Curious leaflet from the Conservatives delivered today. Under 'Improving the life of Older People' it talks about stopping 'any move to take away Accident & Emergency or Maternity provision'.

£150 a year tax break if you are married?

Income tax is all about balance. There are countless possible ways of setting thresholds and providing tax breaks, so certain principles must be used. For Liberal Democrats the key principle is one of redressing inequalities.

I'm not so keen on using personal taxation to try to change people's behaviour. Other types of tax, such as the green taxes we support, can be used to encourage people to change their ways. But Income tax should be about a fair distribution of wealth, leaving people themselves to decide how they want to spend their money.

The Conservative commitment to provide a tax break of £150 a year to every married couple (civil partnerships included) falls into the 'let's change people's behaviour' category.

Not only is it doomed to failure, but it will have a unpleasant side effects.

Do you really believe that a couple will decide to get married, rather than live together, simply in order to get an extra £150 per year? How many years will it take to cover the cost of even a modest wedding?

The argument the Tories give is that a couple with young children are more likely to stay together if they are married than if they are not. That may be true, but I'm not sure that the act of marriage itself is the determining factor - surely the strength of the relationship is the key? Presumably people who get married have committed themselves to a strong relationship, and that is why they are more likely to stay together. Any attempt to entice people into marriage when the relationship is not strong enough will be bound to fail.

This tax break is clearly a bribe to 'ordinary hardworking families' who always take centre stage at election time.

But it is bad.

I can remember the days when marriage was enshrined in the income tax system. There was a far more substantial marriage allowance than the one proposed by the Tories now. But it was dependent on a personal taxation system that taxed couples jointly.

To make this work, the woman was required to divulge all her income to her husband - yes, that way round only. Their incomes were added together and the marriage allowance applied to the total.

Thank goodness we have got beyond that system and now have individual taxation. Women and men can arrange their finances, shared or individually, as they see fit. Either person in a marriage can have their own private savings without being forced to tell the other. Not only is this right for all individuals, but it is particularly important for people who are trying to escape a violent partner.

And yet something like this will be required to make the Tory marriage tax break work. The couple will be forced to tell each other what their income is, so that they can decide which one of them should transfer £750 of their personal allowance to the other.

Then there are the anomalies that make this such an unfair idea. Someone who has just been widowed, or whose partner leaves them, will lose their tax break, even though they may be left as a single parent with higher expenses.

Liberal Democrats are proposing a much simpler approach to taxation. Raise the personal tax threshold so that no-one earning less than £10,000 a year will pay any income tax at all. That's a fair tax break, and one that truly benefits the people on the lowest incomes.

Kevin Maguire in The Mirror:

Millionaire Zac Goldsmith has put me on a Tory leaflet to attack his Lib Dem opponent.

What an indignity! So, to even things up, here’s my view of him for her to use as she sees fit.

“Whatever my ­political differences with Susan Kramer, I admire her integrity. She’s respected in Westminster and works incredibly hard for the people of ­Richmond Park and North Kingston. It would be monstrously unfair if playboy Zac Goldsmith bought the seat with inherited wealth.

“We’re all the poorer if democracy’s purchased by the kid with the offshore trust fund.”

So the election campaign is already over a day old.

Still haven't decided how to vote? Try Votematch.

I was greatly relieved to find that I came out as Lib Dem!

The current Conservative group on Kingston Council consists of 2 women and 19 men.

Now you might have thought they would be trying to redress that imbalance in the future. But a Conservative leaflet that has gone out across the borough gives photos of all their candidates for the local elections on May 6th.

Out of 48 candidates, only 12 are female. And some of these are standing in unwinnable wards.

Of course, the actual outcome lies in the hands of the voters, but my prediction is that however many seats they gain overall, the next Conservative group will have, at most, four women members.

I loved the annual article by Olaf Priol in today's Guardian.

But it's not as funny as this story - which is true!

At last night's Full Council meeting the Tories finally acknowledged that our MPs had been right all along about the threat to Kingston Hospital.

