End traffic chaos say West Derby Lib Dems

West Derby Lib Dem Councillors, Norman Mills and Graham Hulme, are calling for action at a troublesome traffic junction in their area.

The Councillors think that changes to traffic light filtering would make a big difference on Queen's Drive when motorists are trying to turn into Mill Bank.

The two Lib Dems will be making their call at this week's meeting of the Council's Regeneration and Transport Select Committee (31 March)

The  text of their motion is below:

"MOTION FROM COUNCILLORS NORMAN MILLS AND GRAHAM HULME

There is a constant traffic problem at this major junction of Queens Drive, which we would request the Director of Regeneration to address. Traffic driving From the direction of Muirhead Avenue/Walton/ Bootle, upon reaching the Traffic Lights at the Junction with Mill Bank (near to Holly Lodge School) and needing to turn Right into Mill Bank- is being forced to back up in appreciable numbers during Rush hour periods.

A Filtering system is required to enable at least half a dozen cars to be able to turn Right into Mill Bank – heading towards Tue brook and the City. At present, only 2 or 3 vehicles maximum can turn right when the main traffic flow on Queens Drive is stopped, and before Traffic driving up Mill Bank to cross Queens Drive have the Green traffic light to proceed.

Apart from the numbers of vehicles coming from the Walton/Bootle direction which attempt to turn Right at this point into Mill Bank, there is also considerable traffic coming from the Three Butt Lane estate, and Marlowe Drive estates, which have no other alternative but to carry out this manoeuvre. This is a large area of Housing, with a considerable number of vehicles.

At present, Long lines of Vehicles are backing up in the third (Outside) lane at busy periods, which is not a specific (Designated) Lane for vehicles turning right. There is a potential Hazard created here, by other vehicles Not wanting to turn Right- trying to move left out of the line of vehicles, and motorists turning Right racing across Queens Drive before the Traffic coming from Mill Bank has the Green Light to do so.

The far side of Queens Drive has had a Filter system for Traffic turning Right for many years into Mill Lane, which operates very well. We request that a similar Filter system is created on the Holly Lodge side of Queens Drive creating at least a Filter Light system,- and hopefully a Filter Lane- for vehicles Turning Right into Mill Bank. This would not only make this Junction safer, but reduce the Stress upon Motorists waiting for lengthy periods to turn Right at this Junction.”

Extra cash for pothole repairs from Coalition Government

Liverpool is to receive more than one million pounds of extra Government money specifically to pay for pothole repairs.

That's as a result of an announcement in this week's budget, and an announcement earlier this year.

Says Lib Dem regen spokesperson Paula Keaveney:

" This extra funding is good news for the City.  As a cyclist I notice on a daily basis how badly potholed some of our roads are. In fact my route to the station is really the Garston slalom! This money should go some way towards making inroads on the repairs needed"

It's not yet known where exactly the extra money will be spent.  All Councils getting the extra funds have to publish details of how the money has been used.  Paula has submitted a question to the Regeneration Committee, which meets next week (31st March) about how the decisions will be taken.

Lord Storey's maiden speech in the Lords

Lord Storey, (Baron Storey of Childwall) made his maiden speech in the House of Lords today (Thursday 17th March) focusing on childhood and early intervention.

You can find the text of the speech here

More than a hundred thousand in Liverpool pay less tax thanks to Lib Dems

Income tax changes coming into effect next month will mean nearly 175,000 Liverpool residents will pay less tax.

One of the four main goals in the Lib Dem General Election manifesto was to take low earners out of tax.  The aim, is to move the tax threshold up so that no one earning less than 10,000 pays any income tax at all.

A first step was taken in the last Co alition Government budget with the tax threshold being lifted this April so that the very lowest earners get out of income tax and many many more see their tax decrease.

In Liverpool this April an estimated nearly 6,000 people will be taken out of income tax altogether.  A further 168,000 will see their tax bill reduced.

When the £10,000 objective is reached, the number of people in Liverpool being taken out of income tax will be an estimated 24,840.

Says Lib Dem spokesperson Paula Keaveney : "One of our key aims has been to lift the lowest earners out of tax and give them back some of their own money.  I'm delighted that a first step has been taken towards our £10,000 goal"

Save Children's centres say Liverpool Lib Dems

Liverpool Lib Dems will this evening be moving an amendment to the City Council budget to save four threatened children's centres.

The party has drawn up a  short list of changes which it wants to see in the budget and will be proposing changes in some budget lines to enable extra spending in others.

The proposal, which is costed according to the City Council's own budget figures, includes the following:

* funds to retain the four Children's centres threatened with closure (West Derby, Dovedale, Childwall, Hunts Cross)
*an increase of one million pounds to the voluntary and community sector support money
*the reintroduction of free leisure passes for children and young people
* the retention of "moderate care" for adults  (this is part of the social care budget)

Says Leader Warren Bradley: " We have been working together with other parties on the budget.  We have managed agreement on many things and have been able to share our expertise with each other.

We believe however that some of the proposals need to be changed and our amendment seeks to do that."


The City Council budget meeting takes place at Liverpool Town Hall at 5 this evening.  Information about the meeting is available at http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/ (About the Council section)

Council papers show Pupil Premium will benefit Liverpool.

