Alberto Costa has sent a letter to postal voters in Angus, in which he writes:

Remember, a vote for the SNP or the Lib Dems will only risk another five years of Labour or a hung Parliament.

Of course, the only thing that would make another five years of Labour more likely in Angus, is a vote for Labour candidate Kevin Hutchens. But Alberto does not mention that, as his intention is clearly to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about voting for the SNP or the Lib Dems.

Mentioning the Lib Dems as well as the SNP, but not Labour, clearly shows that Alberto knows that Angus is now a three way battle.

What is particularly worrying, is the sense of entitlement Alberto Costa displays in his letter to Angus residents. There is an assumption that the Tories have a right to power and that Angus residents have a responsibility to vote for him:

If we really want change, we all need to play our role and that means electing a new Conservative MP for Angus.

The reality is that if they want real change, then Angus residents have the opportunity to vote for the Liberal Democrats who can deliver it for them.

In March, we began in investigation into a bonus culture within NHS Tayside. You can read our initial investigation into it by clicking here.

In the response received from NHS Tayside, we discovered that indeed there are bonuses paid to consultants that are not simply awarded in one year, but are permanent additions to their salaries.

It now appears that NHS bosses are also in on the act, getting similar bonuses added to their salary, contributing to their pensions and completely unrelated to ongoing performance.

Liberal Democrats investigation unearthed the matter which is reported in today’s Observer:

NHS boss earned £68,000 in bonuses – on top of six-figure salary

GPs, nurses and junior doctors are all denied access to any similar sort of compensation scheme.

Having received a reply from NHS Tayside over bonuses, these bonuses are written into the standard contracts offered to consultants across the whole of Scotland.

Bankers have been quite rightly been criticised for excessive bonuses along with Chief Executives of many companies who are earning 100 times more than their average employees. But I was shocked to discover such a bonus culture written in black and white into the contracts of NHS Tayside consultants. How can it be fair that the best paid staff in the NHS are the only ones able to get huge bonuses on top of their already very generous salaries? There does not seem to be any bonus system for staff such as nurses and porters.

In particular these ‘Distinction Awards’ are not one off bonuses, but added to consultants salary every single year and increase their pension contributions accordingly. 1 out of every 3 consultants will receive one of these awards during their career, so the system is hardly restricted to only the best and the brightest.

Even more worrying is that consultants can nominate each other or even themselves for these huge additions to their salary. It is not difficult to see such a system being quickly abused with friends nominating each other.

With money tight across the country, and frontline services in the NHS at serious risk, surely we should end the bonus culture in the NHS right now?

Montrose Academy held a mock election on Friday, run magnificently by Ian Watt. It was great to see Sean Massie, the Liberal Democrat candidate win the mock election. Congratulation to Sean and his class who ran an excellent campaign. I’ve had to ask Sean for a copy of his stump speech, as it included some key points I hope to use.

I really appreciated being invited to attend a hustings after the vote, between the Angus parliamentary candidates. During the discussion, Angus SNP candidate, Mike Weir admitted that there are three parties whose candidate could be elected, saying:

Whoever gets elected whether it is the SNP, the Tories or the Lib Dems,…

Conspicuously absent was any mention of the Labour candidate, Kevin Hutchens. Clearly, Mike has recognised that people in Angus are looking at all the main options available to them.

The national campaign shows this will not be just a once in a lifetime election. It will be a unique opportunity to sweep away the two old parties’ grip on power. They have and will do anything to stop things really changing.

It is no longer a two horse race nationally, nor is it here in Angus. Residents do not have to pick the least worst option.

When choosing between myself, Mike Weir and Alberto Costa, Angus residents now realise that by voting for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, by voting for me, Sanjay Samani, their vote will count and their voice will be heard.

During this recession, many people across Angus will be feeling the pinch, working fewer hours or with reduced pay, whilst still having to meet rising food and petrol costs. With huge bonuses for bankers and tax dodging millionaires donating to political parties, most voters must be wondering whether politicians will deal with this unfairness.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fairer tax system. We promise that if you earn less than £10,000 you will pay nothing, zero, £0 in income tax. If you earn more that that, you will pay £705 less.

So if you earn, say £8,000, you will pay no income tax, saving you £305 per year, an extra £25 per month. If you earn, £17,000, you will save £705. That’s almost £59 per month extra in your pay packet, to help you pay for your shopping, put towards your holiday or buy that special treat for your kids.

We will pay for this by cutting special tax breaks that only the wealthiest can use.

