The following article appeared in today's Guardian Newspaer

This is a good moment to be a Liberal Democrat. Constitutional reform grips Westminster. The bigger parties are being discredited by expenses - the double departure yesterday of Labour's Margaret Moran and the Tories' Julie Kirkbride symbolising shared disgrace. Lib Dems have been tainted, too, but not on the same scale, and the party can claim to have championed reform when it was unfashionable. Nick Clegg's proposal yesterday for a 100-day revolution was eye-catching, but most of the ideas in it have been backed by his party for years. The difference is that other parties are now competing to match them.

All this ought to put a spring in Lib Dem steps. The party has had an unhappy last few years, dumping two leaders while searching for a cause to equal opposition to the Iraq war. And Mr Clegg's first year in charge did not go down well with voters. David Cameron took the market for fresh-faced public schoolboy leaders; Gordon Brown looked like the heavyweight progressive. No one seemed quite sure what Mr Clegg wanted to be. Vince Cable cut through the economic crisis with an intelligent mix of diagnosis and cure. But that did not help Mr Clegg build a public personality of his own. He seemed nice, but a bit anonymous.

This is changing. The Lib Dem leader pushed for Gurkha rights, and was rewarded when MPs passed a Lib Dem motion in the Commons for the first time in decades. He has run a bold pro-European campaign in the current elections (though no one has noticed). Labour's woes allow him to pitch for progressive votes. He is putting his energies into building a base in urban Labour heartlands in northern cities, in the hope of ending his party's dependence on winning Tory votes in remote rural seats. The Lib Dems might almost claim to be Britain's only national party: able to compete in Sheffield or Liverpool as easily as they do in Truro.

Nick Clegg has published an action plan to hand power back to the British people and change politics for good. The full text is below - visit www.TakeBackPower.org to find out how you can support the campaign.

Warm words and rhetoric are easy. We must seize the mood and enact a radical programme of reform within 100 days.

Finally the dam has broken, and everyone is talking about changing Britain's political system. For decades reformers have been thwarted by Westminster inertia. But the MPs' expenses scandal has overturned old certainties and made change possible.

This moment must be seized by all who want a different kind of politics. Warm words, rhetoric and consideration are not enough; indeed, they are a guarantee that little will happen. So let us bar the gates of Westminster and stop MPs leaving for their summer holidays until this crisis has been sorted out, and every nook and cranny of our political system has been reformed.

Today I'm setting out a plan of action to get all the changes we need delivered in just 100 days - making it possible for MPs to be sacked by constituents, abolishing the House of Lords, getting corrupt money out of politics and changing the electoral system to give everyone a voice. People will say it isn't possible - parliament can't act that quickly. I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.

Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly. Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum - the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good.

David Cameron's proposals set out in the Guardian on Tuesday were a masterful example of well-judged rhetoric free of substance and conviction. Open-source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages will not rescue British democracy. They are designed, I fear, to provide verbal cover for maintaining the status quo.

Real political change is about taking power from those who have hoarded it for themselves, and distributing it to others. So change will only be possible if the vested interests that have benefited from the way things are accept that they can no longer preside over an institutional stitch-up. For generations the Labour and Conservative parties have ­colluded to keep out competition. They are like a corporate duopoly, ­setting the rules of the game to maintain dominance. And just like in economics, it's ordinary people who suffer: taken for granted, and deprived of the ability to make different choices to those imposed upon them.

That is why what Cameron did not say is more revealing than what he did. No mention of the murky business of party funding. No mention of the scandal of an unelected second chamber. The rejection of any change to an electoral system that hands power to governments on a fraction of the vote. Without these changes, British politics will continue to be a game of pass the parcel between two old parties, while the rest of the country switches off,

So instead of long-term consideration of the possibility of tinkering, let us have 100 days of real action: swift, decisive and confident. It really is possible. The details of a reformed system of party funding have already been thrashed out between the parties, months ago. Sir Hayden Phillips secured outline agreement to ban donations of more than £50,000, limit spending to £100m over a parliament and shake up union contributions. The reason it wasn't adopted was because the Conservatives walked out, keen to protect donations from tax exiles such as Lord Ashcroft. But there is no reason not to return to what was all but agreed, and enforce it. The political parties and elections bill, now before parliament, could be amended and adopted within weeks.

Similarly, on House of Lords reform, the principles of a fully elected chamber have already been exhaustively debated and adopted by MPs. As in any bicameral system, peers should be elected on a different constituency basis and electoral cycle to MPs. Details could be decided on and introduced in the constitutional renewal bill being promoted in the House of Lords by Paul Tyler.

