Uncategorized

Local traders say Brexit is bad for business. Survey Results.

Posted on 1st March 20197th April 2019 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

“After the referendum result we spent six months absorbing cost increases. Since January we have had no choice but to pass these increases on to our customers”.Jon Gage, Rivar Sand and Gravel (see photo).

Two thirds of local traders and service providers who took part in West Berks Business Brexit Survey survey think their business is going to be hurt when we leave the EU and the single market.

The consultation was part of a national exercise for small businesses. Newbury and West Berks Liberal Democrats wanted to make sure that the views of our local traders and employers were properly represented in the national results. The consultation ran online from 19^th October to 14^th December 2016.

“If tariffs are introduced for British businesses trading with the EU,
the effect on my business will be catastrophic!”

The news is that two thirds of local traders and service providers who took part in the survey think their business is going to be hurt when we leave the EU and the single market. Many report that their costs have gone up already and that they have no choice to but to pass these onto their customers through increased prices.

“EU funding supports nearly 45% of the post 16 funding.
There is nothing in the plans to show how this loss will be addressed.”

The Liberal Democrats continue to believe that Britain is better off in Europe, but our immediate priority is to make sure small local businesses do not pay the price of a rushed withdrawal.

The results of the survey are being used to draw up a list of negotiating requirements, which the Liberal Democrats will call on the Government to achieve.

This report was first published in 2017. See the report from the Newbury Weekly News, here:
https://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/20695/west-berkshire-business-bosses-reveal-fears-for-the-future-in-brexit-survey.html

RESULTS

Q: Do you expect Brexit to have a positive or negative impact on your business?

q1-graph — 66% of people who responded expect Brexit to have negative impact on their business

Q: Do you export to the EU?

q3-graph — 27.08% say they export to the EU

Q: Do you import products or materials from the EU?

q4-graph — 47.92% import products or materials from the EU

Q: Do you have suppliers or business partners who do business with EU countries?

q5-graph — 81.25% of respondents have suppliers or business partners who do business with EU countries

More comments from the survey responses will follow
in separate posts, published in the next few days.

VIDEO: Newbury Lib Dem puts West Berks cuts on National Agenda

Posted on 3rd February 20197th April 2019 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

