I am actually heartened by the UKIP problem. Especially when I look at it from a Tory perspective.

Ironically reading a recent post "Puzzled by the Ukip surge?" on "The Conservative Woman" has lightened my mood and given me hope that we can survive the issues we face moving on from the coalition and dealing with the rise of Ukip . I have included a link to it below and it is well worth a read, especially if you are, like many I have spoken to, one of those disenchanted LibDems wondering what the future might hold.

It is hard to see how the LibDems can recover if you just look at it from a LibDem point of view. Our ratings in the polls are well down and there is the very real prospect of us coming fourth, or worse, in 2015. Our party is being portrayed by the media as simply weak, at best, and Conservatives Mark II, at worst. Things simply don't look good at all for us.

So why should I be heartened by a Tory post on a Tory blog?

Because, simply, it shows very clearly what we need to do.

One look at the list of issues on that blog post, the issues that they think are to blame for Ukip taking votes directly off of them and turning a comfortable Tory majority into a landslide win for Ukip clearly shows us the way forward. What are the issues as they see them? Their support of gay marriage, their lack of action on immigration, the equality bill, green taxes, to name but a few, and the list goes on, but all of them point very clearly to one thing.

And that one thing? That we must purely and simply stand up and be proud of what we are...

We are Liberals with a capital L and we must stick to our Liberal principles. We must be the only party that will not pander to Ukip , the only party that stands up and opposes every thing that these guffawing right wing fossils stand for and the only party working to bring people together, not trying to pull them apart and go back to the dark ages.

Sensible immigration policies, equal rights, looking after the planet for our children's children, fair taxes for all, real political reform and equal opportunities for all people no matter what their background. Liberal policies, Liberal principles, things that we should be shouting from the rooftops.

What do we need to do to fight back?

We need to be LIBERALS!

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/nick-wood-puzzled-ukip-surge-heres-20-things-tories-got-wrong/

RBS branches go back to their roots.

I was recently invited to go along to my local RBS branch to meet with the staff and their area manager to discuss the future of RBS branches when they separate from the RBS group under the old name, that I remember from many years ago, of Williams and Glyn. They laid on some snacks and some wine, which unfortunately I could have as I was driving, and we spent a couple of hours discussing the future of the RBS branches as they broke away and went back to what some of us there remembered as the good old bank that we had joined many years ago. One person even had even brought along an old Williams and Glyn cheque book.

Back then, Williams and Glyn was a well respected, forward thinking bank that dared to be different and, if the discussions we had that evening were anything to go by, that is what it is returning to. They didn't just tell us what they had in mind going forward, they also asked us what we would like to see from the new Williams and Glyn bank. I was so impressed that I have also signed up to be a part of future discussions, whether that be face to face or via telephone surveys and online forums.

Now any one that knows me will tell you that I don't like surveys at the best of times, but this is different, it's not everyday that you get the opportunity to be a part of shaping the future of your own bank?

Nuclear or natural?

It is clear to all that the oil and coal reserves of this planet will not last forever and both of them, even with the latest technology, are a major contributory factor towards global warming.

Something needs to replace them for our energy needs.

Some will argue that nuclear is the way forward, that it is clean and efficient and would solve our energy needs for centuries to come and they often make a strong case, but the disposal of nuclear waste is still and has always been an issue and so, given recent events in Japan, is the question of how safe the actual process itself is.

It is apparent that, no matter how good the safeguards are, we cannot safeguard against the forces of nature. Mother nature is still capable of destroying mans greatest achievements in a matter of seconds and this is where I believe that using natural forces to generate energy has it's main advantage.

It is not hard to imagine wind, wave or solar energy plant being destroyed by natural forces such as the earthquake and tsunami that has hit Japan, but it is easy to see that it does not have the same potential for devastation that the destruction of nuclear facilities could have.

Harvesting the, by comparison more sedentary, forces of nature is by far the cleanest and safest way to move away from our need for fossil fuels.

Let's not go from the frying pan of a dependence on fossil fuels into the fire of oblivion that could come from a dependence on nuclear energy.

What would be the benefit to Gosport of allowing smoking back in pubs?

It is no accident that today, when the Anti-Smoking Plans are announced by the government, is the day that this question comes to my mind.

I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of people in Gosport would like the government to do all it can to ensure that young people either never smoke or give up smoking early enough for it to make a real difference to their health. Even hardened smokers advise their own children not to start smoking, not just for the health benefits it brings but for the financial benefits it brings not to be forced, through addiction to nicotine, to spend nearly £7 for every packet of cigarettes that you buy.

The health benefits to the individual of never smoking are well documented and proven beyond all doubt and and as an ex-smoker who gave up about 10 years ago in my forties, I can personally vouch for the well documented fact that, although it may seem like it, it is never too late to give up smoking.

The ban on smoking in public places has also encouraged more and more people who do smoke not only to go outside when they are in public places, but also to go outside when they are at home. A lot of smokers have made the decision that they do not want to subject their children, their partners and their visitors to the dangers of passive smoking.

So why is it then that Caroline Dinenage, who in her election manifesto promised to be Gosport's champion, voted back in October for a relaxation of the smoking ban to allow smoking in pubs and private members clubs where no food is being served? A move which was thankfully defeated.

I have been puzzling over this one for some time. Does she think that the people of Gosport want this?

If so, she has not done her research, because if Gosport is like anywhere else in the UK with regard to this issue, and there is no evidence to suggest it is not, then the majority of people in Gosport believe that the smoking ban is a good thing.

Is she doing this in an effort to save the many public houses that are closing down?

