General Election Debates - Liberal Democrat Party

[The Chair]

This thread is for the Liberal Democrat Party PPC to post their answers to the debate questions they have been sent. Please do not post anything in this thread until that has occurred. Thank you.

[JonathanMitchell PPC]

Please see my responses to the six questions.

1) Should MPs live in the constituency they represent?

I live in Dulwich and my view is that MPs should have strong local links and most importantly a fully staffed office in the constituency to make themselves easily accessible to local people.

MPs have a number of important constituency roles ? to be the eyes and ears of their constituents, to represent their interests, and where possible to resolve their complaints. It is vital for an MP to be fully in touch with what is going on ?on the ground?. This can only be done by the MP being available and on hand to be informed regularly, speedily, and in detail of new events and developments so that quick action can be taken.

Being an MP is a public service which can most effectively be carried out by being with the people where they live.

And the further away an MP lives from their constituency the more difficult it is for them to share the experiences of their constituents. For example in late May the train timetable will be changed to fill gaps for East Dulwich, North Dulwich and Tulse Hill commuters into London Bridge. If you don't use these services you'd be much less likely to know how important an issue it is.

I?ve been involved in the Dulwich Hospital campaign for more than 10 years and living locally I know what the hospital means to local people. Almost exactly 13 years ago to the day Tony Blair said, ?we have 24 hours to save the NHS?. Local people looking at what is left of our local hospital can see every day how they have been betrayed by Labour?s broken promises.

If an MP is based some distance from the constituency they cannot see clearly how local services are performing. Such an absentee MP will have insufficient knowledge of what needs to be done for local people and will be unable to measure the speed and effectiveness of the necessary remedial action that needs to be taken.

2) What is the fairest way of capping individuals annual earnings i.e Bob Diamond?s ?63 million at Barclays?

The best way is to set an upper limit on what bonuses senior executives are allowed to receive is by Statute. We will introduce ?fair pay audits? for every company with over 100 employees, and we will require all public companies to declare in full remunerations of ?200,000 per year or more. Liberal Democrats do not shrink from a taxation system that aims to be starkly fairer and more redistributive. It is especially important when this country needs to be rebuilt economically to sustain itself during the difficult five to ten years ahead and if we are to have any hope of repaying the vast amounts off the deficit.

3) Do you accept that whilst the crime solving benefits of surveillance are considerable, there must surely be a level at which the costs to an individual's privacy and sense of freedom outweigh the potential benefits?

Yes. Solving crime through effective use of CCTV surveillance shouldn?t be at the cost of individual liberty, but sadly too often under Labour it has been used as a cheap headline grabbing stunt to appear tough on crime.

In fact as a lawyer, I strongly believe the fight against violent crime is being hampered by excessive legislation and bureaucratic red tape emanating from the Labour government. This has spread confusion among police officers, judges and other professionals and gets in the way of detection and prosecution of crimes for which effective CCTV is a vital part.

For example the Labour government has created 4,289 new criminal offences, between 1997 and 2009 ? approximately one for every day Labour have been in office including such ludicrous offences as:

? Disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer. (SI 2007/2245, Eggs and Chicks (England Eggs for Hatching and Chicks) 13.1c&8a. and SI 2008/1718).

? Causing a nuclear explosion. (Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998).

? Sells or offers for sale a bird of game killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day. (SI 2007/2007 Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007, amendment to Game Act 1831 s. 3A).

? To wilfully pretend to be a barrister.

A change in direction in crime and disorder policy making is long overdue. The focus instead should be on catching criminals, increasing the number of police and other enforcement officers on the street, a reduction in red tape and more efficient use of technology such as CCTV with mobile and state of the art digital cameras.

Finally, I believe that police forces and other investigative agencies are not doing enough to make proper use of CCTV material in the fight against crime. Firstly, speedy access at an early point in the investigation is vital, and it is essential to obtain and preserve CCTV material. I have been engaged in far too many cases where Officers have left it too late to go after material or to go through it early enough, or to properly preserve it.

Secondly, there is a wholly unsatisfactory system in place for ordinary citizens, people facing criminal charges, or those pursuing civil cases, to seek out, find, and get access to CCTV footage, let alone be allowed to see it and keep it for use in their case. There is a bad tendency for Government or other agencies to cover up vital evidence where it is not in their interests to disclose it.

If elected, one of my first tasks will be to beef up the rights of access to CCTV footage and the disclosure remedies in pursuit of such vital material. When this evidence is speedily harnessed and preserved so that all can make use of it, I foresee a substantial decrease in miscarriages of justice.