This post was first published on 12th March 2016

Today, at the Liberal Democrat National Spring Conference Judith Bunting spoke about the need for sound and stable public finances at local and national level, and the devastating effect that that Tory cuts are having on our young people:

~~~ *** ~~~

Good morning, Conference. I want to highlight the link between the need for sound and stable management of public finances and the devastating effects the current Conservative drive to kill off local authority funding by central government is having on the education, training and aspiration of young people around the UK.

George Osborne’s commitment to reduce government funding of local councils to zero by 2020 has not received enough attention in the press. That’s one for the journalists in the hall – the Conservatives have not been challenged nearly enough on what result this draconian change of funding is going to have.

I was the parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats in Newbury in West Berkshire in 2015. We currently have a Tory MP and a horribly Tory Council – they lead the council 48 to 4.

Last week, they imposed £10m of cuts on our public services. In a few weeks time they will be making a further £6m of cuts. They are closing bus routes, school bus subsidies, children’s centres, funding for charities like Mencap and Time to Talk, and they are about to close 8 out of 9 of our libraries.

There are other cuts as well, but so much of the damage is falling on the back of our children, that I worry for the future. I really do. I am not convinced that many Tories, including our MP and our Council, have given a second’s consideration to how this mis-management of public finances is going to affect our young people.

Whatever happens in the future, however, we are unlikely to ever be able to turn the clock back and restore the funding that Richard Benyon’s government is removing from local authorities, so how will Councils in the future achieve sound and stable management of public finances at a local level without a government settlement.

To answer this, I look to Liberal Democrat led Councils such as Eastleigh, now, and Portsmouth, as was. These teams set up additional income streams some years ago now to take the pressure off their public services. For example:

In Portsmouth, the council has for a long time had external businesses that they run to make a profit. It now owns and lets a number of extensive buildings to the HMRC and other commercial operators.
Eastleigh Council is part-owner of the Ageas Bowl cricket ground, hotel and spa, a profitable enterprise, which supports their schools, libraries and community centres
This £150m asset management plan has enabled 13 years of real term cuts in council tax and no front line service cuts.

If a small council like Eastleigh can find ways to raise money without increasing the very unfair council tax and can still provide the services people need, why can’t West Berkshire Council?

Ambitious and imaginative councils can run good services without pushing up the council tax. A senior source at the LGA recently vouchsafed to me that the only way Councils are going to manage in the future is going to be to own and let property. What is West Berkshire and other Conservative Councils doing, but selling off property for short term gain.

Since 2013 Local Authorities have also had the power the power to keep up to half of any business rate growth in their area. West Berkshire Council’s response to this is to lose Bayer to Reading, lose Hitachi, lose Amec and force numerous local traders out of business.

We sorely need a Liberal Democrat hand on the tiller. In government, to halt the mean-spirited cutting of George Osborne, and at the local level, in West Berkshire, to put some vigour and commitment into the funding of our public services.

The only way to achieve this is to develop strong, clear policies, like this the Economic Policy before us today and to restore some good sense and sound management to public finances in government and in local authorises across the UK.

EU rally in Newbury

Posted on 1st January 20192nd April 2019 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

Site under construction. This post was first published in 2017.

The recent West Berks Stronger in the EU rally, saw a good cross-party crowd gather and march through in Newbury town centre.

Speakers included Paul Field of the Greens and Jonny Roberts from Labour, and myself representing Liberal Democrats across Newbury and West Berkshire.

Before the rally, I was asked by a couple of people why we were bothering, given the Brexit process is underway now and the Article 50 bill has been passed by parliament. For me the answer is clear and was put perfectly by Andrew Rawnsley in this Sunday’s Observer:

“The hard Brexiters … did not stop campaigning when the referendum result came in. They continued agitating and with a burning ferocity that was amplified by the Brexit press at its most megaphonic. They did so to ensure that they could impose their interpretation of what the referendum meant.”

Meanwhile, the views of area’s like Newbury and West Berkshire and other places and people who voted Remain are being drowned out. Local businesses are being hurt, prospects for employment are worse and EU funding that supports local charities, farmers and work-place training is on the line. None of these are academic worries, they add up to hundreds of jobs, hundreds of lives.

Remain MPs, like our own, Richard Benyon, have caved in and voted to support Article 50 and against the amendment that would have ensured that all EU citizens legally living in the UK on June 23 – the date of the EU referendum – would have their right to stay protected. I have met people on the doorstep who moved to Newbury and Thatcham years ago – some 15 to 20 years ago – to work for great businesses like Vodafone and Stryker, who have married, had families and are happy here, part of the local community. And now, they have no idea whether they will be allowed to stay.

