14 Most Recent Press Articles

On Pubs, Businesses and Networking - Merlene shares her experience at a power breakfast and reflects on how small businesses can withstand the economic downturn

Written by Merlene Emerson on Sat 6th Feb 2010

Last Wednesday, I was at Stone Masons Arms, a pub in Hammersmith, at the unearthly hour of 7a.m., not to imbibe alcohol I might add, but rather to join a group of dynamic and entrepreneurial small business owners at a networking breakfast.

I was pleased to witness how armed with a really positive 'can do' attitude local business people and professionals have found a way of increasing their custom through mutual referrals.

When it came to my turn to introduce myself and my 'business', it was a simple message: should residents have any issues or concerns, whether local or national, they can feel free to raise them with me as their Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate. I would be more than happy to campaign on their behalf and to lobby for changes.

Indeed, I and the local Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats have been conducting surveys of local shops and businesses to find out how they might have been affected by the recession. By and large, responses were that turnover has gone down, reduction in V.A.T has had minimal impact and that profits had been squeezed by high business rates and rising utility bills.

Other gripes included in the case of certain streets the obscene use of CCTV cameras to catch out unwary drivers, insufficient on-street parking, lack of investment in the streetscape, and un-gritted pavements during the cold spell.

As for pubs, I believe these have been affected by year on year increase in excise duties on alcohol, restrictions on smoking and further red tape on small businesses. Whilst I agree that the smoking ban and disincentives for alcohol consumption are necessary for health reasons I am equally concerned to hear of small businesses folding.

I am in favour of promoting a policy environment that encourages consumers to choose low alcohol drinks and recognise the traditional role of pubs as the place for responsible, social drinking. We need as a society a more balanced strategy for tackling alcohol abuse and need to work in partnership with the brewing and pub sector.

Aside from pubs, I would fight for reduced red tape overall for small shops and businesses, ensure that the Council employs local retail champions to look after the interests and concerns of local shop owners and contribute towards joint marketing efforts. Improvements in the streetscape, clear signages and better public transport and parking for shoppers could all go a long way towards helping businesses thrive.

For anyone interested in finding out more about the local chapter of the BNI network, here is a link for more information: http://www.bniwestside.co.uk/members.html

Pressing the Political Reset Button

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in Operation Black Vote blog http://operationblackvote.wordpress.com/ on Thu 7th Jan 2010

The new year has begun with the major parties starting their election campaigns in earnest, even though Prime Minister Brown has hinted that we should discount a March election.

Political pundits have, meanwhile, been speculating that with the reduction of the Tory lead to single digits there is a solid prospect of Lib Dems holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament and creating a coalition government.

Is this a good thing? Well, I would suggest that it's a lot better than an unopposed government capable of taking us into illegal wars, making alliances with European extremists or giving failed bankers an unconditional £700 billion hand out.

In a coalition, the Liberal Democrats could well be the stabilising influence; the voice of reason that ensures the electorate get what they want, not just what they're told.

It can, and has, worked elsewhere. Scotland managed pretty well with a Lib Dem Labour alliance from 1999 to 2007. Many in England can only envy the free domiciliary care there, and students graduating without the burden of punishing loans as currently enjoyed by our Scottish neighbours.

At the local government level, there are many local authorities up and down the country which are successfully governed by coalitions involving Lib Dems where no Party has secured an overall majority (take Southwark and Brent Councils in London for example, or Birmingham City Council in the Midlands).

Other countries with successful minority governments include Canada as well as New Zealand. And just to show how far we have been left behind, more than 70 other countries (from Australia to Venezuela) have introduced proportional representation as the preferred method of counting votes as this is indisputably a fairer way of ensuring that every vote counts.

Political analysts have pointed out the simple arithmetic under the current voting system: the Tories will need to win 117 seats to achieve a simple majority, and up to 140 for a working majority.

In percentage terms they will need close to a 7% swing from Labour before they will have a majority of Parliamentary seats. It is interesting to note that Margaret Thatcher only achieved a 5.3% swing from Labour in 1979. Hence speculation over the likelihood of a hung Parliament have been revived.

Idealists may squirm at the thought of Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with Euro-sceptic, self-serving Tories. There are clear areas of differences, of values and of priorities. At the same time, despite a shared progressive agenda with Labour, their penchant for an autocratic approach has always been anathema to the more liberal-minded.

However politics is about finding solutions and forging alliances where necessary. After all the Liberal Democrats were born of the old SDP-Liberal Alliance before the two became one in 1981. A coalition government including the Lib Dems could be the best opportunity for Britain to start afresh with introduction of fairer taxes, green investments and real electoral reforms.

Incidentally, Paddy Power have recently cut their odds on a hung Parliament from 5/2 to 9/4. Let's hope that the trend continues as the parties set out their stalls and more people find that they like what they hear from us. Echoing Nick Clegg's new year message: "2010 must be the year we press the political reset button".

Reflections on Afghanistan - What next?

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in EU Chinese Journal on Fri 20th Nov 2009

I am pleased to have the chance to share the Liberal Democrats views on the situation in Afghanistan. Just 2 months ago in September this year we debated this topic at our Lib Dem Conference and called for a ceasefire and phased withdrawal of British troupes from Afghanistan. Why?