4) Could the candidates please outline how they intend to offer this area (East Dulwich, Nunhead and the wider Southwark/South East London area) better transport links to other parts of London. Although I realise the Mayor has overall responsibility for transport in London, do any of the parliamentary or council candidates have a view/ have plans to propose measures to improve the connections between South East London and the rest of the city?

A whole host of things that should be done by Transport for London/Dept of Transport - real time bus information at all bus stops, more local trains rather than long distant commuter trains. Keeping South London Line trains as well as the new East London Line phases 1 & 2. Ensuring ELL2 connects to Brixton and Surrey Canal to maximise local benefits. Extending the 63 bus to Honour Oak station.

However, some things Southwark Council can do. In our manifesto we pledge that if we control Camberwell Community Council we would ensure a study of how to extend the under utilised Bakerloo Line down to Camberwell and beyond could happen. When Greenwich Council did this about the DLR it ultimately resulted in the extension to Woolwich Arsenal. We also want to see the completion of the plans for every local street to become a 20mph zone and encourage walking and cycling with more cycle lanes and better pedestrian priority at junctions.

We can also work with the train companies to make sure that all local stations are fully accessible and have good cycle parking. Giving tax breaks to car sharing via car clubs - for every car they provide surveys have shown twenty four and a half private car journeys are given up by members. I believe this is a great way to ensure residents have the flexibility of car ownership without the costs of tax, MoT and insurance and they get priority car parking too.

5) I would like to ask the candidates what they would do to ensure that all local children can go to good local state primary and secondary schools (with the emphasis on good as well as local)?

It?s important to remember just how far we have come. Just a few years ago ? under Labour ? Southwark?s schools were so bad, the education department was privatised and handed to a firm of road engineers to run.

But we now have record results at both primary school and for GCSEs and many of our schools are now oversubscribed. And that is unequivocally a good thing.

Liberal Democrats will boost opportunities for local young people to get a good education and meet the need for more school places by opening three more new secondary schools by September 2014 - in Rotherhithe, in Walworth and a permanent home for East Dulwich Boys School next to Peckham Rye.

We will ensure children have a good primary school place within a mile of their home.

This year we have changed the admissions process to reflect the increased demand for local primary places and to try to best plan where additional ?bulge? classes should go. Our aim is to maximise parents? first choice preferences and make sure school expansions are both sustainable and necessary.

Instead of announcing which schools will expand in advance ? which simply encourages demand at those schools ? the council is taking a bit more time to process applications so it can be sure where there is most demand. It will then introduce temporary ?bulge? classes at those schools where there is most demand.

I am confident this process will mean more parents in and around East Dulwich will get a place for their kids in a good local school a short distance away.

6)Should the government departments treat humanist, secular and religious organisations equally in policy making, funding decisions and consultations?

Yes.

JONATHAN STUART MITCHELL

Liberal Democrat PPC Dulwich and West Norwood

Councillor East Dulwich

[Jeremy]

real time bus information at all bus stops

This does seem to contradict what James Barber has told us. He said that it wasn't financially viable, and instead they were pushing for an SMS based service.

Liberal Democrats do not shrink from a taxation system that aims to be starkly fairer and more redistributive

In principle I am not opposed to more "redistributive" taxation, if it means our country's economy will benefit, and we will get better public services. In your opinion, could we possibly suffer from a loss in income tax revenues, by increased salary restrictions and higher tax bands?

[louisiana]

Thanks Jonathan.

Your responses really do help us understand not just what you think, but how you think.

[silverfox]

Thank you for taking the time to respond Jonathan.

If I may just comment on a couple of points:

I'm unsure why you feel the need to introduce statutory powers to set an upper limit on what bonuses senior executives are allowed to receive. While bailed out banks may be a special case, and possibly public sector companies who are dependent on tax payers' money, surely private companies are free to pay whatever they wish?

Your reply to the surveillance question, like Tessa Jowell's reply, makes the mistake of viewing surveillance in too narrow a sense by concentrating on CCTV. There has been an explosion in surveillance spurred on by tecnology/the internet etc. DNA databases, computerised medical records, increased powers for councils to snoop in bins, checks on parents applying for their children's entry to schools. School children are bringing back questionnaires from school under the pretence of homework seeking information on recycling, diet and general lifestyle matters often under the guise that they can enter a competiton organised by the council. My worry is liberty in this country is becoming eroded.

Edited for typos

[James Barber]

I've just spoken to Jonathan and he'll respond after the weekends campaigning.

Hope that's ok for everyone.

Hi Jeremy,

Real time bus information. I reported that Transport for London said they thought it wasn't financially viable to have real time bus information at every one of circa 19,000 bus stops but planned to provide SMS instead. I made it clear I thought it barmy as the SMS text service would add 20p to every bus journey. As a telecomms manager amazed they could'nt add display to all bus stops for the budget they've allocated.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for the clarification James.