Pensioners will save £100 a year, which combined with relinking pensions with earnings, will help the most vulnerable in our society.

We will invest £3.1bn to create 100,000 green jobs, including £400m to refurbish harbours to manufacture offshore wind turbines. As your MP, I would fight for that investment to come to Montrose, creating jobs across all of Angus. We will pay young people on apprenticeships, so small companies can take them on.

That’s fairness for you, but what about the way MPs have behaved with our money?

The ugly SNP / Tory expenses and donations spat in Angus makes clear that we need a complete overhaul of our political systems. Labour and the Tories propose a tweak here and there, but after 20 years of scandal after scandal, it is clear we need genuine democracy.

The Liberal Democrats would cap donations and limit spending by political parties and introduce independent audits of expenses. We would create a register of political lobbying, a Lib Dem proposal that Mike Weir voted against in 2006. Crucially, you would have the right to sack corrupt MPs.

The UK needs a written constitution that sets out exactly what MPs can and cannot do and defines the roles of judges, ministers, the Head of State, parliament and national assemblies.

We would introduce a fairer, proportional voting system so your voice is heard. Mike Weir was elected with just 1 out of every 5 of the possible votes. A full 2/3rds of voters, voted against him. Surely Angus deserves an MP with a better mandate than that?

During this General Election in Angus, the Liberal Democrats are the only party that will bring genuine fairness back to our economy and our politics.

In an amazing poll for the Sun from YouGov, the Liberal Democrats are in second place just 3% behind the Tories. Labour have been pushed back into 3rd place. The full results are Conservative 33%, Liberal Democrats 30% and Labour 28%.

Under our completely broken political system this could well lead to Labour having the most seats in parliament, despite having the fewest votes of the main three parties. The prediction from uniform swing calculators would be the Labour Party would have 275 seats, Conservatives 245 and the Liberal Democrats 99.

Is Labour worried and ashamed to drop back into 3rd place in the polls? Not in the slightest:

It is little wonder that after 13 years in government, the Labour Party has not enacted any meaningful political reform. Labour and the Tories are completely happy with the way things are. A system that denies millions of voters across the country a real voice in the way their country is run. A system that means that tens of thousands of voters across Angus will be denied genuine democracy.

John Prescott and the Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves for celebrating our broken political system.

This is why we must have real change in this elections. This is why we cannot let Labour and Conservative just pass the baton back and forth so they can continue to deny us genuine democracy and carry on their decades of corruption.

The Liberal Democrats would cap donations and limit spending by political parties, introduce independent audits of expenses and set out exactly what MPs can and cannot do. Voters would have the right to sack corrupt MPs.

We would introduce a fairer, proportional voting system so your voice is heard. Mike Weir was elected with just 1 out of 5 of those eligible, voting for him. Surely Angus deserves an MP with a better mandate than that. The Liberal Democrats are the only party who would introduce a system that supports that.

I was really disappointed to read two new articles on the ongoing ugly spat over donations and expenses between Mike Weir and Alberto Costa. Angus residents really do deserve better from their prospective representatives.

I highlighted how this spat has become national news in my previous post, which you can read by clicking here. The whole sordid affair reflects badly on Angus and I had hoped that the matter would end there. Unfortunately the argument has continued to rumble on.

Firstly The Daily Record highlights how Alberto Costa’s campaign received £10,000 from Swiss banker, Henry Angest, funnelled through a City company called Flowidea Ltd. You can read the article in full by clicking here.

Then Alberto Costa hit back, accusing Mike Weir of accepting a £4,000 donation from someone who he is running a campaign for taxes on holiday lets. You can read the full article in the Press and Journal by clicking here.

The merits of the accusations and counter accusations aside, there is clearly a need for our politics to be cleaned up.

In my previous blog post and in an open letter to all the other candidates, I called on them to give cross party support to full political reform, rather than nips and tucks or little tweaks here and there, asking:

Will the other candidates back proposals for a fairer political system, including the right of Angus residents to recall their MP, to cap donations to political parties, independent auditing of expenses and limits on spending by political parties? Crucially will they back a written constitution that clearly sets out the role and powers of MPs, ministers, judges, the Head of State, parliament and national assemblies?

On a separate issue, will the candidates back proposals for a fairer, proportional voting system, as used in Angus Council elections? Mike Weir was elected as MP for Angus, with just over 1 out of 5 of those eligible actually voting for him and very nearly 2/3rds of actual voters, voting against him. Surely the Angus MP needs to have a better mandate than that?