If Remainers do not keep up the pressure, the UK is going to be hit with the hardest of hard Brexits, which was not on any ballot paper I saw on 23rd June.

So join us. We may not be able to change the direction of travel, but we can influence the Brexit destination where this ends.

Judith supports the Mencap Campaign for Easy Read manifestos

Posted on 16th May 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

FriendshipSkillsc — *Judith at the local Friendships Skills group*

Message from Judith…

I am delighted to support the Mencap Campaign for Easy Read manifestos for the 2017 General Election.

Over 1.4 million people in the UK have a learning disability. About 1 million of these people will have the opportunity to vote in the General Election. Research for Mencap’s Hear my Voice campaign in 2015 showed that people with a learning disability have a political appetite and want to vote.

I have met with our local Friendship Skills group for a political grilling twice, now, and the questions asked by the group are often just as tough as those from the audience at public hustings.

The support given by groups, such as the Mencap Friendship Skills group is excellent. Nonetheless, many feel excluded from the political process due to the inaccessible language and jargon used in politics. Providing Easy Read manifestos can change that.

The Liberal Democrats provided an Easy Read manifesto in 2015, alongside the standard version.

An image of the Lib Dem Easy Read manifesto from 2015 — Part of the 2015 Lib Dem Easy Read manifesto

Easy Read means using simple language and pictures to make information easier to understand for people with a learning disability. By providing an Easy Read manifesto you are making sure that people with a learning disability feel included and that their vote is valued and counts.

I am delighted to report that the Liberal Democrats were one of the first parties to commit to do the same for 2017.

Links to the standard and Easy Read Manifestos will be posted here, as soon as they are available.

Please sign up below, if you would like me to forward the link to the Liberal Democrat manifestos when they are available (should be Wednesday).

Please send me a link to the manifesto

Judith Bunting at Newbury Friendships Skills group — Judith at the local Friendships Skills group

For more information on this issue, this podcast may help.

Judith Bunting says NO to hard Brexit, NO to coalition

Posted on 12th May 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

Judith Bunting meeting local residents in Northbrook Street — Judith Bunting in Northbrook Street, Newbury

In a positive mood, speaking at a street stall in Northbrook Street recently, Judith Bunting, Liberal Democrat candidate for Newbury constituency, said: “We must be clear with people about our stance in this election. We don’t rule out future coalitions – we believe in optimistic, plural politics – but we will not enter a coalition led by either May or Corbyn.”

Bunting continued: “We will work with pro-European MPs in any party to stand up to the Conservatives over hard Brexit, but Corbyn is not that. Corbyn is pro-Brexit, he wants to pull us out of the single market. He marched his MPs through the lobbies to vote for article 50 alongside Richard Benyon and the Brexit Conservatives.

Every Liberal Democrat vote and every Liberal Democrat MP elected is a challenge to Theresa May’s Brexit agenda. This election is your chance to change the direction of our country. If you want to stop a hard Brexit, if you want to keep us in the single market, if you want a real opposition, this is your chance.”

Lee Dillon, leader of the Liberal Democrats on West Berkshire Council said: “During the referendum this constituency was clear regarding Brexit. People here don’t want it. Labour should unite behind the Liberal Democrats in this election and back Judith Bunting to hold our Tory MP to account for going against the wishes of his constituents”.

18492036_10155072337402419_355685347_n — Judith Bunting in Northbrook Street

See more of Judith’s articles on Brexit here.

Brexit, Racing and Rural Affairs – Tuesday 11th April

Posted on 9th April 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

The Great Repeal Bill – The Liberal Democrat perspective

Posted on 30th March 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

The Great Repeal Bill starts the arduous task of transposing EU law into British law, but leaves tens of thousands of pieces of critical regulation subject to the whim of this hard-Brexit Tory government.

Theresa May has chosen to pursue the hardest, most divisive form of Brexit, taking us out of the Single Market and seeking to create low regulation, low-grade Britain.

Up and down the UK, Liberal Democrats will continue to fight to maintain the high standards for the environment, health, safety, consumer protection, employment and equalities that the UK currently adheres to as an EU member.

Nobody voted to diminish their rights, make themselves poorer or to make their country less safe.

We are the real opposition to the Conservative Brexit Government and the only party fighting for a Britain that is open, tolerant and united.

Fighting for the British people to have a say on the final deal: We will try to use this opportunity to ensure that the Great Repeal Bill is only enacted after the British people have their say on the final deal.

Fighting for the UK to maintain our rights and standards: Liberal Democrats will not support anything which weakens vital human rights and environmental and consumer protections, or that threatens freedom to travel, study and work, employment rights, research funding, or security co-operation arrangements.

