britain’s values by doing so.

He clearly isn't willing to lift a finger to help these desperate children, but I refuse to give up. Tomorrow we start the creation of a plan to show the Prime Minister how Britain can take care of 3,000 unaccompanied children."

Labour do nothing as the Tories block plans to alleviate the housing crisis

The Liberal Democrats led by Tim Farron have blasted the Tories and Labour for not supporting a series of proposals that would help alleviate the housing crisis. The Liberal Democrats proposed a plan to try and help by:

• Allowing councils to build more houses through lifting the current arbitrary cap on council borrowing.
• Encouraging a massive increase in house building to 300,000 per annum by setting out a long-term housing plan for the next 20-30 years - something the government has failed to do.
• Building 10 New Garden Cities including 5 in the South East.

The vote was lost after Tory MP's voted against the reasonable motion en masse. Labour simply sat on their hands and abstained.

Commenting outside the chamber after the result, Tim Farron said: "The Government must give us a long term plan for fixing the problems of housing supply as a matter of urgency. They had that chance today and they ducked it. They have failed millions of people trying to get on the housing ladder and those who aspire to get further up the ladder."

Attacking Labour and the Tories, Mr Farron said: "The Conservatives do little, talk a lot and make people rely on the Bank of Mum and Dad. Labour are no better, they sat on their hands and did not vote to help those hard working and entrepreneurial young people who dream of a home to call their own."

"Liberal Democrats are calling for an immediate lifting of the borrowing cap for councils, so they can build more homes, and for ten new garden cities. Unless we build enough homes to meet demand, year after year, housing costs will rise further out of reach." Tim Farron added.

"Unacceptable" Tory record on young mental health

The doubling number of young people admitted to A&E with psychiatric conditions over the last five years is unacceptable - Norman Lamb

The Liberal Democrats have today called for the Government to stick to its commitment of extra investment in children and young people’s mental health services after the number of A&E admissions with psychiatric conditions have soared. A total of 14,917 children and young people with psychiatric conditions were admitted in 2014 -2015, this compares to 6,950 in 2010 -2011.

During the Tory/Lib Dem coalition the Liberal Democrats say they secured £1.25bn of new funding to transform children and young people’s mental health services. This amounts to around £250 million in every year of the current parliament – but the Government has only allocated £143 million in this financial year 2015-16.

Health Spokesperson Norman Lamb said: "These are deeply shocking figures which expose the true scale of the mental health challenge facing young people in this country."

Criticising the current government Mr Lamb said: "The Government is failing to support children and young people by not delivering the investment that was agreed before the General Election. In March 2015, Nick Clegg and I announced £1.25 billion to be spent over five years on improving young people’s mental health services, but the Government has already underspent by £107 million in the first year."

Continuing  Mr Lamb said: "This is unacceptable, and these latest figures show the need for urgent investment in preventative services and community care to stop young people from reaching crisis point. It also shows the absolute need to introduce the same right to get treatment on a timely basis for children and young people suffering mental ill health as others enjoy."

"I am calling on the Government to make up the shortfall immediately, and to deliver on its promise to provide the full £1.25bn over the next five years." Norman Lamb added.

Lib Dems warn average house prices will top £1m

Young graduates face a bleak housing future as Liberal Democrat research shows the average house price will top £1m within 16 years. The research shows that someone leaving University today will face a massive challenge on getting onto the first rung of the property ladder. The average property price in the UK will reach £650,000 within a decade, an increase of £360,000 on today’s average price.

The research is released ahead of the Liberal Democrat opposition day debate, this afternoon, in Parliament on the ‘State of the nation’s housing market’. Liberal Democrat research shows that the gap between the amount people can borrow on average through a mortgage and house prices is widening. Most starkly in London the gap between how much can be borrowed and property prices will reach £1.5m by 2026 in the capital.

In response to this crisis the Liberal Democrats, in the Commons, say they will propose a plan to try and help by:

• Allowing councils to build more houses through lifting the current arbitrary cap on council borrowing.
• Encouraging a massive increase in house building to 300,000 per annum by setting out a long-term housing plan for the next 20-30 years - something the government has failed to do.
• Building 10 New Garden Cities including 5 in the South East.