Whilst the Lib Dems supported the original UN mission in 2001 in response to 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda terrorist cells have since fled to neighbouring Pakistan. There have also been democratic elections held in Afghanistan with President Karzai returned to power without run-off elections. Admittedly there were problems with regard to the election with evidence of fraud in many regions however there is at least some political framework in place and a chance to negotiate a peace settlement. This must be the preferred route to the use of more military force.

What happens in war is that it is ordinary people who suffer the most. Since September, the military offensive against the Taliban in South Wazirstan has led to over 100,000 people becoming displaced and homeless. With winter approaching there will soon be a humanitarian disaster. To date, over a million Afghans have died from the three decades of war and over 5 million people have been displaced.

At the same time the number of body bags that have been returning to the UK and US suggest that the cost to the West is becoming unsustainable. Over 200 UK soldiers have sacrificed their lives so far. I can only sympathise with their family members and share their anger that they were put in harms way without, in some cases, adequate resources and protection.

Furthermore, if the original mission was to defend the West against terrorism then the on-going war will only have the opposite effect. We have a large muslim community in the UK and the on-going war has a very negative impact on the Pakistani community living here. I know this as I work closely with the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and we have seen reactions from various communities who have voiced their disenchantment over the war.

Our leader Nick Clegg MP said that when he visited Camp Bastion in Helmand province he was stunned by what he saw. They have built what amounts to a small town from scratch in the desert, with some of the finest military hospital facilities in the world.

However he has also realised that after all these years, we are not nearer to victory. This is because PM Brown's Government lacks a political strategy needed for success in Afghanistan. Is it to remove Al-Qaeda, to wrestle control from the war lords, defeat the Taliban and/or stop the opium trade? It is morally indefensible to ask young men and women to risk their lives in an open-ended war. We owe a responsibility to those who have died in the war but we also owe a duty not to send more of our soldiers into harm's way without a clear exit strategy.

The alternative Plan therefore consists of this:

1. Calling for a ceasefire with the Taliban (including negotiating with the Taliban) and abandoning the 'military first approach' previously favoured by the US and UK.

2. Working towards a regional Peace Agreement and to involve Pakistan, India, US, and other countries with an interest in peace and economic development in Afghanistan.

3. Recognition that the UK has a special responsibility and duty towards the people of Afghanistan due to her historical presence in the region.

4. Focusing of resources towards strengthening internal security so as to pursue a programme of redevelopment within the country. The Afghans can then start rebuilding their infrastructure and improve living conditions for the population as well as the status of women.

In conclusion I believe we are at a very important juncture now (as I write this President Obama has yet to decide on how many more American soldiers he is going to send to reinforce the troupes out there.) The UK, US and our NATO allies need to put pressure on the Afghan Government to start negotiating with the Taliban in order to bring about a ceasefire. We then need to involve Pakistan, India and other neighbouring countries to ensure through diplomatic rather than military means a regional Peace settlement. This is the most realistic as well as pragmatic course to follow and would also be in UK's best interests.

Britain's Increasing Deficit - what public expenditure cuts are required and what are Liberal Democrat policies to help the Chinese community in the UK?

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in EU Chinese Journal on Fri 30th Oct 2009

Vince Cable MP, our Treasury spokesperson has said that the country has suffered a heart attack with the banks at the centre. We are slowly getting out of the intensive care unit. But when we are out, some serious lifestyle changes will be required to be made.

The next General election will be fought over the economy and on who can be trusted to help us out of the financial recession. The Lib Dems' believe that:

First, we will need to ensure that the banking system is better regulated and it does not happen again. There has been an imbalance in our economy in favour of the financial sector in the City of London. Some banks have grown too large to fail and we certainly must not allow things to go back to business as usual with the return of the high risk high reward bonus culture.

Secondly, at least three quarters of a million people have become unemployed since last year and a million young people under 25 are now jobless. It would be better to pay these people to work than to pay for them to be jobless. Liberal Democrats will introduce incentives, working with the private and voluntary sectors and local authorities to help the unemployed into work, improving homes, working in new environmental projects and in providing training and apprenticeships.

Third, we will have to deal with the huge deficit not just through cuts in expenditure but also with fairer taxes. There is a 13 percent difference between what the Government is spending as compared to what it collects through taxes. This year's deficit is likely to be one of the highest in Europe. We will borrow £175bn this year alone. Total national debt could hit £1.2 trillion next year - £20,000 for every man, woman and child.

Who should bear the brunt of these cuts then? The gap between the rich and poor have grown under 12 years of a New Labour Government. They abolished the lowest band of 10% tax and and even those on minimum wage are currently taxed. The Liberal Democrats want to raise the threshold for tax so that only those earning over £10,000 per year will have to pay tax. This will take 4 million low paid workers and pensioners out of the tax bracket and will also provide greater incentive for those on benefits to get back into work.

The Conservatives have pledged to raise the threshold of inheritance tax to £1 million which will benefit the top 6% in society. The Liberal Democrats will instead introduce a levy of 0.5% on value of homes worth over £1million. Those home owners are likely to have benefited from the rise in property prices over the years and can afford the levy to help our economy.

In addition to the above, Liberal Democrats have ear-marked a number of new expensive projects to cut which would not affect important front-line services. These include Trident submarine system that UK does not need nor can we now afford. We would also axe the expensive ID card system. It is unlikely to achieve the stated aims of preventing terrorism or routing out benefit frauds. The additional tax burden of setting up the ID card scheme will be £200 per person, a cost which can be better spent on better policing and border controls.