Fighting to protect British business from crippling bureaucracy: Businesses were told that Brexit would protect them from red tape, but hard Brexit means dealing with thousands of new regulations, changing codes and uncertainty.

Fighting for transparency: The Leave Campaign told us Brexit would give back control to our Parliamentary democracy, but it has become a power grab by ministers and civil servants who want to use ancient Henry VIII powers to stop MPs from scrutinising the process.

This bill will cover fundamental rights and protections for British people, and it must not be stuffed through without due process.

Liberal Democrats call for £4m extra for NHS and social care in Newbury & West Berkshire

Posted on 9th March 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

Ahead of this week’s budget the Liberal Democrats called for a £4 billion funding boost for NHS and care services. That would have amounted to a cash injection of £4 million for local NHS services in the Newbury and District CCG and £5.9m for social care across West Berkshire. The Budget announced by the Government today will instead see the share of national income spent on the NHS fall in the coming years.

The Liberal Democrats have slammed the Government’s failure to provide enough extra cash for the NHS in the budget, warning that local services will struggle to cope with growing demand.

NHS services in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West, the area which will oversee healthcare here in the coming years, currently face a funding gap of £479m by 2020-21, analysis of local NHS plans has found. The NHS funding crisis also risks being made even worse by the Government’s hard Brexit plans, which are set to increase borrowing by £100bn in the coming years.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Judith Bunting commented:

“The Government is refusing to stump up the extra cash that NHS services in Newbury and West Berkshire so desperately need.

“This is a woefully inadequate response to the impossible pressure our NHS and care services are under.

“Chronic underfunding of our NHS is leading to longer waiting lists, cancelled operations and loved ones being stranded in hospital.

“Only the Liberal Democrats are being upfront with people that to protect our NHS and care services, we may all need to pay a little more in tax.

“We will also stand up against Theresa May’s reckless plans to pull out of the Single Market that will blow a £100 billion hole in the public finances. It’s clear you can’t have strong NHS and care services with a hard Brexit.”

The £4 billion of extra NHS and care funding , called for ahead of the Spring Budget 2017-18, included £2bn for social care, £1.5bn to improve efficiency in the NHS and £500m dedicated funding for mental health.

~ * ~

The photo above shows Judith Bunting with Sybil Flinn, at the Hungerford Resource Centre in 2013.

Report on Housing Q&A – Judith Bunting and Lee Dillon

Posted on 9th March 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

This report gives the gist of the discussion that took place in the recent Facebook Q&A on Housing. Thank you to everyone who took part!

At the sharp end, we had Lee Dillon, Councillor for Thatcham North and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Council Group, and Judith Bunting, Parliamentary Candidate for Newbury constituency.

Discussion kicked off with social housing:

SOCIAL HOUSING

We opened proceedings, with a question from Sue Farrant asking:

“How many affordable homes do West Berks Council say they have provided in, say, the last 5 years and how many have they actually provided?”

Lee Dillon replied that 101 affordable housing units have been built in West Berkshire so far this year [latest figure]. Last year West Berks saw 158 completions. The Council has set itself a target of developing 1000 affordable homes by 2020, but has admitted that is unlikely to hit that target and looks set to fall short by at least 150.

Tony Harris joined the debate, asking about the situation with the affordable flats in Parkway. Out of 111 housing units in the development, 37 are allocated to be social housing. Sadly, 4 years since the units were all finished, the affordable unit were still not being late. Tony was looking for an update:

“Do you know if the situation with the affordable flats in Parkway has been resolved yet? We learned that due to another West Berks Council legal cockup the developers realised they could keep them vacant and still keep the council’s money.” He went on to ask, “Are the flats now occupied and have WB legal accepted responsibility?”

Judith Bunting answered with the latest news that, “The 37 affordable units have now been allocated to the social housing provider, One Housing Group. I understand, however, that only one flat is occupied. After all, it is just four years since Parkway was completed!” She went on to say, “West Berkshire Council accepted legal responsibility for this crazy situation some time ago, now. Sadly that did not speed up their quest to find in a housing provider.”

“This is a disgraceful situation”, commented Ian Hall. And so say all of us, Ian!

Lucie Thompson then asked: “How much social housing has been replenished, and why do we see less and less being built. The housing list bidding system, how many families are living in cramped conditions because there is a shortage of 3 and 4 bed houses.”

Judith Bunting picked up this question saying, Lucie, Afraid I cannot find precise information about the number of bedrooms. The latest figures from the National House Building Council show that in 2015 the UK built:

Detached Houses: 42,173 27% of which was social housing
Semi Detached: 35,423 23% social housing
Terraced: 26,531 17% social housing
Flats: 49,529 31% social housing
Bungalows: 2,484 2% social housing.