And then there's electoral reform. The ideal solution would be an Irish-style single transferable vote system in which voters elect the person, not the party. But even alternative vote plus - as first advocated by Roy Jenkins in 1998 and now backed by Alan Johnson - would ensure most MPs have a personal constituency link with their voters, as already occurs in Germany and Scotland. Labour made a promise more than a decade ago to hold a referendum on the Jenkins proposals. If the government won't call a general election, let us have this referendum in early September, as the culmination of 100 days of reform.

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change.

Community groups and residents across Bath and North East Somerset are being encouraged by the Council to apply for a one-off Recession Grant of up to £20,000.

Last week, the Council Cabinet made £100,000 available for grants to the voluntary sector help organisations mitigate the impact of the recession in their communities immediately.

The Council is joining forces with Quartet, the largest grant-making body in the West of England, to independently assess the bids and monitor their impact according to agreed criteria. Fran Jones, Chief Executive of Quartet, added: “This important programme of one-off grants from £5,000 to £20,000 will help locally based community organisations meet additional or new demands they face because of the recession and will support training for community organisations to better deal with the effects of the recession."

A full set of guidelines and an application pack is available at www.quartetcf.org.uk and all completed applications should be submitted by 26th June latest. For further information please contact: Julie Newman on 01225 240300 or Alice Meason on 01179 9897706.

 I have received to following from the Better Bath team please contact them for more information.

Night life in Bath - what do you want to raise?

Dear Supporter,

The next BetterBath meeting on 10 June will be discussing Night life in Bath – how can we make it better?

Please tell us what issues you’d like to raise, so that we can work out an agenda to cover them. For example:

• How do you rate the night life in Bath?

• Does it offer something for everyone?

• Are some people getting left out?

• Is the balance of evening activities right?

• What do we need to see more or less of?

• Who can make things happen?

We need to hear your ideas, so that we can use the time as effectively as possible.
Please email your points to us so that we make sure you have a chance to raise them.

The meeting is at Komedia, 22-23 Westgate Street, Bath BA1 1EP. Doors open 18.00 for an 18.30 start. The meeting should finish by around 20.15. Drinks and refreshments on sale before and after. More details are on the website http://www.betterbath.org.uk.

Don’t forget you can still comment on the response to the last meeting, on World Heritage status, which is posted on the website at:
http://www.betterbath.org.uk/past-meetings-response.php?id=13.

See you on 10 June.

Best wishes,

Jane and Henry Brown.

David Cameron yesterday called for a ‘massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power’ in the country, arguing that it was time for citizens and parliament to claw back some control from the state, but in a new poll even Conservative voters do not believe that he will carry out his commitments if given power.

The new poll is at Politics home http://page.politicshome.com/uk/strong_public_scepticism_over_cameron_calls_for_reform.html

Edward Davey is writing to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage challenging him to publish his MEPs’ expense claims and to account for their shameful record of voting for perks and secrecy in the European Parliament.

When Nigel Farage first went to Brussels, he promised to publish his accounts annually ‘so the public can inspect them', but since then neither he nor his UKIP colleagues have done so.

In addition, two of the 12 UKIP MEPs elected in 2004 have since faced criminal charges for falsely claiming benefits, false accounting and money laundering. UKIP has also voted against a cap on MEPs' earnings, reforms to make travel expenses more transparent, and have backed laws aimed at keeping their expenses secret.

Commenting, Edward Davey said:

"UKIP MEPs have attacked others over their expenses while living the high life in Brussels, charging the taxpayer, and hiding the true cost from voters.

"One in six UKIP MEPs elected in 2004 has since faced criminal charges over their creative accounting. Meanwhile, UKIP turned up in the European Parliament to vote against a cap on MEPs' earnings, against reforms to make travel more transparent, and in favour of laws aimed at keeping their expenses secret.

The chair of the Liberal Democrats' Campaigns and Candidates Committee, went on to say, "It's one thing to complain about MPs' expenses. But it is quite another to point the finger while hiding the truth about yourself.

"UKIP's absent accounting, elusive expenses, and secretive attitude add up to bare-faced cheek. Nigel Farage must explain to the public where the money has gone and why they have voted against change.

Edward concluded "UKIP must end the hypocrisy and show us the money now."

Dear Mr Farage,

Recent revelations over politicians' expense claims have highlighted the importance of openness, transparency and accountability when spending money from the public purse.

When you were first elected to the European Parliament in 1999 comments you made suggested that you understood the need for this approach. You were widely quoted as saying that: "We are the only people who are intending, annually, to publish so that the public can inspect them, our expense accounts, our allowance accounts, and the excess that we get - the excess that we are forced to take - particularly on travelling allowances."

Why haven't you?