(See the Save Kingston Hospital campaign site for more information and to sign the petition)

At the Council meeting the Conservatives decided to support the Liberal Democrat motion which called on NHS London to release in full the 'South West London Strategic Plan' and condemned any proposals to reduce services at the hospital.

This was in marked contrast to all the accusations of 'scaremongering' and 'electioneering' that they have been shouting over the last couple of months.

At the special Health Overview Panel meeting last month, Healthcare for South West London admitted that the leaked document was genuine and contained 18 options, of which 16 would mean cutting major services at Kingston Hospital. Even so, the Tories on the Panel voted against the recommendation, which was essentially the same as the one agreed last night.

Of course, it is good that we now have a united campaign. But it is sad that the Tories have been so blinkered by their election campaign that they have not been able to acknowledge that a real threat existed.

I am standing down as a councillor on May 6th, when we will have the elections to Kingston Council.

My reasons are very simple - I have done my bit and feel ready to move on now. Not surprisingly, Ian and I have discussed this for quite a while and we decided to stand down together.

We both have work and projects that will keep us fully occupied. In my case, I am revising a book that I wrote a few years ago and have some ideas for future publications, while Ian continues working at the hospital. I will also be able to give more time to a number of voluntary things that I'm involved in - e-democracy, charities and the Rose Theatre.

It was over 13 years ago that I was asked to stand in a by-election in what was then Hook ward. The previous Lib Dem councillor had to resign through ill-health and my husband Ian was the other councillor in the ward.

In fact, although Ian had been elected in 1990 I had been heavily involved in the local party since the 1970s. For many years I was employed by Kingston Council so was ineligible to stand as a councillor. Instead I organised political activities in the background. But by 1997 Kingston College, where I then worked, had become independent of the Council so I was free to put my name forward.

The by-election was in February. On the doorstep the main issue was gritting. It was very cold, and the evenings were dark. I much prefer spring elections!

It was also just a few months before the expected General Election so all the local parties used my by-election as an opportunity to do some early canvassing and as a training exercise for their activists. Over 100 helpers turned up at my house during the short election campaign. It was hectic, exciting and totally exhausting. (And paid dividends with Edward Davey's astonishing victory in June that year)

It was also complicated by the fact that I was Mayoress at the time! I had to stand down from mayoral duties during the election period because the Council could not be seen to be favouring any one candidate.

Since then I have had a number of roles on the Council - opposition spokesperson on Education and Leisure, Executive (Cabinet) Member for Participation and Communication, Executive Member for Children and Young People's Services, Chair of South of the Borough Neighbourhood, plus a wonderful year as Mayor.

It has been almost entirely enjoyable - at times stressful, at times frustrating, but the overall feeling is one of satisfaction that we councillors can actually do things that make a difference to people's lives. Some of those things that I have been closely involved with are publicly known: a random list includes the Hook Centre, transforming Beverley Boys School into Coombe Boys, e-petitions, Moor Lane Centre, e-ticketing on the Council website, Plain English in all Council communications, pedestrian crossings on the A243, Neighbourhood Community Plan, Council information points, Devon Way Centre, school bus to Hinchley Wood, resisting all back garden development in the ward, and (close to my heart) the Rose Theatre. Other things have to remain confidential, because my casework covers all kinds of personal issues and problems that I have usually managed to solve successfully.

I'll miss some of it, but I'm not the sort of person who has regrets or withdrawal symptoms. Instead I'll just get on with enjoying the next stage of my life, and be grateful that I've experienced the privilege of being active in public life in the Royal Borough.

Oh - and I intend to carry on blogging.

Last month I wrote a lengthy post giving all the background to the proposal for a GP-led walk-in clinic in the Hook Clinic in Gosbury Hill.

I had to be rather guarded at the time about my views on these plans, because there was a good chance that planning permission would be required very soon. As a councillor, and Chair of the local planning committee (South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee), if I had expressed an opinion ahead of the relevant planning meeting then I would have predetermined my views and would have been barred from the meeting. That would have applied to all my Neighbourhood colleagues as well.

Last week we heard from the Planning Officers that planning permission was not required so I am now free to say what I think.

And it is this: I do not think this is the right location. I have come round to the view that a walk-in clinic would be an asset for the Neighbourhood, provided it is on a suitable site.

