Questions and Answers

1. Jonathan Holmes asks: “As a student, I am struggling to survive on the financial support available.  Would any of you support the proposed rise in tuition fees at a time when many people are struggling to afford university in the first place?”

Dear Jonathan,

I do not support any such rise and as a Liberal Democrat go further by committing to scrap tuition fees altogether, as we have already done in Scotland, and in the short term to fight any attempt to raise them.

Mandelson has already been laying the groundwork for a massive hike in tuition fees that will leave students with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and deter those from poorer backgrounds from going to university at all! Already he’s forcing universities to offer those who do stump up the fees less choice, lower standards and fewer teaching hours.

Only the Liberal Democrats are prepared to stand up for students from all backgrounds.

Despite Government rhetoric, it is still a fact that more and more people are failing to realize their full potential because they simply can’t afford to be educated.  Others are leaving education with huge debts around their necks.

If we seriously wish to address social inequalities then we should not be building barriers, which make progress even more challenging.

2. Keith Bean asks: “What is your position on fox hunting? Are you for or against?”

Dear Keith,

I am personally against foxhunting or indeed any form of blood sports.

I welcome a recent European Court decision against the argument that the Hunting Act 2004 breached human rights under Article 8 (the right to a private and family life), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and also Article 1 of protocol number 1 (protection of property).  The Court dismissed the case on all counts.

The ruling was: “the bans had been designed to eliminate the hunting and killing of animals for sport in a manner causing suffering and being morally objectionable”.

The hunters will no longer be able to claim that their civil liberties have been infringed by the ban or that they have some legal freedom to be cruel for sport.

The Court says they do not!

There is, of course, the wider picture, which is to do with human development and civilized behaviour.  We are trying to engender decency, fairness and tolerance whilst standing up against cruelty, bullying and abuse, both within the UK and across the world – there is no place in the world we seek to build for someone gaining any satisfaction from suffering of anyone or anything.

As a Liberal Democrat I will staunchly defend anyone’s Right to Freedom, but that does not mean a freedom to indulge in cruelty.

3. Mr P Rives asks: “Past articles in the Echo have said that heavy rail freight is to be diverted through Lincoln.   The High Street will have to be closed to traffic and even pedestrians must use a bridge or an underpass. If elected will the candidates oppose this madness by every means possible?”

Dear Mr Rives,

You are right that such a proposal would lead to further delays and chaos. The city cannot afford an increase in problems at this point where there is already gridlock for extended periods throughout each day, which wastes time and energy.

I would oppose any solution that makes access for pedestrians more difficult into High Street and I would expect Network Rail to find solutions to their problems that do not compromise city movement.

The problem has arisen because Lincoln has outgrown its piecemeal and somewhat unplanned development.  This together with the lack of effective highways and public transport infrastructure suitable to meet modern demands has resulted in the poor situation that we now find ourselves in. There has been serial neglect and many missed opportunities during the development of the University, a huge growth in housing and, unbelievably, despite our MP once having a strategic position in Parliament as Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport.

Many of us have been fighting for considerable time to get local, regional and national bodies to accept that something must be done to deal with a flawed system.  We need to combine forces to obtain funding for the completion of a series of necessary projects, which will all do their part in helping to fight gridlock. Examples include, a full ring road, improving public transport into and out of the centre, and park and ride facilities at strategic rail stations as well as bus points.

Network Rail boasts that rail travel is one of the best options for a greener journey.  Unfortunately, the pollution caused by vehicles forced to wait at busy crossings is at odds with that ideal and cannot be ignored.  As they own and operate Britain’s rail infrastructure, they are central to a solution on the High Street.  Their claim to strive to provide Britain with a safe, reliable and efficient railway fit for the 21st century must be inclusive of the whole of Britain and not just the profitable parts.

Unfortunately, Network Rail, like any private company, is not best at engaging to seek solutions to such issues that are potentially expensive. Perhaps it is about time that Government compulsorily directed such projects towards solution, if necessary, together with green subsidies.

This of course finally begs a question, ‘Why’ is heavy rail freight being considered for a diversion through the city in the first place when it is so ill equipped to deal with it, and when it causes so much disruption? Should not Network Rail be looking for a rail by-pass?

4. Penny Kemp asks: “Would you vote to get rid of the minimum wage?”

Dear Penny,

I think that the minimum wage is the lowest wage at which workers are expected to sell their labour.  Without this, workers have been exposed to abuse and exploitation for centuries and it has been a long struggle to get where we are today.  There are, of course, differences of opinion about the benefits of a minimum wage with good points raised by both sides.  So, in a society where the minimum wage is set, there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that a wide range of suitable training schemes are embedded in to the system and that support is given to ensure that essential small businesses are enabled to grow into maturity, without being financially overburdened.