After ten years in the European Parliament there is no evidence that you or any of your UKIP colleagues have ever published a breakdown of your expenditure. A number of your colleagues use their websites to criticise the Parliament's expenses regime, but none accompany this with information about what they themselves have spent. Is this because you spend money in a way which you know the public would find inappropriate?

Moreover, the voting record of your MEPs suggests that, far from pursuing frugality and transparency, UKIP wants to protect its perks and cover up the evidence.

Why did you vote against the Gargani Report on the Members' Statute which proposed a cap on MEPs' earnings and reform of travel expenses so that they are based on receipts rather than the lump sum equivalent of a business class ticket?

Why also did you vote just two months ago for amendment 114 to the Cashman Report, aimed at preventing freedom of access to MEPs' expense details?

Finally, given your commitment not to "go native" in Brussels, could you explain why your parliamentary party has been plagued with such problems over financial irregularities?

One in six UKIP MEPs elected in 2004 has since faced criminal charges, with one spending time in prison and another currently facing trial. That is the equivalent of one hundred and eight Westminster MPs' being charged with crimes.

What steps are you taking to ensure that any new Members elected do not similarly fall foul of the law?

In the interests of public accountability I believe that you should give full and public answers to these questions.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Edward Davey MP

Michael Martin is a warm and kindly man. I suspect he had little idea how crudely the moth-eaten expenses system was being milked by the MPs who had voted to make him their Speaker.
But that he continued to see himself as their champion rather than as the champion of the people who elected them is undoubted. It means that he cannot be the person charged with the reform of expenses, let alone with the reform of Parliament itself.

The rot goes much deeper than the abuse of expenses. Most MPs are honest, however vindictive the public is feeling at present. Public anger has been inflamed by the earlier revelations about the greed of bankers, fear of economic meltdown and the looming threat of home repossessions and loss of jobs. In our parliamentary system, people might be expected to turn to their MPs for leadership. But Parliament is held in contempt, and that long predates the expenses scandal.

Helena Kennedy, writing in The Guardian last week, put that down to the promises politicians make and fail to keep. "Our vote doesn't make any difference," the public say. "They're all the same." But there is more to it than that. Parliament is incapable of doing its prime job, holding the Government to account. Why? First, because it is flooded out with legislation. Like the sorcerer's apprentice, it can't keep up with the flow. Reams of clauses and sub-clauses (the current Coroners and Justice Bill has 166 clauses, 21 schedules and is 228 pages long) pour through a House of Commons which doesn't have the time to examine them properly. It is often not encouraged to do so. The whips want to get the business through. They encourage MPs to do case work in the constituency rather than raise difficult points on Bills. Ministers rarely consult with backbenchers unless trouble is brewing in the shape of a revolt.

Second, the overweening power of the executive has squeezed the life out of Parliament. The career of being a backbench MP offers little attraction to able and idealistic men and women nowadays. The whips tell MPs what questions to ask. Critics and dissidents are warned that they will never get promotion. Reports by select committees are only rarely reflected in government policies or opposition manifestos. Yet there are great reserves of talent and imagination among MPs, as these reports, some of them truly impressive, demonstrate.

What is to be done? First, the issue of MPs' expenses needs to be dealt with quickly and toughly. It is not good enough to rely on reselection as the instrument, because an MP with good relations with his or her local constituency party may escape the punishment the wider public demands. There has to be an independent body to lay down and maintain new and much tighter rules. Expenses reform must be paralleled by constitutional reform. Among issues to be examined are the number of MPs, for ours is an obese and bloated Parliament; an electoral system which is evidently profoundly unfair; and the excessive power of the whips and the absurd volume of primary and secondary legislation, throttling our democracy.

Our current first-past-the post system delivers many more constituencies to the two old parties, Labour and the Conservatives, than their share of the popular vote warrants. The Liberal Democrats, for instance, won 22 per cent of the national vote at the last general election of 2005, and got just 9.6 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons - 62. The link between an MP and his or her constituency is rightly valued, but there are forms of proportional representation like the multi-member constituency structure that has been adopted in Ireland that retain the link while reflecting much more accurately the electorate's preference.

I do not believe these mighty issues can be settled by a rapid general election. The danger is that an immediate election would simply bring in a new government which would use all the current powers of the executive to get its programme through. In my view it is of great importance that the election itself should spark off a national debate. But such a debate has to have an agenda. There are two options: one is to establish an all-party commission to which should be added a small number of independent experts, men and women like Vernon Bogdanor and Peter Hennessey, asked to report early next year, before the most likely date for a general election. The second option would be to ask each political party represented in Parliament to put forward its own proposals by the end of the summer recess, enabling think-tanks, the constitutional unit and others to comment on them. It is vital that the wider public be given the opportunity to engage in the debate, to feel that they too own it.