In the run up to the Liverpool City Council budget setting, there has been much debate about the effect of the new "Pupil Premium". 

The Premium involves extra money per pupil for schools where the pupil is either on Free School meals, is a looked after child or a child with parents in the services (armed forces)

Labour Councillors claimed that the Premium would actually leave Liverpool children worse off.

But papers published by the Labour Council ahead of the budget setting next month appear to tell a different story.

Says Lib Dem Councillor Paul Clein, chair of the Finance Select Committee and a former Executive Member for education and schools

"Figures released in a public document by Liverpool's Labour Council have clarified what will be the likely effect for Liverpool schools of the coalition government's new Pupil Premium funding . The Medium Term Financial Plan update says that Liverpool's Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) will contain an extra £3.5 million in 2011/12 because of the Pupil Premium. This money is targetted directly at children on free schools meals and means schools will get an extra £430 for each such pupil."

The documents are published as part of the budget setting and area available on the City Council's website at http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/

The Pupil Premium, designed to give extra funding for children from deprived areas, was one of the four main planks of the Liberal Democrat manfesto at last year's General Election.  It was also a core part of the agreement negotiated as part of the Coalition arrangements.

Student fees, student debt and higher education.

Given the current ongoing debate about tuition fees, student debt and how University education is funded, it's interesting to see some of the points that were made when tuition fees, and top up fees, were introduced (by Labour in case you were wondering)

Below we reproduce an article written by Liberal Democrat Councillor Paul Clein and published in Liberator magazine back in 1998.  It makes very instructive reading when compared to some of the statements Labour Parliamentarians (the people who voted for the fees) make today.

(article starts)
Labour’s plans to pull up the ladder by introducing tuition fees and doing away with maintenance grants for students has caused heated debate, but rather less than might have been anticipated. One has to admire the cunning manner in which discussion in the week after the initial announcement was all about the so-o-o sad plight of the handful of students taking a gap year in 1997-8 rather than focussing on the untold millions of students who will be in debt for decades to come after 1998. And I still cannot understand why students with poorer parents will be exempted from having to take out loans to the same extent as the rest. The supposed logic is that graduates earn more than average by having had the privilege of a university education and can thus afford to repay loans; if so, then the proposed exemptions can only be explained as a sop to get wavering Labour MPs onside and ameliorate criticism from the party at large.
However, little attention has so far been given to the possible knock-on effects of this radical change of policy, which I believe could be profound. It seems likely, for example, that the housing market will be markedly affected. Graduates tend to have graduate partners. If a household consists of two people, each with student loan debts of £20k or more, could they afford a mortgage? Will this cause greater demand for cheaper properties? Will this cause an incremental shift of house prices across the range? How long would having children have to be postponed? How many will choose not to have children at all, or have fewer, later for economic reasons? What effect will there be on credit ratings? Will sales of cars and other consumer goods on credit be reduced? A big boost to DIY and furniture stores? Don’t think so …
This is also a policy likely to discriminate against those from ethnic minorities and women, especially women who take time out to have children. Currently, regrettably, salary levels for these are lower than average and could see such graduates in debt till death do us part from their student loans.
We have already seen sizable reductions this year in the number of students applying for certain universities and a sharp decline in the number of mature students. (And by the way, you won’t be eligible for student loans if you’re over 50. So much for lifelong learning.) Can we expect to see a shift towards 3 year courses rather than 4? Will courses currently four years or more be reduced in length to avoid smaller numbers of applicants? Would the breadth of quality of some courses be reduced? Will this accelerate a move towards a longer university year and shorter vacations in order to cut the length of courses to try to make student debt less burdensome? Will the viability of some institutions and/or certain faculties be threatened? It would be ironic if the only students able to afford to apply for, say, veterinary science or medicine turn out to be only those from very affluent or very poor backgrounds. In any case, one would expect to see a sharp reduction in numbers of students opting for those courses with less promising or less immediate earnings potential post graduation. Can we thus expect to see shortages of practitioners of certain professions? Who would be daft enough to do a PGCE and incur an extra year of loans – unless this ends up being another exemption. Who would be able to afford to be a teacher if current pay levels continue anyway? Prospective students will certainly need to be more careful choosing their courses. Pick the wrong one and you could end up with an extra year of loans to repay. What will be the debt situation for those who drop out or fail their courses?
The job market will probably also be distorted. Those firms willing and able to afford to offer paying off graduate debt as a recruitment incentive will have a distinct advantage. However, will employers insist on tying graduates into tighter or longer contracts as a quid pro quo? Perhaps the graduate equivalents of Premier League footballers will cost companies a transfer fee? And if you want to take out a loan and start your own small business after graduation – who will lend you the money if you already have personal debts of £20k or more?
These are just a few of the dominoes likely to fall during the coming years if this policy goes through unchanged. It is possible that not only is it ill thought out in terms of its execution, but also that no thought has been given by Labour to long term consequences. It is also possible – depending on whether you subscribe to conspiracy theories or not – that there is a hidden agenda and this is deliberate social engineering on the part of the Labour Party kontrolmeisters to engender fundamental changes in the workings of our society. One thing seems highly probable – this policy will not achieve its stated aim.
Published in Liberator magazine, February 1998.