In addition to these cuts, there are also efficiency savings that can be made and all public spending have to be looked at critically. Liberal Democrats support greater power to local government. Local people know best whether public services are value for money and are better placed to choose how their money is spent, in ensuring there are good local schools for our children and hospitals for the elderly.

So how will our policies benefit the minority communities? Liberal Democrats are a party that stand for social justice and fairness. We fight against both the exploitation by big businesses as well as domination by an overbearing Nanny state.

Liberal Democrats also support migrants rights and our Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne MP was one of the few MPs at the rally at Trafalgar Square this year 'From Strangers to Citizens' to support the regularisation of illegal workers. We believe asylum seekers should also be allowed to work so that they can support themselves and at the same time contribute towards the economy by way of taxes.

The British Chinese community may be in a unique position to assist in the road to recovery by increasing trade and inward investment between UK and China. With our strong eastern sense of family and society, combined with the western traditions of freedom and democracy, we are well placed in contributing towards the rebuilding of our economy.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats as our leader Nick Clegg MP has said carries the torch of progressive politics now. We are rooted in principles of fairness and are neither beholden to big businesses nor to the trade unions. We advocate real changes, not just short term cuts and cosmetic surgery. We need to reform our corrupt political system as well as excesses of the past. Only then can we hope to achieve a return to a healthier economy and with the interests of ordinary people at its heart.

"One World Liberalism" - Helping Poor Countries, not just the Commonwealth

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in OBV Blog http://operationblackvote.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/helping-poor-countries-not-just-the-commonwealth/ on Fri 7th Aug 2009

Last month the Tories presented their Green paper on international development aid and pronounced their plan to target UK aid to Commonwealth countries. Under a Tory Government there will be a root and branch review that may see aid cut from 108 countries that currently receive help from DfID to about 60.

At first glance this policy appears to make sense, afterall we are no longer the super power we once were when a third of the world map was coloured red. At the same time this Commonwealth-centric policy would be likely to appeal to older Tory voters nostalgic for the days of our imperial past.

However in my view the policy lacks both reason and humanity and will lead to anomalies. Take Burma, a province of British India till 1937 and which gained independence from UK in 1948 but, unfortunately, not a member of the Commonwealth.

I cannot imagine anyone who would not wish to help this country after seeing the scenes of devastation caused by cyclone Nargis, not to mention the oppression and neglect of its people by the present military regime.

True, Burma had chosen not to join the Commonwealth at the time of independence but surely the Burmese people today should not be punished for decisions taken in the past?

Then there are the countries in Africa and those in the Middle East. Based on the Green paper, we could grant aid to, say, Malawi and Sierra Leone but not to Congo or Sudan?

What of Kosovo or Palestine? No specific mention of those countries though there was a section in the Green paper devoted to aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

China was specifically singled out as a country where bilateral aid will be terminated. Should there be another earthquake disaster in China such as that in Sichuan last year or more floods caused by global warming, under the Conservatives, UK will not be offering any aid or assistance.

This despite the fact that there are semi-autonomous regions such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia which may well require the attention of the international community in years to come.

The Lib Dem spokesman for International Development Michael Moore MP had this to say about the Green paper:

"The new commitments on aid spending and maintaining DfID as a separate independent government department are welcome, but you only need to scratch the surface of these proposals to reveal the old Tory dogma…

Recycling discredited ideas is not a shining example of the results based approach to aid which the Conservatives have called for. School vouchers were not only a bad idea for the UK, but are completely unfeasible in developing countries."

The key problem of aid prioritisation according to Professor Paul Reynolds of the University of Westminster is not the number of countries receiving aid but the effectiveness of aid coordination. He argues instead for a better country-by-country analysis of the causes of poverty (politics, neighbour relations, conflict, regional governance or tribal factors) in order to lead to better focused role for UK bilateral grant aid.

In addition there has to be greater strengthening of regional organisations such as East African Economic Community, ECOWAS, ASEAN, Mercosur/Andean Pact, AU, SADC).

Despite my faith in the Commonwealth as a vehicle for the promotion of security and democracy, I am deeply sceptical of a Commonwealth-centric approach to aid. As the world is in recession we need to make our development aid go even further.

Earlier this year the Lib Dems pushed for a global stimulus package that will put the Millennium Development Goals back on track. We continue to fight for a global fund to assist in food security and for a safety net for poorer nations.

We also advocate investment in a 'green new deal' for developing countries. Our approach is based on three strands: delivering on failed aid pledges, protecting vulnerable people regardless of their history as well as revitalising the private sector.

What's in a Name?

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in OBV Blog http://operationblackvote.wordpress.com/ at its launch on Thu 16th Jul 2009

Just as some with Jewish or Germanic names had chosen to anglicise theirs in the last century, many of us have taken on names that help us fit in. I was happy to adopt my husband's name when I married, but only to find out later that 'Emerson' was an invention of my husband's great grandfather who was himself born an 'Engelmann'!

There are of course those who have consciously chosen to stand out, such as British playwright Kwame Kwei Armah (born Ian Roberts). His was to make a statement that he was proud of his African roots. With an ancestral name that means "One most ancient, born on a Saturday, with wisdom to find a way", there is an argument for choosing it over that of a former master.

More surprising however was a recent report that the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has taken a keen interest in the subject of names. In a curious social experiment, DWP sent out bogus CVs in response to a thousand job vacancies. In each case they sent out one with a British White sounding name and another with identical qualifications but bearing a more ethnic sounding name.