If the issue of bus information displays is down to TfL, perhaps it's out of the scope of this conversation.

[DulwichResident]

Jonathan,

How can you claim that you and the Liberal Democrats represent any form of 'New Politics' when you repeatedly say ONLY THE LIB DEMS CAN BEAT LABOUR HERE?

After boundary changes the Lib Dems came THIRD BEHIND the Conservatives in Dulwich and West Norwood and in 2006 came 4th in 4 out of 8 wards in the constituency (details found on BBC.co.uk)

Isn't the truth that the Lib Dems and Tories are neck and neck in second, quite a way back and will both struggle to beat Tessa Jowell?

[Amina Graham]

For more of what Jonathan your PPC has been up to see his blog www.jonathanmitchellsblog.com

[James Barber]

Hi DulwichResident,

Talking with Jonathan Mitchell we both explain his and the Lib Dem electoral chances for the parliamentary seat in the following.

In 2005 Labour received 19,000 votes, Lib Dem 10,250, Tory 9,000.

At that time Lib Dems in the national polls on 19% and we're currently much higher at around 29% and have been as high as 33%. Labour nationally much lower and Tories roughly the same (from memory). Even with border changes we can expect Labour to get fewer votes. In fact much fewer votes. Lib Dem many many more votes and Tories around the same.

Comparing council election ward results is incredibly simplistic and then aggregating them together to make assumptions about parliamentary seats makes easy copy for the media. We fight local elections but target our limited resources on wards we have a really good chance of winning. We operate under first past the post. We don't fight all wards equally in local elections. That would be silly. For parliamentary elections we fight to win the seat and fight all wards. Different campaign for different elections.

I wont pretend we're not incredibly stretch fighting both national and local elections no the same day. We don't have Lord Ashcroft or tradue union money. We rely on local volunteers which we really could use more of and achieve even more.

[DulwichResident]

Wasn't the Lib Dem share of the vote in 2005 22.1% rather than the 19% you mention? (BBC website)

And isn't your polling support tonight 27% and 28%? (ukpollingreport)

This represents a smaller swing than you suggest. Plus, while finding the sum of past local elections may be simplistic, it does use real, true, actual statistics, rather than trying to decieve the electorate into thinking that only the Lib Dems stand a chance.

As I have written elsewhere: the Lib Dems do stand a chance, but so too do the Tories.

[louisiana]

DulwichResident Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wasn't the Lib Dem share of the vote in 2005 22.1%

> rather than the 19% you mention? (BBC website)

I think you are confusing "national polls" and "share of the vote". They are not the same thing, are they?

[dc]

There have been two elections since the last General Election in 2005 that have been fought on precisely the same boundaries as those that will be in place for the election on Thursday and for which we have detailed results down to a ward, and thereby, constituency, level.

Stripping down the results to the three 'main' parties the distribution of votes was as follows:

Local Elections 2006

Labour 39.8% Tory 35.0% LibDem 25.2%

GLA Elections 2008 (Constituency Candidate)

Labour 48.5% Tory 30.6% LibDem 20.9%

Duncan Chapman

[James Barber]

Hi Duncan,

So we can all agree that the Labour vote will be significantly lower than the local elections 2006 you've quoted and GLA elections 2008 you've quoted. Tory vote broadly the same and Lib Dem much much higher.

Labour putting out literature stating tory main threat to them describing why they think that. Why would they do that unless they are desperate for non Labour voters in Dulwich & West Norwood to vote Tory.

It's even clearer that if a voter is sick of Gordon Brown they should vote Lib Dem on Thursday in Dulwich & West Norwood.

[dc]

Haha. That's a tortuous argument reaching an erroneous conclusion.

I think the actual point that Labour is making is that non Tory voters should vote Labour. I don't think they're in the business of encouraging anyone to vote Tory!

Remember, the figures I provided above are the only ones representing actual votes on the new boundaries - not notional or projected figures.

Duncan Chapman

[James Barber]

Hi dc,

Real votes for completely different elections with significantly lower turnouts and significantly different implications.

You must be pollster to spin such information.

[James Barber]

I've spoken to Jonathan Mitchell today and he apologises that events have meant he has been unable to pop back onto the forum. But he'd like to thank everyone for such a warm reception on the doorstep and all the kind offers of help and assistance.

He did ask that I highlight that the Lib Dem propose a drastic reduction in VAT for home renovations and DIY. With over 5,000 empty homes in Southwark alone that should encourage many to be brought back into use. To pay for this equalising onto a very low rate of VAT on new homes with the same rate of low VAT for home renovations. Hope I've explained it clearly.

