Liberal Democrats across the East Midlands backed a motion calling for the Liberal Democrats in Westminster to make further adjustments to the Health & Social Care Bill in order to protect the NHS from a competative market and for Liberal Democrats not to whipped to support Conservative policies that go beyond the Coalition Agreement or otherwise reject the Health & Social Care Bill in its entirety (full text of motion can be found below).

The Motion was proposed by Steve Coleman, with speeches by Prateek Buch of the Social Liberal Fourm and Scientific Researcher for UCM, Phil Knowles, Mathew Hulbert, David Harding-Price, Sam Boote amongst others from the conference delegation. The Debate was chaired by Craig Day.

The motions was passed with one objection and one abstention.

The motion will now be given to the Regional Executive and put to the National Party.

—MOTION—

Dr. Charles West: Reforming the NHS

Conference notes that the March 2011 Conference clearly rejected several aspects of the Health and Social Care Bill (“the Bill”), which breached the agreed Coalition Programme.
Conference applauds Nick Clegg and our ministerial team on achieving changes to the Bill reflecting some of those concerns.
Conference however further notes
a) that since the beginning of July the Bill has been amended in the Public Bill Committee without fully addressing our concerns.
b) that the Government published further amendments on 2nd September for the report stage of the Bill on the 6th and 7th September 2011 without address any of the outstanding concerns.
c) the amended Bill still contains significant proposals for the NHS which go well beyond the Coalition Programme and have widely criticised by health professionals, academics, managers, and the wider public over the Summer.
d) after the re-examination of the Bill in committee and after Parliament had gone into recess the Health Secretary issued instructions to PCTs obliging them to identify three services to be put out to contract in an exercise that could see an extra £1bn of NHS money being paid to private providers.
Conference is concerned that:
I. the underlying Conservative agenda is the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS, with the Secretary of State and the NHS no longer delivering healthcare but simply buying it in the ‘market’.
II. the promotion of “choice” is being used by the Conservatives as a smokescreen for the promotion of competition at the expense of co-operation and integration.
III. the NHS in England is being floated off into independent buyers and providers of care divorced from the state and from political accountability, and that £80 billion of tax-payers money is to be spent with little or no direct political accountability at local or national level.
Conference believes:
A. that a competitive market is not an appropriate model for delivering healthcare in the UK, nor one that the Liberal Democrats can help to bring nearer.
B. that Liberal Democrat MPs and peers should not be whipped to support Conservative policies that go beyond the coalition agreement and which have been rejected by our conference.
Conference therefore for calls for the bill to be amended by:
1. the removal of all references to promoting competition whether directly or indirectly.
2. any duty to promote choice being made subsidiary to duties to promote fair access, equality of outcomes, and integrated services.
3. the removal of the facility for transferring NHS assets, including land, to third party providers.
4. retaining the cap on Private patient income by NHS Foundation trusts.
5. the restoration of the duty of the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of, healthcare services, and the reinstatement of the power of the Secretary of State to delegate his functions to NHS commissioners and to direct them as necessary.
6. the retention of the ability of the local authority overview and scrutiny function to refer significant services changes to the Secretary of State for adjudication.
7. providing that Health and Well-being Boards (HWBs) have a majority of elected members and are able refer unresolved disputes with local commissioners to the Secretary of State rather than to a national quango.
8. the explicit prohibition of the wholesale outsourcing of commissioning work to private companies.
9. guaranteeing that commissioning groups are fully co-terminous with social services local authorities, except where HWBs and local authorities agree otherwise, and are funded solely on the basis of the health needs of the population.
10.the removal of the power to pay financial incentives to practitioners as a means of influencing their referral behaviour.
11. rejection of any personal health budget scheme which allow users to spend NHS funds on private health insurance or as a top up towards private health care or to buy services or treatments judged too ineffective or inefficient for the NHS to buy.
12.the inclusion of a duty on all NHS bodies, when arranging with non-NHS bodies to provide services, to avoid any risk of essential NHS services (including teaching and research) being destabilised in an unplanned way through loss of income or case-load,
and
13. ensuring Directors of Public Health remain independent sources of expert advice.
and further calls for the active support of these objectives, as party policy, by Liberal Democrat Parliamentarians and, in the absence of all of these changes being made, calls for Liberal Democrat Parliamentarians to reject the Health and Social Care Bill in its entirety.

On behalf of all the candidates at this year’s local elections, we would like to thank those in all the wards across the city, and those areas in North Kesteven which are in the constituency, who voted for us.