As one might have guessed, the imaginary white applicants had significantly greater success than their imaginary non-white counterparts and were offered interviews where the latter hadn't.

The analysis of this research is still on-going but we have certainly been given a sense that race discrimination is alive and well despite the Race Relations Act and that it starts even before the job has been offered.

Just as job applicants are now not required to state their age and marital status, would the solution be to require applicants not have to state something as basic as their names?

Yet one's name is something that goes to one's sense of identity and belonging and it may seem ludicrous to legislate on names. A name and the spelling of the name can tell us so much about one's origin and even dialect group.

In the case of Chinese names, where I see the name Ooi I would guess that the person would be likely to be Chinese of Hokkien dialect from SE Asia, whereas were he or she originally from Hongkong or China, they would have been named Wong (Cantonese) or Huang (Mandarin), all using the same Chinese character meaning 'yellow'.

The same can be said of African and Asian names and in addition to belying the origin of the named person, would often also hint at their or their parents' religion.

However in the age of the internet, it may be more of an advantage in fact not to have a name that is the same or too similar to others. Just try googling 'John Smith' or even 'Ian Roberts' for example (as opposed to say 'Kwame Kwei Armah'?)

There are some advantages in having a more ethnic sounding or unusual name in the UK. But as they say, what's in a name; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Not necessarily which is why we will need to keep an eye out for the final DWP report.

If indeed those with ethnic sounding names are not even getting past the first hurdle of being selected for an interview then we may need to require employers to make applications anonymous in the first round.

Perhaps one day we will be better recognised by ID numbers instead of by names, though I am far from advocating that!

Tories' Housing Plot Uncovered

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in Lib Dem Voice on Mon 13th Jul 2009

Evening Standard article on 9 July

The Evening Standard published a bold article last Thursday suggesting that Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the Tory leadership were in a plot reminiscent of the days of Dame Shirley Porter ('Plot to rid council estates of Poor', 9 July 2009)

Hammersmith & Fulham Council is currently consulting on their Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy Options which repeatedly refers to a need for 'decent neighbourhoods'. Neighbourhoods that are currently not 'decent' have been identified throughout the borough.

It seems to me that if these neighbourhoods contained homes which do not meet national 'decent homes standards' then the Council and H&F Homes should be working to bring them up to standard. Where the neighbourhoods have residents who are jobless and on benefits, then the Council has a duty to provide training and improved skills. The solution should not be to demolish and decant whole estates.

The Council has, however, shown a preference for the easy fix by proposing the rebuilding of properties primarily for sale. The only assurance they provide existing residents is that the equivalent number of 'habitable rooms' (not number of units) for social renting will be preserved, and this over the next 20 years!

There are two conclusions that we can draw from this. First, many local residents will be without a home in Hammersmith & Fulham in years to come and will be likely to have to seek housing outside of the borough. Second, the Tory Council seems to be focused on changing the demographics of their voters in this marginal constituency.

The present Labour MP Andrew Slaughter has felt suitably threatened and has raised the alarm claiming to have uncovered a trail of evidence showing possible complicity amongst the leadership of Hammersmith & Fulham Council - the Tory leadership as well as the right wing think tank, Localis - on this subject.

So what can we do about this? My initial reaction was to call on Lib Dem colleagues at the London Assembly to pressure the Mayor to ensure delivery of real affordable housing in the borough. Mayor Boris Johnson has yet to fulfil his pre-election pledge to build at least 50,000 new affordable homes. I believe that these homes must include at least 35% social rented properties as opposed to low cost properties for sale or co-ownership which Tories like to masquerade as affordable housing.

In addition, I and local Lib Dems will continue working with those residents worried about losing their homes to ensure that their voices are heard. We have also in our response to the 'consultation' called for a balance of private, commercial and community interests, improved transport links that would help bridge the north south divide within the borough and reminded the Council that new buildings would have to be sustainable and energy efficient.

As for the vision of Hammersmith as a 'Borough of Opportunity', we just hope that the slogan does not belie a more sinister intent as did Westminster's 'Building Stable Communities'.

Our air: fit to breathe?

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in Challenge, The Magazine of the Green Liberal Democrats on Mon 25th May 2009

An air monitoring station

Some things are plain to see such as graffiti, neglected estates or general grot spots. However, in the case of the quality of the air we breathe, it is less apparent where there has been a breach of safety standards set by the World Health Organisation. Perhaps this is also why it is easier for the Government and local authorities to ignore the warning signs.

But should we be complacent and take the view that air quality problems are too big for us to tackle at the local or even national level?

Sometimes it takes an external force to bring us to task. Earlier this year the European Commission started action against 10 Member States including the UK for failing to comply with the EU's air quality standard for dangerous airborne particles (known as PM10s). These particles when inhaled can cause asthma, cardiovascular problems and lung cancer.

Perhaps, you will say that it is a matter of priorities. With our current global recession and with UK's own share of the economic crisis, environmental concerns must surely be forced to take a back seat?

Indeed that was our London Mayor, Boris Johnson's view when he decided in his wisdom not to bring in the higher emissions standard in a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) for the white van man, originally scheduled to come into force in October of next year.

The LEZ was first introduced by the last Mayor, Ken Livingstone to encourage lorries and high polluting vans to meet required emission standards as they enter the perimeter surrounding London.