The letter has appeared in all the Angus local newspapers and I have yet to hear a response from any of the other candidates. This is hardly a surprise as Labour, SNP and Conservative MPs, including Mike Weir, have all voted in the past against proposals by the Liberal Democrats to clean up politics. It is little wonder that Nick Clegg described the last session as “the most corrupt parliament in history”.

I make my call again:

I would ask for full backing from Mike Weir MP, Kevin Hutchens and Alberto Costa. Angus residents can that way be assured, that whether it is myself or one of the other candidates that is elected at the forthcoming election, they will be voting for genuine, open, fairer political reform.

Will the other candidates back full, genuine, fair political reform to create a functioning, responsive, clean democracy in this country?

Before the Iraq War, we stood under a banner of “Not in My Name” in the two giant demonstrations in London against it. This YouTube video from WikiLeaks shows the video footage from a US helicopter gunship in Baghdad in 2007. The US soldiers believe that a group of men have weapons, including AK47’s and an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher). They open fire, killing most of the men, leaving only one alive, but injured. In fact the men were all civilians, gathered around a Reuters photographer and his driver. The weapons were cameras. A van comes to try and help the injured Reuters driver and the soldiers open fire again, killing those trying to help. Two children in the van are injured.

It is an extremely graphic and disturbing video.

Before seeing the video, I wanted to give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt and appreciate that the realities of war sometime mean that there are situations close to the limit of what is acceptable. I thought it might be one of the situations in war that are appalling, but unavoidable.

Having forced myself to watch the entire video, I feel fairly confident in saying the US soldiers displayed appalling judgement. Those innocent men were killed unnecessarily, very likely unlawfully.

All wars are brutal and the media age is bringing that brutality home to us. We should not dismiss the brutality, just because it has always been that way. Instead it should be a wake up call to ensure that we only engage in wars if absolutely necessary.

Many civilians have been killed as a result of the war in Iraq, both by our own troops, in our name, by suicide bombers and as a result of a collapse into lawlessness. Some estimates put the civilian casualties in Iraq at 600,000. I am not sure I believe that figure, but it is clear that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have lost their lives as a result of this war conducted in our name.

This was should never have happened, the public never supported it. It went ahead, because Labour and the Tories supported it. Because they did not have the integrity to properly scrutinise the legality and justification for the war.

Iraq still matters in the 2010 election, not just because we sent our soldiers to war under-equipped and under-paid, nor because legal advice was manipulated or ignored. Iraq still matters because we have a wholly undemocratic system that cannot hold a government to account. It matters because in the UK, there is little to stop an illegal war being conducted in our name, or civilians being murdered in our name.

And that will not change whilst either Labour or the Conservatives are still in power, because they will not lift a finger to provide real democracy in this country. For that reason, Iraq will matter not just in this election, but in every election, until we are able to say what is done in our name.

I was very disappointed to see the ugly public spat over donations and expenses, over the last two weeks, between Mike Weir MP and Angus Tory candidate Alberto Costa. Angus residents deserve better from their prospective representatives. Now that their arguments have spilled over into the national press, including the BBC News website, is it not high time that Angus candidates agree how we can restore trust in our democracy?

With the recent lobbying scandal, I was particularly surprised to find that Mike Weir MP, voted in 2006 against a Lib Dem motion for limits and full disclosure for corporate lobbying. I would ask that he explain his stance on that motion, supported by the Conservatives, but defeated by Labour and SNP MPs.

The Tories have been talking about a “Broken Britain”, but it is clear to me that it is our politics that is broken. It is not enough to simply tinker with existing system, but we need a radical reform of our political institutions to ensure that the long succession of scandals under both Labour and the Tories, cannot be repeated.

Will the other candidates back proposals for a fairer political system, including the right of Angus residents to recall their MP, to cap donations to political parties, independent auditing of expenses and limits on spending by political parties? Crucially will they back a written constitution that clearly sets out the role and powers of MPs, ministers, judges, the Head of State, parliament and national assemblies?

On a separate issue, will the candidates back proposals for a fairer, proportional voting system, as used in Angus Council elections? Mike Weir was elected as MP for Angus, with just over 1 out of 5 of those eligible actually voting for him and very nearly 2/3rds of actual voters, voting against him. Surely the Angus MP needs to have a better mandate than that?

I am fully backing all of these proposals.

I would ask for full backing from Mike Weir MP, Kevin Hutchens and Alberto Costa. Angus residents can that way be assured, that whether it is myself or one of the other candidates that is elected at the forthcoming election, they will be voting for genuine, open, fairer political reform.

