At the launch of the new Draft Bill on energy, Liberal Democrat Secretary of State of Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey, writes:

Over the next decade, around a fifth of existing power plants are due to close, against a background of increased energy demand and increasing prices. We need new investment simply to keep the lights on.

But more than that, we need a clean energy revolution to meet our ambitious climate change goals and make this the greenest government ever.

That’s why I am bringing forward a new Energy Bill today.

You can read more about our clean energy revolution here.

We also need to transform our energy market to reduce the risk and cost of low carbon technologies.

That’s what our Bill does.

The UK is fast becoming a world leader in renewable energy, especially in off shore wind. I want us to lead the world in Carbon Capture and Storage too.

And we are also tackling rising energy bills. Without reforming the energy market bills will rise by around £200 in the coming years. Our reforms will mean bills are around 4% lower than they otherwise would have been.

Going green is good for the economy, good for Britain and good for you.

Yours,

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

(Image licensed under Creative Commons from DECC)

(Click picture to play video)

It is shameful that, despite all the promise on a four or five year old’s first day at school, or the passion of their teachers, you can all too often plot that child’s path just by asking how much their parents earn.

The £2.5billion Pupil Premium was one of the four pledges on the front page of our manifesto.  And now, with Liberal Democrats in government, schools are using the money for things like breakfast clubs; homework clubs; or to provide one-to-one-tuition. These are the sort of experiences many middle class children take for granted but a poorer child might rarely enjoy.

Yesterday I visited a fantastic primary school to see how they are spending their Pupil Premium, highlight our new Summer Schools to ease the transition from primary to secondary, and to set out our plans to reward teachers and hold schools to account.

The Pupil Premium shows that, in tough times, we are implementing Liberal Democrat values and prioritising help for those pupils who need it most.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg MP

Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

PS Click here to find out how much money your local school will receive from the Liberal Democrats’ Pupil Premium.

This week, Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat minister at the Department of Health) has launched a national £4 million lung cancer awareness campaign. The campaign, the first of its kind, will use TV, radio and press adverts, and advertising on pharmacist bags and inside GP surgeries, to raise awareness of the disease.

One of its aims is to persuade anyone who has had a cough for more than three weeks to see their doctor.

You can find more information about coughing and lung cancer at the Department of Health website, here: http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/05/coughing-could-be-a-sign-of-lung-cancer-2/

With 33,000 new cases diagnosed each year, lung cancer is a blight on the lives of far too many of our families and an early diagnosis can make all the difference. Please take the opportunity of the Be Clear on Cancer campaign to find out more about prevention and diagnosis, and to visit your local doctor if you’ve had a persistent cough – it is always better to be safe than sorry!

http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/tag/be-clear-on-cancer/

The local elections are over and it is right that I congratulate Sheila Newman on her reelection as Councillor for the Chorlton ward. Sheila was the clear choice of the electorate and as a democrat I accept the decision of the people. I wish her well.

 in Manchester, for the second year running, the Liberal Democrats suffered the loss of many hard working and dedicated Councillors. Decent, honourable people who fought to make life better for the people they represented, and have paid a heavy price for their party’s involvement in a Government that is making unpopular decisions.

Clearly, Manchester has yet to be convinced that the Government is better because the Liberal Democrats are in it. The reduction in tax for low and middle earners is a real achievement that even the Labour party cannot argue against. Extra money for the most disadvantaged children will pay dividends in years to come. A better State pension, more apprenticeships, more affordable housing, and a whole raft of changes to improve the lives of the majority are all things that Liberal Democrats can be proud of. The challenge will be to explain this to the electorate. 

But that is for the future. For now, I cannot close without saying thank you to all those who helped on my campaign for fairness, who delivered the leaflets, sent messages of support and raised money. Thank you also to my long-suffering family and friends for their unquestioning support and patience, and to the hundreds of Chorlton voters who kept the faith and voted for me.

The election may be over, but the issues facing Chorlton are still with us. It is still council policy to spend less on Chorlton than elsewhere in the city. Beech Road park is still without decent play equipment, our roads are still some of the worst anywhere in Manchester and the plans for the precinct, library and leisure centre are still faced with major planning obstacles that threaten the whole project. Those who want to change Chorlton into Curry Mile Two have wasted no time and already an application has been submitted for 4am opening of a local takeaway. Chorlton Lib Dems will continue to fight for our area as we have always done, and we will continue to hold the ruling party to account. 

At long last Chorlton Labour has finally responded to the Liberal Democrat charges that they are letting Chorlton down…and letting it down badly. Relying on the standard Labour response that legitimate criticism to their policies must be lies they have been running around Chorlton this evening putting out a leaflet which, I must be frank, is a pretty weak response.

Labour claim that they did not reject the £19 million Pupil Premium for schools. Well, I’m sorry, but I was in the meeting. Not only was I in the meeting, but a film crew recorded it. Perhaps, one day, the people of Chorlton may be allowed to see an unedited version and judge for themselves.

The vote was made in Full Council, was filmed, and members of the public were present. My question is, why isn’t Sheila Newman defending her party’s decision instead of denying that it ever happened?

Perhaps the final word on this should come from the BBC, who reported the following in March 2010, when Labour were in Government;

BALLS SUPPORTS ‘PUPIL PREMIUMS’

Labour’s Ed Balls stoked up the political battle over school funding – putting forward his own version of “pupil premiums” for poorer pupils.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats already have similar plans to give schools extra cash for each poor pupil.

But Mr Balls says his scheme was more affordable than his opponents.
The Lib Dems say Labour’s plans offer no extra funding for schools – and the Conservatives reject the accusation of funding gaps for their plans.