Our current Tory Mayor however has decided to delay unilaterally the next phase of the LEZ. This was against the advice and evidence given by experts to the London Assembly including Simon Birkett of the Campaign for Clean Air in London. Also giving evidence was Professor Frank Kelly from Kings College London who told the panel that poor air quality can "drive people to an early death" and the elderly and children are the most vulnerable.

As for the need to implement better air quality at the local level, I must say that whenever I walk towards the Hammersmith tube station on the Broadway I am more than aware of the smell of the traffic fumes that we are all forced to inhale.

On further research, I was even more alarmed to discover that the 2 main sites (at Broadway and Brook Green) in the borough for monitoring air quality both closed in January of this year. I have since looked into this and have been informed that it was in part due to planned road works in the area. However based on historic figures that are available, minimum safety standards for level of Nitrogen dioxide have been breached since records were kept in 2000 and were exceeded by about a factor of three.

So what can we conclude from this? The Labour Government has recently been sued for breaching WHO standards. The expansion of Heathrow and the building of a third runway can only make matters worse. The Tories have paid lip service (Vote Blue Get Green?) but Boris's delay of the LEZ and advocacy of a brand new airport in the Thames estuary tell a different story.

The Lib Dems have on the other hand been campaigning for years for improvement in air quality and been consistently against Heathrow expansion. In 2005 we highlighted the fact that no less than 1,000 people in London die prematurely each year as a result of low air quality.

That is more than 4 times the number of people who die from road accidents.

But in case you think that problems with air quality afflict London only, not so! Greater London is only one of 8 zones that have been identified as suffering from so-called exceedances in the level of PM10s. The other 7 zones being found in the urban areas of West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Glasgow, Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton, Swansea, East England and in Yorkshire and Humberside.

The consolation is that the areas of exceedances outside of London are smaller and the causes varied (eg localised building works, industrial installations or where better road traffic management might resolve the problem).

Practical solutions could range from introduction of pedestrianisation and cycling schemes as demonstrated in other European cities, LEZs and incentives for use of low emission vehicles. Furthermore, all local authorities with poor air quality are now required to have in place air quality management policies, strategies and action plans, details of which can be found on Defra's website (details at the end of this article).

If we value our health and quality of life then we need to wake up to the fact that the Air quality debate is more relevant today than ever before. It is in fact more pressing than Climate Change and the more sexy debate on CO2 emissions and yet may impact on the outcome of both.

Synergistic policies beneficial to both Climate Change and Air Quality should therefore be tackled at national and local levels to improve our health as well as to protect our environment. PM10s and NO2s may not quite trip off the tongue just yet but we should be campaigning on these issues now.

If you are interested to check on the air quality level in your area, there are websites that provide useful information: http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php; http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1024

Should you find that the monitoring stations are not in use, I would advise you to lodge an enquiry and remind the local authority in question that they may be breaching their air quality management duties. Government guidance on air quality issues can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/local/guidance/pdf/laqm-policy-guidance-part4.pdf

Unlocking Democracy with Vote Match

Written by Merlene Emerson on Tue 12th May 2009

Stephen Fry launching Vote Match 2009

I was at the Vote Match European Election launch held at Apple's palatial showroom on Regents Street on Monday 11th May, drawn by the special guest appearance of Stephen Fry. Appearing in a tuxedo and bow tie, he did not disappoint as he opened with an apology for the rest of us being under-dressed for the event.

What I hadn't expected was to discover that the collective consciousness of the 200 or so guests in the audience, on answering the 30 specimen questions by democratic show of hands, managed to produce a Liberal Democrat voter!!

Following the success of Vote Match London 2008, this year's project by Unlock Democracy (sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Limited) has been specially designed with the European elections in mind.

All those who may be unclear of which Party's policies best reflect their own views - on issues ranging from the Common Agricultural Policy to the free movement of workers within the EU - can now check out the quiz on-line at http://www.votematch.co.uk/

On June 4th, Londoners will have the chance to vote for 9 MEPs to represent us. In 2004 the Liberal Democrats narrowly missed by 0.6% of the votes to elect a second MEP. But if the results of yesterday's Vote Match experiment is anything to go by, Londoners deserve to have more than 1 Lib Dem MEP to represent their balanced and progressive views. So let's Make it 2 (see www.jonathanfryer4europe.com ) or even 3?

Safe as Houses

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in Liberal Democrat Voice on Mon 23rd Feb 2009

I agree with Vince Cable MP that cuts in interest rates have reached their limit and that we now need different policies to stimulate the economy.

Despite general support for Keynesian economics (cf the Paradox of Thrift), Vince spoke out in favour of the virtue of saving and pointed out that there are 7 times more savers than mortgage borrowers who are being penalised under the present climate.

The global recession was first brought about by the collapse of the sub-prime housing market in the US. Hence it is back to the US that I would like to return in order to find longer term solutions to the current financial crisis.

Many trace the erstwhile easy credit back to the Clinton years when the political decision was made to widen home ownership to the less well off. In the 1992 Housing Bill, Congress set a quota of 30% for low income housing to be made available to own rather than rent. This quota went up to 40% in 1996.

Commercial banks were encouraged to pile into the home loans market offering low interest rates to sub-prime borrowers of poor or no credit history. Subsequent relaxation in US banking regulation encouraged securitisation of these mortgages and onward sale to other banks, many European, as rating agencies optimistically (or should I say recklessly) rated them AAA with credit enhancements by the likes of insurers such as AIG.