The Daily Telegraph investigation has provided us with an opportunity to reform Parliament, to bring to an end "the gentlemen's club" which many now look upon as "the cads' club". Not fair, but life isn't fair. The challenge now is to rescue our representative democracy, and that demands painful, urgent and essential change.

Federal Executive acknowledge the strength of feeling amongst the public and our members and activists concerning the way in which Members of Parliament have been reimbursed for expenses and the revelations about the misconduct of particular Parliamentarians.

In expressing our disappointment in the behaviour and judgment of some Parliamentarians we reflected on how this situation is bad for democracy as a whole and unfairly damages the reputations of the many elected representatives that perform their public duties with integrity.

Federal Executive welcomed the strong leadership shown on this issue by our Leader, Nick Clegg. His commitment to support Christopher Kelly's Review of MPs' Expenses, his stand on the sale of second homes and his calling for the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons reflects our support for a thorough overhaul of the discredited present expenses system.

Federal Executive was briefed on the actions being taken by the Chief Whips in both Houses to review individually the expenses and allowances of all MPs and Peers. We noted the range of sanctions available for those who are found to have fallen short of the standards expected. Federal Executive was reassured that any Liberal Democrat MP found to be guilty of serious wrongdoing would have the whip withdrawn leading to deselection and would be referred by the party to the Commissioner for Standards. The Chief Whips will report on the actions they have taken at the next Federal Executive.

Federal Executive believes the principles of accountability, honesty, transparency and openness should underpin the new approach to expenses. We support an end to the self-regulation of parliament. Instead decisions currently taken by parliament which affect expenses, salaries, pensions and disciplinary procedures should be taken by an independent body, guaranteed by statute. We would also expect the new approach to build on the standards now adopted in local government towards the reimbursement of expenses incurred for performing public duties. We ask the Leader to reflect these views in our party's response to the public consultation on Christopher Kelly's Review of MPs' Expenses.

By mid-June the Chief Whips in both Houses, working with other relevant parts of the party will produce a Code of Conduct for Liberal Democrat parliamentarians. The party's Audit and Compliance Board will outline principles which will inform this Code of Conduct. Those drafting the Code were asked to consider issues covering, but not be limited to, guidance in addressing the following areas:

• Auditing of accounts
• Complete transparency of expenditure of public money
• Real time disclosure of receipt claims
• An expenses regime which accurately reflects the duties undertaken by Parliamentarians
• Sanctions for those found to be in breach of the Code

All Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates will agree to abide by the Code of Conduct as a condition of selection. Other state parties and the European parliamentary party will be asked to produce a Code of Conduct which will similarly apply to all candidates.

The Federal Executive welcome the Leader's commitment that all Liberal Democrat MPs will support Christopher Kelly's proposals. These will be entirely independent proposals. There will be no picking and choosing of which of his recommendations to support.

Following publication, Lords McNally and Shutt will undertake a through review of expenses and allowances in the House of Lords which will draw on the work to be undertaken by the independent external assessor who is to be appointed immediately.

Commenting on today's RAC report into ‘cowboy' car clampers, Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said: "The Government has allowed an unfair, two-tier system to develop where council car parks are regulated but cowboy clampers operate on private ones."

"Unsuspecting drivers who find themselves ripped off by unscrupulous private clampers have nowhere to turn for help.

"Clamping on private land has been outlawed in Scotland and it is time that it was banned in England too."

Responding to the announcement that the budget deficit hit £8.46bn in April and the CBI's call for the Government to focus its attention on core activities to bring down the budget deficit, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said: "The Government has continuously dodged the difficult decisions that need to be made to balance the country's books."

"Unless we make tough choices about what the Government can afford to do in the long term, we risk either higher taxes or salami slicing of key public services."

Commenting on Standard and Poor's decision to cut the UK's rating outlook to negative, Vince Cable said:

"Alistair Darling has relied on implausible growth forecasts for the British economy which nobody but himself believes.

"Markets hate uncertainty and until the Government comes clean about how it intends to pay back its debt, it is perfectly possible that we will see a further deterioration in Britain's rating."

Commenting on today's review into the quality of training for junior doctors in light of the European Working Time Directive, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb said: "This is a belated recognition by ministers that they're heading for a crisis."

"This timebomb has been ticking since November. It is scandalous that the Government has waited so long to address this situation.

"It is vital that we don't see another repeat of the farce that engulfed the recruitment of junior doctors two years ago."

Commenting on today's review into the quality of training for junior doctors in light of the European Working Time Directive, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb said: "This is a belated recognition by ministers that they're heading for a crisis."