Fairness of pay, and this includes addressing inequalities between sexes, must be part of the foundation of a modern society.  We live in an area of traditionally lower pay levels compared to the rest of the East Midlands or indeed the UK, and here the minimum wage provides an essential bulwark against exploitation.  It is also interesting to note that lower pay (than other areas of great Britain for essentially the same work) did not save local firms from closure.

However, we must pay attention to the emerging industrial might of India and China, where the cost of goods is reduced through low and somewhat unsustainable pay levels.   There is a balance to be found and I believe that with everyone playing his or her part we will find a productive medium.

In short, I favour the minimum wage law because it increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society; it motivates and encourages the employee to find work rather than benefits; it neither taxes nor raises the public sector borrowing requirements; it is administratively simple – workers only need to report violations of wages less than minimum, minimizing a need for a large enforcement agency; it stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire wage; helps to increase the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees; decreases the cost of government social schemes by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid; does not have a substantial effect on unemployment compared to most other economic factors and so does not put any extra pressure on welfare systems.

A recent study in the United States showed that businesses’ annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate  in states with a minimum wage; historical evidence shows that at current levels, it neither hurts businesses nor reduces job creation.  Finally it weakens the defense used by some, ‘I’m better off on benefits’, forcing them to accept that if you can work then there really is no excuse not to!

5. Dave Hansell asks: “Do you think MPs should be allowed to have second jobs?”

Dear David,

Whilst more than half of MPs with second paid employments are Conservative, it is true that MPs from all parties have outside jobs. I do not have a problem with an MP, having the freedom, like anyone else, to engage in their own interests outside Parliament but I do draw the line at paid work, which could be at best a distraction and at worse a compromising situation.

I believe that MPs should largely concentrate on being an MP.  The role carries with it a weight of responsibility requiring focus and commitment. How is it possible to maintain the integrity of this role whilst holding down a range of other interests, which could compromise one’s position and availability for constituency work?  If you are doing that work properly there should be no time for ‘moonlighting’.  If not in Westminster I would be in Lincoln responding to residents’ issues and supporting them in order to find resolution.   To this end I would open an office in the centre of Lincoln after being elected.

Further to this, no role should be taken on in Government which may compromise the commitment made by every prospective MP that if elected the Member will serve the electorate to the very best of his or her ability throughout the tenure of office and that constituency interests will be at the top of the agenda at all times.  This may also mean that an individual will forego personal interests, which are likely to compromise local effectiveness.

6. Doug West asks: “What is the candidate’s party policy on concessionary bus travel for the over-60s?”

Dear Doug,

I believe that the elder generation is the backbone of our society, who should be protected and not neglected.

As a Liberal Democrat, I am committed to helping pensioners retain their mobility and independence.  When I joined West Lindsey District Council in 1999, the first motion that I put forward was to seek a way to offer free travel for our over-60’s.  This led to an initial 50% subsidy and later when I was Leader, we helped develop a scheme with Councils throughout Lincolnshire to enable free travel across local boundaries for our elderly residents.

At a time of life when they should be enjoying a secure and happy retirement, successive Governments have steadily eroded the state pension and many pensioners lose their savings and homes to pay for accommodation and care. At national level, the Liberal Democrats are committed to implementing the Royal Commission on long-term care, as we have already done in Scotland.

7. Will Armstrong asks: “If you could be any Cabinet Minister, which one would you be and why?”

Dear Will,

The problem with being a cabinet Minister is that if you are not very careful the cabinet position becomes a career move and that’s when it becomes more difficult to give the Constituency the attention it needs.  Therefore I would have to be convinced that such a position would not compromise my Lincoln duties.

I would enjoy the challenge as a Minister for Education. As a successful and long experienced educator and as a long time union official for a main teaching union, I have considerable knowledge in this area.   This service has suffered from Government micro-management for far too long and has frankly slowed down progress.  Children are fitted into boxes at inappropriate times during their development, and forced to undertake under-mining tests, stretched to fulfill centrally set targets and stamped out at the end of the conveyer belt, often ill equipped and unhappy.  Yet we still fall behind other countries.  I might refer for a moment to the system in Canada where there is only one union, Government interference is kept at a minimum; the schools are calmer and the children happier.  The experts should be in control and the experts are the teachers themselves.