It was a disappointing year, but we will continue to support and help local residents to help shape a better future for Lincoln.

This week, Liberal Democrat candidate for Castle Ward, Ross Pepper, launched the campaign to get Lincoln a better bus service.

Lincoln's bus service needs to serve residents

On Monday, Stagecoach introduced their new timetable with has been ravaged by the cuts by the Conservative-controlled County Council. The new timetable in place leaves much of uphill Lincoln without any bus service after 6pm. This will have a detrimental impact on residents in those areas who do not have their own transport, hitting many older and younger people.

This also impacts on the County Hospital, as hardly any buses will service the site during the evening patient visiting hours. The new timetables also hit outlying areas such as Skellingthorpe.

Uphill Lincoln is cut off in the evening after timetable cuts

Campaign organiser, Ross Pepper said, “At a time when we are encouraged to leave our cars at home and use public transport, the County Council along with Stagecoach are making this impossible for members of our community. It also unfairly hits older residents who often rely on public transport. It’s time both the County Council and Stagecoach put Lincoln’s residents first and rethink these savage cuts to Lincoln’s public transport network”.

You can join our campaign to get Lincoln a better bus service by clicking the Lincoln Bus Campaign in the Links box on the right of this page.

From the Lincolnshire Echo – Monday 4th April

It seems that the referendum is disliked more by the political class than the public, and it is clear why – with a Yes win on the referendum in May, people like Mr Patterson (writing on 17 March), Coun Birks (on 23 March) and myself will have to work harder to gain the support of the electorate. The difference between me and Messers Patterson and Birks is that I am prepared to do that. AV will abolish the life-long seats enjoyed by so many politicians up and down the country that lead to the abhorrent abuse of the expenses scandal. It just gives people more say in who they want to govern.

Another thing that is being flagged up is that AV will give people like the BNP more seats. If it did that, then why are the BNP supporting the No campaign? Extremist parties would have to win 50% of the vote from the electorate. It is more of an effective way of keeping out the extreme element than the current system. Also, you don’t have to vote for more than one candidate. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job. You aren’t forced to vote for any candidate you don’t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can.

They also believe that it creates more hung parliaments. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments. Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Supporters of the No campaign also say no-one uses AV. Yes they do. Most businesses, charities and trade unions use it for their elections, as do student bodies and political parties!

The No campaign also says it is difficult to understand. I am sorry but that is just insulting. Voters put a ‘1’ by their first choice, a ‘2’ by their second choice, a ‘3’ by their third choice and so on. The logic’s familiar enough to anyone who’s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, “If they’re out of that I’ll have lemonade.” Some people have a very low estimation of the British public. It is also true that many people know who they don’t want to win in an election then who they do want to win. The new system would allow people the choice to express that opinion.

Coun Birks also said that First Past The Post ‘has been effective in this country for hundreds of years’. I must remind Coun Birks that it is less than 150 years ago since the ‘rotten boroughs’ where abolished when, in some areas, the size of your fireplace determined if you got the vote! Secret ballots are also a more recent invention which was met by opposition from the political class in 1872.

This referendum gives people the chance to update their electoral system. It is a chance to give more power back to the people and keep the politicians on their toes. It is time some politicians realised the people have the power and not them.

Ross Pepper

This letter from Ross Pepper, the Lincoln Liberal Democrat Chairman, was in the Lincolnshire Echo on the 29th March.

The planned upgrade to Lincoln’s High Street between Portland St and St Catherine’s is very welcome, especially to those who are regularly stuck in queues of traffic around the Dixon Street area.

However, I agree with Tony Frecklington who spoke in the article (23rd March) that this could have a detrimental effect on businesses in the area. For anyone who has walked along the High Street recently, they will have seen a number of shops empty and neglected. I hope the new proposals will not lead to a further decline to the area or bring a further increase in the number of take-away outlets that blight the High Street. Surely the City Council could do something to support local small businesses that operate on the lower High Street and encourage more traders to the area and help bring ‘community’ back to Lincoln’s High Street.

Ross Pepper

Lincoln Liberal Democrats

On the 5^th May this year we will be allowed to choose whether to scrap our broken voting system and replace it with a fairer alternative, and if you aren’t excited about this you should be. A change to the Alternative Vote would be the most dramatic political change since women were given the vote and put the power to help decide elections more firmly in the hands of otherwise ignored voters.