A blog post by Duncan Stott at Split Horizons is garnering some interest today. It suggests that there may be some unwanted consequences of criminalising mephedrone, or as it is more commonly known here in Angus, bubbles.

Duncan suggests that:

Mephedrone users will continue to use mephedrone. They like the feeling that the drug provides, and will continue to seek (and may be addicted) to the high it provides. Instead of suppliers who were complying with the law, mephedrone will now be provided to them by criminal gangs, who will command an inflated, untaxed premium for the drug. Some addicts will turn to crime to fund their habit. The strength and purity of mephedrone will greatly vary, to the detriment of the health of users. Rivalry between the drug gangs will bring violence and weapons to inner-city streets.

Duncan is wrong on several counts. Speaking to Fiona Walsh of the Volunteer Centre Angus, I discovered that mephedrone is cheaper than booze. If mephedrone develops quality issues and becomes more expensive, kids will switch back to drinking alcohol. Secondly, addicts turn to crime when they cannot afford their drug of choice. Given how cheap mephedrone is, this is unlikely. He is also wrong to assume that the legal suppliers of mephedrone are not just a front for the criminal gangs supplying illegal drugs.

Mephedrone users will switch to more familiar highs, such as cocaine or ecstasy, that mephedrone attempted to emulate. They will be supplied by criminal gangs, with all the above problems.

Again, it is more likely that users will switch to alcohol or other cheap drugs such as cannabis, rather than more expensive, harder to come by drugs. Also, it might surprise Duncan, but being illegal does actually sometimes work as a deterrent for young people, who do not want to fall foul of the law.

Previously legitimate businesses that supplied mephedrone will be forced to close, with subsequent job losses. This is at odds with Gordon Brown’s statement that “every redundancy is a personal tragedy. Every lost job is an aspiration destroyed. Every business closure is someone’s dream in ruins.”

I do not count companies selling mephedrone, that has been specifically developed as a legal high as “legitimate businesses”. Duncan is being extremely naive if he thinks that the same criminal gangs that sell illegal drugs are not behind the legal ones that sell mephedrone. I doubt that you will find mephedrone on sale at your local garden centre.

Mephedrone users will switch to some of the many other legal highs on the market. Like mephedrone, the effects of these new drugs will not be known by science, and may be more dangerous than mephedrone, causing a new wave of deaths, and a new wave of calls for government action.

Here Duncan may be right. However leaving mephedrone legal will not stop new, more dangerous drugs being developed.

If we were to follow Duncan’s logic through for other narcotics and legalise them, we can look to our two legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine to see what the impacts on our society would be:

• Charity Turning Point claims that there are 1m children living with alcoholic parents. We would condemn how many more kids to a such an upbringing?
• Driving under the influence is a major issue across the country. There is no equivalent to a breathalyser for most drugs. How much would it cost to police Drug Driving? How many more police would be needed? More importantly how many innocent people would be killed on our roads?
• My father died of lung cancer. Seeing the other lung cancer patients on the hospital wards really brought home to me the impact of smoking on families, children and the NHS. Cannabis is primarily smoked, often mixed in with nicotine, in unfiltered joints. Legalising it will only increase the cost of treating lung cancer in this country
• Lost business hours. Already businesses lose time to workers who are addicted to alcohol or have smoking related illnesses. How much of an impact will legalising drugs have on our businesses and our economy?

Neither banning drugs, nor legalising them answers the fundamental question: why do people turn to drugs? The answers are complicated and the solutions even more so. I discussed this in more detail in my previous blog which you can read by clicking here.

What then is the solution? Well as I wrote in the blog post above:

Instead we must break the cycle of alcohol abuse and demonstrate to these children that there is a positive alternative.

We have to be serious about helping parents overcome their alcohol addiction, provide separate support for the children and then help to rebuild these families.

We need to get young people who have been drug and alcohol abusers themselves, to go and talk to children about their experiences. Just like the excellent Fiona Walsh is doing for the Volunteer Centre Angus, based in Arbroath.

And we must also ensure that children have places to go and things to do, that do not involve alcohol, like the Attic Project in Brechin or the CAFE project in Arbroath.

The problems we need to solve are “social exclusion”, for lack of an equally succinct phrase, a cycle of abuse in families and a lack of positive alternatives and awareness of a different way of living for young people. Criminalising drugs does not solve any of these problems. But nor does legalising drugs, or leaving news one legal and instead will have a massive negative effect on our society. The solutions to these problems are complex, difficult and will take a long time, perhaps generations. There is, unfortunately, no easy, quick fix.