Judith Bunting continued, “The problem is that not enough dwellings are being built altogether. The country needs a major programme of house building, increasing the rate of construction until we reach at least 300,000 houses a year and giving more freedom to social landlords, local authorities and local communities. Funnily enough, when we were in coalition, the Tories nixed the idea of any major investment in housing, although Nick Clegg’s proposals for a new garden city at Ebbsfleet, seem to be going ahead.”

Semi Detached: 35,423 – 23% social housing
Terraced: 26,531 – 17% social housing
Flats: 49,529 – 31% social housing
Bungalows: 2,484 – 2% social housing.

I’m afraid I cannot find precise information about the number of bedrooms. The problem, not enough dwellings are being built altogether!

Lucie Thompson: “My point is that so many houses from the social sector were sold to families during the last 40 years that they are not replenishing those homes. This in turn leaves a huge gap for families living in a two bed flat, waiting for a house, then you have this crazy bidding for the house to even get it! Some families wait years!”

Rowena Lewis agreed: “I agree Lucie, it is a nightmare for any family on a single salary or person trying to restart after a change in personal circumstances.”

Lucie Thompson finished, saying, “I personally think there is a bigger need for social housing than affordable housing, currently, and that is nationally”.

COUNCIL HOUSING
Building on Lucie’s comments, Judith Bunting drew our attention to the graph below from the Local Government Association (LGA), posted by Judith, shows how the type of new homes being built has changed over the years:

“In 1981, you can clearly see the effect of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, in the dramatic drop off of council built homes [yellow line, Local Authority Housing]. Interestingly, the increase in social housing (grey line) comes in 1990, while John Major was PM. This is when social housing overtakes council housing for the first time. During the Blair years, 1997 – 2007, the rate of building of social housing drops off again. Gordon Brown oversaw a rise in the building of social housing, which then remained pretty steady during the coalition years. “

A presubmitted question asked specifically about Council Housing in West Berkshire:

“Other Councils still have Council Houses, why is it not the same in West Berkshire?”ow

Lee Dillon had no doubt about his answer: “West Berkshire Council could build Council Houses it if wanted to.”

Judith Bunting was also very clear: “There is no good reason why we do not have Council Houses in West Berkshire. The Conservative government of 1979 transferred the public housing stock to the private sector and created the right to buy. Today, though, it is a Council’s choice whether to build Council Housing again. Our Council has chosen not to do so, and shows no sign of changing their minds. It is worth noting,” she said, “that Reading Borough Council still builds Council Houses.”

Lee Dillon picked up with a comment on the cost of housing in West Berkshire, “One clear reason why we are in desperate need of affordable housing, from social rent, through to shared ownership is this …

The average price of a home in West Berkshire has risen to a whopping £336k. Assuming a 10% deposit (£36k) you would still need a mortgage of £300k which requires a joint income of over £75k per year.”

Lucie Thompson joined in with the comment that: “Sadly this also means the average earner and below will always be trapped in rented properties. It’s not just the North/South divide, it’s the rich poor divide and many middle class are being squeezed into poverty.”

Lee Dillon: “Spot on, Lucie.”

This brought Mel Macro of Hungerford into the debate. Mel made the point that the staggering size of the mortgage required to buy a house in West Berkshire had pushed her and her partner go with SO [Shared Ownership].

“I bought a shared ownership house as for us it was the only option to buy. Whilst happy that it enabled us to buy, to buy the rest of it we are limited – we are only allowed to buy up to 25 % at a time, which means 3 more lots of fees, solicitor charges etc. This effectively stops it being sensible/affordable to buy your own home outright. I don’t know if there is any talk so that all shared ownership homes have the same ‘rules ‘ or that they make it as easy to buy your SO home as they do your own council house.”

Mel Macro went on, “We bought the first one we were offered after losing out umpteen times, so there wasn’t a choice. With that and the fact that solicitor costs are almost double for shared ownership and you can only get a mortgage from a few banks it just seems like everything is against you!”

Lee Dillon: “Hi Melanie Macro, some Shared Ownership agreements allow people to staircase up in 5% blocks.”

Melanie Macro: “It doesn’t make any sense to buy 5% in my opinion, because it costs thousands in fees. You’re better off saving and waiting to buy a larger chunk, it’s the upper limits that upset me for that reason.”

Lee Dillon: “I think there should be a standard agreement that allows stair-casing without new legal fees at each point.”

Which sounds like a very good idea to us!

HOUSING WHITE PAPER

Judith Bunting drew our attention to the Government’s Housing White Paper, currently making its way through Parliament:

The full white paper can be read here, Fixing our broken housing market.

Judith Bunting said that although the paper shows that the Government recognises the scale of the housing problem, sadly, it still misses the main point. The paper omits any plans for new, genuinely affordable homes to rent.