By way of illustration: in 1994 only 4.5% of home loans in the US were sub-prime and 31% of these were securitised. However by 2006 as much as 20.1% of home loans were sub-prime and 81% of these were securitised.

We know what happened next: first investment bank Bear Stearns, then Lehman Brothers, bit the dust. Even insurers AIG, and Government sponsored mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be bailed out by the US Government. As it turned out the mortgage market was not built of bricks and mortar but was a house of cards.

Although our UK housing market is quite different from that in the US, thanks to securitisation, European banks also have exposure to the US sub-prime mortgages. Moreover, the housing boom in the UK led to many high street banks lending based on inflated house values including cash back offers to tempt first time buyers with up to 125% loan to property values. Across the Atlantic we have had our own casualties; first Northern Rock had to be nationalised and now it seems that RBOS and Lloyds TSB are going the same way.

Right, we can understand what went wrong but how do we fix it? In the short term, ironically, the received wisdom has been to pump yet more money into the system. On 17 February President Obama announced his US$787 billion stimulus package which included measures to prevent mortgage foreclosures and incentives to refinance home loans where there is negative equity.

In the UK, PM Brown has been encouraging greater consumption with the ephemeral 2.5% VAT reduction before Christmas as well as huge cash injections into the banking system and into failing banks. Interest rates are now at historic lows and as Vince Cable pointed out, this has served to penalise savers and pensioners.

I believe that the solutions being pursued in the US cannot be the same for us here in the UK. Traditionally we do not have a sub-prime mortgage market as affordable housing has been provided by local authorities and housing associations with properties built primarily for rent rather than for sale. Furthermore social security and housing benefits are available to many housing tenants in the UK but the equivalent in the US, the Section 8 housing voucher, is much more limited.

I would go even further and suggest that the fall in house prices in the UK should be welcomed rather than decried. After the last extended housing boom average salaries do not now support average home prices and the market should be allowed to find its own realistic values. A fall in prices would also benefit first time buyers trying to get on the housing ladder.

At the same time I have to agree with PM Brown that banks should not allow 100% financing but borrowers should become more thrifty and learn the habit of saving up for a minimum down payment. Only then will any subsequent adjustment in market prices ensure that they do not instantly go into negative equity.

The current crisis is therefore not only a golden opportunity to change the old City culture of high reward for short term returns but also a chance for us to reassess our own values and expectations. Given time, with the banks returning to their traditional mortgage lending business and the implementation of more realistic loan to income ratios, investments in properties will one day become as safe as houses again.

Reflections on Morecambe Bay

Written by Merlene Emerson and published in Lib Dem Voice on Thu 5th Feb 2009

Today is the 5th anniversary of the tragedy at Morecambe Bay. Many are surprised to learn that 5 years have passed already. Perhaps it is because shock and sorrow have a way of lingering on after a death… or 23 deaths in this case.

You may recall that there were a number of casualties. In addition to the cockle pickers from the Fujian Province of China who drowned in Lancashire, there was the Tory MP, Ann Winterton. The latter was suspended by Michael Howard, then leader of the Tories, for a month for an offensive and insensitive racist joke but who remains MP for Congleton till this day.

The real casualties however were the families left behind. There were 36 orphans who had each inherited thousands of pounds in debt. Many of their stories were chronicled by Jonathan Watts of the Guardian. I have since heard that more than a third of the children have had to drop out of school in order to work. There was at least one case of a parent committing suicide over the death of her offspring.

Only after the events of February 2004 did the Government see fit to regulate gang masters in areas involving labour in agriculture and shellfish gathering with the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Crucially, despite the gangmaster Lin Liang Ren being found guilty of 21 counts of manslaughter (2 bodies were not found), a class action which ensued against the Government's Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) failed on the grounds that there was no act of violence and that the victims were at the time undocumented workers.

We need to pause here for a moment and ask if this can be right? Do undocumented workers have so little protection under the law, that their lives regarded of so little value? It would appear that even enemies of the State and prisoners of war have more rights and protection than undocumented workers.

There are a few points which I must highlight in the context of our current Immigration and Asylum policies.

1. The Government has no idea how many undocumented workers there are in this country at the moment. Estimates range between 500,000 and 750,000 - the result of years of slack border controls.

2. Of those from China (estimated to be around 70,000) at the current rate of deportation (about 500 a year), it would take a staggering 140 years to deport them all. To deny them the right to work is to force them into destitution and to become easy prey for criminal gangs. However if they were allowed to work that could increase revenues for the State via taxes and national insurance contributions.

3. Although there is cross party support for the new Points Based System, the system has yet to be fully tested. What are 'shortage occupations' under Tier 2 also need to be constantly monitored depending on the needs of our economy. The system also places a huge onus on employers to enforce the law with disproportionate penalties for employing irregular workers.

While the Home Office got away with employing thousands of security guards who were undocumented workers, other employers, especially in the catering industry, have not been treated as lightly. There have been many cases of heavy handed raids by the Border Immigration Agency with dogs and BBC cameras in tow.

And I have come across at least one case where the court allowed the business takings to be seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act, penalties more befitting a drug baron than the owner of a Chinese takeaway in a small town.

As we enter recession in the UK with news each day of more job losses, arguing for more rights to foreign and undocumented workers may not be timely nor welcome.

On the other hand, just because immigration is a thorny issue does not mean that we do not try to find real solutions. We need to force into daylight what is a shadow economy and rescue those driven into an underclass from a fate similar if not worse than those of the cockle pickers we remember today.