If so, once again she has not done her research, because there is no evidence that the smoking ban has caused any more pubs to close than would have done through other, mostly economic, factors.

How could anyone who represents the best interests of Gosport want to take a backward step in legislation that has a proven benefit to health?

Why did she, as a loyal Conservative who very rarely votes against party policy, choose this issue to rebel on?

If she is reading this, or anyone who knows her is, I'd be truly interested to know what she thinks the benefit to the people of Gosport would be if the smoking ban was relaxed.

Do the pensions reforms really go far enough?

Whilst I applaud the flat rate pension of more than £140 a week that Sir Iain Duncan-Smith has been working on with Steve Webb, his Lib-Dem minister for pensions, I also have to ask does it really go far enough?

Pensioners will receive a flat rate of pension, set above the pension credit rate, regardless of how long they worked or earned, this will ensure a basic level of income for all of our pensioners without the need for means testing. It will also encourage people to save because those who have saved will be better off.

But does it go far enough?

Now that there is no longer a link between how long you work and earn and the amount of pension you get, do we really need National Insurance?

Isn't N.I. now, many may argue it has been for a while, just another form of Income Tax?

And if so, surely it would be more efficient and cheaper to administrate, not to mention more honest, if we collected it like that?

We could save millions in administration costs by doing so, which could be used to relieve some of the pressure of cuts on the less well off.

Is it now time to scrap N.I. all together in favour of a single Income Tax?

I think so.

How the vote went

All Liberal Democrat MP's signed the NUS pledge here's how they voted yesterday....

CANDIDATE	CONSTITUENCY	VOTE
Alexander, Danny	Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey	YES
Baker, Norman	Lewes	YES
Beith, Alan	Berwick-upon-Tweed	YES
Birtwistle, Gordon	Burnley	YES
Brake, Tom	Carshalton and Wallington	YES
Brooke, Annette	Mid Dorset and North Poole	NO
Browne, Jeremy	Taunton Deane	YES
Bruce, Malcolm	Gordon	YES
Burstow, Paul	Sutton and Cheam	YES
Burt, Lorely	Solihull	ABSTAINED
Cable, Vincent	Twickenham	YES
Campbell, Sir Menzies	North East Fife	NO
Carmichael, Alistair	Orkney and Shetland	YES
Clegg, Nick	Sheffield, Hallam	YES
Crockart, Mike	Edinburgh West	NO
Davey, Edward	Kingston and Surbiton	YES
Farron, Tim	Westmorland and Lonsdale	NO
Featherstone, Lynne	Hornsey and Wood Green	YES
Foster, Don	Bath	YES
George, Andrew	St Ives	NO
Gilbert, Stephen	St Austell and Newquay	YES
Hames, Duncan	Chippenham	YES
Hancock, Mike	Portsmouth South	NO
Harvey, Nick	North Devon	YES
Heath, David	Somerton and Frome	YES
Hemming, John	Birmingham, Yardley	YES
Horwood, Martin	Cheltenham	NOT PRESENT
Hughes, Simon	Bermondsey and Old Southwark	ABSTAINED
Huhne, Chris	Eastleigh	NOT PRESENT
Hunter, Mark	Cheadle	TELLER
Huppert, Julian	Cambridge	NO
Kennedy, Charles	Ross, Skye and Lochaber	NO
Lamb, Norman	North Norfolk	YES
Laws, David	Yeovil	YES
Leech, John	Manchester, Withington	NO
Lloyd, Stephen	Eastbourne	NO
Moore, Michael	Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk	YES
Mulholland, Greg	Leeds North West	NO
Munt, Tessa	Wells	ABSTAINED
Pugh, John	Southport	NO
Reid, Alan	Argyll and Bute	NO
Rogerson, Dan	North Cornwall	NO
Russell, Bob	Colchester	NO
Sanders, Adrian	Torbay	NO
Smith, Sir Robert	West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine	ABSTAINED
Stunell, Andrew	Hazel Grove	YES
Swales, Ian	Redcar	NO
Swinson, Jo	East Dunbartonshire	YES
Teather, Sarah	Brent Central	YES
Thurso, John	Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross	ABSTAINED
Ward, David	Bradford East	YES
Webb, Steve	Thornbury and Yate	YES
Williams, Mark	Ceredigion	NO
Williams, Roger	Brecon and Radnorshire	NO
Williams, Stephen	Bristol West	ABSTAINED
Willott, Jenny	Cardiff Central	NO
Wright, Simon	Norwich South	NO

28 voted FOR, 21 voted AGAINST, 6 Abstained, 2 were not present and the Government whip Mark Hunter (Cheadle) acted as a teller.

A story in The Sun is being used to stir up racial hatred.

In a story entitled "Three Lions Off My Shirt" The Sun with it's usual talent for misrepresentation has given racists a reason to use the world cup to stir up racial tension.

The metropolitan police department sent a letter out to pubs in the Croydon area giving advice and guidance on tackling trouble during the world cup. Amongst suggestions like using plastic glasses and employing door staff, they suggest "dress code restrictions e.g. no football shirts".

No suggestion of no England shirts, just no football shirts.

No suggestion that it may upset anyone.

Just a suggestion, amongst other suggestions, that you may deter those likely to cause trouble by introducing a dress code.

This is now being used by people with an interest in stirring racial hatred by saying that the suggestion was that the England shirt may cause offence to immigrants.

THIS IS A LIE!

There has never been any suggestion that the England shirt or flag upsets anyone.

DO NOT FALL FOR THESE LIES!