However, whatever Ministry was offered to me, I would be guided by one underlying principle – to be prepared to make difficult choices to build a better society.  The electorate recognizes short-term populist decisions, which fail to plan adequately for the future for what they are, and this affects public confidence in politicians.  We must plan better for the future if we are to maintain our position in an increasingly competitive world.

8. Mr R Pollard asks: “Since the economic crisis occurred, the Conservative Party has talked about making strict cutbacks as soon as possible to reduce the national debt.  In contrast, Labour and the Liberal Democrats believe investment in public spending should be continued to prevent the social damage caused by monetarism in the recessions of the 1980’s happening again. Which is the right approach and why?” (RW: I would add on to Mr Pollard’s statement, “is this case?” when he refers to the policies adopted by each party)

Dear Mr Pollard,

Don’t make the mistake of lumping the Liberal Democrats with Labour – we are not the same.  We must not forget that the Labour Government failed to listen to two years of warnings from the Liberal Democrats over the impending crisis of toxic debt, and even ridiculed Vince Cable when he spoke repeatedly on this issue.

Equally, it was not so very long ago that the Conservatives, in their wisdom, managed to do something very similar.  Can you remember the nightmare bred through the failures of Thatcherism?  Can you remember the ensuing 17.5% inflation?  Their selfish philosophy of monetarism is fundamentally flawed and left us with a broken nation.  The young people of today are paying the price of lost values and opportunities.

I believe that the answer to the future is not just about balancing the books.  It is also about readdressing what we have lost as a nation. We have to put the pride back in Britain, which means a rethinking of the way we do things.

Now is not the time to pull the rug from our economy whilst much of it is hanging by a thread.   As we get stronger then we can increase proportionately our debt repayments, and build into the system a new sense of responsibility.

There is no place for the greed and selfishness that we are presently seeing in our leading institutions (even Government itself).  There should be no place for the obscene bonuses in our banks, ‘milking the system’ by our MPs, living in tax havens whilst standing for parliament or stashing away the cash through tax loopholes – we must end the, ‘I’m alright Jack, mentality!

9. Seb Thomas asks: “I know there are plans in place for an eastern bypass but I don’t think this will solve the nightmare that is Lincoln’s road network. How will you try and make sure the city gets its fair share of funding and its infrastructure can be radically improved?”

Dear Seb,

You are absolutely right that an Eastern bypass will create more problems than it solves until there is a Southern bypass completed in order to finish the ring road.   Even then there will be further requirements i.e. there will need to be a dual carriageway throughout; crossing point bottlenecks at major roundabouts have to be considered; park and ride facilities developed, including rail stations; and all this without compromising the attractive approaches to Lincoln like Carholme Road. The present plan to end the new road at Bracebridge Heath will simply funnel more traffic to areas already under stress.

Therefore I would encourage all the interested parties to work together towards a solution. This would include the District Councils of West Lindsey and North Kesteven, Lincoln City Council, Lincolnshire County Council, The East Midlands Assembly, Government Office East Midlands and The Highways Agency.  I would expect the District and City Councils to use their planning powers to ensure that long term planning strategy fits in with the need for comprehensive infrastructure improvements and that Section 106 money is directed towards highways.  The County Council need to show the commitment necessary to produce a compelling case for funding based upon sound argument; their last effort fell far short of convincing anyone and frankly the homework was not done.  If Government Office East Midlands already recognize our economic reasoning then they need to use their good offices to help to increase leverage with central government.

Lincoln is in a difficult position because of its rural non-central geographical position and relatively low population.  Governments tend to favour highest use policy and it will always be a struggle to get the needed highways unless other arguments can overcome this rule.

There is a further problem in that major road projects are considered and voted on by the delegates of the East Midlands Assembly.   As an overwhelming number of them come from outside Lincolnshire it will have to be a strong argument when we next have an opportunity to make our case. Incidentally, on the last occasion they chose to prioritize highways improvements from Widmerpool to Newark over Lincoln’s ring road.  There is no guarantee that Lincoln will win funding in the next round in 2030. We must renew our efforts and focus them strategically, incorporating all parties.  Not only is our highways system at stake here but equally our economic future and that means jobs and the sustainability of Lincoln into the 21st century.

We must shake off past disappointments and begin work now, putting together an excellent plan for the future of Lincoln.

10. Bernard Ross asks: “I firmly believe for any civilised country to be financially sound it must have strong economy based on its ability to manufacture goods and equipment that can exported to the rest of the world.  The UK’s manufacturing base has been gradually eroded over several decades, and this situation must be stopped now.  We must not lose the specific skills that large manufacturing companies need.  What action would the candidates’ parties take to redress the current dilemma?”