Fortunately the Liberal Democrats are brave enough to speak up on this and have come out in favour of giving asylum seekers and undocumented workers a route into civil society through earned citizenship provided that they have been in this country for at least 10 years.

PS If anyone would like to contribute towards the Morecambe Bay Victims' Childrens Fund please visit www.ghosts.uk.com

Life, the Universe and Experiments

Written by Merlene Emerson on Tue 7th Oct 2008

On 10 September 2008 I was invited to the unveiling of the architectural plans for the new Hammersmith Academy at Stamford House, formerly a youth offenders institute. How serendipitous that the opening of this public exhibition coincided with 'Big Bang day', the day that the CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) project was switched on.

Most people would have read about CERN's experiment carried out in a 17 mile tunnel 100 meters underground somewhere in Switzerland. Scientists have installed a large hadron collider (when it starts working again) which shoots protons at near light speed, emulating the conditions when the universe first began.

Academies on the other hand are quite a different sort of experiment altogether. There are currently 83 academies in the UK, with 51 more due to open this year and another 80 in 2009. It was Labour's model for fixing failing schools and was the brainchild of one Lord Adonis (since moved sideways as Minister for Transport). The plan I understand had been to achieve 400 academies and possibly more? Inspired by independent schools, academies emulate stricter discipline structures, broad curricula and with added after school programmes as ways of improving standards.

All sounds well and good. However, academies have also been heavily criticized by teaching unions for allowing the management to depart from the standard terms of contract for their staff and by local authorities for opting out of their control and supervision. The sorts of sponsors and partnerships which they have chosen have also been the focus of much controversy.

There were originally hints of Labour offering peerages for sponsors (otherwise known as cash for honours). Then there were fears of sponsors having too much control over the curriculum. Creationism and the Vardy Foundation comes to mind. (Was that the Peter Vardy who was knighted in 2001 for contributions to education after he had offered to sponsor 6 academies, I hear you ask?). One may also recall Carphone Warehouse's attempt to sponsor Preston Academy in Lancashire to the outrage of parents and the local community.

The Hammersmith Academy, fortunately has more reputable sponsors. One of them, the Mercers Company has been involved with some 10 secondary schools as well as the St Pauls independent schools. The other, the Company of Information Technologists has a 20 year rather than 500 year history but also has a track record in the field of education as a partner in the Lilly Bayliss School in Lambeth. With expertise provided by these sponsors the new Academy aims to be a specialist school for creative and digital media and IT. My only qualm with specialist schools is that students at age 11 can hardly be ready to decide on their future careers.

Like all academies, this project will allow the Tory Hammersmith & Fulham Council to tap into government funding (in this case of up to £35 million). The sponsors are only obliged to put up £1m each, yet will be largely responsible for delivery of the project and setting the ethos and curriculum of the school.

South of the river across the Hammersmith Bridge, Lib Dem controlled Richmond Council has also opted for the academy route for three of their secondary schools. A sponsor that has expressed interest in two of these schools is the Swedish company, Kunskapsskolan. At a presentation which I attended, I was more than impressed by their innovative approach to teaching: each student will be given their own study plan for the week and encouraged to work independently. IKEA meets Oxbridge? That too will be an experiment that I shall follow with keen interest.

The jury however is still out on the success or otherwise of academies. In a position paper issued by ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) they stated: "It is too early to judge whether there is a significant institutional effect on performance. And no adequate judgment can be made unless there is a direct comparison e.g. between a similar LEA-maintained comprehensive school that enjoys funding at the same level as an academy."

There is also a lack of evidence as to the impact of such skewed funding on other state funded schools in the area. In Hammersmith & Fulham, there are presently a disproportionately high number of students in secondary schools who come from outside of the borough. By the same token more than half of the student residents have chosen to be schooled outside of the borough. The new Hammersmith Academy will therefore only be addressing a fraction of the problem. Ideally more funding is needed to improve other state schools in the borough as well.

Finally, returning to the CERN project, there are skeptics who question whether the money could have been better spent on resisting climate change or meeting some greater world need. However the yearning to understand the unknown must surely be applauded. The project was not only the result of successful collaboration of 20 European nations (including the UK) but also a triumph in scientific endeavour.

Likewise, I believe that education of our future generation is so important that we should experiment in order to find new ways of improving standards in our schools. However this should not be at the expense of sacrificing control of the curricula nor loss of democratic oversight by the local authorities. Local Councils (including Lib Dem ones) should not have to succumb to the bribe from central government for fear of losing out on the valuable funding stream. I also believe that the focus of our experiments should be on education and teaching methods and not the economic models for funding our schools. Ultimately what is key is finding the best ways of educating our young people so that we can bring out the best in each and every one of them.

Mind the Gap

Written by Merlene Emerson on Wed 3rd Sep 2008

After weeks of news reports of our successes at the Beijing Olympics, we are now forced to return to a new staple of gloom and doom. Not only has last month been the dullest August since records at the Met office began, but Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling has now warned us of the worst economic downturn in 60 years!

Moreover, a recent UN World Health Organisation report by an English professor, Sir Michael Marmot, has claimed that a "toxic combination" of poor government policies around the world has led to widening health gaps. In the UK, shorter life expectancy and ill health of the more disadvantaged have brought down the average life expectancy to 79 years, trailing behind many other countries including Australia, Canada and Italy. Put bluntly, the report claims that "social injustice kills".