"This timebomb has been ticking since November. It is scandalous that the Government has waited so long to address this situation.

"It is vital that we don't see another repeat of the farce that engulfed the recruitment of junior doctors two years ago."

B&NES planning committee decided last night to defer the planning application for the Newbridge Park and Ride and Bath Bus Rapid Transit Route (BRT) in order to request more information.

Reacting to the news, Councillor Caroline Roberts (Newbridge) said:

"On the whole this is a good result. The committee's decision is a vindication of the campaign that Councillors and residents have been running for months now.

 "The news this morning that the Council will be looking more thoroughly at the design of the scheme is welcome; however the Council must finally look properly at the alternatives, as we have been asking all along."

Bath MP Don Foster commented:

"When I attended a Council Overview & Scrutiny panel meeting in September last year, I argued that consultation with residents had been poor and that there hadn't been satisfactory work conducted into alternative routes.  To date I am still not convinced that this work has been done.

 "I hope that this deferment will allow the Conservative Council to go away and conduct real research into all the options.  We want to see a proper case put forward.

 "Had this research been conducted correctly in the first place we wouldn't be in this position.  Let us hope that the Tory failure to follow correct processes does not end up costing Bath £50million of government money."

Mr. Speaker, despite our differences in recent days, I would like to thank you for the immensely dignified way in which you made your statement yesterday—[Interruption.] We can now move forward to reform this place from top to toe. I am also pleased to hear from the Prime Minister that there will be a statement tomorrow on the Gurkhas, and I hope that they will receive the unqualified and full justice that they deserve—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard; he must be heard.

Mr. Clegg: We now have a once-in-a-generation chance to change politics for good, but we will betray people’s hopes and fail to offer a really different way of doing politics if all we do is remove a medieval expenses system, without fixing everything else. The expenses are just the tip of the iceberg. Does the Prime Minister see that, from party funding through to Whitehall secrecy, the whole way in which we do politics must now be transformed?

The Prime Minister: As for Whitehall secrecy, it was this Government who brought in the Freedom of Information Bill—and as for party funding, the Justice Secretary has brought forward measures to deal with that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that, as part of the wider debate about the relationship between Parliament and the people and the accountability of Parliament to the people, we must listen to the views of people throughout the country. We must consult and hear what they have to say, and, as I said yesterday, we will put forward proposals on that in the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sharma.

Mr. Clegg rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clegg.

Mr. Clegg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that there were two questions in the first one—but there we are.

Mr. Clegg: Touché, Mr. Speaker.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his reply, but is it not now time to get to the heart of the matter, which is that his Government are in power even though less than a quarter of the people voted for them? [HON. MEMBERS: “Have an election!”] Of course we should have an election, but people do not want an election where all they will get is a few new faces but the same old rotten rules. Is it not true that any system in which so few votes give a Government so much power will always breed arrogance and secrecy?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I was right to say that your generosity was unfailing to all Members of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the wider reforms and democracy is absolutely right: we must consider not only how Parliament can be more accountable to the people, but how the Executive themselves can be more accountable. We want to do that in the context of enhancing the individual and collective rights of citizens in their own communities to manage more of their own affairs. I am happy to enter that debate, and we will publish proposals in the next few weeks. We have also previously published proposals on the electoral system, which is also a matter for debate—but I must say to the Liberal Democrats that the debate about the reform of the constitution is about more than simply that one thing.

Speaking after meetings between all party leaders to discuss reform of MPs’ expenses, Nick Clegg said: "Today’s talks saw more progress in a single day than we have seen over many decades."

Liberal Democrat Leader went on to say, "Finally MPs will no longer decide their own pay or write their own rules."

"There are still many issues that need to be solved if we are to restore people's trust."

Nick Clegg concluded, "But hopefully we have taken the first step on a long journey that sees Parliament dragged from the 19th Century into the 21st."

More than 300 dangerous criminals would have walked free under the Conservatives’ policy on Europe, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.

Conservative MEPs voted against the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which has slashed extradition times across the EU from an average of eighteen months to just 43 days.

David Cameron's Conservative party would allow hundreds of murderers, thieves, rapists and paedophiles to walk free if they get their way on 4 June.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

"The arm of the British law must be long enough to drag villains back from the beach bars and put them behind prison bars where they belong."

"The Conservatives are putting swivel-eyed dogma ahead of our children's safety. This is the madness of a political lunatic fringe living on Fantasy Island. The Tories should get real before the criminals get us."

"The Tories want to tie up the police and prosecutors in red tape so that we would take years rather than days extradite rapists and robbers on the run."

"The Conservatives are happy for villains to sip their cocktails while sticking two fingers up to the law."