Ahead of the debate on the Liberal Democrat proposals, party leader, Tim Farron said: "Everyone deserves a decent home to call their own. The aspirational and entrepreneurial classes are seeing the ladder of home ownership kicked away from under them. The Government’s schemes are merely a poor sticking plaster. We have laid out a plan to help. We need radical, ambitious action to deliver the homes we need. The only answers are found in big solutions - new garden cities, allowing councils to build housing stock, and bring thousands of empty homes back into use."

"It is time for the Government to stop tinkering around the edges of the problem and actually get to work tackling this crisis." Mr Farron added.

Expert commission backs Lib Dem calls to abolish out of area mental health placements

Liberal Democrat Health Spokesperson Norman Lamb’s call to end the scandal of mental health patients being shunted across the country has received the backing of a landmark report on acute psychiatric care.

The Commission on Acute Adult Psychiatric Care, led by Lord Crisp, was set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in response to concerns about the provision of services for people with severe mental illness. Its report found that there are “major problems both in admissions to psychiatric wards and in providing alternative care and treatment in the community”.

One of the Commission’s key recommendations is that the practice of sending acutely ill patients long distances for non-specialist mental health treatment is phased out by October 2017, following months of campaigning by the Liberal Democrats.

Norman Lamb previously led a House of Commons debate in November to highlight the scandal of out-of-area placements, and challenged the Government to commit to ending the practice completely within 12 months. The Government pledged at the time to make a recommendation based on the findings of Lord Crisp’s Commission, which reported today.

Official figures suggest that each month around 500 mental ill patients have to travel over 50km away from their home to a hospital bed. The report concluded that these long distances “are mainly due to difficulties in finding acute inpatient beds or suitable alternative services in their home area, and are a symptom of far more widespread problems in the functioning of the whole mental health system.”

Commenting on the new report, Norman Lamb said: "I am delighted with the recommendation of ending the scandal of out of area placements. The Government has already committed to taking a view based on the findings of this Commission, and I now urge the minister to commit to ending this outrageous practice."

Mr Lamb criticising the current system said: "Being sent out-of-area during a mental health crisis – sometimes hundreds of miles away from family and friends – can cause unimaginable distress. We also know that being treated out-of-area raises the risk of suicide after being discharged from hospital. There is simply no excuse for allowing this to continue."

"This practice would never be tolerated in physical health services. It is an example of the total discrimination at the heart of our NHS, and one of the many examples of how people who suffer from acute mental ill health are disadvantaged by the system." Norman Lamb added.

Lib Dems propose shake up of school inspections

The Liberal Democrats are calling for changes to school inspection regimes, to give teachers and schools ground-breaking new powers to challenge the outcome of the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspections.

In 2012 Ofsted prepared for their current framework for inspections after piloting a series of inspections across the country. The most controversial change was the new system relabelled the "Satisfactory" category as "Requires Improvement", with an expectation that schools should not remain at that level.

Liberal Democrat Education spokesperson, John Pugh, will introduce a Bill on Tuesday which aims to replace current inspections with a new system which encourages improvement and support. Ofsted currently has more than a thousand permanent employees and a budget which costs the taxpayer £153 million every year. 

The Liberal Democrats say they believe that teachers and schools should be held to the highest standard. However it is only fair that they are properly listened to as part of the inspection process.

Under these proposals, the outcome and recommendations from an inspection should be jointly agreed by both the inspector and the school. When this isn't possible because the school disagrees strongly, it should have its response included in a section of the final report which is made public.

Commenting on his Bill, John Pugh said: "Ofsted does a good job but sometimes we all get things wrong. The problem at the moment is that when that happens, schools’ reputations can be ruined and hardworking teachers can see their careers go up in flames. Inspection has a valuable role in education but the way we do things currently is far too burdensome and bureaucratic."

"Many of the countries who exceed the UK in performance, like Finland have a quite different approach to driving up school standards and we should learn from them." John Pugh added.

Lib Dems and Labour blast 'shockingly poor' Tory record on smart ticketing in the North

Just one per cent of railway stations fitted with smart ticketing readers are in the North, new figures have revealed. The news comes as Transport for North (TfN) said today that plans for an "oyster for the North", dubbed the noyster, smartcard announced just last year, were being dropped. TfN also say that alternative contactless and mobile payment systems still require access to smart-ticket readers, which needs to be put in place.

Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesperson Baroness Jenny Randerson criticised the Government's abandonment of the noyster card scheme and failure to implement smart ticketing saying: "The six month gap between announcement and abandonment of this policy, is not even long enough for Government to have glanced over proposals for Oyster Cards for the North. Better public transport is fundamental to the success of the Northern Powerhouse and smart ticketing systems are a key part of making travelling more convenient for people."