Our current voting system, First Past The Post, delivers unfair results, wastes votes and breeds apathy. Over two-thirds of MPs who won their seats at the last general election did so with less than half of the votes of their constituents, meaning that they were elected even though most people voted against them. The expenses scandal was nothing more than a symptom of a system which allows MPs to get complacent, abuse their positions and take voters for granted. Fairer votes would tackle this problem because they require a candidate to have at least half of the support of voters in order to win. This would force MPs to listen to their constituents, instead of just relying on their “core support” and ignoring everyone else, and make them work harder to get elected.

At every election millions of people cast votes which are wasted, or are pressured to vote tactically to keep out candidates they don’t want rather than voting for the person they do want. This undermines our democracy and, understandably, creates apathy where people stop bothering to vote because they have no chance of changing things. If we had the Alternative Vote voters would no longer have to decide between voting with their hearts or their heads as they could do both! Under AV you number candidates in the order you prefer (you don’t have to rank any candidates you hate) so you can put your favourite as a first choice to help them build support over time and give them a chance of winning, then put candidates you don’t mind as choices to keep out the candidate or party you hate.

As well as producing more representative MPs with broader support from their constituents, the Alternative Vote would discourage nasty campaigning such as that carried out by Phil Woolas last year, where he based his parliamentary campaign on stirring up racial hatred. This is because parties would be wary of putting voters who support other parties off giving them a second or a third preference on their ballot paper.

Voting yes to fairer votes would make several small improvements to the system that would make a big difference and, most importantly, would be the first step away from our outdated, failed voting system and towards a proper representative democracy. If we want our votes to mean something, our MPs to listen and to be able to vote with our hearts, then now is the time to do something about it. This referendum is our chance. Make history by going out and voting “Yes” on May 5^th, or even get involved with your local Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign to help. We can’t keep doing our elections in the same way over and over again – not if we want a different result.

Natasha Chapman

In the first seven months in government we have seen a massive amount of the Liberal Democrat manifesto turned into actual government policy. The new Party President, Tim Farron MP has pointed out that a massive 65% of our manifesto commitments are in the Coalition Agreement.

After years of opposition where all we could do is shout from the sidelines, we are now delivering real reform that will improve people lives. Here are just a few:

Fairer Taxes

• Lifting 900.000 of the lowest earners out of tax completely

A Fair Start

• The Pupil Premium: £2.5bn extra funding for the poorest children
• Extending childcare provision to include the poorest two-year-olds

Fair Politics

• A referendum on the Alternative Vote system to make Mps more accountable and to make votes counts
• Reform of party funding
• Moving to a reformed House of Lords

Green Economy

• 100,000 green jobs to help insulate and upgrade homes and reduce carbon emissions.
• Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty

Older People

• Restoring link between pensions and earnings with a triple-lock to guarantee a 2.5% rise
• £140 per week flat rate pension to be announced soon
• Increasing the Winter Fuel Allowance
• £400m for carers’ respite care

Banking

• Raising £2.5bn per year via a banking levy
• Reforms to get banks lending to businesses again

Civil Liberties

• Abolition of ID cards
• Moving to end detention of children in immigration

If you would like to know more about what the Liberal Democrats are doing in government go to www.libdems.org.uk, or if you would like to get involved in your local area, contact one of the team (details in the Committee Contacts).

LINCS FM POLL

LIB DEMS 50%
CONSERVATIVES 34%
LABOUR 14%

This confirms that Labour cannot win in Lincoln and exposes their tricks to get people to vote tactically!

Reg Says, ‘Vote with your heart and your conscience, NOT on how others tell you to vote, then everything will work out right – I promise!’

Newspapers abandon Labour in final week endorsements.

Following their sister paper the Guardian; the Observer today endorsed the Liberal Democrats. This follows the Times newspaper’s endorsement of the Conservatives.

Observer Newspaper supports the Liberal Democrats

“Awarding seats in parliament in proportion to votes cast would extend the franchise to millions of people who feel their voices have gone unheard.”

“The Lib Dems have in recent years developed a habit of getting things right. They were first of the big three to embrace environmentalism, first to kick back against the assault on civil liberties, alone in opposing the Iraq war.”

· “Gordon won’t be getting my vote” – Gillian Duffy speaks to the Daily Mail

“He asked, “Do you ever come down to London? If you ever come down you must come to No10 and meet me and Sarah,”’ Mrs Duffy revealed. ‘Well, I just looked at him. I didn’t like to say it, but all I could think was, “I don’t think you’ll be there.”