Commenting further, Graham Watson MEP, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who guided the EAW legislation through the European Parliament in 2001, said:

"The Tories fought tooth and nail against the European Arrest Warrant because they'd rather indulge their dogma than catch serious criminals."

"Seven years later, nothing has changed."

"What would those Tories say now to the victims of the 335 dangerous criminals arrested under European Arrest Warrants who might otherwise have walked free?"

"They must apologise now for a policy that puts the public at risk."

The B&NES planning committee will meet this afternoon to decide on the Council’s planning applications for the Bath Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route.

Local residents campaigning against the plans have been supported by Bath opposition Councillors representing the wards through which the BRT would run. The committee will meet at the Guildhall at 2 p.m. and dozens of residents are registered to speak.

Liberal Democrat Councillor Caroline Roberts (Newbridge) will speak against the application. Councillor Roberts will say:

“With the loss of the green space on which the BRT will be built children will have no choice but to negotiate an extremely dangerous road to access the nearest park to play.

“The lack of space will be exacerbated by the delays and congestion caused by the bus route. If this runs at weekends it will give local people no respite from the heavy traffic they endure during the weekdays which cannot be good for their health and well being.

“All this is being planned while there are perfectly acceptable alternative routes which the Council has still not considered properly. Nor has sufficient research been carried out into tackling the real causes of congestion such as the school run. As a result local children will be deprived of valuable open space; local people will be subjected to the constant noise and inconvenience of an extra road with intrusive CCTV cameras and increased security concerns.

“We hope that the planning committee will today see sense and reject the proposals for the BRT and Newbridge park and ride extension.”

Councillor Andrew Furse, (Lib Dem, Kingsmead) will also speak against the BRT application. He will say:

“The committee only have to review the number and volume of objections to accept that the BRT scheme as presented is ill thought out and is not weighed against researched alternatives.”

“There is no evidence to support the claim that this scheme will reduce congestion and pollution. In fact;

• Residents along the BRT route will be subjected to increased levels of vehicle noise and pollution.”

• Residents east of Station Road will either be subject to compulsory purchase or as the report says ‘would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.”

• Busses will still arrive at the bottle neck at Windsor Bridge and will not realise any ‘journey time saving’.”

Two Houses at Vicarage

The first application is for the erection of two 2 bed houses with associated gardens. This application is a resubmission of a previous application on land between the Old Vicarage and 24 Dominion Road.

The application was first submitted on 13^th May and has a decision date if 13^th July 2009, The application reference number is 09/01528/FUL and you can view that application by following the link on the application number.

New School Classroom

The Second application is for the erection of a single storey infill extension to provide new classroom at Twerton Infant School.

The application was first submitted on 7^th May and has a decision date of 2^nd July 2009. The application reference number 09/01446/FUL is and you can view that application by following the link on the application number.

New Garage

The Third application is for the erection of an attached garage and provision of new access at 30 Cameley Green Twerton.

The application was first submitted on 12^th May and has a decision date of 7^th July 2009. The application reference number 09/01425/FUL is and you can view that application by following the link on the application number.

Any representations on these applications should be made in writing to Development Control, Trimbridge House, Trim Street, Bath BA1 2DP.  Alternatively representations can be made using the Planning Service pages of the Council's website http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/.  All representations must arrive no later than the 12th June 2009.

Michael Martin is set to announce he will stand down "soon" as Speaker in a Commons statement to MPs at 1430 BST.

The Full Story as carried by the BBC can be seen on the following Link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8057203.stm

Commenting on today’s Court of Appeal ruling that soldiers serving abroad are protected by Human Rights laws, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said: “This is a damning verdict on the Government’s failure to support our troops."

"It should not need the courts to tell ministers that they have a duty of care to equip troops properly for the field.

"The Government has been trading on the can-do attitude of British soldiers for far too long.

"Ministers are happy to waste billions of pounds on huge procurement projects, but they pinch pennies when it comes to providing the vital equipment that our troops on the front line depend upon."

The Government prevented the creation of around 10,000 jobs when it refused to extend the deadline for regions to apply for £630m of EU funding, according to figures released by the Liberal Democrats.

The EU offered to extend the deadline for regional bodies to apply for money from the European Regional Development Fund, but the Government failed to take up the offer. Much of the money has recently become available because of the fluctuations in the Euro exchange rate.

Both the Scottish and Welsh governments accepted the extension of the applications period and will therefore be eligible for funding that could create or sustain thousands of new jobs.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Local Government Secretary, Julia Goldsworthy said:

"The Government's decision to turn down hundreds of millions of pounds is short-sighted and foolish, especially during a recession."