Gosbury Hill is not a suitable site, for a number of reasons.

The prime reasons relate to the impact on quiet suburban streets - Gosbury Hill, Orchard Gardens, Elm Road and Moor Lane. All currently have limited parking, and patients find it difficult to find a space when visiting the GPs now. The new proposals will include a new GP practice, which will generate its own traffic, plus a clinic that will be open to anyone, wherever they may live. Although on a bus route, most patients attending the walk-in clinic will come by car.

There is also the problem of disturbance at weekends and over public holidays. The clinic will be open to allcomers from 8am to 8pm every single day of the year - yes, including Christmas Day. This is a substantial change from the current Monday to Friday surgery hours, with occasional appointments on Saturday.

Finally, we have been campaigning for ages for better facilities for the two practices (Orchard Practice and Grays Practice), and were delighted when NHS Kingston offered them the lease of the Hook Clinic, which has been little used for years. The current conditions for the two practices are very inadequate and the extra space in the Hook Clinic building would have provided both practices with reasonable accommodation in the short term, and a good site on which to do a new build in the long term.

So I, and many others, were astonished when Dr Gray proposed bringing in the new GP practice and walk-in clinic, onto the same site. In fact the new facilities will take over the Hook Clinic leaving both GP practices in exactly the same unsatisfactory state as before.

Sadly, it looks as though NHS Kingston will go ahead with this, in spite of widespread opposition. The NHS does not operate within a local democracy - its local policies are dictated to from Whitehall, or NHS London, and it only pays lip service to local consultation and the views of residents.

A year ago the South of the Borough's Community Plan was brought to life in a workshop. Anyone was welcome was welcome to attend and participate, but we made sure that we invited leaders of as many local organisations as we could find.

We also asked for volunteers to form a Community Steering Group, whose main task would be to turn the ideas generated at the workshop into a viable action plan. Everyone present was invited to join the online Community Panel which would act as a sounding board for these and other local issues.

This was a new venture in the Borough, thought up by the councillors, and now other Neighbourhoods are doing the same thing.

What it means is that the priorities of the Neighbourhood Committee (that is, all the councillors in the Neighbourhood) are driven by members of the community.

The Community Plan wasn't just about the Council, but also referred to services provided by NHS Kingston, the Mayor for London and the police. This means that councillors have to work with these other bodies to ensure that the needs of our community are met.

Last year's Community Plan included these issues:

1. Accommodation for the Safer Neighbourhood Police: Although our Safer Neighbourhood teams were the first in the Borough, the teams still do not have suitable accommodation within the Neighbourhood.

2. Our inability, shared with RBK, to influence planning decisions on housing: Planning Inspectors at recent planning appeals have indicated that if the Authority had an approved Character Study and agreed minimum standards of amenity space provision, it would be in a better position to defend some planning appeals.

3. Policing: There has been concern over a long period that road policing on the A3 and A243 is only conducted by CCTV, radar traps and ANPR exercises. This does not address the all day, endemic nature of bad driving, mobile phone use and crime that takes place on our roads.

4. Health and Traffic Pollution: South of the Borough has the highest incidence of chronic chest disease (COPD) in Kingston. It has been suggested that this may be due to pollution from the A3 and A243.

5. Traffic Volume: Concerns at volume of traffic using A243

6. Communications:
a. TfL: The levels of customer care offered to the local community by TfL are of concern to the local community.
b. RBK: This failure to communicate is also reflected in the community’s experience with RBK. Despite the best efforts of officers and Councillors, contractors do not respond.

7. Facilities for youth: The Participatory Needs Assessment for York Way, Garrison Lane and Green Lane housing estates identified a need for a youth cafe where young people can get involved in music, youth cinema, sports, computers, outdoor activities and outings.

You can download this list, with an update on what has been achieved over the last year, from the Council website.

Last week we revisited the Community Plan with a new workshop, starting the process all over again. Some interesting new issues were identified.

If you would like to join the Community Panel then get in touch with Barry Allen, the Neighbourhood Manager, barry.allen@rbk.kingston.gov.uk.