Judith also drew our attention to the Joseph Rowntree Trust’s review of the paper, which makes the point that: “For many families in the UK, high rental costs make the difference between just about managing and not being able to manage at all: poverty in the private rented sector has doubled in the last decade, leaving millions trapped in insecure, expensive housing.”

A question from Sue Farrant highlighted the worst of the current problems.

Sue Farrant asked, “How many households are living in temporary accommodation at the moment? What’s the average length of stay?”

Lee Dillon answered, “Hi again Sue. Sorry I don’t have those figures to hand but what an absolutely on topic question – especially here in West Berks where have seen recently local companies stepping up to help out.

Only last week the Executive at WB considered the future of the Homelessness service going forward. They decided to cut the budget by £349k which will see a reduction in the amount of places where people can sleep from 108 units to 73 units.

So sadly those living in temporary accommodation with decrease but not because more is being done to get them into permanent homes but because there will be less provision or them going forwards.”

As in any discussion of housing in West Berkshire, the topic finally moved on to Sandleford:

Presubmitted Question: “It looks like the 500 house development in Sandleford is not going ahead. What does that mean for housing developments elsewhere in West Berkshire?”

Lee Dillon took this question: “Sandleford is expected to provide 2000 homes in the not too distance future, but a poorly chosen site has led to delay upon delay with the latest decision not now expected until the Autumn when we should have had a decision around about now.

“The impact of Sandleford not being built will be massive for communities across the District as it is designed to provide such a large percentage of our housing and what the Council have to provide in terms of a thing called 5 year land supply.
(which is where the Council have to show the government how it can always provide homes over a rolling 5 year period) the district as it is designed to provide such a large percentage of our housing, and what the Council has to provide in terms of a thing called 5 year land supply (which is where the council have to show the government how it will provide homes over a 5 year rolling period). The major riss is that the Council puts all their eggs in one basket with Sandleford. Now it is in trouble, we could see many more planning appeals ahead.

“This means developers will be free to put new sites up for approval and will have a higher chance of winning them [whether we like it or not] at Appeal as the Council wont be able to demonstrate to the inspector that we have a good supply of housing coming forward.”

Judith Bunting picked up: “Part of the problem is that Councils need to start insisting that developers to buy into the community focussed district plan. I understand that developers need to make a commercial profit, but we need to challenge ‘requirements’ for super-profitability. Developing large sites such as Sandleford and the London Road/Faraday Road trading estate is a privilege. Where such huge sites are concerned, developers should expect and be expected to accept community needs.

“In West Berkshire, the Conservative Council should have started planning to develop London Road/Faraday Road years ago, when they first took power. By now we could have a shiny new headquarters for Bayer at the Robin Hood Roundabout, as well as many flats across the site, mixed in with light industry. At a meeting of the businesses on the site in 2015, almost all agreed that the area needs to be developed. Most people said would be happy to move temporarily while building work went on. 2 years later, though, no development has started. Largely because the Council is insisting that a single develop takes control of the whole site AND that they expect the plans to be as profitable as possible. Here, there is no doubt that money is being put ahead of community needs.

“The Council should be also working with Newbury Football Club to make the most of the ground on Faraday Road. With cooperation, the Council could help the club create a modern site with artificial pitch, which the main team could share with women and the 350 youngsters that play with AFC Newbury each week. If development has started soon enough, the Council could have incorporated the recent Travelodge development as well.”

And finally, here is a graph that shows how the number of private renters, across the population, is increasing (palest blue). It’s not something people asked about, but it is a distinct trend and a dead good graph.

For comparison, below it we have posted a pie chart showing home ownership vs rental housing in Germany.

What is your opinion? Do you think it is healthier for society if more people rent their homes, or should be encouraging everyone to buy their own?

You can’t have a Hard Brexit and strong public services

Posted on 8th March 2017 By Lindsey Middlemiss Newbury Doula

Brexit squeeze

Philip Hammond’s Budget this week does nothing to address the Brexit squeeze. This is caused by a falling pound and rising inflation, meaning people have less money to spend.

With the pound dropping in value by 17%, the cost of imports has gone up, which is starting to push up prices in the shops.

Meanwhile, people see an underfunded health and social care system and cuts to public services – and that before Brexit really starts to bite.

While living standards are being hit by the Brexit squeeze, public services are being cut as the Chancellor builds up a £60bn Brexit war chest to pay for the devastating cost of a hard Brexit.

You can’t have a Hard Brexit and strong public services.

This report was first published in 2017. See the report from the Newbury Weekly News, here: https://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/20695/west-berkshire-business-bosses-reveal-fears-for-the-future-in-brexit-survey.html