Labour have also attacked Tory Ministers saying they had made “shockingly poor progress” on extending London-style smart-ticketing technology outside the South East. The Department for Transport pledged to introduce "oyster-style smart travel cards and simpler fares across the north." Of the 710 stations fitted with smart-ticket readers, 8 were in the North. A further 69 were in the Midlands. The great majority – 633, or 89 per cent of the total – are in the South, and the overwhelming majority are in London and the South East.

Shadow Transport Secretary Lilian Greenwood, who uncovered the station figures, said: "For all the Tory Government’s talk about leading a smart ticketing revolution, these figures demonstrate the huge regional disparities that expose George Osborne’s ‘Northern Powerhouse’ and ‘Midlands Engine’ rhetoric for the sham it really is. There is no good reason why commuters in the Midlands and the North shouldn’t have access to the same facilities as passengers in the South. Ministers have had six years to address this problem, but they have made shockingly poor progress."

Attacking the Tory record on rail in general Ms Greenwood said: "Passengers in the North have already been hit by stealth fare rises of up to 162 per cent but they continue to lag far behind when it comes to allocating investment. These figures show just how far the Tory Government has to go, and they cast real doubt on Ministers’ ability to introduce the part-time season tickets that they promised to implement in May last year."

Lib Dems to host unaccompanied children summit

An urgent summit to discuss unaccompanied asylum seeking children who have fled conflict, poverty and persecution will be chaired by leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron. The Liberal Democrats along with other parties have been pressing the Government to take 3,000 orphaned child refugees who have reached European shores.

The Lib Dems say that Tim Farron recognises that accepting these children will have an impact on public services and will require local authorities, charities and central government to work together to mitigate these challenges. This round table summit seeks to explore best working practice and establish how central government can act to support local authorities both financially and from an operational and logistical perspective.

The summit on February 10th will bring MPs from across the political spectrum like former Labour Cabinet Minister Yvette Cooper and former Green party leader Caroline Lucas who have campaigned with Liberal Democrats for the Government to do more to tackle the refugee crisis. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Local Government Association and Save the Children will join the summit to debate the best way forward.

Liberal Democrats say they hope that the round table summit will clarify some of the questions around how the United Kingdom can welcome these children. In the face of this crisis MPs and campaigners need to continue lobbying Government for a more open-hearted and fuller response.

Criticising the government response to the situation, Tim Farron said: "The government's response so far has been not only pathetic but I’d actually call it callous. They, on one hand say they are helping people while making sure headlines scream no children can come here." 

In stinging a rebuke of David Cameron, Mr Farron said: "The Prime Minister with these type of actions demeans his office and hurts our country. The Prime Minister’s cold hearted vision of Britain is not mine, and it’s not the vast majority of the public’s either."

Commenting on the cross-party summit Tim Farron said: I hope that by bringing all partner organisations and other MP’s of all parties who share my commitment on the issue together to lay out a more positive plan to help those unaccompanied children in Europe who have to be down in doorways night after night thousands of miles away from home."

Lib Dems urge David Cameron to 'fulfil his moral duty to accept 3,000 orphaned child refugees'

Liberal Democrat members of the House of Lords have put their name to a letter which calls on the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to ‘fulfil his moral duty to accept 3,000 orphaned child refugees.’

The letter, written by Liberal Democrat Peer Roger Roberts, highlights that more than 10,000 children have vanished after registering with state authorities. Government inaction has left children fleeing conflict open to sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking.

Signatories to the letter comprise of more than 100 Liberal Democrat Peers including former Party Leaders Paddy Ashdown, Ming Campbell. Also Bill Rodgers who led Lib Dems in the Lords following the 1997 general election and David Steel who led the Liberal party before it merged with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to form the Liberal Democrats.

Ahead of delivering the letter Roger Roberts said: "It is outrageous that David Cameron does not step in to properly protect these children. Instead he offers a shadow of what he should which leaves children suffering and dying across the European continent. There are calls for him to do more in the Commons and there are calls for him to do more in the Lords.

"Cameron is stepping back and relying on others to be the humanitarians that we should be." Roger Roberts added.

The Liberal Democrat Peer's full letter is below:

Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned call upon the Government to fulfil its moral duty to accept 3,000 orphaned child refugees who have fled war, persecution and crippling poverty and made it to European shores.