"This decision risks halting projects that are already bringing much-needed jobs to every region, as well as discouraging good ideas that desperately need European investment to succeed."

Julia concluded, "While people across the country are losing their jobs and struggling to pay their bills, it is shocking that ministers have stepped in to prevent hundreds of millions from flowing to the people who need it."

Liberal Democrat Councillors were tonight forced to vote against their own motion when a wrecking amendment was tabled by the ruling Conservative Group. The amendment was also supported by Labour and independent Councillors.

The Lib Dem motion was to have clearly shown the Council’s opposition to expansion on environmental, economic and congestion grounds.

Councillor Caroline Roberts (Lib Dem, Newbridge), who moved the original version of the motion, said:

“This disgraceful Conservative amendment reversed our motion to such an extent that we were forced to vote against it.

“Our position was clearly stated in the original motion. We believe unfettered airport expansion to be incompatible with efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions, we are concerned about increases in traffic – especially in rural areas, noise and that the economic and jobs benefits have been overstated.

“We can only conclude that the Conservatives decided to table this wrecking amendment because they are in favour of airport expansion with the resulting increase in air pollution, noise pollution and congestion on our roads.”

Bath & North East Somerset Council will debate whether to progress its plan for a casino in Bath. Councillors will decide whether to put in place the measures necessary to run a casino licence competition which would represent the next step of bringing a small casino to Bath.

I will again try to stop the building of a casino in Bath as I am very much against a Casino that will only damage our city and not give us back any benifits.

At the Last council meeting when this was on the agenda the motion to go ahead was only carried by a majority of four votes so this time it could fall.

In March 2008, Parliament approved regulations which confirmed Bath & North East Somerset Council as one of the local authorities nationwide who could grant a casino licence under the 2005 Gambling Act.  The Act requires that should the Council decide to proceed then it must run a two stage competitive licensing process and that, prior to commencing the competition, must consult on and adopt a set of licensing conditions and principles for assessing local benefit.

The Council meeting will be held at the Guildhall, Thursday 14th May, 6.30pm.

Residents in Bath and North East Somerset can find out now when their new waste collection day will be from the 8th June 2009. The Council has put information on its website about the new collection days through its new ‘My House' information facility.

By typing in their postcode, residents can find out what new day of the week all their waste collections will be and register for regular alerts detailing other local information, like street works, planning applications, community facilities, and changes to Council services. Residents can log-on to www.bathnes.gov.uk/myhouse  to find out more.

Further information about the changes is available now through various leaflets. This includes guidance on how people should put out their waste so it's clear for the collection crews and other frequently asked questions. However, households will also be issued with a letter in the week commencing 25th May 2009 confirming which their new day will be from 8th June. Residents can also call Council Connect on 01225 394041 to find out their new day.

From the 8th June 2009, households across the district will put out their refuse, the green recycling box, and cardboard and garden waste on the same day - although the cardboard and garden waste will be collected every fortnight. The Council is asking residents to put out their waste by 7am on the right day every week and to check which week their cardboard and garden waste will be collected as this may have changed from current arrangements. Collection times on each street will be different to what people are used to at the moment so its important waste is put out early so as not to miss the collection.

The Council is undertaking the change in direct response to residents who want a more convenient waste collection service and the need to meet the Council's key priority of addressing the causes and effects of climate change.

Times are tough in Britain. The recession is hitting people and families hard: tens of thousands losing their jobs, businesses going to the wall, and every week hundreds losing their homes.

Read the manifesto here

Labour's recession is hurting people badly.

• Unemployment is rising every day
• People are worried their businesses could go under
• Every week people are losing their homes
• Ministers are too busy fighting among themselves to govern properly

Nick Clegg said, "We can only protect British families from crime, the recession and climate change if our country works with other EU countries."

The Liberal Democrats will give people the help they need.

• We will cut income tax bills by £700 for the vast majority of people, and close
• loopholes exploited by the wealthy
• No one earning less than £10,000 will pay income tax at all
• 20 hours of free, quality childcare a week from 18 months to five years old

Nick Clegg said, "Only the Liberal Democrats know how to provide security, jobs, and a clean environment by leading in the European Union."

The European Parliament election is a big choice for Britain.

• Labour's arrogance has messed up Britain's relationship with other European countries
• The Conservatives and UKIP think that on its own Britain can face the economic storm, climate change, international crime, people-trafficking and terrorism

 Liberal Democrats know effective cooperation creates prosperity - more than 3 million jobs in the UK depend on trade with other EU countries.

Liberal Democrats are working with our European neighbours to protect Britain and catch terrorists and criminals who operate across national borders.

Liberal Democrats know that countries have to work together to tackle climate change.