Also that earn citizenship is not an amnesty. That to earn citizenship will require good english skills, no law breaking, completing community service. This one time earned citizenship programme aiming to sort out the last 30 years mess so that those that don't meet this tough criteria can have their cases resolved once and for all rather than live in their current twilight zone of not paying taxes, national insurance etc.

Lastly, that he thinks it really important an MP lives amongst the voters that elect them.

[peckhamboy]

"Also that earn citizenship is not an amnesty. That to earn citizenship will require good english skills, no law breaking, completing community service. This one time earned citizenship programme aiming to sort out the last 30 years mess so that those that don't meet this tough criteria can have their cases resolved once and for all rather than live in their current twilight zone of not paying taxes, national insurance etc."

Ummm, yes it is. It may be a conditional amnesty but it's still an amnesty. And I can't see how you expect it to work - it's hardly a compelling argument is it? "You've been here illegally for 10 years, we don't know who you are or where you are. In fact, we don't even know that you exist. You're very happily doing whatever you do and not paying taxes, but why don't you come forward and become a citizen of this country? What's that? What's in it for you? Well, the opportunity to pay taxes and national insurance."

With an offer like that, I can see literally tens of people taking you up.

[silverfox]

Don't see what the concern with amnesties is - many countries offer them, US, Australia etc.

Many illegal immigrants would make 'better' citizens than some of the indigenous population (more productive, hard working, less dependent on benefits etc).

[peckhamboy]

I'm just frustrated with the whole election - everything is about what's not said more than what is said, and every party is refusing to be completely straight with voters. It's an extension of the "government knows best" approach of Blair - the electorate is too stupid to make its own mind up when presented with the truth. If any party was prepared to stand up and be totally honest, it would get my vote. As it happens, I don't have a problem with amnesties as such - but I wish the Lib dems would just say that that's what they're proposing.

So James - why not just say that there are a large (but unknown) number of illegal immigrants in the country who have been here for a long time and who, subject to their meeting certain (rather vague) conditions, you propose offering UK citizenship to? And therefore, an amnesty in relation to the illegality of their entry into the country. Give us the facts, not the spin. Please.

[????]

I agree Peckham - the cuts that are coming are going to be substantial, unavoidable and will happen whoever gets in. Labour has hidden this as they can beat the Tories with the 'cutting party' stick and didn't even do their three year spending plan - as has been the norm recently - for entirely political reasons and leading to uncertainty, I think that's disgraceful; the Tories warned of the austerity to come in the autumn and subsequently saw their poll scored drop. The LDs have at least got into a bit more detail of their plans but still woefully short.

Broadly though they all don't want to tell us BUT to some degree we don't want to hear.

Welcome back to the 70s.

[James Barber]

Hi dc,

The Dulwich and West Norwood results were a surprise.

Labour received a slightly higher share of the vote. Lib Dems went up. Tories and Green party both down.

But clear that Labour first and Lib Dems second.

No opportunity for Converative leaflets talking about being 'notionally' second and claiming the Lib Dems have the second highest number of votes were dishonest.

At least it over. Hopefully for some time.

[DulwichResident]

James - the implication in your last post is that the Conservatives were incorrect to suggest that the Liberal Democrats were being dishonest. This is utterly false and you should be ashamed of yourself as an elected representative to say this.

[DJKillaQueen]

The Lib Dems were dishonest in Peckham Rye Ward for sure.

On illegal migrants. A good number of illegal migrants are trafficked here by a whole variety of criminal gangs for various reasons. That is the issue that needs to be addressed by politicians - an effective way to stop that. Those here already illegally are ILLEGAL and should not be rewarded for having evaded capture so long with citizenship. The black market jobs (and worse still criminal activity) they fill won't disappear because illegal migrants suddenly become legal. People traffickers will simply make more money than they've ever done shipping the required numbers over to fill the void. The Police already know where they are likely to find illegal migrants - they just need more resources to keep up. That's what government should be providing - the resources need to quickly get people processed and deported when caught.

It has always mystified me as to how, a country that is an island has been so useless at keeping so many illegal migrants out. Granted, most countries have problems with illegal migration but you would think the water around us would give us a bit of an advantage. Sorry James but that particular Lib Dem idea is completely out of touch with public opinion and your party, if it has any sense, should ditch it.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

Effectively for 30 years both Labour and Tories have had an amnesty. Huge numbers are hear illegally and no action has been taken to remove them. The numbers are so huge the system can longer functions.

Ignoring these facts doesn't make them go away. It's a crap situation that it exists at all. Especially as you point out we're an island.

Hence the proposal for earned citizenship. Clear the backlog of people who are never going to be removed but should be integrated and pay taxes so that the efforts can be concentrated on those left and importantly employee them.