We welcome the Government’s latest announcement that it will give £10million additional funding to help European efforts to handle the refugee crisis and strengthening family reunion; however, we strongly believe that the British Government must do more and take its fair share of the most vulnerable refugees. Many will have made the treacherous journey alone whilst others will have lost family and loved ones on the way.

You will be aware that Europol, in its first attempt to quantify how many child refugees have disappeared since arriving in Europe, estimated that more than 10,000 children have vanished after registering with state authorities. Unscrupulous criminal gangs and individuals have exploited Government inaction and these children will now be in their clutches subject to sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking.

We urge the Government to reconsider its offer and open the United Kingdom to 3000 unaccompanied children. This requires political will and bravery but amounts to only 5 children per parliamentary constituency, an amount a country as economically prosperous and generous as Britain can easily manage.

There are families, councils, individuals and organisations in the United Kingdom waiting with open arms to welcome these children, please reconsider.

Yours,

Lib Dems secure ‘Golden Share’ to guarantee future of Green Investment Bank

The Liberal Democrats say they have safeguarded ‘the heart’ of the Green Investment Bank (GIB) after, they claim, plans from the Tories put this at risk. The GIB’s green mission requires investment contributions to meet one of the five ‘green purposes’ as well as contributing to an overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

After heavy Liberal Democrat pressure, Conservative, Business Secretary Sajid Javid had confirmed, by tabling an amendment in the House of Lords by Robin Teverson. The amendment ensures that the ‘golden share’ will be held by a newly created independent Charitable company. This will protect its green role. This also means golden share can outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances.

The Golden shareholder’s role would be to ensure that no changes could be implemented to its green investing initiatives without consent. Sajid Javid had confirmed plans to remove ministerial powers over GIB in October last year in what many considered a major step towards the bank's controversial privatisation. But thanks to amendments from the Liberal Democrats this has been stopped.

Liberal Democrat Business spokesperson Lorely Burt said: "Keeping green issues at the heart of the Bank’s remit is vital and something the Liberal Democrats fought hard to do. This announcement, slipped out, shows that our work and campaigning has paid off."

"This is a big win for the environment and the Liberal Democrats." Lorely Burt added.

Lib Dems refer UKIP to the BBC Trust and Ofcom 'for inciting racial and religious hatred'

The Liberal Democrats have made an official complaint over the content of UKIP’s party political broadcast for inciting racial and religious hatred. The presentation and tone of the broadcast is focused on provoking negative and hostile reactions. The broadcast clearly uses images, music and misleading information to inflame racial tension - a direct breach of BBC and Ofcom rules.

The Lib Dems say it has been deliberately constructed to be offensive while using an array of questionable and in some cases entirely misleading assertions, and is a misrepresentation of Turkey and the Turkish people. The broadcast is offensive and set on pitching community against community.

Turkey has only met 13 of the 35 requirements known as negotiation chapters so it clearly has a long way to go before ascending to full European Union membership. The European Union is a crucial vehicle in improving civil liberties, human rights and the role of women in societies and countries that wish to apply to join have to uphold these values.

Leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron said: "This Donald Trump style scaremongering has no place in British politics. Wherever you stand on the European campaign, inciting hatred, by getting down in the gutter in a desperate grab for votes debases politics. The politics of division is something millions of liberally minded people despise and I will keep doing all I can to make a case for inclusion and tolerance. This broadcast was not just incredulous, it’s dangerous."

Lib Dem Equalities Spokesperson Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece and the only British parliamentarian of Turkish descent said: "This is stomach turning, dog-whistle politics demonising an entire country and all its people. The large Turkish community in the UK has made an enormous economic and social contribution over many decades. They play a vital and vibrant role in our society and shouldn’t be subject to Nigel Farage’s nasty politics."

The Liberal Democrat complaint in full:

"We are writing to make a formal complaint about the content of the Party Political Broadcast of the UK Independence Party broadcast on 3rd February 2016.

The presentation and tone of the piece is focused on provoking on negative, hostile reaction towards Turkey and the people living there, as well as Turkish people in the UK and elsewhere. It has been deliberately constructed to be offensive and breaches the code in that it “incites racial or religious hatred”, whilst using an array of questionable and in some cases entirely misleading assertions to advance this ‘case’.

The piece is offensive and set on pitching community against community. It is attempting to masquerade as an anti-EU film, but its main subjects of attack and clearly Turkey and Islam.