Commenting on the Policy Exchange report on the need for a crime reduction strategy, Chris Huhne said: "This report rightly lays bare the Government's abject failure to tackle crime despite more spending than any other country in Europe."

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, went on to say; "Ministers have consistently favoured political posturing on what sounds tough over what works. The result is the criminalisation of a generation of young people, prisons bursting at the seams and sky-high re-offending rates."

"Professor Waller is right that we are missing easy hits which can dramatically cut crime, and the prevention of crime should have as much priority as punishment. For victims, prevention is better than cure."

Concluding Chris said; "Some of the biggest falls in crime across the UK have been in Liberal Democrat controlled cities like Liverpool and Newcastle where prevention - with schemes like alley gates - has been given its proper place."

Attacking the Governments announcement that from this autumn people in Manchester will be able to apply for an ID Card, Chris Huhne described the scheme as "crazy".

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary said, "It is crazy to fritter away billions of pounds on an unnecessary and intrusive ID card scheme during the biggest crisis in public finances for a generation."

Chris Huhne went on "It shows just how out of touch ministers are that they think charging people through the nose to invade their privacy is acceptable."

"The Government may be able to make guinea pigs of pilots by threatening their jobs but when the rest of us are forced to carry ID cards, ministers will discover that they have a laminated poll tax on their hands."

He concluded "Instead of recruiting chemists and post offices, Jacqui Smith should save us all some money and scrap this ridiculous scheme. When in a hole, stop digging."

Following last week’s success in council by-elections this was another week of success for the Liberal Democrats.

Harlow’s by-election came under unusual circumstances when a former Conservative councillor was thrown off the council due to non-attendance as a result of a six month stint on remand.  The by-election campaign was centred on Lib Dem opposition to cuts by the local Conservative council and resulted in a collapse in the Conservative vote of 15%.  Combined with a Lib Dem increase of 6% this saw John Strachan elected by 60 votes to become Harlow’s ninth Lib Dem councillor.

In Sheffield, we had our first electoral test since taking control of the city council.  Each party focused their campaign on our record since last May and the result saw a resounding 819 vote majority in a ward won by just 74 votes two years ago.  The contest saw a swing from Labour to the Lib Dems and the Conservatives limped home in fourth place despite a very active campaign. 

Of particular significance this week is that our two by-election wins were in parliamentary seats that are being targeted by the Conservatives at the next General Election.  On this evidence, it shows that the task for the Conservatives is a lot harder than their poll ratings show.  It also gives hope to those people who worry that the Liberal Democrats may be squeezed out.

The Full results of By elections on 30/4/09

Gunness PC

Ind 277 (45.3)
Lab 176 (28.8)
Ind 119 (19.4)
Ind 40 (6.5)
Majority 101
Turnout 31.9%
Ind hold

Party defending seat: Ind. Cause: Resignation.

Harlow DC, Staple Tye

LD John Strachan 604 (39.1; +6.0)
Con 544 (35.3; -15.3)
Lab 329 (21.3; +5.1)
UKIP 66 (4.3; +4.3)
Majority 60
Turnout 30%
LD gain from Con
Percentage change is since May 2008

Reigate and Banstead BC, Tadworth and Walton

Con 925 (64.3; -7.1)
UKIP 350 (24.3; +15.3)
Lab 163 (11.3; +5.0)
[LD (0.0; -13.2)]
Majority 575
Turnout 26.9%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Sheffield City MBC, East Ecclesfield

LD Colin Taylor 2239 (44.3; +1.3)
Lab 1420 (28.1; -2.0)
BNP 719 (14.2; +1.6)
Con 564 (11.2; +0.3)
Green 107 (2.1; -1.2)
Majority 819
Turnout 36%
LD hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Stirling UA, Bannockburn

First Preference Votes
Lab 1131 (39.9; -11.1)
SNP 1067 (37.6; +4.4)
Ind 229/89/28 (12.2; +7.3)
Con 173 (6.1; -1.2)
LD Ethne Brown 82 (2.9; -0.8)
Green 36 (1.3; +1.3)
Turnout 34.7%
Lab hold (Lab elected at sixth stage)
Percentage change is since May 2007

We have just the one planning application this week and that is for a change of use of a ground floor shop at 147 High Street to 2 flats.

The application was first registered on 28^th April 2009 and has a decision date of  23^rd June. The application reference number for this application is 09/01198/FUL you can view this application by following the link on the application number.

Any representations on this application should be made in writing to Development Control, Trimbridge House, Trim Street, Bath BA1 2DP.  Alternatively representations can be made using the Planning Service pages of the Council's website http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/.  All representations must arrive no later than the 30th May 2009.