Dear Bernard,

At the heart of your questions lies a basic philosophical choice. Do we want to be a profitable Britain or a better Britain?

There is of course a balance to be found but for far too long now we have seen the balance weighing heavily down upon the side of profitability and share-holders at the expense of maintaining and developing skills and communities.

It is true that we have to produce quality goods at a fair price in an ever increasingly competitive world and that pay demands became increasingly difficult to meet, but it is not the case that we had no other option but to close down these industries because they were not ‘cost effective’.  By doing so you lose far more than just jobs; the follow-on hurt to society is phenomenal i.e. rebuilding communities, welfare costs, lost skills, increased crime, health issues – and the list goes on.

Because of shortsightedness we have seen the demise of steel-making, car building, coal production, railways and related manufacturing.  Midland and Northern areas have been particularly hard hit by this policy.  What an irony that we are now considering reopening pits and rebuilding the railways!

I would much prefer the model that we see in modern France, where they seek to protect their industrial base where possible, which leads to a much healthier, ‘people centered’, solution.  Much of Europe still boasts healthy industries, despite having gone through the same struggle that we did.  For example car names like Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, BMW and Audi thrive.

We need to begin the process of rebuilding our country.   There are lots of opportunities but commitment must come from the top. For example, in the engineering world there is great scope for new green industries and Lincoln could be at the centre of such a thrust.  A complete rethink needs to be undertaken on the way we deal with these situations.  Rather than bring to a halt a struggling industry we need to instill growth, progress and a change culture, which would enable firms to adapt quickly to emerging situations in an ever-changing world.   We must learn to fully value what we already have – the skills and expertise of our workforce and the delicate fabric of our communities, and must re-instill a sense of pride in producing quality goods made by skillful minds and hands.

11. Abdul Majid asks: “The Public and Commercial Services Union is concerned over further privatisation of the civil service. We believe this is costly and unnecessary and jeopardises services being delivered to the public, often to the most vulnerable in our society. Where do you stand on privatising public services?”

Dear Abdul Majid,

I have serious concerns about privatization at any time and anywhere. I believe that if there are improvements and efficiencies to be made (this is the usual excuse) then we can do this without looking for a cure all called ‘privatization’.   It spells job loses, wage cuts, essential but non-profit making arms are severed, leaving the vulnerable isolated.  It is often the case that the Government and indeed, society itself, is left to pick up this ‘bill’ for these cast offs.

This question is one of principle.   For too long now we have been encouraged to look to costs first and service second.   Why can’t we be looking to justifying something because it is simply ‘the right thing to do’ and for the advancement of our vision for a better world?

The Civil Service has served this country well for a long time.  If sections of it were to be privatized, it would be very difficult to reverse that decision if in years to come we were dissatisfied with the performance of private companies.  Think of the experience that would be lost, and the cost to the public purse of monitoring the providers would be considerable.

At the end of the day, privatization means seeking profit for shareholders.  For that profit to be realized something has got to give somewhere and invariably it is the consumer, at the end of the line, who ends up paying.  I could list examples here but I really feel that you’ll all know what I’m taking about!

12. The final question is one I would like to ask, as a city voter myself!

“If you were city MP, what efforts would you make to improve train services into Lincoln?  For example, the service between Nottingham and Lincoln often stops at 10pm and discourages people from using public transport. Is there anything that you can do, as a city representative, to further improve access in and out of Lincoln by rail?”

Dear Richard,
A tall order especially as our own MP and ex Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, failed to improve our rail links to any significant degree, although I am aware that further improvements to the route to Kings Cross are in the pipeline.

Rail companies, like any privatized body, will look to growing profitable services and ‘rationalizing’ others.   Cost ineffective routes or timetabling are the first to go and this forces people on to the roads and in a vicious cycle undermines customer service and reduces options.  However, Nottinghamshire County Council, the Department for Transport and Network Rail are presently in discussion about various improvements to the line towards Nottingham including a doubling of service, which would offer limited progress.

Clearly, in order to compel the present rail companies to make the necessary improvements to provide the levels of service necessary for Lincoln to thrive, would take a huge policy change.

The Liberal Democrats would offer that change.  We believe in the creation of an integrated public transport system, which would be the envy of the world, would have advantages for the environment and help alleviate the pressure on an ailing highways network.  In Government, or whilst holding the political balance during a hung parliament, we would call for significant improvement from rail companies and a comprehensive plan to improve sustainable transport systems.