Mr Balls set out his funding plans for schools, spelling out how per pupil funding would be protected and providing details of cuts.

SPENDING CUTS

He also challenged the Conservatives to explain the funding for two of their flagship education policies – free schools and the pupil premium – accusing them of a “credibility gap”.

Under government plans, funding for each school child would increase by 2.1% in 2011 to 2013, he said, which would have to be set against expected cost increases of 1.6%.

There would also be £300m cuts to non-school sectors of the education budget – including £100m for start-up costs for breakfast and after-school clubs, £45m from Becta the technology agency, £55m from teacher recruitment and almost £20m from the exam watchdogs and regulator, Ofqual and the QCDA.

A further £200m in savings had still to be found, said Mr Balls.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have both set out plans for a pupil premium – making them a distinguishing feature that had separated them from Labour’s school funding plans.

Under a pupil premium schools to receive extra funding for teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds – this extra funding follows the pupils wherever they are taught.

Labour has now backed the principle – so that all three parties will be approaching the general election promising a pupil premium as a fairer funding system.

FUNDING DISPUTE

Under Labour’s “local pupil premium” proposals, money already designated to support poorer children would be used. Mr Balls says that it means a more transparent allocation of this funding.

The level of support would be determined locally, he said, with different amounts expected for different areas.

“It’s up to the local community to decide how support will be allocated,” he said.
Mr Balls said that a national scheme might be more desirable but that it was not affordable, and he claimed that the Conservatives had not explained how they would find the extra funding for a national scheme.

The Conservatives have rejected this saying that Mr Balls is wrong to suggest that paying more to the poorest pupils will mean less for other pupils.
“The Conservatives have been absolutely clear that the pupil premium is extra funding for schools,” said a spokesman.
“The funding will be found from outside the schools budget. Schools will not lose out because of it.”

The Liberal Democrats’ schools spokesman, David Laws, described Labour’s adoption of the pupil premium as “a pretty desperate attempt from Ed Balls to re-package existing deprivation funding for schools”.
“What is missing is any suggestion of additional money.”

Head teachers body the Association of School and College Leaders warned of difficulties in introducing a pupil premium at a time of restricted spending.
“The introduction of a pupil premium will need to be carefully modelled and managed. The government has accepted that a rapid introduction could financially destabilise a number of schools.
“It is essential to get the basic funding entitlement level right for all pupils as a precursor to the introduction of a premium for deprivation,” said the association’s policy director, Malcolm Trobe.

Since this article was written the Liberal Democrats have joined the Government and delivered on their promise, without the catalogue of cuts to school budgets that Balls said he would make to fund it.

Continuing on the response from Chorlton Labour to the charge that they have cut services to Chorlton, their leaflet gives a generic response that doesn’t actually deny the charge. It gives a meaningless comment on street sweeping but doesn’t deny that Chorlton has been singled out because of its designation as an ‘affluent’ area. Those who have learned to translate ‘Labour Spin’ will immediately recognise that the response tells us more by what it doesn’t say than we can learn from its content.

Again, my question is this? Why isn’t the Labour Councillor for Chorlton out on the doorsteps explaining and defending her party’s policy (the architect of which is Paul Andrews, the Labour Executive member responsible for the decision) instead of giving a waffling response about street sweeping?

The third charge, that it was Labour who saved School Crossing Patrols, seems to be a rewrite of history. It was the Manchester Evening News who reported Labour’s plan to slash the School Crossing Patrol budget by an eyewatering 80%. It takes a particularly breathtaking spin to translate their climbdown in the face of massive public protest into ‘We saved the school crossings’. It is worth pointing out that it was Sheila Newman who proposed the Council motion that rejected the Lib Dems call to save the wardens and replaced it with a motion to save only the high and medium risk crossings, effectively dooming those crossings where the risk to children and pedestrians was adjudged as ‘low’. As if to add insult to injury they also took the funding from the education budget.

Question; why isn’t Sheila Newman defending her decision to propose getting rid of low risk crossing wardens instead of suggesting that somehow she ‘saved’ the crossings? It is a matter of public record that it was her motion, proposed at Full Council, that doomed the wardens. If she thought it was right to do it then why not defend her decision and let the public judge?

Finally, on the issue of extending 20 mph zones to most residential roads, it was Chorlton Lib Dem Councillor Victor Chamberlain who proposed the move, after years of campaigning. This too was widely reported at the time by local media. The fact that Labour Councillors (finally) supported the motion is to be welcomed, but it is a shame that it took a member of the minority group to make the proposal.

Chorlton Labour’s leaflet will be believed by those who want to believe it, but to the discerning who follow these things closely it will be what it is, a rewrite of the facts that tries to gloss over public records, press reporting and the recollection of anyone who was present because the truth is sometimes ‘inconvenient’.

Residents have reacted angrily to a decision by the Labour-dominated Council that will hit Chorlton badly.

Town Hall bosses have declared Chorlton an ‘Affluent Area’ and slashed spending on a range of services. This is despite the wealthy Council sitting on a reserve of £170 million and an underspend of almost £9 million.

Chorlton’s road budget is already the lowest in Manchester, they won’t upgrade the ageing play equipment in Chorlton’s only park, and only ONE of 200 Council apprenticeships is going to a Chorlton youngster.

Residents are seeing more crumbling roads and pavements, more graffiti, more litter, more blocked drains and parking problems. Labour’s decision is particularly unfair on our children and our young unemployed.

Use your vote on 3 May to protest at this postcode discrimination. Vote Matt Gallagher and send them a message.

END POSTCODE DISCRIMINATION, NOW!