Further to this, in relation to the guidelines for the production of party broadcasts the broadcast is not clearly labelled to avoid confusion between it and a documentary, or news piece.

The guidelines state:

“Broadcasts that closely mimic or parody the format of established programmes on any channel, particularly news programmes, should be clearly labelled to avoid any confusion or run the risk of misleading the audience.”

The broadcast adopts a documentary style from the outset, with the use of newspaper clippings, a presenter addressing the camera in a style closely associated with news reports, or documentary programmes and presentational deploys devices like graphs (albeit unsourced) which are in keeping with the format of many new programmes and documentary styles.

In one scene the presenter states:

“Last year 9 journalists were sent to prison in Turkey. On a list of press freedoms Turkey ranks 149th out of 180 countries, it might explain why I felt more comfortable filming this back here in the UK”

This is a clear attempt to portray the presenter as a journalist, who a viewer would reasonably believe to be impartial on a genuine news programme on the BBC or ITV.

The style adopted and lack of onscreen reference is in clear breach of this guideline.

This in itself is grounds for complaint, but we are especially concerned by the misleading claims made in the broadcast. This is in breach of section 2.2 of the Ofcom broadcasting code which states

2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.

In some instances it could be argued that a party political broadcast does not necessarily constitute a ‘factual programme’ however the nature of this broadcast, in its style and its presenting of claims as factually based constitutes a portrayal of a factual matter and misleads the audience in a number of places, specifically:

Turkey could have the maximum amount of seats – 96. UK only gets 73

Since 2014, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, there is a maximum of 750 seats in the European Parliament, so Turkey joining would not receive 96- it would be less than that (and others would lose some too). Turkey’s population share as it currently stands would represent 17% and the UK, France and German’s population share would still represent 42%. Our population is set to rise, and that would be reflected in our number of seats.

Potentially 15m migrants could leave for the EU in the first 10 years of EU membership

This is presented as a projection and is not credible, a 2011 Home Affairs Select Committee reported that:

“The MPs' report says that the available forecasts for the likely flow of Turkish nationals to other European countries should it join the EU range from 500,000 to 4.4 million up until 2030. One estimate by Oxford University suggests that the figure could be as low as 60,000 to 70,000 a year to Europe as a whole.”

More than ¼ of Turkish women married before 18

This statement is unfounded. The Girls Not Brides organisation estimates that 14% of girls married before the age of 18 in Turkey, this percentage clearly does not represent one quarter.

The Girls Not Brides organisation does caveat this with the fact that “statistical data available may not be representative of the scale of the issue since most child marriages are unregistered and take place as unofficial religious marriages.”

Turkish women are ten times more likely to suffer physical abuse or violence than in Europe (UN Report 2011)

A UN Women report Progress of the World’s Women: In Pursuit of Justice published in 2011 said that 39% of women in Turkey have suffered from physical violence, at some time.

This report looked at violence against women, specifically into the prevalence of intimate partner violence. The report shows the prevalence of violence against women in the UK was 19%, 35% in the Czech Republic and an average across Europe as being between 5-35%. The suggestion therefore that Turkey’s prevalence of violence against women is 10 times that of the UK is therefore misleading and incorrect.

Turkey average salary £429 per month, UK is £2,200

Although this figure is accurate, it is misleading as there are 8 other EU member states which currently have lower average salaries than Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey has the 17th largest economy in the world, its GDP has grown year on year, and it is a member of the G20.

In order to become a full member of the European Union, all countries must meet a number conditions, known as negotiation chapters. To date Turkey has only passed 13 of the 35 negotiation chapters which include a wide range of areas including human rights and socio-economic data. The adoption of further chapters would have an impact on a number of areas referenced in the broadcast ahead of any possible future ascension, and it is not likely that Turkey is about to join the EU.

The European Union is a crucial vehicle in improving civil liberties, human rights and the role of women in societies and countries that wish to apply to join have to uphold these values.

Ahead of a European Referendum where passions on both sides of the debate will be intense, it is our hope that this offensive and negative broadcast is not a taste of things to come.

The campaign should be characterised by an exchange of ideas and cases that are grounded in fact, and stated clearly so the British people can make up their minds. It should not become an excuse for the introduction of US-Style ‘attack ads’ or seek to inflame divisions and hatred against communities.

The lack of sources referenced in the broadcast makes comprehensively fact checking the piece difficult, but there are clearly a number of areas in which it is misleading."