This is not entirely surprising news to us. Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg has long stressed that the status quo cannot continue. He had decried the fact that we live in a country in which the poorest people die 13 years sooner than the richest. In fact the report showed the discrepancy could be as much as 28 years, giving as an example the life expectancy of a boy born in the suburb of Calton in Glasgow with one born in Lenzie only a few miles away.

What we must not forget in this discussion is that many ethnic minority communities in the UK are often found in the poorer wards. In fact a study on poverty by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2007 concluded that people from ethnic minorities are on average more likely to suffer income poverty than white British people. And that almost half of all children from ethnic minority backgrounds are living in poverty.

Regrettably, after 10 years under Labour (as admitted by Alan Johnson, their health secretary) we have not managed to close the wealth gap. In fact the gap has widened. In response to the WHO report, Norman Lamb MP Lib Dem spokesperson for health proclaimed that the "widening health inequalities will be Labour's most shameful NHS legacy."

As for the Tories, we can hardly expect any real solutions from them. Their panacea for healing a 'broken' society include tax breaks for married couples (presumably with single people footing the bill) and a return to Victorian-style welfare provision with greater reliance on the voluntary sector. The latest proposal from their shadow chancellor, George Osborne is to double the inheritance tax threshold for married couples to £2m(!), a clear indication of where his priorities lie.

There is of course no silver bullet and we will need to have a whole range of policies to tackle the growing wealth and health gap, ranging from fairer taxation and better state education to more affordable housing and improved transport systems.

The UN Report did however say that the UK has been doing some things right. The most important of these seems to be in measuring and monitoring the problem to begin with. But what the Commission has also called for is that every government policy and programme should in addition be assessed for its impact on health.

Now, that to me is a great recommendation for all of us to continue to "mind this gap!"

Reflections on the Beijing Olympics

Written by Merlene Emerson on Mon 18th Aug 2008

'Ao Yun' in Mandarin or 'Jeux Olympiques' as they say in France. Wherever you may be this month, it is probably difficult to get away from news on the Beijing Olympics. It is afterall the largest international sporting event showcasing the best in athletics and sports. Athletes from no less than 204 'nations' compete for titles and medals. China, as host nation, is on track to break new records in more ways than one. Described in the Economist as something of a 'coming-out party' after over a century of foreign colonisation, civil war and poverty, she is poised to show her return as a great world power.

So what might we learn from the Beijing experience for when it will be our turn in London come 2012? We all know of the escalating budget now at £9 billion almost three times more than what was originally estimated. By ex-Mayor, Ken Livingstone's own admission, he had conspired to put in a low bid in order to deliver the Games for the revitalisation of East London. China, on the other hand, has spent more than double our budget, calculated no doubt to be worth every renminbi. And that in a year which might have started as their annus horribilus with blizzards over Chinese New Year, riots in Tibet, earthquakes in Sichuan and now risks of general inflation. Whilst UK economy is predicted also to slow down, has anyone thought how much worse off we would be if not for the mini-boom provided by the 2012 Olympics?

If like me you had at least watched part of the spectacular Opening Ceremony in the birds-nest stadium, you might have asked as I had what we can do to 'out-do' the Chinese in 2012? We could re-enact the Battle of Waterloo, the glory days of the British Empire, the Industrial Revolution or even boast of our 'invention' of cricket and football? Personally I have no qualms that we will with characteristic British eccentricity and flair come up with some real surprises when the time comes. Nor will we need to parade our ethnic minorities in splendid costumes to identify them. Many will in fact be in our Olympic teams!

This leads to another major reason for wanting to host the games in London and that is to inspire a whole new generation of aspiring athletes. Few would not be moved to see the tears of joy of athletes at the podium hearing their national anthem played and seeing their national flag raised. I was personally more impressed by the 3 Jamaicans making a clean sweep of the medals in the women's100 metre sprint, than the predictable record gold medals won by the most populous country in the world. Hopefully our young people would have found their own heros and heroines - and there were certainly lots from Team GB to inspire them.

As a Liberal Democrat one cannot comment on Beijing Games without some mention of controversy over the Games and concerns over China's human rights record. The pre-Olympic torch trail was dogged by protests against China's treatment of Tibet that it could have turned into a '5 ring circus' instead. We are all to aware that there are strict controls during the Games and in particular stringent rules have been brought in to safeguard against any embarrassing protests. In theory at least journalists are free to report on the Games and to travel within the country without special permits. They are of course encouraged to report on the Games and not on the 3 Ts ('Tibet' 'Tiananmen' or 'Taiwan'). However just as Taiwan has been allowed to compete in the Games as 'Chinese Taipei' and Hong Kong SAR has its own team of athletes as well as being co-host to the equestrian events, the Chinese believe that they can find pragmatic solutions to their problems.

May I close on a quick word on our Beijing office. The ex Mayor of London opened an office in the name of London Development Agency (LDA) in 2006 to encourage inward investment into London and to transfer know how from Beijing's hosting of the Games. I believe I may be one of the few people from UK who has actually paid a visit to LDA's Beijing office. With Boris Johnson, the new Tory Mayor at the helm, there is even more reason to improve our scrutiny over the team at City Hall and to require better accountability of its projects. Only then can we be sure that our Olympic city will be built not only on budget but in good time.

Archive of earlier Press Articles.

Press Article Feed(v1.0).